[QUOTE=Zero-Point;53183843]It wasn't a local/state ruling, it was a FEDERAL one. Read the Wapo article.[/QUOTE]
This isn't a federal/national lawsuit, it is a STATE one. Read the OP article.
[editline]7th March 2018[/editline]
I think this stems from the fact that you don't seem to really understand that Oregon law is different from federal law.
[QUOTE=Zero-Point;53183804]What is it then that makes an AR-15 so special vs. any other gun? Why get an AR-15 if there's so many other options for hunting with the same ammo, same lethality, same enhance-ability ("rails", ease of modification into full or "full" auto, etc.)?[/QUOTE]
It's extremely ergonomic, insanely huge aftermarket, it can be cheap to build, or you put a lot of money into it to be a race gun. It can fit any purpose, from hunting, to target shooting, competitions, to home defense. It's pretty much the Honda Civic of firearms. For these reasons, it is insanely popular.
[QUOTE=geel9;53183848]This isn't a federal/national lawsuit, it is a STATE one. Read the OP article.
[editline]7th March 2018[/editline]
I think this stems from the fact that you don't seem to really understand that Oregon law is different from federal law.[/QUOTE]
They didn't even uphold federal law in the case of the Florida store owner when it was a federal issue, so not sure why you expect them to do the same here? I mean if they do, then good for you, but don't hold your breath or act surprised if they toss it. THAT'S what I'm saying here. I'm not saying "HAHA HE'S GOING TO LOSE THE TWAT" I'm saying that past legal precedent may not support his case. That's it.
[QUOTE=Zero-Point;53183860]They didn't even uphold federal law in the case of the Florida store owner when it was a federal issue, so not sure why you expect them to do the same here? I mean if they do, then good for you, but don't hold your breath or act surprised if they toss it.[/QUOTE]
I expect them to uphold Oregon law.
Good god dude.
[QUOTE=geel9;53183864]I expect them to uphold Oregon law.
Good god dude.[/QUOTE]
Good god dude.
Did the Florida gun store owner violate the Protected Classes thing, on a FEDERAL LEVEL, and STILL cause the case to get thrown out, yes or no? If you read the WaPo article I cited for that case at all you'd know this, so please, answer: Yes, or no?
[QUOTE=Zero-Point;53183869]Good god dude.
Did the Florida gun store owner violate the Protected Classes thing, on a FEDERAL LEVEL, and STILL cause the case to get thrown out, yes or no? If you read the article at all you'd know this, so please, answer: Yes, or no?[/QUOTE]
Nobody cares about the federal level here.
[QUOTE=ilikecorn;53183873]The state law is what's in question here. No one is suing based on federal law. Federal law does not apply to this case in the slightest. This is someone challenging something based on state law. The suit has been filed in state court, not federal court. The fed does not give 2 shits about this case, because this case has not been brought before them.
What's so hard about this for you to understand?[/QUOTE]
My point is because federal courts didn't uphold federal law because the plaintiff wasn't demonstrably harmed by the act despite the discrimination (being protected against by the same Civil Rights Act that created protected classes to begin with, remember), the same applies here because he literally doesn't HAVE to buy a gun from Dick's or Wal-Mart, even though Dick's or Wal-Mart cannot find a legally defensive reason to refuse to sell him a gun.
Just because you are entitled to a gun does not mean someone is forced to sell you one for a reason that isn't enforced by federal law. If someone is offering a gun for private sale on Craigslist (which IIRC would be illegal but I digress), and someone messaged him and said "hey holmes i want ur gun hit me up", but the kid is 19 and the guy doesn't believe in people under 21 having a gun because he never had one until he was, say, 30, then that's his right to decide to not sell him a fire-arm. That's what's happening here, and why it's POSSIBLE the case can be thrown out based on previous rulings.
It is a private retailer enforcing private rules in a privately owned establishment. They cannot force you to ever buy a gun until you're 21, they just won't SELL you one until you are. No harm, no foul, no crime committed, case-closed.
Also let's look at Oregon age discrimination law, shall we?
[quote](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....[/quote]
They're not banning him from the store, they're just not selling you a gun until you're 21. This would apply if the kid was 18 and Dick's/Wal-Mart said "Hey kid, beat it!" if they wanted to even ENTER the store, but that is not the case.
