20-year-old Dick's employees are quitting their jobs

a reply to: olaru12

i am afeared of your words

again ability is key

we as a society came to the consensus that at 18 peeps in general have become able.

in some cases youths can get a hardship license to drive if the ability is proven and legal consent is givin

a reply to: howtonhawky

I don't actually understand your point. Strip away all the psychobabble and just concentrate on the fact that a company, that is sensitive to customers, has made a decision which is likely commercially sensible.

discrimination is against the law when it comes to age

where you been?



Can you please state "where you been"?

Why am I allowed to legally turn away (AND ACTUALLY HAVE TO) help from a 12 year old? Why is that not discrimination?

Why are you not allowed to work a job serving alcohol until you are 18 years of age? Granted 1 state (Maine) allows you to do this at age 17, all others are 18, 19, or 21 years of age.

How is it that EVERY STATE IN THE UNION has put in place age restrictions as it relates to certain types of employment, yet none have been found guilty of "age discrimination" as you put it? How is EVERY STATE IN THE UNION skirting this?

Have we all been waiting for the all knowing howtonhawky to come down from "time and space" and grace us with his vast legal knowledge? To think EVERY STATE IN THE UNION has been breaking the law for decades by placing age restrictions on certain activities. Who knew???

The more you know....

a reply to: howtonhawky

Lol, you don't address the point.

A private company can sell or not sell anything based on their discretion. While it may infuriate some people that certain stores will not sell services or goods to people based upon their gender, or their partner's gender, it's legal.

I think I remember CVS putting a stop to selling tobacco in their stores...But hey, guess what, it's legal to buy that tobacco at another place. Good on CVS for standing up for their beliefs.

Dicks is restricting sales of firearms to those under 21. If that person wants to buy a firearm he/she will go to another store to buy it. Good on Dicks for standing up for their beliefs. It might cost them $$$ but it's completely legal and well within their rights as a merchant/dealer. Sorry you don't like it. But I'm sure there's tons of things that you don't like, just as I'm well aware there's tons of things in life that I don't like.

originally posted by: paraphi
a reply to: howtonhawky

I don't actually understand your point. Strip away all the psychobabble and just concentrate on the fact that a company, that is sensitive to customers, has made a decision which is likely commercially sensible.

fair enough but it is still an illegal decision because discrimination based on age is against the law

think of drivers license. one has to prove ability

we don't say you can't buy this truck or that truck for the most part we say prove your ability by taking a driving test




using the same logic some use here would it be ok to discriminate and remove other god givin rights based on age?

hey kid shut up you are too young to go on cnn with scripts written for you

or ow bout no you can not vote cause you are too young

or how about this one hey kid we are gonna kill you because we as a nation declare you to not have the right to life because you are too young to live

Growing up in the NRA programs I still remember the competitions where the judges had to count the brass before scoring.
I have no use for guns at all as an adult, so the decision to buy one at Dick's does not effect me personally.
They get $35 for 2 pair of training shorts so I don't think their bottom line will be hurt that much.

originally posted by: howtonhawky

originally posted by: GeechQuestInfo

originally posted by: howtonhawky

originally posted by: paraphi

originally posted by: howtonhawky
no this is not the start of more breaking of our rights

It's your right to shop where you want. It's a companies right to sell what it likes, in the way it likes. I don't see why that is offensive to people.

the difference is corporate person-hood vs companies

monopolies on the federal level do not have the same rights that companies do

a mom and pop shop operating on a state level is not the same as a dicks or wal-mart

this has been largely ignored

Lehman’s terms please, preferably in coherent English so we can understand what you are actually trying to say. I’d also appreciate appropriate sentence structure with proper punctuation.

Wild guess here: You’re 16-23 years of age and have listened to Alex Jones everyday for the past week? Am I close?

and with that you begin to unravel like most

resorting to insinuating flaws in my personal life will not win you any battles

claiming incomprehension as a disqualifier will not win any battles

go back to the basics of the issue

is age discrimination against the law or not

you can not have it both ways

my position that only ABILITY is a legal form of discrimination as per the 2nd is indeed correct and that would render any on the opposite side to be incorrect. that is easy maths right there

It would be per the 14th, not the 2nd (not that it states any of what you claim, by the way).

You'd have a minor (very minor) point if you we're arguing that a store was selling to some 18 years olds but not all 18 year olds. Although that would likely fall under other forms of discrimination.

Again, your discrimination falls under the guise of employment and who is protected by the law. Not by who can sell what and to whom (see alcohol, cigarettes, etc...).

