Dicks and Walmart getting sued HAHA

[jc456]

The change in the product is still point of sale, and they specifically include that in their point of sale concept. (hold the pickles, hold the lettuce, special orders don't upset us)

It really isn't that hard to figure out.

But the meat supplier has the right not to do Business with Burger King if the owner of the store is gay?

A wholesaler again offers a point of sale service, although the question of a wholesaler being a PA is an interesting one.

Has there ever been a wholesaler that has denied service on these grounds?

Really? Are you purposefully not answering the question? BK and the meat supplier have a contract and the meat supplier does not sell directly to the public. Are you saying they have a right not to do business if a BK store is owned by a homosexual?

Actually it's an interesting question, but I would say no, they would not be able to deny sale due to the point of sale nature of the transaction, and of no other compelling interests, such as potential 1st amendment issues.

Again, has this even ever come up?

Your position is confusing. Are you claiming that a painting contractor, for example, has the right to refuse to paint a gay couple's house because they are gay?

sure, why not?

 

[Avatar4321]

I expected something like this. Might be difficult for Walmart and dicks to defend this one

 

[Flash]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/busi...420060cb7bd_story.html?utm_term=.aad35c23c783
PORTLAND, Ore. — An Oregon man filed suits Monday claiming Dick’s Sporting Goods and Walmart discriminated against the 20-year-old when they refused to sell him a rifle.

Dick’s and Walmart restricted gun sales to adults 21 and older in the wake of the Florida high school massacre. The 19-year-old accused in the school slaying bought the AR-15 used in the attack legally.

Oregon law allows residents to buy shotguns or rifles starting at age 18.

Watson is asking judges to force Dick’s and Walmart “to stop unlawfully discriminating against 18, 19, and 20 year-old customers at all Oregon locations.” Additionally, he is asking for unspecified punitive damages.
-----------
2015 ORS 659A.403¹
Discrimination in place of public accommodation prohibited
Except as provided in subsection (2) of this section, all persons within the jurisdiction of this state are entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities and privileges of any place of public accommodation, without any distinction, discrimination or restriction on account of race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, national origin, marital status or age if the individual is of age, as described in this section, or older.
Looks like those fascist PA laws are coming back to haunt some people

So if the conservative nuts on this forum had any intellectual honesty and consisitency,

they would be supporting Dick's and Walmart,

since the RW consensus on this forum at least is that a business should have the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason.

oops.

Your blanket statement is wrong as usual.

First, if the law is in place, it has to be equally applied. Dicks is an actual PA, in a State where age discrimination is illegal.

2nd, I for one support PA laws when applied to actual PA's. My issue has always been applying them to any business at all.

So you want to pretend that most righties on this forum don't support the right of a business to refuse service to anyone for any reason?

lol, good one.

We are not the ones that voted for the Libtard idiots that created the discrimination laws.

As long as you Moon Bat assholes pass stupid laws against discrimination then you have to live with the consequences.

Soak it up buttercup. Next time you morons may want to think a little bit more before passing idiotic anti discrimination laws.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

That's incorrect. The gay couple didn't ask the baker to create a unique cake, they simply ordered a cake that the baker already makes, they didn't ask for anything additional or creative. Basically, they ordered a product.

Contracted, not point of sale.

PA law shouldn't apply in this narrow case.

What does 'contracted. not point of sale' have to do with anything?

it has to do with the original concept of a Public Accomodation.

The whole concept of PA was a bullshit way to get around the Constitution and force private entities to do what they are told by the Govt.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

it came from whole towns and States denying equal rights during the Jim Crow era, which required a response. A heavy handed response, but that's what you get when some morons on the SC make up law like they did with Plessey.

I know where they came from and they were invented to give anti-discrimination laws being applied to non-governmental agencies the illusion of being constitutional


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[Vastator]

Since Dick's isn't the only place selling guns, why did he go there? Is this another bake-a-cake suit? Who won that one?

like that baker isn't the only baker? LOL i love it how you all come around to common sense like us.

Yeah, "Me people" has always been a little conflicted over that whole thing. If only it weren't bigotry at play.

But bigotry was in play. Faggots bigoted against religious people living out their lives within the parameters of their faith. The homos could have gone to virtually any other baker. And likely did. Fishing for one who would say “no” so they could sue them. Fucking disgusting...

