Fred Meyer, Bi-Mart sued for refusing to sell ammo to Oregon man, 20

[faithful_servant]

It is part of the public accommodation laws, the same as the law that restricts businesses like Fred Meyer in Oregon from refusing to sell guns to someone between 18-20. Both cases are covered under those laws, and those laws are generally based on state.

https://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/659A.403

And in case you are going to question the definition of a place of public accommodation, that is defined as well.

https://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/659A.400

No, the firearms law is EXPLICITLY about firearms. So if you want to draw a comparison, then you need provide a law to compare to that is just as explicit.

 

[faithful_servant]

Yep: 21 means 21, just like alcohol and marijuana. Legal policy is legal policy.

But in the right-wing, if a baker doesn't want to make a cake for a gay couple, THAT kind of discrimination is okay - right?

No, the firearms law is EXPLICITLY about firearms. So if you want to draw a comparison, then you need provide a law to compare to that is just as explicit.

 

[roguenuke]

Actually, it is an issue I really could not care less about. However, do not forget that recently in California a judge ruled that a baker indeed did have a right to refuse to bake a cake based upon their religious beliefs.


https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc...ke-same-sex-wedding-cakes-judge-rules-n845501

And I think ultimately, this case you are talking about will ultimately probably side (mostly) with the baker. Otherwise, you are opening up the "legal trolling" of almost any kind of business there is. Satanists going in to "Christian Bakers", and demanding cakes made. Delis being forced to violate their Kosher food laws. A Christian book publisher will be forced to print books along the lines of "50 Shades". There has to be some kind of limits to what kind of pressure the Government or individuals can place upon an individual or business, or there is no point in even owning a business.

I myself closed my computer store this year, a lot of it due to the insane restrictions the City and State was placing on us. It finally got to the point in February that we simply closed everything down and gave up. And I am pretty much of the opinion now that anybody who tries to run a business in California more than likely has rocks in their head.

One judge out of many. Ultimately it will rely on the SCOTUS. Personally, I believe that any ruling for the bakers will lead to dismantling of public accommodation laws and then eventually restructuring them or the Constitution to put them in because people are going to realize that allowing people to choose to not sell to anyone based on "religious beliefs" is not a good idea.

 

[roguenuke]

No, the firearms law is EXPLICITLY about firearms. So if you want to draw a comparison, then you need provide a law to compare to that is just as explicit.

There is no specific firearms laws that state that "18 year olds can buy guns from any retailer that sells them". If you think there is, put it here.

 

[jet57]

No, the firearms law is EXPLICITLY about firearms. So if you want to draw a comparison, then you need provide a law to compare to that is just as explicit.

I don't on seconds on posts.

 

[faithful_servant]

There is no specific firearms laws that state that "18 year olds can buy guns from any retailer that sells them". If you think there is, put it here.

The law explicitly states that anyone over the age of 18 is allowed to buy ammunition and long guns. That means that selling them is part of the deal, since it states that they are allowed to BUY them.

 

[roguenuke]

The law explicitly states that anyone over the age of 18 is allowed to buy ammunition and long guns. That means that selling them is part of the deal, since it states that they are allowed to BUY them.

Where? Post that law exactly.

 

[faithful_servant]

Where? Post that law exactly.

It's been posted repeatedly in this thread, you're just trying to be annoying...

/flush

 

[roguenuke]

It's been posted repeatedly in this thread, you're just trying to be annoying...

/flush

No it hasn't. You have not posted it. Neither has anyone else. The 2nd Amendment does not have any sort of age reference to it. You are dodging the request.

 

[jaeger19]

No it hasn't. You have not posted it. Neither has anyone else. The 2nd Amendment does not have any sort of age reference to it. You are dodging the request.

Actually it was.. and it was also posted that Oregon has an anti discrimination law that prohibits discrimination based on age.

So if the legal age to purchase ammunition is 18.. then by Oregon law.. a retailer cannot refuse to sell to someone 18 or older because of age.