[QUOTE=Zero-Point;53183897]My point is because federal courts didn't uphold federal law because the plaintiff wasn't demonstrably harmed by the act despite the discrimination (being protected against by the same Civil Rights Act that created protected classes to begin with, remember), the same applies here because he literally doesn't HAVE to buy a gun from Dick's or Wal-Mart, even though Dick's or Wal-Mart cannot find a legally defensive reason to refuse to sell him a gun.
Just because you are entitled to a gun does not mean someone is forced to sell you one for a reason that isn't enforced by federal law. If someone is offering a gun for private sale on Craigslist (which IIRC would be illegal but I digress), and someone messaged him and said "hey holmes i want ur gun hit me up", but the kid is 19 and the guy doesn't believe in people under 21 having a gun because he never had one until he was, say, 30, then that's his right to decide to not sell him a fire-arm. That's what's happening here.[/QUOTE]
You're aware there is a difference between a public accommodation like Walmart and a private individual, right?
[QUOTE=ilikecorn;53183904]Federal courts didn't uphold federal law. Great. None of that matters, because the STATE is being asked. Not the fed
Oregon state does not care for federal precedent, states set their own precedents. One more time: State courts do not care about federal issues, they care about state issues. They do not compare things to federal law, they compare things to state law. This is clearly a violation of Oregon's laws, and as such any of your examples have been moot, because they are federal examples.
Any further "BUT THE FED" arguments are just you running around in circles.[/QUOTE]
That was a FLORIDA district Court Judge though. What I'm saying is if it makes it that far, don't be surprised if it gets tossed out, but if it isn't, good for you. The point I'm making is "dumber things have happened".
Because even though I will acknowledge that state law has precedence, my point is that even though you've never provided any sources stating in print what "oregon law" is, I was able to find [url=https://reason.com/volokh/2018/03/06/age-discrimination-suit-against-dicks-sp]this[/quote] for you, so again, yes you have a point, but my point also stands in that tremendously stupid things based on "emotion" have happened before, and as liberal as Oregon is on the state level, do you think there's NO chance it'll be thrown out?
[QUOTE=ilikecorn;53183939]Yes, a FLORIDA FEDERAL judge. Federal judges compare things to federal law. Not state law.
You, yet again don't get the difference.[/QUOTE]
The point is that a judge, in favor of a retailer, [B]did not enforce the law they were assigned to uphold[/B]. That it's [I]happened before[/I], even in such case as an "immutable but not really" discrimination such as this where you CAN become eligible, it's not like a permanent ban, which would be the same case for being too young, yes?
[QUOTE=Zero-Point;53183897]My point is because federal courts didn't uphold federal law because the plaintiff wasn't demonstrably harmed by the act despite the discrimination (being protected against by the same Civil Rights Act that created protected classes to begin with, remember), the same applies here because he literally doesn't HAVE to buy a gun from Dick's or Wal-Mart, even though Dick's or Wal-Mart cannot find a legally defensive reason to refuse to sell him a gun.
Just because you are entitled to a gun does not mean someone is forced to sell you one for a reason that isn't enforced by federal law. If someone is offering a gun for private sale on Craigslist (which IIRC would be illegal but I digress), and someone messaged him and said "hey holmes i want ur gun hit me up", but the kid is 19 and the guy doesn't believe in people under 21 having a gun because he never had one until he was, say, 30, then that's his right to decide to not sell him a fire-arm. That's what's happening here, and why it's POSSIBLE the case can be thrown out based on previous rulings.
It is a private retailer enforcing private rules in a privately owned establishment. They cannot force you to ever buy a gun until you're 21, they just won't SELL you one until you are. No harm, no foul, no crime committed, case-closed.
Also let's look at Oregon age discrimination law, shall we?
They're not banning him from the store, they're just not selling you a gun until you're 21. This would apply if the kid was 18 and Dick's/Wal-Mart said "Hey kid, beat it!" if they wanted to even ENTER the store, but that is not the case.[/QUOTE]
I'm so glad you don't think christian bakers should be forced to bake wedding cakes for gay people, since this is the exact same logic mirrored there. That is, of course, unless you're trying to play two sides of the coin here...
