• Oregon man sues Dick's, Walmart over gun policies
    83 replies, posted
[quote]A 20-year-old man in southern Oregon has filed a lawsuit against Dick's Sporting Goods and Walmart after he says they refused to sell him a rifle. The Oregonian/OregonLive reports Tyler Watson's lawsuit filed Monday claims he faced age discrimination when he tried to buy a rifle in February at a store owned by Dick's in Medford.[/quote] [url]http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/ct-oregon-dicks-walmart-suit-20180305-story.html[/url] [quote]Oregon law allows residents to buy shotguns or rifles starting at age 18. Watson’s lawsuit says that Dick’s and Walmart’s policies violate Oregon statutes protecting residents against discrimination based on race, religion, sexual orientation or age, among other things. The law specifically says that the state can ban the sale of alcohol or marijuana to minors but doesn't mention guns. Federal law bans firearms retailers from selling handguns, but not rifles or shotguns, to anyone under 21. Whittington said his client owns a few guns already. Watson is asking judges in Jackson and Josephine counties to force Dick’s and Walmart “to stop unlawfully discriminating against 18, 19, and 20 year-old customers at all Oregon locations.”[/quote] [url]http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-northwest-news/index.ssf/2018/03/oregon_man_20_sues_big_retaile.html[/url] Lol, I was waiting for this. Should be entertaining.
I am almost certain people who believe this are the same people who applaud places for refusing service to gays.
[QUOTE=Riller;53180875]I am almost certain people who believe this are the same people who applaud places for refusing service to gays.[/QUOTE] You probably shouldn't make such sweeping generalisations.
I keep reading this thread's title as "Oregon man sucks dicks"
[quote]age discrimination[/quote] Oh lord...
For fucks sakes if you care that much why can't you go to a fuckin local store.
I think it's stupid, but if they want to sell goods in an area then they need to abide by the rules of that state. Either change the law or change the policy of the shops, but both seems like a PR nightmare for either the state or the shop.
[QUOTE=Lord of Boxes;53180907]For fucks sakes if you care that much why can't you go to a fuckin local store.[/QUOTE] Walmart and Dicks tend to be good at block busting every Ma N' Pa gunstore. It's either you buy from them or you are forced to purchase outta state and get a buddy with FFL to transfer for you.
Walmart and Dick's suck anyway. Support local business.
[del]For those who are not aware. Age is only a protected class when you're over 40. He really has no case in this.[/del] Actually, I'm thinking of federal employment law, and didn't realize Oregon had their own.
[QUOTE=Splash Attack;53181015]For those who are not aware. Age is only a protected class when you're over 40. He really has no case in this.[/QUOTE] He's suing them under Oregon law which list 18 years. Federal is 40 years.
There is no MUST sell. It's the businesses personal policy. It's a none issues. Maybe ego issue.
Additionally, by the time this case is even looked at, he'll be well over 21. Way to grab for attention there, pussnut.
[QUOTE=download;53180888]You probably shouldn't make such sweeping generalisations.[/QUOTE] no not really. its well documented how people can compartmentalize their beliefs. they see this as a second amendment rights issue, the gays thing as a religious freedom one, and don't build any bridges between them [editline]6th March 2018[/editline] walmart is under no obligation to sell you a gun, its a privilege they carry them.
[QUOTE=Sableye;53181125]no not really. its well documented how people can compartmentalize their beliefs. they see this as a second amendment rights issue, the gays thing as a religious freedom one, and don't build any bridges between them [editline]6th March 2018[/editline] walmart is under no obligation to sell you a gun, its a privilege they carry them.[/QUOTE] Provide the documents then, if it’s “well documented”
[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;53181136]Provide the documents then, if it’s “well documented”[/QUOTE] I mean, [URL="https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1594630"]just off the top of my head[/URL].
[QUOTE=Itsjustguy;53181057]There is no MUST sell. It's the businesses personal policy. It's a none issues. Maybe ego issue.[/QUOTE] So, if they sell guns to white people and refuse to sell guns to black people, you think that'd be legal in Oregon?
He might actually have a case, but it'll be insanely difficult to prove age discrimination beyond a reasonable doubt. Regardless, instead of throwing away thousands of dollars by suing, why not... wait a year?
[QUOTE=geel9;53181244]So, if they sell guns to white people and refuse to sell guns to black people, you think that'd be legal in Oregon?[/QUOTE] You know damn well that there is a difference between racial discrimination and selling guns based on age.
[QUOTE=NixNax123;53181253]You know damn well that there is a difference between racial discrimination and selling guns based on age.[/QUOTE] Not if age is a protected group in Oregon, which it is. Your personal opinion on the severity of the infractions doesn't change the law.
This is a "we like States' Rights" thing, right? I'd treat it with more respect if states' rights were given the proper respect they deserve on a consistent basis, and that means even when it's things the right wing doesn't like. Besides, Walmart isn't forced to do business with anyone. Forcing companies to sell you guns is not the precedent you want to set. You'd think boycotting them would be more effective as a way of sending a message, but apparently crying and suing is the preferred game plan.
[QUOTE=elixwhitetail;53181271]This is a "we like States' Rights" thing, right? I'd treat it with more respect if states' rights were given the proper respect they deserve on a consistent basis, and that means even when it's things the right wing doesn't like. [b]Besides, Walmart isn't forced to do business with anyone.[/b] Forcing companies to sell you guns is not the precedent you want to set. You'd think boycotting them would be more effective as a way of sending a message, but apparently crying and suing is the preferred game plan.[/QUOTE] Yes, they are. They're forced to do business with protected classes in the same way they do with anyone else.
[QUOTE=geel9;53181319]Yes, they are. They're forced to do business with protected classes in the same way they do with anyone else.[/QUOTE] Source?