Seriously, just give it up. You don't understand the 14th like you claim to. Dicks is not revoking service to anybody based on their age, sex, or race. They are simply stating they will not sell firearms to those under 21, which is THEIR Constitutional right. They aren't preventing that 18 year old (yes, you have to be at least 18 to purchase a firearm. OH THE DISCRIMINATION) from going down the street and purchasing a gun.

a reply to: kelbtalfenek

Well then how will they protect themselves against wrongful death lawsuits because they refused to arm or even refuse a box of ammo to someone 18-21 trying to protect themselves.

They can not refuse someones right to life.

this is not a wedding cake we are talking about.

conflating the two will only confuse yourself

you people are advocating the slaughter of other people based on age

get over your programming and lets get free again

originally posted by: howtonhawky
a reply to: kelbtalfenek

Well then how will they protect themselves against wrongful death lawsuits because they refused to arm or even refuse a box of ammo to someone 18-21 trying to protect themselves.

They can not refuse someones right to life.

this is not a wedding cake we are talking about.

conflating the two will only confuse yourself

you people are advocating the slaughter of other people based on age

get over your programming and lets get free again

Again, it's a private company. They are still selling firearms, but being more discretionary about the sales. There's absolutely nothing illegal about that policy. If you don't agree with it, don't shop there...or better yet, start a class action lawsuit and see if any lawyer will take your case.

You are using circular logic and it's failing.

Dicks isn't selling "a right to life." They are selling sporting goods. If you confuse sporting goods with "a right to life" then you should shop somewhere else.

a reply to: GeechQuestInfo

yes several companies have come out and discriminated against age of many customers and that is not legal and anyone who stands up against the policy has recourse because they were forced to choose between following the law or having a job

there is an lawful way for them to refuse service based on ability and not based on age.however their kneejerk response to a single event has caused their confusion.

originally posted by: howtonhawky
fair enough but it is still an illegal decision because discrimination based on age is against the law

I am sure they've taken legal advice. The long and the short of it is that this is more a policy decision based on simple commercials, and (probably) good principles. I am not sure it's discriminatory per se.

originally posted by: howtonhawky
a reply to: GeechQuestInfo

yes several companies have come out and discriminated against age of many customers and that is not legal and anyone who stands up against the policy has recourse because they were forced to choose between following the law or having a job

there is an lawful way for them to refuse service based on ability and not based on age.however their kneejerk response to a single event has caused their confusion.

Again please reference the law they are breaking.

a reply to: kelbtalfenek

dicks and wal-mart are not private companies

originally posted by: howtonhawky
a reply to: GeechQuestInfo

yes several companies have come out and discriminated against age of many customers and that is not legal and anyone who stands up against the policy has recourse because they were forced to choose between following the law or having a job

there is an lawful way for them to refuse service based on ability and not based on age.however their kneejerk response to a single event has caused their confusion.

No, it has caused YOUR confusion.

Seriously though, last question and I'll take the answer off the air: What does a Tide Pod taste like?

a reply to: ScepticScot

discrimination based on age is not legal unless that age happens to be the current acceptable maturity age of 18

originally posted by: howtonhawky
no but they must follow the constitution.

The Constitution only applies to the government. It is a list of things it cannot do.

originally posted by: GeechQuestInfo

originally posted by: howtonhawky
a reply to: GeechQuestInfo

yes several companies have come out and discriminated against age of many customers and that is not legal and anyone who stands up against the policy has recourse because they were forced to choose between following the law or having a job

there is an lawful way for them to refuse service based on ability and not based on age.however their kneejerk response to a single event has caused their confusion.

No, it has caused YOUR confusion.

Seriously though, last question and I'll take the answer off the air: What does a Tide Pod taste like?

and you just unraveled

originally posted by: howtonhawky
a reply to: kelbtalfenek

dicks and wal-mart are not private companies

That's right!

Now you're on to something....

originally posted by: howtonhawky
a reply to: ScepticScot

discrimination based on age is not legal unless that age happens to be the current acceptable maturity age of 18

Should be easy to reference the relavent law then.

originally posted by: howtonhawky

originally posted by: GeechQuestInfo

originally posted by: howtonhawky
a reply to: GeechQuestInfo

yes several companies have come out and discriminated against age of many customers and that is not legal and anyone who stands up against the policy has recourse because they were forced to choose between following the law or having a job

there is an lawful way for them to refuse service based on ability and not based on age.however their kneejerk response to a single event has caused their confusion.

No, it has caused YOUR confusion.

Seriously though, last question and I'll take the answer off the air: What does a Tide Pod taste like?

and you just unraveled

No, Im genuinely curious. Does "April Fresh" taste different from "Coral Blast"? I'm trying to formulate my Saturday night dinner plan and am looking for suggestions.