 

[martybegan]

Contracted, not point of sale.

PA law shouldn't apply in this narrow case.

What does 'contracted. not point of sale' have to do with anything?

it has to do with the original concept of a Public Accomodation.

The whole concept of PA was a bullshit way to get around the Constitution and force private entities to do what they are told by the Govt.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

it came from whole towns and States denying equal rights during the Jim Crow era, which required a response. A heavy handed response, but that's what you get when some morons on the SC make up law like they did with Plessey.

I know where they came from and they were invented to give anti-discrimination laws being applied to non-governmental agencies the illusion of being constitutional


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

The problem is the businesses would collude and get together to keep up with the discrimination, and thus PA laws were created.

The big problem is they went past PA's and now include all transactions, which is wrong.

If a business opens up their property to walk in, public traffic and transactions, then States can regulate them under PA laws, as they are PA's in that case.

 

[Care4all]

They actually can be used to protect the young, as in cases where some car rental companies wouldn't rent to anyone under 25.

Is there a law in Oregon that makes it illegal to rent a car to someone under 25?

If there is not, then maybe Dicks has a fighting chance???

Do age discrimination laws only cover 18 and older??? And not 17 or younger?

You dont seem to understand the situation very well

How so??? If rental car businesses can legally refuse to rent to those under 25 why can't Dicks do the same?

Car rental companies have to rent to someone under 25, the person renting needs to pay for the extra cost of the insurance. They are not allowed to discriminate based on age.

I was denied a car rental when under 21.....this was long ago, and paying higher insurance price was not an option.....

Maybe states are different?

So you are saying if the driving age is 16 in the state, the car rentals have to rent to them???

it depends on if the States count age as discriminatory under their PA law.

In Oregon, no one under 21 can rent .....

 

[martybegan]

Is there a law in Oregon that makes it illegal to rent a car to someone under 25?

If there is not, then maybe Dicks has a fighting chance???

You dont seem to understand the situation very well

How so??? If rental car businesses can legally refuse to rent to those under 25 why can't Dicks do the same?

Car rental companies have to rent to someone under 25, the person renting needs to pay for the extra cost of the insurance. They are not allowed to discriminate based on age.

I was denied a car rental when under 21.....this was long ago, and paying higher insurance price was not an option.....

Maybe states are different?

So you are saying if the driving age is 16 in the state, the car rentals have to rent to them???

it depends on if the States count age as discriminatory under their PA law.

In Oregon, no one under 21 can rent .....

If that is the law, then then law gives a business an "out" as they cannot legally do something.

If Oregon changes its law to restrict sales of guns to those over 21, then dicks is in the clear, going forward. It's still liable for the denials it already did.

Plus is Oregon did a blanket ban on gun ownership for those under 21, the NRA would sue on 2nd amendment grounds.

 

[Skull Pilot]

The crux of it is that Oregon public accommodation laws specifically mention age and the exceptions to that do not include the purchase of a rifle



Except as provided in subsection (2) of this section, all persons within the jurisdiction of this state are entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities and privileges of any place of public accommodation, without any distinction, discrimination or restriction on account of race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, national origin, marital status or age if the individual is of age, as described in this section, or older.

(2)Subsection (1) of this section does not prohibit:

(a)The enforcement of laws governing the consumption of alcoholic beverages by minors and the frequenting by minors of places of public accommodation where alcoholic beverages are served;

(b)The enforcement of laws governing the use of marijuana items, as defined in ORS 475B.015 (Definitions for ORS 475B.010 to 475B.395), by persons under 21 years of age and the frequenting by persons under 21 years of age of places of public accommodation where marijuana items are sold; or

(c)The offering of special rates or services to persons 50 years of age or older.

(3)It is an unlawful practice for any person to deny full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities and privileges of any place of public accommodation in violation of this section. [Formerly 30.670; 2003 c.521 §1; 2005 c.131 §1; 2007 c.100 §5; 2015 c.614 §27]

 

[jc456]

Is there a law in Oregon that makes it illegal to rent a car to someone under 25?

If there is not, then maybe Dicks has a fighting chance???

You dont seem to understand the situation very well

How so??? If rental car businesses can legally refuse to rent to those under 25 why can't Dicks do the same?

