Dick's at it again

[Lwright]

Time for them to go the way of Gallion's

 

[Slapstick]

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.

He was stating his opinion about their policy, "I find them morally and Constitutionally wrong" He's entitled to his opinion, we all have them especially when it comes to the 2nd Amendment.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

It should be.

Now hold on. We're not talking about what should be. We're talking about equitable treatment under the law. I think we agree the law should not be. But as I said above, that is not the waters we're swimming in. If the law says you cannot discriminate based on age, just like it does about those other classes of people, you cannot discriminate based on age. And if SCOTUS has ruled that law is constitutional, then (for the sake of legalities) it's constitutional.

 

[CraigAPS]

Just to add a little levity to this thread...

 

[KLB]

Now hold on. We're not talking about what should be. We're talking about equitable treatment under the law. I think we agree the law should not be. But as I said above, that is not the waters we're swimming in. If the law says you cannot discriminate based on age, just like it does about those other classes of people, you cannot discriminate based on age. And if SCOTUS has ruled that law is constitutional, then (for the sake of legalities) it's constitutional.

I don't think that anyone has ever said you cannot discriminate against people for being young, only for being older.

 

[Kutnupe14]

I don't think that anyone has ever said you cannot discriminate against people for being young, only for being older.

They have not.

 

[d.kaufman]

The 2nd Amendment, which is part of the Bill or Rights, was designed by the founders to protect the people from who, exactly? There's you answer.

I got ya. Point taken. And as much as i hate to admit it your right. Only problem i have is that some companies have been royally screwed for refusing service(Colorado gay wedding cake thing) by the local/state, and i believe federal gov too, while others get away with refusing other things. If you're allowed to refuse service to anyone based on your beliefs then it needs to be across the board

 

[Kutnupe14]

Now hold on. We're not talking about what should be. We're talking about equitable treatment under the law. I think we agree the law should not be. But as I said above, that is not the waters we're swimming in. If the law says you cannot discriminate based on age, just like it does about those other classes of people, you cannot discriminate based on age. And if SCOTUS has ruled that law is constitutional, then (for the sake of legalities) it's constitutional.

As KLB pointed out, there is no such ruling.

 

[KLB]

I got ya. Point taken. And as much as i hate to admit it your right. Only problem i have is that some companies have been royally screwed for refusing service(Colorado gay wedding cake thing) by the local/state, and i believe federal gov too, while others get away with refusing other things. If you're allowed to refuse service to anyone based on your beliefs then it needs to be across the board

Nothing to argue about there. Sadly though, that ship has sailed. The list of protected classes is here to stay and I would imagine will only grow longer as time goes by.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

I don't think that anyone has ever said you cannot discriminate against people for being young, only for being older.

OK... I had to go refresh my memory. You're right. The original CRA didn't mention age as far as I can see in a 2 minute review. The age discrimination thing happened later and that was only with regards to employment and if you're over 40. I stand corrected.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

I don't care they don't offer certain merchandise. However, I find it reprehensible to refuse to sell to someone who's legally allowed to own merchandise you do sell and who has the means to pay for it. (Absent some disturbance, health hazard, etc. caused by patron)

I don't care Wing Stop doesn't sell cheeseburgers, and I wouldn't support forcing them to add cheeseburgers to the menu. But, if you sell wings, you should have to sell wings to everyone who can pay for them. You offered the item for sale to the public, the public gets to take you up on that offer.

I can't boycott Dicks or Wal-mart because I already don't shop there. I can "buy-cott", though. Brownells has said they will continue to sell rifles to 18 year olds. As good a time as any to buy some more magazines and maintenance items...

 

[Kutnupe14]

I got ya. Point taken. And as much as i hate to admit it your right. Only problem i have is that some companies have been royally screwed for refusing service(Colorado gay wedding cake thing) by the local/state, and i believe federal gov too, while others get away with refusing other things. If you're allowed to refuse service to anyone based on your beliefs then it needs to be across the board

I agree. They shouldn't be forced to provide service to anybody. Making them do so, is an infringement of their rights.