[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;53184028]I'm so glad you don't think christian bakers should be forced to bake wedding cakes for gay people, since this is the exact same logic mirrored there. That is, of course, unless you're trying to play two sides of the coin here...[/QUOTE]
I mean legally you're allowed to be married but you can't really force anybody to make you a cake if there's not some law to inherently enforce it, yeah.
I'm not as far-left as you think I am, dude.
But my point is that [I]it's happened before[/I] so don't be surprised if it happens again. I'm not saying Oregonians are hard-right or stupid, I'm just saying don't be surprised if a judge fully qualified to rule on a case within their legal jurisdiction (as was the case of a federally protected class being brought to federal-level state district courts, as religion is protected federally and this was the excuse given in the suit against the retailer) just decides "lol nah :) ".
The case literally depends on the past rulings of whoever's in charge, so I'd have to know who'd be presiding to say for 100% if they'd throw it out, but the same can be said of anyone familiar with Oregon state law if they don't know the judge who presides or how they've ruled in previous legal precedings within their jurisdiction, as was the case of a federally-protected class being brought to federal court and, again, thrown out because "lol nah".
My reasoning isn't because "lol religious/constitutional freedoms" like the far-right would, though that can also be argued, it's just that the discrimination act seems to pertain to denying you ANY service at all, including entry based on something like age, but not for particular services. I can't sue Wal-Mart because there's some arbitrary policy they have saying I can't buy super glue if I'm only 18 (yes, I have to show my ID to buy SUPER GLUE at Wal-Mart, but nowhere else has ever ID'd me for it). One could also argue that Dick's policy didn't cause harm to the kid or infringe on his rights as a discriminatory act because the kid had full access to the stores otherwise, right up until he tried to buy a gun, when there can't be any possible way he didn't know they had that policy in place.
[QUOTE=Zero-Point;53184038]you can't really force anybody to make you a cake if there's not some law to inherently enforce it, yeah.[/QUOTE]
Cakes don't even have anything to do with it. It's the fact that you can't deny service for [B]certain very specific reasons[/B]. I am so lost on why you think whatever happens in other states or on a federal level has anything to do with this case in particular.
[QUOTE=KingofBeast;53184078]Cakes don't even have anything to do with it. It's the fact that you can't deny service for [B]certain very specific reasons[/B]. I am so lost on why you think whatever happens in other states or on a federal level has anything to do with this case in particular.[/QUOTE]
But Oregon has decided to do so with Alcohol, haven't they? And Florida decided to do it with Muslims, even in a case within their jurisdiction as I've pointed out, haven't they? That's all I'm saying, don't be surprised if it's either ruled ON precedent either way, or it sets a new one.
If I decided I don't want to provide retail service to a guy "because he's an asshole" or "because he swears too much" (not that I would but you get the point) Or because of some bizarre, minor hygiene issue (hair color), and yet it's been found to be perfectly legal in the past (hair color discrimination based on totally changeable things such as artificial colors appear to be well within the rights of an employer and many retailers, for instance).
Even though you're "federally" protected up to 40, you still can't buy alcohol until you're 21 in Oregon despite their protected age being 18, but that's not always been the case has it, because some legal precedent had to be set, yet you're still capable of getting alcohol well before that even within Oregon law if you get it through a parent or legal guardian (ie you can't buy but you can still drink/otherwise consume). But even though you're legally required not to "discriminate on age if they're older than 18", there are still plenty of businesses that appear well within their "legal right" just because they're not conceivably hurting anybody, even if it's because of something that IS changeable, as is being argued.
[QUOTE=download;53180888]You probably shouldn't make such sweeping generalisations.[/QUOTE]
This is true, but there's also a lot of crossover there.
[QUOTE=Zero-Point;53184098]But Oregon has decided to do so with Alcohol, haven't they? And Florida decided to do it with Muslims, even in a case within their jurisdiction as I've pointed out, haven't they? That's all I'm saying, don't be surprised if it's either ruled ON precedent either way, or it sets a new one.
If I decided I don't want to provide retail service to a guy "because he's an asshole" or "because he swears too much" (not that I would but you get the point) Or because of some bizarre, minor hygiene issue (hair color), and yet it's been found to be perfectly legal in the past (hair color discrimination based on totally changeable things such as artificial colors appear to be well within the rights of an employer and many retailers, for instance).