Car rental companies have to rent to someone under 25, the person renting needs to pay for the extra cost of the insurance. They are not allowed to discriminate based on age.

I was denied a car rental when under 21.....this was long ago, and paying higher insurance price was not an option.....

Maybe states are different?

So you are saying if the driving age is 16 in the state, the car rentals have to rent to them???

it depends on if the States count age as discriminatory under their PA law.

In Oregon, no one under 21 can rent .....

I believe you must be twenty five to rent a car.

 

[Care4all]

If there is not, then maybe Dicks has a fighting chance???

How so??? If rental car businesses can legally refuse to rent to those under 25 why can't Dicks do the same?

Car rental companies have to rent to someone under 25, the person renting needs to pay for the extra cost of the insurance. They are not allowed to discriminate based on age.

I was denied a car rental when under 21.....this was long ago, and paying higher insurance price was not an option.....

Maybe states are different?

So you are saying if the driving age is 16 in the state, the car rentals have to rent to them???

it depends on if the States count age as discriminatory under their PA law.

In Oregon, no one under 21 can rent .....

If that is the law, then then law gives a business an "out" as they cannot legally do something.

If Oregon changes its law to restrict sales of guns to those over 21, then dicks is in the clear, going forward. It's still liable for the denials it already did.

Plus is Oregon did a blanket ban on gun ownership for those under 21, the NRA would sue on 2nd amendment grounds.

not a law, rental car rules.....?

 

[Vastator]

At the core of this issue is that the right to keep and bear arms is constitutionally protected. This case supercedes state law. A law which in the states in question doesn’t even exist. As such this guys civil rights were violated at the federal level. Dicks, and Wal-Mart have already lost this one. All they can do is payout. Then decide if they want to offer guns for sale or not...

 

[Harpy Eagle]

What does 'contracted. not point of sale' have to do with anything?

it has to do with the original concept of a Public Accomodation.

The whole concept of PA was a bullshit way to get around the Constitution and force private entities to do what they are told by the Govt.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

it came from whole towns and States denying equal rights during the Jim Crow era, which required a response. A heavy handed response, but that's what you get when some morons on the SC make up law like they did with Plessey.

I know where they came from and they were invented to give anti-discrimination laws being applied to non-governmental agencies the illusion of being constitutional


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

The problem is the businesses would collude and get together to keep up with the discrimination, and thus PA laws were created.

The big problem is they went past PA's and now include all transactions, which is wrong.

If a business opens up their property to walk in, public traffic and transactions, then States can regulate them under PA laws, as they are PA's in that case.

The good intentions of the law do not alter that any anti-discrimination law applied to non-governmental agencies has no support in the Constitution.

These laws create “protected classes”, which by their very nature have more protection than other classes, which violates the equal protection clause


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[martybegan]

Car rental companies have to rent to someone under 25, the person renting needs to pay for the extra cost of the insurance. They are not allowed to discriminate based on age.

I was denied a car rental when under 21.....this was long ago, and paying higher insurance price was not an option.....

Maybe states are different?

So you are saying if the driving age is 16 in the state, the car rentals have to rent to them???

it depends on if the States count age as discriminatory under their PA law.

In Oregon, no one under 21 can rent .....

If that is the law, then then law gives a business an "out" as they cannot legally do something.

If Oregon changes its law to restrict sales of guns to those over 21, then dicks is in the clear, going forward. It's still liable for the denials it already did.

Plus is Oregon did a blanket ban on gun ownership for those under 21, the NRA would sue on 2nd amendment grounds.

not a law, rental car rules.....?

if the state doesn't have age as part of it's PA laws, or carves out an exception for them, then Dollar and Hertz et al is free to feed on Millennial angst and deny them rentals.

 

[TomParks]

At the core of this issue is that the right to keep and bear arms is constitutionally protected. This case supercedes state law. A law which in the states in question doesn’t even exist. As such this guys civil rights were violated at the federal level. Dicks, and Wal-Mart have already lost this one. All they can do is payout. Then decide if they want to offer guns for sale or not...

This picks up steam they will cave in....too much money at stake if they quit selling guns

 

[martybegan]

it has to do with the original concept of a Public Accomodation.