 

[Kutnupe14]

I don't care they don't offer certain merchandise. However, I find it reprehensible to refuse to sell to someone who's legally allowed to own merchandise you do sell and who has the means to pay for it. (Absent some disturbance, health hazard, etc. caused by patron)

I don't care Wing Stop doesn't sell cheeseburgers, and I wouldn't support forcing them to add cheeseburgers to the menu. But, if you sell wings, you should have to sell wings to everyone who can pay for them. You offered the item for sale to the public, the public gets to take you up on that offer.

I can't boycott Dicks or Wal-mart because I already don't shop there. I can "buy-cott", though. Brownells has said they will continue to sell rifles to 18 year olds. As good a time as any to buy some more magazines and maintenance items...

"Have to," or "should"?

 

[BehindBlueI's]

"Have to," or "should"?

Have to. Anything else allows a group to become second class citizens, by both isolating them and by denying them access to the economy. That's why we have things like the Fair Housing Act, after all. To allow equal opportunity for access to the economy.

While chicken wings aren't as important as, say, access to mortgages, the principal is the same and the effects are the same. Just on different scales.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Have to. Anything else allows a group to become second class citizens, by both isolating them and by denying them access to the economy. That's why we have things like the Fair Housing Act, after all. To allow equal opportunity for access to the economy.

While chicken wings aren't as important as, say, access to mortgages, the principal is the same and the effects are the same. Just on different scales.

I understand what you're saying, and sympathize to a point, but I disagree. Govt involvement has allowed, in most cases, for people to be coddled. It strips them of their ability build businesses and economies for themselves. My grandparents are from a place in Arkansas called Morrilton. There used to be a single burger joint in the city, and it would only allow black people to order take out from the back. Well, that didn't sit to well with the black folks in Morrilton, and one of the good black citizens opened their own burger joint, discriminating against no one. In short order, the original burger joint started letting people order from the front, and eat inside. They either adapted, of they went under. The owners apparently liked money more than they like to discriminate. I firmly believe that the free market works, when it's allowed to. It may take time, sure, but the end result typically is best for everyone.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

I understand what you're saying, and sympathize to a point, but I disagree. Govt involvement has allowed, in most cases, for people to be coddled. It strips them of their ability build businesses and economies for themselves. My grandparents are from a place in Arkansas called Morrilton. There used to be a single burger joint in the city, and it would only allow black people to order take out from the back. Well, that didn't sit to well with the black folks in Morrilton, and one of the good black citizens opened their own burger joint, discriminating against no one. In short order, the original burger joint started letting people order from the front, and eat inside. They either adapted, of they went under. The owners apparently liked money more than they like to discriminate. I firmly believe that the free market works, when it's allowed to. It may take time, sure, but the end result typically is best for everyone.

And if the good folks of Morrilton had decided not to sell a restaurant location to non-whites? Or supplies and food to the restaurant?

Surely you're aware that historically that's exactly what happened and was the impetus behind fair housing, employment discrimination laws, etc? You couldn't get a mortgage, the landowner wouldn't sell, etc. if you weren't the right kind of people for the neighborhood. Keeps you in your place, you know. Which dramatically reduced the ability to enter the middle class, because of reduced rates of home ownership and homes you could own not appreciating and building wealth over the years.

I also believe in a free market. I just don't agree with you what that means. How can a market with limits as to who has the opportunity to participate be free? That's a limited market by definition. If you sell widgets for $5, everyone with $5 has the opportunity to participate if no gate keeper decides who gets widgets and who doesn't. That's a free market.

 

[bwframe]

We need a list thread of who to not patronize if you are pro 2A in 2018.

 

[CraigAPS]

