Gosh, I wonder who could be funding these frivolous ammosexual lawsuits?
The state laws in question prohibit discrimination based on “age,” as in “too old.”
There is no “age” discrimination here.
These stores are trying to discriminate based on “youth,” as in “not old enough.”
Case closed.
So it’s an important question of “religious freedom” to allow businesses not to serve LGBTQ customers or refuse to cover birth control through insurance based on religious objections, but it’s terrible discrimination to refuse to sell deadly weapons to teenagers out of a desire not to be a party to murder.
I hate these people.
My firmly held religious beliefs will not allow me to pay taxes!
Oregon’s law doesn’t work like federal law. It does, in fact, appear to prevent discrimination in retail on grounds of being too young, except for alcohol, tobacco and drugs.
*Mandatory disclaimer: I am not, of course, licensed in Oregon. Just a lay person who happens to have a J.D. who happened to read the statute and now happens to be opining as a private citizen and not a lawyer.
Also:
This just in: Another dick sues Dick’s for refusing to sell him artificial dick.
So the son of a gun dealer sues Dick’s so he can buy a gun there. Yeah right.
There are no Caesar coins, so, technically…
Ummmm…isn’t this what the free market is ABOUT? How do these ‘ammo’ sexuals (who let’s not be naïve are being funded by the NRA and the RW nutjobs that constantly whine about victimization) square with THOSE particular little ‘values’ they espouse?
Fair enough, and we’re dead even on the disclaimer if you also read the Michigan statute. But fun is still where you find it.
It is my god-given right to drive 70 mph everywhere! Officer, Cthulu will smite you if you ticket me!
The important questions I need answered.
When arranging these “purchases” are the lawyers standing directly next to the client or waiting in the idling car they drove the client to the store in, listening to Limbaugh while the client and paralegal go into the store to get rejected?
Is the snotty shit, desperately in need of a gun and knowing he is going to be rejected, sporting a shit-eating grin or is he able to restrain himself through the faux purchase?
Will the legal case be called Dicks v. Dick’s?
Oh, it’s clearly just trying to make a good case for a court challenge. And there’s nothing wrong in itself with doing that.
My suspicion, btw, is that if they prevail, they actually would prefer Dicks to stop selling guns to everyone, rather than to sell guns to teenagers. After all, they are competition.
Maybe Dick’s and Walmart can say they’re refusing to sell guns to those under 21 years of age is based on religious conviction that it’s a sin to sell dangerous weapons to those who may be too young to use them responsibly.
If it’s a violation of civil rights to deny selling guns to people under the age of 21, then it’s also a denial of civil rights to refuse to sell alcohol to them, which is the law in every state in the country.
They have the right to deny sevice to whomever they please. But it would be difficult to have every clerk explain that they’re refusing because the person is a litigious dumbf*ck.
I wonder if michigan has any retirement communities, where part of the covenant is generally not to sell to people under 50…
So CONservatives want the Big Government Nanny State to impose its will on private businesses. Proof that Republican’ts lack the irony gene…
So a winning basis for this suit would be discrimination under the ADA?
Given that guns are a form of “assistive device” for those suffering from chronic debilitating nanogenetalia?