United States & Gun Control discussion.

SaintKP said:
And so it begins...

20-year-old sues Dick’s, Walmart over new age-restrictions on rifles

As a private business doesn't Dicks and Walmart both have the legal right to decide who they want to sell to? Where I work, we have the option to ban someone from using our services if we feel they are being disruptive or not adhering to our standards (distracting to other customers, overly obnoxious, break a law, violent, etc.) Oregon law is that you can buy a rifle at 18, so can these stores still limit who they sell to? Or would they have to make a state wide concession to match the law?

As a side note I think the request for punitive damages is a little ridiculous and quite frankly I hope he recieves none.
Click to expand...
You see this all started because of that bakery...
 
AWP said:
People rarely consider second and third order effects, especially when their emotions are involved.
Click to expand...
ThunderHorse said:
You see this all started because of that bakery...
Click to expand...

There’s a snarky joke in here somewhere, I’m sure of it. Something about private businesses denying service to Americans...

Nah, lost it. 8-)
 
amlove21 said:
There’s a snarky joke in here somewhere, I’m sure of it. Something about private businesses denying service to Americans...

Nah, lost it. 8-)
Click to expand...
This is where it gets tricky for me. On the one hand, I can see the bakers having the right to refuse on religious grounds. On the other hand, when you look deeper into it, you have to ask, if it is ok to discriminate based on religion, why isn't it ok to discriminate on race? Where is the line and who decides what is ok and isn't? Does it have to be an all or one proposition, or can there be a middle ground? Why should a business be allowed to discriminate at all?

Personally, I am not a fan of racial discrimination, but then again, I am not a fan of religion and how it plays a role in society (tax free religion, "morality" based legislation, etc...). Obviously there is no easy or simple answer. Things that make you go hmmm....

/end threadjack
 
ke4gde said:
This is where it gets tricky for me. On the one hand, I can see the bakers having the right to refuse on religious grounds. On the other hand, when you look deeper into it, you have to ask, if it is ok to discriminate based on religion, why isn't it ok to discriminate on race? Where is the line and who decides what is ok and isn't? Does it have to be an all or one proposition, or can there be a middle ground? Why should a business be allowed to discriminate at all?

Personally, I am not a fan of racial discrimination, but then again, I am not a fan of religion and how it plays a role in society (tax free religion, "morality" based legislation, etc...). Obviously there is no easy or simple answer. Things that make you go hmmm....

/end threadjack
Click to expand...
The issue for many people is that if you do not allow private businesses to discriminate, you are forcing them to labor against their will. I've not seen many people who wish to be discriminatory, only people who believe involuntary servitude is wrong even for the best of reasons. You bring up a good point ('why is one okay but not the other?') On a logical basis, the principle behind anti-discrimination law is not applied broadly. The legislature stepped in regarding race because it was an issue large enough to garner support. This was a specific application of law and disregards any parallels. You could say this is finding middle ground, because it is inconsistent with other criteria where discrimination IS allowed. People who disagree with prohibiting religious discrimination most likely believe that a business's discrimination may be detestable, but the use of the legal system to punish those who do so is a subversion of the 13th amendment which bars involuntary servitude. Discriminating against customers for racial reasons is obviously reprehensible, but you won't find many people openly drawing an unbroken line in policy. What you will find is a lot of middle ground.
 
So, I am looking forward to the African American 20 year old female to sue for age, race and gender discrimination when she is refused her gun purchase. I will bring the snacks. ;-)
 
Concise, efficient monologue. There's nothing I could say about this that the speaker doesn't effectively convey, himself.
 

Similar threads

Ooh-Rah
Anyone familiar with Aphantasia?
Replies
17
Views
768
Topkick
Topkick
Marauder06
Illinois Dem lawmaker pushes bill to legalize attacks on police for people having mental health episode
Replies
6
Views
2K
Box
Box
Devildoc
House discussing citizen-only voting bill...
Replies
19
Views
671
The Quartermaster
The Quartermaster
Box
The Trump Presidency 2.0
128 129 130
Replies
3K
Views
74K
Box
Box
G
Considering Enlistment, Questions + Concerns
Replies
6
Views
695
Diamondback 2/2
Diamondback 2/2
Back
Top