BehindBlueI's
Grandmaster
- Oct 3, 2012
- 26,608
- 113
Maybe just me, but I find that to be more interesting than Dick's.
One of the young men working at a Dick's gun counter resigned due to the change in policy.
This resignation letter should give us all hope for the next generation.
[FONT="]Outdoor retailer REI plans to discontinue sales of five brands after customers pressured the company to sever its relationship with a major manufacturer with close ties to the National Rifle Association.
[/FONT][FONT="]REI announced Thursday evening it would halt orders of products from Vista Outdoors, whose brands include CamelBak (maker of popular water bottles), Bell (known for its bicycle helmets), and Giro (a ski goggle manufacturer).[/FONT]
This young man should get employed at his local gun shop.
This young man should get employed at his local gun shop.
He should go to school and learn about the Constitution. If you disagree with the store, fine, but don't inaccurately cite the constitution as your excuse.
Where does he inaccurately cite the constitution in this letter?
Is the policy newly adopted by Dick's constitutionally wrong? He has an argument with morally, but not constitutionally.
Is the policy newly adopted by Dick's constitutionally wrong? He has an argument with morally, but not constitutionally.
Are laws against public accomodations discriminating against people based on their age, race, religion, country of origin, etc. constitutional? Despite what SCOTUS has decided in the past, I believe they are unconstitutional. Theoretically, a business owner should be free to do business with whomever s/he wishes. But that's not the water we're swimming in right now. We have law that says a public accommodation cannot discriminate against anyone based on their age.
Because they did not pass a law, they changed store policy. That has nothing to do with the Constitution.Why not? Where in the 2a does it state an age for the right to bear arms? It doesn't.
Why not? Where in the 2a does it state an age for the right to bear arms? It doesn't.
Law or no law, it's not a constitutional infringement just because someone doesn't want to sell you something you want.
Wait. So if someone posts a sign "Jews not welcomed here" or "We don't serve blacks" that's not ok. But if they (more or less) post a sign that we won't sell to you based on your age, that is?