 

[roguenuke]

Actually it was.. and it was also posted that Oregon has an anti discrimination law that prohibits discrimination based on age.

So if the legal age to purchase ammunition is 18.. then by Oregon law.. a retailer cannot refuse to sell to someone 18 or older because of age.

I posted the antidiscrimination law of Oregon that includes age. I am arguing that it is due to that law that stores in Oregon cannot discriminate against someone under the age of 21 when it comes to buying a weapon or ammo because of their age. All I'm asking for is the supposed other law that states a business has to sell ammo and/or weapons of any kind to someone who is 18 or above. A law saying they can buy such things is not the same as one saying they have a right to be sold those items by anyone who sells them. Many states do not have age as a protected class within their Civil Rights Acts, hence why most other states have not seen lawsuits when these stores announced their age restrictions.

 

[jaeger19]

I posted the antidiscrimination law of Oregon that includes age. I am arguing that it is due to that law that stores in Oregon cannot discriminate against someone under the age of 21 when it comes to buying a weapon or ammo because of their age. All I'm asking for is the supposed other law that states a business has to sell ammo and/or weapons of any kind to someone who is 18 or above. A law saying they can buy such things is not the same as one saying they have a right to be sold those items by anyone who sells them. Many states do not have age as a protected class within their Civil Rights Acts, hence why most other states have not seen lawsuits when these stores announced their age restrictions.

Actually it is.

In fact.. it gives more support to the anti discrimination because by saying that "at this age you can purchase".. its sets that purchase as a normal and common event.. a public accommodation.

IF we followed your logic.. since there is no specific law stating that "black people have the right to rent hotel rooms"... then the anti discrimination laws don't have any force when it comes to black people.

IF the law in Oregon states that at 18 a person can purchase ammunition... AND their anti discrimination law includes discrimination based on age...

then logically.. if the ONLY reason they are denying a person from purchasing ammunition.. is because of their age (despite being 18 and over)... then the retailer is in violation of the Oregon discrimination laws.


Look at it from another angle... what if a retailer said... "gee, we don't think that people over the age of 60 are capable of having the judgment to operate a motor vehicle.. so we refuse to sell to anyone over 60?"..

What do you think would happen then?

the real reason that age restrictions from stores don't get lawsuits is because : The age restrictions don't affect a class of people with political and economic power. .

If those stores said "we won't sell x to those over 55 because they don't have the mental capacity to use x appropriately"... the store would go out of business before the multitude of lawsuits would be filed.

 

[jimbo]

What discrimination? That the guy was under age? That store does not have to sell anything it doesn't to as long as that rule applies to ANYONE under 21.

Now, if the store refused to sell ammo only to black people under 21, but white people under 21 could buy it, that would be discrimination. This lawsuit won't survive an hour in court.

I don't think that's true either. Firearms dealers have not just the right, but the obligation, to not sell to anyone they think might be a problem.

If all the problems turned out to be black or some other protected group, that might be a problem.

 

[roguenuke]

Actually it is.

In fact.. it gives more support to the anti discrimination because by saying that "at this age you can purchase".. its sets that purchase as a normal and common event.. a public accommodation.

IF we followed your logic.. since there is no specific law stating that "black people have the right to rent hotel rooms"... then the anti discrimination laws don't have any force when it comes to black people.

IF the law in Oregon states that at 18 a person can purchase ammunition... AND their anti discrimination law includes discrimination based on age...

then logically.. if the ONLY reason they are denying a person from purchasing ammunition.. is because of their age (despite being 18 and over)... then the retailer is in violation of the Oregon discrimination laws.


Look at it from another angle... what if a retailer said... "gee, we don't think that people over the age of 60 are capable of having the judgment to operate a motor vehicle.. so we refuse to sell to anyone over 60?"..

What do you think would happen then?

the real reason that age restrictions from stores don't get lawsuits is because : The age restrictions don't affect a class of people with political and economic power. .

If those stores said "we won't sell x to those over 55 because they don't have the mental capacity to use x appropriately"... the store would go out of business before the multitude of lawsuits would be filed.

