20-year-old sues Dick’s Sporting Goods, Walmart over new gun policies

Topic by 743 roadmaster

743 roadmaster

Home › Forums › Political Corner › 20-year-old sues Dick’s Sporting Goods, Walmart over new gun policies

This topic contains 8 replies, has 8 voices, and was last updated by  Anonymous 1 year, 10 months ago.

Viewing 9 posts - 1 through 9 (of 9 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • 2018-03-06 at 4:21 PM#755053
    +8
    743 roadmaster
    743 roadmaster
    Participant

    https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2018/03/06/walmart-dicks-sporting-goods-sued-over-new-gun-policies/398288002/

    A 20-year-old Oregon man has accused Walmart and Dick’s Sporting Goods of age-discrimination for refusing to sell him a rifle.

    Tyler Watson filed Oregon county court lawsuits against the retailers on Monday, six days after they announced they would not sell guns to buyers under 21.The companies added the higher age restriction after the massacre at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla.

    Oregon law allows state residents to buy shotguns or rifles as of age 18. Federal law also allows people 18 and older to buy rifles or shotguns from licensed dealers.

    Watson’s lawsuits may be the first of their kind in the U.S., his attorney, Max Whittington, told The Oregonian/Oregon Live, media outlets that first reported the cases.

    ——–Oh I do so hope the man wins and takes then for an amount to cause them to wish they had not taken the knee jerk reaction to Broward county Florida.

    mgtow is its own worst enemy- https://www.campusreform.org/

    2018-03-06 at 4:35 PM#755062
    +5
    PistolPete
    PistolPete
    Participant
    27143

    He would be better off arguing they failed to sell him one because he is gay.

    2018-03-06 at 4:41 PM#755066
    +5

    Anonymous
    1

    After all the folks losing their minds over the little bake shop that didn’t want to bake a gay wedding cake…
    …everyone said you can’t decide to whom you will sell one of your products based on your morals…you HAVE to sell the item…
    …I don’t know how stores can discriminate based on age after the customer has met all legal (law) age requirements.

    It (snail-paced legal battle) will drag on until the law changes to 21…but they should rule in favor of the guy, because AT THE TIME the store DID unlawfully prohibit the sale.

    2018-03-06 at 4:44 PM#755069
    +5

    Anonymous
    1

    Can you imagine the explosions that would occur in the media if Walmart refused to sell a 20 year old woman some condoms?

    2018-03-06 at 4:47 PM#755076
    +5

    Anonymous
    42

    He has a legitimate case for age discrimination. Same as if they denied a retiree on the grounds of arbitrary age limitations.

    It’s nothing but virtue signaling at a corporate level at the expense of an individual.

    I hope the jury awards him an ass reaming amount!

    2018-03-08 at 11:40 AM#755500
    ResidentEvil7
    ResidentEvil7
    Participant
    9551

    I think this kid needs to get a life and wait another year. A year is no big deal.

    https://themanszone.webs.com/

    2018-03-08 at 11:44 AM#755501
    +2
    Ranger One
    Ranger One
    Participant
    16836

    They should just rename Dicks Sporting Goods to C~~~s Sporting Goods.

    All my life I've had doubts about who I am, where I belonged. Now I'm like the arrow that springs from the bow. No hesitation, no doubts. The path is clear. And what are you? Alive. Everything else is negotiable. Women have rights; men have responsibilities; MGTOW have freedom. Marriage is for chumps. If someone stands in the way of true justice, you simply walk up behind them and stab them in the heart-R'as al Ghul.

    2018-03-08 at 11:58 AM#755508
    +3
    Narwhal
    narwhal
    Participant
    ResidentEvil7 wrote:

    I think this kid needs to get a life and wait another year. A year is no big deal.

    That’s not the point. Would you feel the same way if Walmart decided they were going to arbitrarily set an age of 25 to buy beer at their stores?

    To me, this isn’t a gun issue at all. Does a corporation get to arbitrarily decide who they will and won’t sell to? Walmart is doing this as a reaction to recent shootings, which has all been done by men. Does that mean they can refuse to sell guns to men? What if they decide that women decide not to sell donuts to anyone they think is overweight?

    And what happens later, when Walmart and Target, and Amazon all decide to develop a trade organization where they decide the criteria of who they will and will not sell to? Are we good with corporations effectively creating law in the manner without anything resembling a vote? I’m not.

    I do think a company has the right to decide who they sell to….if they have a legitimate safety reason or it effects the atmosphere they are trying to create. An amusement park can have a height limit on rides. A restaurant can require a coat and tie, or shoes and shirt. A gym can only serve women (apparently). A senior citizen home can have an age restriction. You just have to justify it.

    I don’t see how Walmart can justify this. They cannot be sued for safety reasons. It’s not effecting their business environment. This is just arbitrary morality.

    Ok. Then do it.

    2018-03-08 at 1:43 PM#755593

    Anonymous
    0
    ResidentEvil7 wrote:

    I think this kid needs to get a life and wait another year. A year is no big deal.

    Yes and No.

    Yes.

    Relativly a year is no big deal, but thats not the problem here, its the principle of the issue.

    No.

    Gun stuff aside, I ask you, are you ok with corporations subverting freedoms of citizens and discriminating who can buy what when the only justification is that the corporations dont like it?

    Are you ok with corporations deciding to make their own policies “laws” subverting the will and laws of the people and the legislative system that is the foundation of the country?

    It may be their store but that does not give them the right to subvert someones rights based on a pollitical agenda. Money, and corporate polices can not not trump constitutional rights and freedom. Corporate America does not have the right to impose its will on the free people. The people must fight these transgressions.

    If the corporations, Dick’s in this case, dont want to offer firearms to those who can legally own them within an age range, then they do not need to sell them period. Or face steep legal and civil repercussions. The end.

    Also when society continues to take away responsiblities and freedom from young adults, they do not get to gain apprication for responsiblity and youngsters become more stunted in matuirity. They are deprived of some growing up. They have no choice but to be big childeren. I think young adults are forced into this mentality enough by society and the feminazi school systems indoctrination camps.

    I am glad to see someone standing up to corporate stooges that believe they can buy peoples rights out from under them. Its up to the people to insure their own freedoms by standing up for them and fighting for them. If people do nothing for their freedoms then no one is to blame other than themselves when they lose freedoms.

    These kinds of discriminations are a slippery slope. If this type of discrimination is allowed it sets precidence for others and worse to follow. On the more extreme end of opening this door, I recall at a certain time in history business could decline people because of their race. Id hate to see that or similar be allowed to return based on precidence that could be set in this case.

  • Author
    Posts
Viewing 9 posts - 1 through 9 (of 9 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

©2020 by www.mgtow.com | All Rights Reserved.