[QUOTE=geel9;53181244]So, if they sell guns to white people and refuse to sell guns to black people, you think that'd be legal in Oregon?[/QUOTE] thats a violation of civil liberties, something different. They won't sell to ANYONE under 21, be it black, white, or white on the left side black on the right
[QUOTE=elixwhitetail;53181325]Source?[/QUOTE] Do you not understand the term "protected class"? [editline]6th March 2018[/editline] [QUOTE=Sableye;53181337]thats a violation of civil liberties, something different. They won't sell to ANYONE under 21, be it black, white, or white on the left side black on the right[/QUOTE] Except age over 18 is a protected class in Oregon, so refusing to sell to people between the ages of 18 and 21 but selling to people over 21 would violate that protection.
[QUOTE=geel9;53181319]Yes, they are. They're forced to do business with protected classes in the same way they do with anyone else.[/QUOTE] This is kind of tangential but you can't use a FOID card at places like Walmart to cash checks or buy alcohol even though when you get it, they claim it's a regular gov't photo id.. When I got my current job they mis-shipped my card so Ineeded to money order my funds out my account, and Walmart said they wouldn't accept my FOID card as ID. I thought it was crazy that this card gives me instant access to firearms to but isn't enough to get me access to [I]my[/I] money.
[QUOTE=geel9;53181339]Do you not understand the term "protected class"?[/QUOTE] Hi, I'm not an American and I'd like to actually see a written definition of what we're talking about as it applies to US law specifically. This is a sincere request for information. You are making the assertion that businesses can be forced to sell to protected classes and I asked you to source that statement because I would like to read more about it, being a citizen of a different country with a different (if very similar) body of law. Are you here to argue with integrity or are you just here for sick zings?
[QUOTE=elixwhitetail;53181356]Hi, I'm not an American and I'd like to actually see a written definition of what we're talking about as it applies to US law specifically. This is a sincere request for information. Are you here to argue with integrity or are you just here for sick zings?[/QUOTE] Sorry, I didn't realize you legitimately didn't know what the term meant. It's a complicated topic but basically a protected class in the United States is a "type" of person that you can't discriminate against based solely on their membership in that group. For example, you can't refuse to hire blacks because they're black, you can't refuse to serve women because they're women, and you can't refuse to serve people because they're a certain age (above 40, federally, and above 18 in Oregon). [url=https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/the-right-to-refuse-service-can-a-business-refuse-service-to-someone-because-of-appearance]Here[/url] is a (rather casual) article on the topic.
Thank you. I'm aware of the general notion of a protected class, as Canada has them as well, but I was looking for specificity in the [I]implementation[/I] of said protections because the devil is always in the details. American media also depicts the right to refuse service in an inaccurate way, using it as a capricious and arbitrary way, often for comedic purposes, to deny a character service for story reasons. (NO SOUP FOR YOU!) This is something I'm aware of, so I wanted a detailed source for what is [I]actually[/I] law in the US. [QUOTE=Source]...you can refuse to serve someone even if they’re in a protected group, but the refusal can’t be arbitrary and you can’t apply it to just one group of people. To avoid being arbitrary, there must be a reason for refusing service and you must be consistent. There could be a dress code to maintain a sense of decorum, or fire code restrictions on how many people can be in your place of business at one time, or a policy related to the health and safety of your customers and employees. But you can’t just randomly refuse service to someone because you don’t like the way they look or dress. Second, you must apply your policy to everyone. For example, you can’t turn away a black person who’s not wearing a tie and then let in a tieless white man. You also can’t have a policy that sounds like it applies to everyone but really just excludes one particular group of people. So, for example, a policy against wearing headscarves in a restaurant would probably be discriminatory against Muslims.[/QUOTE] See, when this info is known, it's obvious what probably happened. "Hi, I'd like to buy this gun." "Sure, ID please. [beat] Sorry, you're under 21, I can't sell this to you." [highlight][B]← RRRNNTT[/B][/highlight] For Wal-Mart to get around this, they'd have to refuse to sell their rifles to basically anyone at all, in which case they'd best stop stocking and displaying them altogether. Just my opinion but maybe Wal-Mart should stop selling powerful rifles and stick to moderate hunting rifles. What's someone going to do about it then, sue to override a corporation's private right to decide what it does and does not sell at its business? Boycott when it's the only store for 30 miles? :v:
[QUOTE=elixwhitetail;53181414]Thank you. I'm aware of the general notion of a protected class, as Canada has them as well, but I was looking for specificity in the [I]implementation[/I] of said protections because the devil is always in the details. American media also depicts the right to refuse service in an inaccurate way, using it as a capricious and arbitrary way, often for comedic purposes, to deny a character service for story reasons. (NO SOUP FOR YOU!) This is something I'm aware of, so I wanted a detailed source for what is [I]actually[/I] law in the US. See, when this info is known, it's obvious what probably happened. "Hi, I'd like to buy this gun." "Sure, ID please. [beat] Sorry, you're under 21, I can't sell this to you." [highlight][B]← RRRNNTT[/B][/highlight] [B]For Wal-Mart to get around this, they'd have to refuse to sell their rifles to basically anyone at all, in which case they'd best stop stocking and displaying them altogether. [/B] Just my opinion but maybe Wal-Mart should stop selling powerful rifles and stick to moderate hunting rifles. What's someone going to do about it then, sue to override a corporation's private right to decide what it does and does not sell at its business? Boycott when it's the only store for 30 miles? :v:[/QUOTE] No, they would just have to have a justifiable reason to not sell it. Personally, I think Wal-Mart should have every right to deny this sale, whether they actually have the right to do so I'm not so sure.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.