- Joined
- Jan 12, 2005
- Messages
- 23,580
- Reaction score
- 12,388
- Location
- New Mexico
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Independent
As long as the owner's policy does not harm society or violate equal protection.
I was referring to institutionalized racism, sexism and homophobia. No individual has a right to harm society by engaging in aggressive institutionalized economic warfare against a race or gender.
I vote yes.
A retailer should be able to make this decision. It's not discrimination based on sex, skin color, religion, or anything like that.
Then, the consumers should be able to find another place to do business if they really hate that concept that much.
People who chose to make bad business decisions should be free to do so.
Well I don't where or why you're bringing racism, sexism, or homophobia into this discussion,
That's not really the question, though. "Should be allowed" is one thing, "should they?" is another. IOW: just because you can doesn't mean you should. They are within their legal rights to do so, and was pointed out in the first post. Is what they are doing proper and/or ethical?I vote yes.
A retailer should be able to make this decision. It's not discrimination based on sex, skin color, religion, or anything like that.
Then, the consumers should be able to find another place to do business if they really hate that concept that much.
People who chose to make bad business decisions should be free to do so.
Some states are entirely like that. In Idaho, there's a terrible catch22, you can't take your child in with you to the liquor store (beer and wine only in the grocers, though I guess that could count to this discussion), and you cannot leave your child in the car, not even for 5 minutes last I heard. But yes, that would be the thing to do if a state wanted to assure that minors don't even see booze being bought or sold.Total Wine here in Nevada has a sign that says no one under 21 permitted inside the store. Not sure if that has more to do with the fact they serve samples in the store from various vendors though.
That was in response to another's stated position, which I felt needed qualification.
Just a guess that those two laws serve different purposes, but yes, it is a catch-22.Some states are entirely like that. In Idaho, there's a terrible catch22, you can't take your child in with you to the liquor store (beer and wine only in the grocers, though I guess that could count to this discussion), and you cannot leave your child in the car, not even for 5 minutes last I heard. But yes, that would be the thing to do if a state wanted to assure that minors don't even see booze being bought or sold.
Just a guess that those two laws serve different purposes, but yes, it is a catch-22.
Leave your kid on the sidewalk. All is good.
I personally believe that the drinking age should be 15 or 16 and not really enforced, so I personally feel a minor of that age should be able to buy it anyways. In this case I think it is ridiculous, what if the kid just went into the store with their parents to buy wine or something for dinner?
The new Texas signs say. "Everyone in your group needs a valid license to prove you are 21 years old"
When I was married and had to buy booze, I went to one with a TCBY just two doors down, and would buy them a treat and ask the employees if they could watch them for five. They always said yes. Evenso, what a position to put a parent in. Trusting the sidewalk or a relatively unknown employee of another store rather than having them attached to their parent.
There a difference between a person buying for a friend (straw purchase), which is probably the original intent, and a person buying for them self with their 12 yr old tagging along.The new Texas signs say. "Everyone in your group needs a valid license to prove you are 21 years old"
Some states are entirely like that. In Idaho, there's a terrible catch22, you can't take your child in with you to the liquor store (beer and wine only in the grocers, though I guess that could count to this discussion), and you cannot leave your child in the car, not even for 5 minutes last I heard. But yes, that would be the thing to do if a state wanted to assure that minors don't even see booze being bought or sold.
There a difference between a person buying for a friend (straw purchase), which is probably the original intent, and a person buying for them self with their 12 yr old tagging along.
Letting them go to school is a risk, letting them go to the park is a risk, letting them go to try on clothes at the store without you hovering is a risk. Parenting is a balancing act and the children's safety first is not good for the child (seriously we all know parents that just can't let their children grow up or have any responsibility or chance of failure), nor wise for the parents, who even with children have a right to some of the own non-necessities.i would have to question the priorities of a parent who would place their kids at potential risk only to purchase a non-necessity such as liquor
There's something of controversy going on here. A local retailer is refusing to sell alcohol to legal adults if a minor is present with them. Doesn't matter how old or young the minor is, and it doesn't matter if the minor is the adult's own kid.
The retailer is not breaking any laws by doing this, so that's not the issue... but should they? How would you react if a retailer refused to sell you alcohol just because you had your kid with you?
Please note that in this state it is perfectly legal for parents to serve their own minor children alcohol.
yes, there is that risk-reward equation or balancing act, to use your termLetting them go to school is a risk, letting them go to the park is a risk, letting them go to try on clothes at the store without you hovering is a risk. Parenting is a balancing act and the children's safety first is not good for the child (seriously we all know parents that just can't let their children grow up or have any responsibility or chance of failure), nor wise for the parents, who even with children have a right to some of the own non-necessities.
There's something of controversy going on here. A local retailer is refusing to sell alcohol to legal adults if a minor is present with them. Doesn't matter how old or young the minor is, and it doesn't matter if the minor is the adult's own kid.
The retailer is not breaking any laws by doing this, so that's not the issue... but should they? How would you react if a retailer refused to sell you alcohol just because you had your kid with you?
Please note that in this state it is perfectly legal for parents to serve their own minor children alcohol.
yes, there is that risk-reward equation or balancing act, to use your term
and when the reward is liquor while the risk is potential harm to your kids, i have to question the priorities of parents who would subject their kids to that risk
There's something of controversy going on here. A local retailer is refusing to sell alcohol to legal adults if a minor is present with them. Doesn't matter how old or young the minor is, and it doesn't matter if the minor is the adult's own kid.
The retailer is not breaking any laws by doing this, so that's not the issue... but should they? How would you react if a retailer refused to sell you alcohol just because you had your kid with you?
Please note that in this state it is perfectly legal for parents to serve their own minor children alcohol.
Ah, but you see, you limit yourself with arithmetic when life is more usuallly like advanced algebra. For example, being a teatotaller, clearly the booze isn't even for the buyer. Usually in my case it was to assure my hubby's boss had his favorite booze available when he and his wife came to dinner and such. So the question becomes, instead of children safety > drinking booze, Is children's safety, which is relatively okay being watched by a clerk at the local TCBY or even being left in a properly venting auto for five minutes a greater consideration than Dad keeping his boss happy and his job intact?
actually, the math used was differential equations by parts, and the outcome remains that the parent prioritized the acquisition of liquor ahead of the safety of the children
appears i may need to produce a graph to make my point; do you prefer linear or logarithmic?
I see, hmm, then I wonder why you keep reducing this down to simple arithmetic. Now it makes even less sense that you'd rely on that level of analytics.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?