This is not true. Renting cars is a great example on this. The car rental age limit for most states is set at 25. Most states have had no issue with this limitation car rental companies can choose to place on car rentals. New York however, like Oregon, includes age as a protected class in their Civil Rights Act. The NY SCOTUS ruled that NY rental car companies could not discriminate based on age due to their Civil Rights law.

It is why despite being of legal age and having a legal ID, a store can choose not to sell alcohol to someone who does not meet their store's policies on IDs when it comes to proving age. The same with bars. Yet the law clearly states that all someone must do is show a legal ID that proves their age is at least 21.

And I said quite clearly that they are in violation of the Civil Rights Act in Oregon. However, those same stores in many other states can legally tell 18-20 year olds that they cannot purchase guns or ammo from their store, so long as those states do not include age as protected in their CRAs.

 

[jaeger19]

This is not true. Renting cars is a great example on this. The car rental age limit for most states is set at 25. Most states have had no issue with this limitation car rental companies can choose to place on car rentals. New York however, like Oregon, includes age as a protected class in their Civil Rights Act. The NY SCOTUS ruled that NY rental car companies could not discriminate based on age due to their Civil Rights law.

It is why despite being of legal age and having a legal ID, a store can choose not to sell alcohol to someone who does not meet their store's policies on IDs when it comes to proving age. The same with bars. Yet the law clearly states that all someone must do is show a legal ID that proves their age is at least 21.

And I said quite clearly that they are in violation of the Civil Rights Act in Oregon. However, those same stores in many other states can legally tell 18-20 year olds that they cannot purchase guns or ammo from their store, so long as those states do not include age as protected in their CRAs.

You just made my point.. there DOES NOT have to be a law in NY that states that retailers must rent to someone 18 and over.. for the retailer to be in violation of the discrimination law.

Which is the point I made way back when you were asking for a specific law stating retailers must sell to someone 18 and over.

Now.. as to your next point.

It is why despite being of legal age and having a legal ID, a store can choose not to sell alcohol to someone who does not meet their store's policies on IDs when it comes to proving age

No.. not really. Because the store has the ability to decide what constitutes an acceptable ID. Obviously if someone presents an ID that says they are 55 and its a school id from some school they have never heard of. and out of state no less. and the person with the id looks 19.. the store can refuse them.

but out of hand say.. we will not serve anyone under 40 regardless of the ID they have? that gets trickier. Especially if they are a public entity.

But the real reason they would not do that is because it would cause them a headache because of the political and economic fall out.

However, those same stores in many other states can legally tell 18-20 year olds that they cannot purchase guns or ammo from their store, so long as those states do not include age as protected in their CRAs.

Naw.. they only get away with it because they 18-20 year olds don't have the political or economic clout to fight it. That's the truth of our legal system.

At one point in time segregation was "legal".. and was seen as such. The supreme court upheld it... then suddenly.. it was not.. what changed? the law? Nope... The constitution? Nope... What changed was the political and economic climate.

the same with these laws regarding 18-20 year olds. There is simply not enough political and economic clout to fight it.

 

[roguenuke]

You just made my point.. there DOES NOT have to be a law in NY that states that retailers must rent to someone 18 and over.. for the retailer to be in violation of the discrimination law.

Which is the point I made way back when you were asking for a specific law stating retailers must sell to someone 18 and over.

Now.. as to your next point.



No.. not really. Because the store has the ability to decide what constitutes an acceptable ID. Obviously if someone presents an ID that says they are 55 and its a school id from some school they have never heard of. and out of state no less. and the person with the id looks 19.. the store can refuse them.

but out of hand say.. we will not serve anyone under 40 regardless of the ID they have? that gets trickier. Especially if they are a public entity.

But the real reason they would not do that is because it would cause them a headache because of the political and economic fall out.



Naw.. they only get away with it because they 18-20 year olds don't have the political or economic clout to fight it. That's the truth of our legal system.

