Is Age Protected?

[donpablo]

The decisions the various companies have made regarding a self imposed raising of the age limit for firearms purchases got me to wondering if age is protected under the 14th amendment. If so, does that mean we may see a class action lawsuit against these companies in the near future? If not and business owners’ rights trump individual rights, then they could carry this farther. They (business owners) could decide to stop selling alcohol to those irresponsible people in their 20’s. Since teenagers are usually irresponsible with sex, they could stop selling lingerie to people under 21 (since it could be used irresponsibly by teens).

What about discrimination based on obvious health status? Could Walmart refuse to sell twinkies to overweight people?

This could be a big loss for individual rights and a big win for business owners’ rights. And for individual business owners, maybe that’s a good thing? Of course that’s a big maybe.

[Russ79]

As far as I know, no family has sued a Walmart for selling Twinkies to an overweight family member who died from a heart attack, but gun makers and sellers have been sued over a gun that commits murder.

[batmaninja]

Take it another route. If school kids get to choose their gender, and race, why not their age too?

[donpablo]

If I were 18-20, I’d be getting a couple friends together and we’d be lawyering up for sure! I’m not 100% but I think they’d have a case. You’d think arguing that the company is infringing on your right to protect yourself would go farther than claiming your dreams were destroyed by a stubborn baker.

Dang. Didn’t see the other thread.

[SaltwaterSlick]

If I were 18-20, I’d be getting a couple friends together and we’d be lawyering up for sure! I’m not 100% but I think they’d have a case. You’d think arguing that the company is infringing on your right to protect yourself would go farther than claiming your dreams were destroyed by a stubborn baker.

Dang. Didn’t see the other thread.

That's OK, you said here what I said in the other thread only in a LOT fewer words... still got the point across tho.!

[donpablo]

Can't Have it Both Ways

Well, I regret to say that after discussing it a bit I've come to a grave conclusion. If age is protected and the companies who've changed their policies claim they did so for moral reasons, then we conservatives should respect their right to do so. Just as we supported the baker who refused service to the gay couple. This means if discrimination based on age is prohibited by the 14th & the SCOTUS rules in favor of the baker, then the retail stores would win too. On the other hand (again assuming age is protected) if they rule against the baker, by the same reasoning the guys suing the retailers will have precedent on their side.

Now let me say that I would like to argue that the liberal argument that a state should not be able to discriminate against homosexuals when determining the definition of the word marriage is ridiculous (due to the fact that marriage was created by religions and most religions do not recognize same sex marriage). However, because some religions do recognize same sex marriage and because long ago the state got in the marriage business (making it a secular institution) the, "ridiculous" argument wouldn't get very far.

So in conclusion, if age in this scenario is protected (it has been in employment scenarios), the way I see it we win one and lose one.

Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer and only used what little knowledge I know about precedent to reason this out.

[JonBoy]

Well, I regret to say that after discussing it a bit I've come to a grave conclusion. If age is protected and the companies who've changed their policies claim they did so for moral reasons, then we conservatives should respect their right to do so. Just as we supported the baker who refused service to the gay couple. This means if discrimination based on age is prohibited by the 14th & the SCOTUS rules in favor of the baker, then the retail stores would win too. On the other hand (again assuming age is protected) if they rule against the baker, by the same reasoning the guys suing the retailers will have precedent on their side.

Now let me say that I would like to argue that the liberal argument that a state should not be able to discriminate against homosexuals when determining the definition of the word marriage is ridiculous (due to the fact that marriage was created by religions and most religions do not recognize same sex marriage). However, because some religions do recognize same sex marriage and because long ago the state got in the marriage business (making it a secular institution) the, "ridiculous" argument wouldn't get very far.

So in conclusion, if age in this scenario is protected (it has been in employment scenarios), the way I see it we win one and lose one.

Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer and only used what little knowledge I know about precedent to reason this out.

Texas is 1 of 5 states that does NOT have State Public Accommodation Laws (Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi, North Carolina and Texas). About 1/3 of the states have laws on the books that prevent areas of public accommodation (businesses that are generally open to the public) from discriminating based on age...in these states it may very well be against state law to restrict firearms sales to individuals based on age, who meet the minimum federal & state age requirements. This is one of those downsides to pro-business/pro-capitalism...we've given them the power to do pretty much whatever they want in this state, for good or for bad.

http://www.ncsl.org/research/civil-and-criminal-justice/state-public-accommodation-laws.aspx

https://www.ada.gov/ada_title_III.htm