Dick's and Hypocrites

[Prestor John]

Alright, that's all well and good. What makes it morally reprehensible, though?

Does something being legal make it moral? There was a time when refusing to sell things to people based on age was legal, so was it moral then, but not moral now?

It is morally reprehensible to deny anyone a God-given right.

 

[Prestor John]

Exactly. Instead of being moral hypocrites they could just get out of the gun business entirely to validate their position if they really wanted to.

More on par, I think Dicks made the decision based on legal advice.

Bad legal advice.

 

[esmith]

What law do think would be the basis of a case that goes to the Supreme Court?

Say Dick's refuses to sell a 19-year-old a gun and the 19-year-old sues. What would be the grounds for their lawsuit?

Well one could argue the 14th Amendment.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Well one could argue the 14th Amendment.

Here's the 14th Amendment:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Care to make that argument? I don't see how any of it could be construed to imply that Dick's Sporting Goods has to sell a 19-year-old a gun if it doesn't want to.

 

[Revoltingest]

Well one could argue the 14th Amendment.

That would be a tough sell, since it applies to government's behavior.

 

[idav]

It is morally reprehensible to deny anyone a God-given right.

God doesnt give guns to people. God given rights would be something like allowing freedom of land without borders.

If parents want their kids to have a military arsenal that’s on them. Stores have a right to protect their liability.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That would be a tough sell, since it applies to government's behavior.

If anything, it implies the opposite of what @esmith is arguing: a gun that hasn't sold yet by Dick's is the property of Dick's. Forcing Dick's to sell it is depriving Dick's of property.

 

[Revoltingest]

If anything, it implies the opposite of what @esmith is arguing: a gun that hasn't sold yet by Dick's is the property of Dick's. Forcing Dick's to sell it is depriving Dick's of property.

Depriving of property?
Nah.
Dick's is in the business of selling guns, & getting money in return.
It's about age discrimination in a public accommodation.

 

[idav]

Here's the 14th Amendment:



Care to make that argument? I don't see how any of it could be construed to imply that Dick's Sporting Goods has to sell a 19-year-old a gun if it doesn't want to.

Sure and tell victims of violence they have a right to life and liberty also. Line has to be drawn somewhere. Do they only have a right to life and liberty if they purchase firearms?

Edit sorry this was to esmith

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Depriving of property?
Nah.
Dick's is in the business of selling guns, & getting money in return.

We're talking about a specific case where Dick's has said that they're not interested in that business.

What the company chooses to do voluntarily in other cases is irrelevant: we're talking about forcing the company to give up property when it has refused.

It's about age discrimination in a public accommodation.

Yes... and about whether the 14th Amendment is relevant to whether it's legal.

 

[Revoltingest]

We're talking about a specific case where Dick's has said that they're not interested in that business.

What the company chooses to do voluntarily in other cases is irrelevant: we're talking about forcing the company to give up property when it has refused.


Yes... and about whether the 14th Amendment is relevant to whether it's legal.

It's not about being forced to give up property.
That's a 5th Amendment issue.
This is about being forced to do business with a protected class,
ie, trading a fungible product for money, & profiting in the process.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It's not about being forced to give up property.
That's a 5th Amendment issue.
This is about being forced to do business with a protected class,
ie, trading a fungible product for money, & profiting in the process.

So now "fungible products" aren't property?

I find it interesting that a gun afficionado would see no problem with forcing a gun owner - in this case, a corporation - to give up its guns in exchange for cash.

 

[Revoltingest]

So now "fungible products" aren't property?

By making it about property rights, you're changing the discussion to something else entirely.
Perhaps analogy could illustrate....
Cakes are property, but providing one to blushing gay grooms isn't about property.
It's about offering a product for sale, & not being legally able to deny it to protected groups.

I find it interesting that a gun afficionado would see no problem with forcing a gun owner - in this case, a corporation - to give up its guns in exchange for cash.

I'm not forcing anyone to do anything....just
opining about about what the law requires or not.
It would vary with jurisdiction (IMO).

 

[Nakosis]

Which law is that? I can’t find any law titled “age discrimination.”

Obviously depends on jurisdiction from state to state. Like Connecticut has a law which prohibits using age to discriminate in providing services.

Age Discrimination

Walmart would likely have a problem here.

However I was really thinking where it's not defined, some layer might want to take up the challenge to test it.

 

[esmith]

Here's the 14th Amendment:



Care to make that argument? I don't see how any of it could be construed to imply that Dick's Sporting Goods has to sell a 19-year-old a gun if it doesn't want to.

Care to try again. The 14th Amendment also address "Equal protection under the law". Now I'm not saying that this could be used against a private company. But lawyers will try anything.

Here's the 14th Amendment:



Care to make that argument? I don't see how any of it could be construed to imply that Dick's Sporting Goods has to sell a 19-year-old a gun if it doesn't want to.

The 14th Amendment also address "Equal protection under the law". Now I'm not saying that this could be used against a private company. But lawyers will try anything.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Care to try again.

I was grasping at straws. I couldn't see how any of it was relevant.

The 14th Amendment also address "Equal protection under the law". Now I'm not saying that this could be used against a private company. But lawyers will try anything.

Actually, it seems to me that your whole point is that it could be used against a private company.

 

[columbus]

Maybe if Dicks made it a religious issue? Hobby lobby got away with depriving their employees of something that the employee had earned themselves.
Maybe Dicks could make a similar, ProLife, argument.
Tom

 

[Prestor John]

God doesnt give guns to people. God given rights would be something like allowing freedom of land without borders.

No. Owning land is not a God-given right.

To be able to defend yourself is though.

If parents want their kids to have a military arsenal that’s on them. Stores have a right to protect their liability.

Then bakers should be able to opt out making cakes for same-sex weddings.

Since, they also have the right to protect their liability.

 

[Falvlun]

Dick’s Sporting Goods, Major Gun Retailer, Stops Selling Assault-Style Weapons

Dick's Sporting Goods has announced that they will no longer be selling assault rifles at any of their stores. The actual Dick's pulled them after Sandy Hook, and now they won't be available from their outdoor specialty store, Field and Stream. I think this is a very good decision, both morally and from a public relations point of view. They made the decision after they found out they had sold the Parkland shooter a shotgun.

However, they also made a second announcement. From now on, Dick's will not sell a firearm to anyone under the age of 21, regardless of law. This is wrong. How many of us screamed bloody murder when bakeries wouldn't make a cake for a gay couple because they had a moral objection? If the kid is legally allowed to buy the gun who the %$@& is Dick's to tell him "No" based on their corporate morality? Isn't that the same thing as the bakery?

If Dick's wishes to deny service based on their version of right and wrong, it is the duty of all the people who attacked that bakery to level the same attack against Dick's. If they don't, they're just hypocrites. Either a company may, or may not, behave this way. You can't have your penis-shaped cake and eat it, too.

It appears it comes down to whether age is a protected class in regards to selling goods and services.

 

[columbus]

No. Owning land is not a God-given right.

To be able to defend yourself is though.

But does that mean that someone else is required to help in a way that they believe dangerous? Dicks isn't preventing a kid from buying a weapon, just opting out of being part of it.

Then bakers should be able to opt out making cakes for same-sex weddings.

Since, they also have the right to protect their liability.

What liability is there in a fancy cake?

But, frankly, I agree that bakers shouldn't be required to bake a cake they don't want to. And I think that requiring people to provide weaponry, when they think it's a bad idea, is wrong. Your argument appears to be a "two wrongs make a right".
Tom