At one point in time segregation was "legal".. and was seen as such. The supreme court upheld it... then suddenly.. it was not.. what changed? the law? Nope... The constitution? Nope... What changed was the political and economic climate.

the same with these laws regarding 18-20 year olds. There is simply not enough political and economic clout to fight it.

What constitutes a legal ID is put out in most state laws when it comes to buying alcohol.

https://azliquor.gov/IDfaq.cfm

https://lcb.wa.gov/enforcement/acceptable-identification

Safeway does not accept forms of ID that do not include a height and weight on them despite the laws that say acceptable forms of ID do not need height and weight when it comes to purchasing alcohol. It is a store policy that is more restrictive and legal, just like store rules that restrict age of buying video games or movies or selling weapons. There are a ton of such individual store policies, many of which are based on age, that are more restrictive than the laws regarding those products or services. They are not violating the law unless their state CRA specifically protects that class who is turned away from discrimination.

Yes, public opinion changed as well as how we viewed and interpreted the US Constitution. But laws changed as well. Businesses were still legally allowed to discriminate against certain races until the law was enacted. The SCOTUS ruling was saying that states could not legally enforce segregation as a law or within government venues such as schools or courts. It had nothing to do with public accommodations, privately run open to the public businesses. Those were forced to serve all races due to the Civil Rights Act put into place by Congress and the many such Acts put into place by most if not all states.

 

[jimbo]

No it hasn't. You have not posted it. Neither has anyone else. The 2nd Amendment does not have any sort of age reference to it. You are dodging the request.

If the second amendment has no age limit, and it doesn't, then all age limits infringe. Why cannot a 12 year old buy guns and ammo?

 

[jaeger19]

What constitutes a legal ID is put out in most state laws when it comes to buying alcohol.

https://azliquor.gov/IDfaq.cfm

https://lcb.wa.gov/enforcement/acceptable-identification

Safeway does not accept forms of ID that do not include a height and weight on them despite the laws that say acceptable forms of ID do not need height and weight when it comes to purchasing alcohol. It is a store policy that is more restrictive and legal, just like store rules that restrict age of buying video games or movies or selling weapons. There are a ton of such individual store policies, many of which are based on age, that are more restrictive than the laws regarding those products or services. They are not violating the law unless their state CRA specifically protects that class who is turned away from discrimination.

Yes, public opinion changed as well as how we viewed and interpreted the US Constitution. But laws changed as well. Businesses were still legally allowed to discriminate against certain races until the law was enacted. The SCOTUS ruling was saying that states could not legally enforce segregation as a law or within government venues such as schools or courts. It had nothing to do with public accommodations, privately run open to the public businesses. Those were forced to serve all races due to the Civil Rights Act put into place by Congress and the many such Acts put into place by most if not all states.

And I would bet dollars to donuts that Safeway.. does not worry about ID's that don't have height and weight on them and use them as acceptable id whenever there really is no question as to the person;s age. And.. for the most part its a moot point anyway because everyone uses a drivers license that has height and weight on it.

Just because a store has a policy that may actually violate the law.. and doesn;t get caught or punished.. does not mean that there policy is acceptable or lawful. It takes someone with money and clout to fight such a policy. just like for years there were store policies that were discriminatory.. AND STILL ARE when it comes to black folks or other minorities.

there are tons of store policies that are completely unlawful and in disregard but are not ever caught or brought to a lawsuit. Particularly when the people being discriminated against..don;t have economic or political clout.

Yes, public opinion changed as well as how we viewed and interpreted the US Constitution. But laws changed as well.

Only AFTER the supreme court decision.. in order to be in compliance with the Constitution. The point being is that what changed was the political and economic climate. So what was seen as perfectly constitutional.. was not seen as constitutional just a few years later.

So just because store policies have not been challenged successfully or pretty much at all.. .. does not mean that its constitutional.

 

[roguenuke]

If the second amendment has no age limit, and it doesn't, then all age limits infringe. Why cannot a 12 year old buy guns and ammo?

