Dick's sued in over age limit sales in Oregon and Michigan

[Boom Boom]

I understand but for it to be discrimination, and I could be wrong, they would have to bar anyone of an age group from entering or purchasing anything.

By definition, it's discrimination according to MD law, since DSG is barring everyone 18-20 from making certain legal purchases. DSG can refuse sales to specific individuals for non-discriminatory reasons but cannot wholesale refuse everyone 18-20 years old. MD law makes no distinction about age, presumably to cover discrimination exactly like DSG.

 

[MigraineMan]

The question is can private entities infringe on a right. I am not defending them but looking at legally. If I invited everyone over to my house but made the request no one is allowed to curse, if you curse you will be removed from house. Is that 1st amendment infringement?

Stores, in general, are considered "places of public accommodation," and may not discriminate based on age, ethnicity, gender, etc.

That's not to say that they are public spaces ... if you try to stage a political rally in the women's underwear section at Walmart, they can instruct you to leave (and have you arrested for trespassing if you refuse.)

Your house is hardly a public space. You may impose behavioral restrictions on guests to your heart's content. The First Amendment protects your speech from government suppression, not from homeowner-in-his-house suppression.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

 

[MigraineMan]

By definition, it's discrimination according to MD law, since DSG is barring everyone 18-20 from making certain legal purchases. DSG can refuse sales to specific individuals for non-discriminatory reasons but cannot wholesale refuse everyone 18-20 years old. MD law makes no distinction about age, presumably to cover discrimination exactly like DSG.

That's the crux of the matter. If they decided "we won't carry scary black rifles at all" that would be one thing (i.e. "we just don't sell those.") That's a policy, however unpopular with a particular customer segment, that is uniformly applied to everyone.

However, saying "we won't sell this in-stock item to YOU," where the basis of the refusal is "we don't like your age" in spite of it being perfectly legal for the purchase ... that's blatant age discrimination.

If that doesn't make sense, what's the difference between saying "Walmart won't hire you because you're over 50" and "Walmart won't hire you because you're under 25"?

 

[Boom Boom]

It's no different than refusing a sale because of the buyer's skin tone or religion. It's all defined as discrimination by MD law. DSG won't have a leg to stand on in court.

 

[kohburn]

I understand but for it to be discrimination, and I could be wrong, they would have to bar anyone of an age group from entering or purchasing anything.

you mean like selling cupcakes to gays but not wedding cakes for gay weddings?

personally think a business should be allowed to sell or not sell whatever they want to whomever they want... but legal precedent says otherwise.

 

[DC-W]

Maryland
https://law.justia.com/codes/maryland/2013/article-gsg/section-20-304/

2013 Maryland Code
STATE GOVERNMENT
§ 20-304 - Prohibited act

An owner or operator of a place of public accommodation or an agent or employee of the owner or operator may not refuse, withhold from, or deny to any person any of the accommodations, advantages, facilities, or privileges of the place of public accommodation because of the person’s race, sex, age, color, creed, national origin, marital status, sexual orientation, or disability.

 

[MigraineMan]

.

 

[ras_oscar]

personally think a business should be allowed to sell or not sell whatever they want to whomever they want... but legal precedent says otherwise.

Careful, that reasoning would legalize Jim Crowe, separate but equal and a whole bunch of other civil rights violations. You are free to think whatever you wish. Once you offer a public accommodation you are subject to legal restrictions on how you limit those services.

My fear in the current 2A environment is that the law will be amended to allow stores to discriminate based on age, and then will be pressured by the antis to do so. That would be a whole new battleground. Most stores would seek the path of least resistance. They just want to sell stuff while pi$$ing off the fewest number of customers possible.

 

[GlocksAndPatriots]

Careful, that reasoning would legalize Jim Crowe, separate but equal and a whole bunch of other civil rights violations. You are free to think whatever you wish. Once you offer a public accommodation you are subject to legal restrictions on how you limit those services.

My fear in the current 2A environment is that the law will be amended to allow stores to discriminate based on age, and then will be pressured by the antis to do so. That would be a whole new battleground. Most stores would seek the path of least resistance. They just want to sell stuff while pi$$ing off the fewest number of customers possible.

All non-discrimination laws are wrong except for ones that deal with emergency services and certain industries like gas stations and hotels in rural areas.

 

[adit]

This isn't a constitutional rights issue it's about discrimination. I don't know the discrimination laws in MD or other states, but I'd bet there are some on the books that would apply.
What if Dicks suddenly made a policy that they would not sell guns to anyone over 65 because they feel that age group can no longer be trusted with firearms?........

It is both. It is a constitutional infringement via age discrimination.

 

[Not_an_outlaw]

So, when the next school shooter is 22, using a bolt action rifle, and a scope, I guess those will be gone next. WTF?