The whole concept of PA was a bullshit way to get around the Constitution and force private entities to do what they are told by the Govt.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

it came from whole towns and States denying equal rights during the Jim Crow era, which required a response. A heavy handed response, but that's what you get when some morons on the SC make up law like they did with Plessey.

I know where they came from and they were invented to give anti-discrimination laws being applied to non-governmental agencies the illusion of being constitutional


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

The problem is the businesses would collude and get together to keep up with the discrimination, and thus PA laws were created.

The big problem is they went past PA's and now include all transactions, which is wrong.

If a business opens up their property to walk in, public traffic and transactions, then States can regulate them under PA laws, as they are PA's in that case.

The good intentions of the law do not alter that any anti-discrimination law applied to non-governmental agencies has no support in the Constitution.

These laws create “protected classes”, which by their very nature have more protection than other classes, which violates the equal protection clause


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

I don't see the States being restricted from enforcing their own PA laws within their own States.

The issue is when PA laws do not account for other things, such as the right of free exercise, or when they are expanded into things that are not PA's.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

At the core of this issue is that the right to keep and bear arms is constitutionally protected. This case supercedes state law. A law which in the states in question doesn’t even exist. As such this guys civil rights were violated at the federal level. Dicks, and Wal-Mart have already lost this one. All they can do is payout. Then decide if they want to offer guns for sale or not...

This picks up steam they will cave in....too much money at stake if they quit selling guns

Gun sales for both is a tiny part of their revenue. I was told by the manager that trained me at WalMart they kept them just because of they drive the sales of all the cheap ass accessories


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[Harpy Eagle]

The whole concept of PA was a bullshit way to get around the Constitution and force private entities to do what they are told by the Govt.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

it came from whole towns and States denying equal rights during the Jim Crow era, which required a response. A heavy handed response, but that's what you get when some morons on the SC make up law like they did with Plessey.

I know where they came from and they were invented to give anti-discrimination laws being applied to non-governmental agencies the illusion of being constitutional


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

The problem is the businesses would collude and get together to keep up with the discrimination, and thus PA laws were created.

The big problem is they went past PA's and now include all transactions, which is wrong.

If a business opens up their property to walk in, public traffic and transactions, then States can regulate them under PA laws, as they are PA's in that case.

The good intentions of the law do not alter that any anti-discrimination law applied to non-governmental agencies has no support in the Constitution.

These laws create “protected classes”, which by their very nature have more protection than other classes, which violates the equal protection clause


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

I don't see the States being restricted from enforcing their own PA laws within their own States.

The issue is when PA laws do not account for other things, such as the right of free exercise, or when they are expanded into things that are not PA's.

I get that nobody is restricting them, but they should be. There is no constitutional validity to them.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[defcon4]

Republicans should just change their name to the Socialist Party of America now that they want to tell private businesses what to do.

It is interesting to watch morons selectively supporting laws. Must bake faggot cake!!!! Must not sell rifles to 18 year olds!!!! Make up your minds and be consistent about it. The subversive elements have their knickers twisted just about everything. Lolol

 

[martybegan]

it came from whole towns and States denying equal rights during the Jim Crow era, which required a response. A heavy handed response, but that's what you get when some morons on the SC make up law like they did with Plessey.

I know where they came from and they were invented to give anti-discrimination laws being applied to non-governmental agencies the illusion of being constitutional


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

The problem is the businesses would collude and get together to keep up with the discrimination, and thus PA laws were created.

The big problem is they went past PA's and now include all transactions, which is wrong.

If a business opens up their property to walk in, public traffic and transactions, then States can regulate them under PA laws, as they are PA's in that case.

The good intentions of the law do not alter that any anti-discrimination law applied to non-governmental agencies has no support in the Constitution.

These laws create “protected classes”, which by their very nature have more protection than other classes, which violates the equal protection clause


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

I don't see the States being restricted from enforcing their own PA laws within their own States.

The issue is when PA laws do not account for other things, such as the right of free exercise, or when they are expanded into things that are not PA's.

I get that nobody is restricting them, but they should be. There is no constitutional validity to them.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

If the Federal Constitution doesn't say anything, the power remains the with States. They can apply PA laws if they see fit, but the issue is they can't ignore 1st amendment protections for citizens under the Federal, and even their own State constitutions.