Not sure where I said that it did have an age limit. In reality, this should be the case if people honestly believed that the 2nd was unable to be limited at all. Children would still maintain the right to bear arms according to the Second, just as they have a right to free speech and press and association and religion, regardless of their age. But no one in their right mind would actually argue that the 2nd is also guaranteed for those under 18. Which means most do in fact support some gun restrictions, even if just as the most basic level.

I am in the middle when it comes to this debate. I am against gun confiscation by police unless that weapon is used in an illegal activity or capacity. I do not have an issue with most gun free zones (although I believe government run ones like schools should have armed guards, as military bases do). I don't have any feelings either way about "assault weapons" so long as laws do not force those who already own them to turn them in just because of new laws. I'm for background checks. I love that the Bill was at least in Congress that says concealed carry permits should be recognized by all states. I'm against the law that restricts someone with a domestic violence incident on their record from owning a weapon (this should be subject to review and case by case at the very least). I'm for allowing weapons handling training in High School. I'm not for paying teachers to be armed. I have mixed feelings about allowing them to carry.

 

[roguenuke]

And I would bet dollars to donuts that Safeway.. does not worry about ID's that don't have height and weight on them and use them as acceptable id whenever there really is no question as to the person;s age. And.. for the most part its a moot point anyway because everyone uses a drivers license that has height and weight on it.

Just because a store has a policy that may actually violate the law.. and doesn;t get caught or punished.. does not mean that there policy is acceptable or lawful. It takes someone with money and clout to fight such a policy. just like for years there were store policies that were discriminatory.. AND STILL ARE when it comes to black folks or other minorities.

there are tons of store policies that are completely unlawful and in disregard but are not ever caught or brought to a lawsuit. Particularly when the people being discriminated against..don;t have economic or political clout.



Only AFTER the supreme court decision.. in order to be in compliance with the Constitution. The point being is that what changed was the political and economic climate. So what was seen as perfectly constitutional.. was not seen as constitutional just a few years later.

So just because store policies have not been challenged successfully or pretty much at all.. .. does not mean that its constitutional.

You'd be wrong. I know the policy of Safeway because for years I only had a military ID (which does not have height or weight on it). I was 25 and refused purchase of alcohol. According to what you wrote, I could have challenged their rule. I couldn't. Their policy is legal despite me being legally able to purchase alcohol in that state.

The SCOTUS was not involved in public accommodation laws until those laws were challenged (and most such challenges lost) as a law that business owners claimed violated their right to freedom of religion and/or freedom of association (neither argument has worked yet when it comes to the SCOTUS and CRAs). The law was put into place first due to public opinion changes, like happens with most new laws.

 

[jaeger19]

You'd be wrong. I know the policy of Safeway because for years I only had a military ID (which does not have height or weight on it). I was 25 and refused purchase of alcohol. According to what you wrote, I could have challenged their rule. I couldn't. Their policy is legal despite me being legally able to purchase alcohol in that state.

The SCOTUS was not involved in public accommodation laws until those laws were challenged (and most such challenges lost) as a law that business owners claimed violated their right to freedom of religion and/or freedom of association (neither argument has worked yet when it comes to the SCOTUS and CRAs). The law was put into place first due to public opinion changes, like happens with most new laws.

Actually yes.. you could have challenged their policy. Anyone can challenge such policies. All it takes is money. Which most likely you did not have. But the facts are.. you could have challenged that policy and truth be told.. in all likely hood it would never have even gone to court because the bad press that Safeway would have received for not allowing a legal military ID.. issued by the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.. for alcohol. to a VETERAN?

I would have bet that if it went to court.. in all likelihood you would have won. The problems is.. you wouldn't have the finances to take it that far.

Of course Scotus is not involved in public accommodation laws until those laws are challenged. Whether it was people claiming that their rights were being violated under an anti discrimination law by a business.. or by a corporation or business as you said.