Even though you're "federally" protected up to 40, you still can't buy alcohol until you're 21 in Oregon despite their protected age being 18, but that's not always been the case has it, because some legal precedent had to be set, yet you're still capable of getting alcohol well before that even within Oregon law if you get it through a parent or legal guardian (ie you can't buy but you can still drink/otherwise consume). But even though you're legally required not to "discriminate on age if they're older than 18", there are still plenty of businesses that appear well within their "legal right" just because they're not conceivably hurting anybody, even if it's because of something that IS changeable, as is being argued.[/QUOTE]
Literally the only thing I see that you're arguing here is that some states do things that are unjust and against both state and federal laws, so we should somehow apply this to the threads situation and believe that the guy has no shot at winning the lawsuit.
Am I tracking right, or is there some other point your getting at?
[QUOTE=UncleJimmema;53184140]Literally the only thing I see that you're arguing here is that some states do things that are unjust and against both state and federal laws, so we should somehow apply this to the threads situation and believe that the guy has no shot at winning the lawsuit.
Am I tracking right, or is there some other point your getting at?[/QUOTE]
If by your reply paraphrased as "I get it, you're arguing that dumber things have happened and that nothing is set in stone even if there's legal precedent", then yes.
I'm sorry if it seems off-topic but with the recent political climate in America I hope you can forgive me for being a negative Nathan.
That and I'm not sure if he can sue them directly for age-discrimination, because it's not just applying to relevant outlets in Oregon, but nation-wide, so it'd be "consistent" policy akin to dress-code but at the same time...
[QUOTE=Zero-Point;53184155]
That and I'm not sure if he can sue them directly for age-discrimination, because it's not just applying to relevant outlets in Oregon, but nation-wide, so it'd be "consistent" policy akin to dress-code but at the same time...[/QUOTE]
How many times do people have to tell you? He can sue them [b]in Oregon[/b] for a violation of [B]Oregon law[/B] that, if he is successful, will force them to have to change their corporate policy [B]within Oregon.[/B] The fact that they operate outside of Oregon doesn't matter, this ruling would only affect their operations within Oregon. Federal law also doesn't matter since this isn't their jurisdiction. All that matters is what Oregon's law says, and if a judge will agree with his interpretation of it. This is like suing someone in Poland for something that is against Polish law, despite it not being against EU law, and you're trying to say that just because in Hungary some similar case involving EU law didn't get settled the way people are expecting, it means it also won't be in Poland under Polish law. You are dealing with different legal systems and different judicial jurisdictions between a federal court case in Florida, and a state court case in Oregon. The case in Florida has nothing to do with this case in Oregon. All that matters is what a judge decides [B]based on Oregon's definition of age discrimination,[/B] and the ruling will only apply [B]within Oregon.[/B]
[QUOTE=Zero-Point;53183926]That was a FLORIDA district Court Judge though.[/QUOTE]
Dude, come on.
That means it's a federal judge [I]in[/i] Florida. Not a judge [I]of[/I] Florida.
Do you think all federal judges only ever hear cases in Washington DC?
I'm a 20 y/o gun owner in Oregon, and I have other friends <21 who've bought guns no problem. I hope he wins. Dick's/Walmart have no right to refuse him a sale because of his age.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;53184664]Dude, come on.
That means it's a federal judge [I]in[/i] Florida. Not a judge [I]of[/I] Florida.
Do you think all federal judges only ever hear cases in Washington DC?[/QUOTE]
No, I'm pointing out that it was a federal case heard by a federal judge who threw it out because somehow she "wasn't qualified to make the ruling". All I'm saying is [B]dumber shit has happened[/B]. I also went so far as to say that it could entirely depend on the judge, as anyone could see clear as day the Florida case was religious discrimination, which is protected federally, yet was still thrown out by a federal judge because "I'm not qualified/you ain't hurt none", yet they still just said "lol no" and threw it out. Why? Were they lazy? Were they anti-muslim and just pulled some whispy excuse out of their ass so they could shit on Muslim rights? In Florida?
It depends on if the Judge is going to try to milk brownie points out of this, whether they're pro-gun or pro-gun control. For all we know this could set a precedent that allows/raises the legal age to 21 just like Florida did/is going to do, Oregon's representatives just haven't finished cranking out their version, or announced it just yet.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.