BBI and Kut, you are both making some great points. BBI, you seem to be focusing on the most basic version of "free market," while, Kut, you seem to be focusing on the practical version of the idea. Businesses are allowed to refuse service to anyone, so long as it's not based on certain demographics, like race. While age is typically also up there, it seems, in practice, that has meant that one cannot be "too old" to patronize a business. Heretofore, little has been said about saying someone is too young, other than those goods and services that are illegal to take advantage of until one reaches a certain age. Perhaps, this will be the test case to examine that type of discrimination. That being said, many businesses will only allow some customers of a certain age within there building. How many businesses have signs that state "Under 18 must be accompanied by an adult" or "Only X number of children under 18 in the store at a time"? Aren't these also examples of the same type of thing Dick's and many others are doing right now? These children are quite possibly able to afford to buy the widgets of the businesses with these signs, but they are not able to because of their age and lack of parent or one too many of that age group in the building.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Businesses are allowed to refuse service to anyone, so long as it's not based on certain demographics, like race. While age is typically also up there, it seems, in practice, that has meant that one cannot be "too old" to patronize a business. Heretofore, little has been said about saying someone is too young, other than those goods and services that are illegal to take advantage of until one reaches a certain age. Perhaps, this will be the test case to examine that type of discrimination. That being said, many businesses will only allow some customers of a certain age within there building. How many businesses have signs that state "Under 18 must be accompanied by an adult" or "Only X number of children under 18 in the store at a time"? Aren't these also examples of the same type of thing Dick's and many others are doing right now? These children are quite possibly able to afford to buy the widgets of the businesses with these signs, but they are not able to because of their age and lack of parent or one too many of that age group in the building.

I think it's well recognized that children do not enjoy the full set of rights and responsibilities adults do in ANY society. Being able to enter a contract is an adult right and responsibility. I understand that we've set the bar for "adult" at different places in different societies, different times, and for different sectors of society (16 to drive and accept the responsibilities, 21 to apply the same to alcohol), etc.

Instead of carving out protected classes, who gatekeepers are not allowed to keep out of the economy, how about simply making everyone "protected" and given free and equal access?

Now, I do understand the world isn't completely black and white, and exemptions should be legal if doing so would cause liability for the merchant. Renting a car, for example, causes risk to the owner and nobody doubts a 16 year old is more likely to crash than a 30 year old. Insurance rates, car/property rental, even alcohol, all can incur liability and risk for the merchant, and is certainly more gray. Selling widgets, no matter if it's a rifle, a cake, a box of frozen hamburger patties, etc. incurs no liability if sold to someone legally allowed to have it.

 

[CraigAPS]

I think it's well recognized that children do not enjoy the full set of rights and responsibilities adults do in ANY society. Being able to enter a contract is an adult right and responsibility. I understand that we've set the bar for "adult" at different places in different societies, different times, and for different sectors of society (16 to drive and accept the responsibilities, 21 to apply the same to alcohol), etc.

Instead of carving out protected classes, who gatekeepers are not allowed to keep out of the economy, how about simply making everyone "protected" and given free and equal access?

Now, I do understand the world isn't completely black and white, and exemptions should be legal if doing so would cause liability for the merchant. Renting a car, for example, causes risk to the owner and nobody doubts a 16 year old is more likely to crash than a 30 year old. Insurance rates, car/property rental, even alcohol, all can incur liability and risk for the merchant, and is certainly more gray. Selling widgets, no matter if it's a rifle, a cake, a box of frozen hamburger patties, etc. incurs no liability if sold to someone legally allowed to have it.

You are correct. There is a difference, in protection under the law and in practice, between children and adults and the rights/responsibilities they enjoy. The movement we're seeing now is tantamount to expanding the definition of "child." Because 18 is so close to "school age," and there many 18 yo who are still in high school, they are being seen as children instead of adults, which they legally are. I think that is the reason for this shift.

I don't disagree that everyone should be able to purchase anything they can legally own. However, it's a balance between rights of the consumer and rights of the seller.

Obviously, nothing is black and white. The World is grey. There is, now, a liability for ammunition and firearms merchants. Not in the legal sense, such as being sued for the (mis)use of a product, but in the societal sense, insofar as there being a backlash, either in the media/social media or just customer base in general. With the proliferation of negative views in which one may be seen on the internet or in the news, businesses are doing what they feel they must in order to keep market shares. They don't care about upsetting gun owners, as we are the minority. They care about being publicized in a negative way. Look at the heat that FedEx took before they made a statement (talked about in another thread), which pressured them to make a public statement riding the fence between (seemingly) popular opinion and laissez faire way of doing business. Dick's and others have made a benefit/cost analysis of continuing to sell rifles and ammunition to those legally able to purchase it (18-20 yo), and they have decided that it's better to deny those sales in order to garner more business by aligning with apparent popular opinion. I've seen several left-leaning Facebook friends posting the article about Dick's decision and stating they will go buy something from Dick's just to support their decision just like members here are stating the opposite. Isn't this the definition of "free market economy"?