The real truth is that court cases are expensive.. and the reason that most challenges by individuals lose.. is because they don't have the money to fight it compared to a big corporation.. like safeway.

 

[cuban smokes]

Fred Meyer, Bi-Mart sued for refusing to sell ammo to Oregon man, 20 | OregonLive.com

So do we support or fight discrimination??

at least you could have offered a sliver of 'copy & paste' to get our appetites going but I guess that would have been too much work, huh?

 

[ThoughtEx.]

I'd say the guy has a good case here. Oregon law does include age discrimination in public accommodation laws (as long as over 18). The only exceptions are for things that are already age limited higher in laws, like alcohol and marijuana.

Civil Rights Division ENFORCING CIVIL RIGHTS LAWS

"A place of public accommodation is defined in state law as any place that offers the public accommodations, advantages, facilities or privileges, whether in the nature of goods, services, lodging, amusements or otherwise. It is illegal to discriminate in places of public accommodation on the basis of race, sex (including pregnancy), sexual orientation, national origin, religion, marital status, physical or mental disability, or age (18 years of age and older)."

Personally, I think people need to just be legally an adult at one single age (prefer 18 since that is when most people graduate high school and get out on their own, making their own decisions). I'm for changing alcohol laws (and marijuana laws if they are at alcohol age rather than cigarette age) to 18. And I'm against not renting to those under 25. In fact, over 20 years ago car rental places in at least NY were told that they had to rent to those under 25.

https://www.nytimes.com/1994/11/30/nyregion/car-rental-companies-ordered-to-accept-young-drivers.html

https://ag.ny.gov/consumer-frauds/car-rental-tip-sheet

It will depend on if a state includes age in their public accommodation laws, but at least some do. And part of it comes down to things like whether anyone has challenged policies or not as well.

I wouldn't set the age of adulthood at 18, I mean think about it. When's last time you ran into an 18 year old and considered that person an adult? Heck, I don't consider anyone an adult til around 25. That seems to be the universal age of maturation, where most people get their **** together if they are going to get their **** together.

 

[roguenuke]

I wouldn't set the age of adulthood at 18, I mean think about it. When's last time you ran into an 18 year old and considered that person an adult? Heck, I don't consider anyone an adult til around 25. That seems to be the universal age of maturation, where most people get their **** together if they are going to get their **** together.

I am in the military. I've met plenty of 18 year olds that I consider adults. I don't see any reason not to do so. I myself was 17 when my mother and father signed the paperwork for me to enter. Are you saying I wasn't mature enough to be out to sea on the carrier the entire time I was out there? Because I turned 25 at my next duty station after 4.5 years on the carrier.

 

[roguenuke]

Actually yes.. you could have challenged their policy. Anyone can challenge such policies. All it takes is money. Which most likely you did not have. But the facts are.. you could have challenged that policy and truth be told.. in all likely hood it would never have even gone to court because the bad press that Safeway would have received for not allowing a legal military ID.. issued by the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.. for alcohol. to a VETERAN?

I would have bet that if it went to court.. in all likelihood you would have won. The problems is.. you wouldn't have the finances to take it that far.

Of course Scotus is not involved in public accommodation laws until those laws are challenged. Whether it was people claiming that their rights were being violated under an anti discrimination law by a business.. or by a corporation or business as you said.

The real truth is that court cases are expensive.. and the reason that most challenges by individuals lose.. is because they don't have the money to fight it compared to a big corporation.. like safeway.

Legally, the rule did not violate any laws. It would have been a ridiculous frivolous lawsuit that would be meant to purely gain a rule change from public outcry, not actual legal standing. You are mistaken here. Companies can make more restrictive policies so long as they do not violate other laws, such as restrictions on public accommodations. Rental car companies are the epitome of this policy. And it is legal, whether you think it is or not.

https://www.autorentalnews.com/article/story/2012/03/car-rental-age-restrictions-negligence-and-the-law/page/2.aspx

The law only requires that such restrictions must be reasonably related to their business practice. This of course does not apply if age is included as a class protected under the state's CRA.