Age Discrimination: Teen Refused Sale Of Weapon At Walmart

[jimLE]

about age discrimination against older Americans, often in the context of the workplace. It seems like every business is looking for ways to offload older generations to make way for millennials. This time the shoe is on the other foot — a teen is fighting Walmart over what she considers age discrimination.

readytofirenews.com/age-discrimination-teen-refused-sale-of-weapon-at-walmart/

 

[user 6493]

I don't buy guns at Walmart,not just because of the loophole of age,,,,but because they are not a true sporting goods store,,,,,,,,once you buy a gun there they are done with you,there is no customer support when it comes to weapons ,,,,,,,,,,,,,

 

[TexasFreedom]

Hang on GG... you almost sound like you expect customer support from any other product from Walmart? !!!

Jim, I think the teenager has a really good point. It's an unjustified (and more importantly illegal) discrimination. It's ok to say they don't sell guns to anyone, but when they put age limits without legal backing, they are going to get into trouble. I think the bakers had a great defense relating to their faith, but Walmart has no defense. If the bakers were fined $135k, I don't see why Walmart would be fined any less. This girl could have gone to any other gun seller just like the perverts could have gone to any other baker, so no defense there.

I wish the girl good luck!

 

[user 6493]

TF,,,when it comes to guns and ammo buy them walk out the door and they are yours,,,,,,,,,,,,,,anything else can be returned

 

[Mountain trapper]

Good luck to this girl. This is a stupid knee jerk reaction from Walmart to pander to the sissys on the left. It hasn't worked very well for Walmart and hasn't worked for Dicks either.

 

[user 6493]

Good luck to this girl. This is a stupid knee jerk reaction from Walmart to pander to the sissys on the left. It hasn't worked very well for Walmart and hasn't worked for Dicks either.

I am not defending Walmart,,,,,,,,,,,,,,but this is one of the things wrong with this world,,,, any excuse to sue,,,it's free easy money,,,just stop going to Walmart and spend your money somewhere else

 

[Brent S]

I am not defending Walmart,,,,,,,,,,,,,,but this is one of the things wrong with this world,,,, any excuse to sue,,,it's free easy money,,,just stop going to Walmart and spend your money somewhere else

I agree, and think 98% of the lawyers in this country are scum. Maybe 99%....

 

[TexasFreedom]

I am not defending Walmart,,,,,,,,,,,,,,but this is one of the things wrong with this world,,,, any excuse to sue,,,it's free easy money,,,just stop going to Walmart and spend your money somewhere else

In general I agree with that philosophy. The problem is that it becomes a 'turn the other cheek' approach and eventually you run out of cheeks. This is clearly a case of age discrimination and against conservatives because of their opinions. No different than a KKK guy refusing certain customers. The more we allow this the worse it will get. The penalty needs to be enough to get Walmart's attention. I don't think it should be millions, but a nice 6-figure payout should get the point across.

 

[Mountain trapper]

I am not defending Walmart,,,,,,,,,,,,,,but this is one of the things wrong with this world,,,, any excuse to sue,,,it's free easy money,,,just stop going to Walmart and spend your money somewhere else

Normally I would agree with you about too many lawsuits. Except that Oregon has these "anti discrimination" laws and Walmart clearly discriminated against this girl based on her age. I don't know if she should be awarded any money or not but Walmart should at least be held accountable for violating the law.

 

[user 6493]

yeah sure,,,,,to many people looking for free money,,,point in case ,,,,,suing McDonalds because the coffee is to hot,,,,,,,,,,,,,a lot of lawsuits are pure BS ,,,,this is one of them in my opinion,,,,,,,,

now I don't believe all lawsuits are BS,if a person has a real leg to stand on a real reason to sue such as personal injury,then do it..............BUT JUST TO BE ABLE TO STICK IT TO SOMEONE SIMPLY BECAUSE THE LAW WILL ALLOW IT,NO THAT IS WRONG,THIS ONE IS WRONG

go to a different store and move on

 

[dannyboy71me]

Definately not frivolous lawsuit. I had a 22lr rifle when I was a kid. Am tired of having crimes commited against me for being a conservitave. People can not behave themselves. Need to balance privacy with the rule of law.

 

[Gazrok]

I think the bakers had a great defense relating to their faith

In most states, I'd agree, however that state had a law on the books against discriminating for orientation. State, not Fed law. So that's why they lost. In most states, they would have been perfectly legally fine.

In this case though, the stores' policies are in direct conflict with State and Federal law. In addition, the policy violates the Constitution, so if I were the gal, I'd even get the ACLU into play here, and REALLY stink it up.

To be honest, I'm surprised this hasn't happened sooner. If I was Walmart's lawyers, I'd tell them to pay the money and tie it to a gag order, and be done with it. (and recommend the store SILENTLY simply go back on their 21 policy).

 

[Gazrok]

go to a different store and move on

More of a "principles" lawsuit, than a frivolous one. Hence the reason she asked for that specific amount. (and of course, it should be obvious she's a bit of an attention seeker).

 

[TexasFreedom]

In most states, I'd agree, however that state had a law on the books against discriminating for orientation. State, not Fed law. So that's why they lost. In most states, they would have been perfectly legally fine.

No need to re-hash the baker case, but federal law trumps state laws. The federal law of freedom of religion (and there was massive evidence to support their faith and position) takes precedence over the state discrimination law. Yes, the courts ruled as they chose. But I don't see how they could ignore the freedom of religion from the Bill of Rights. Truly sad.

I agree though, surprising it's taken this long to roll into court. It will be interesting to see how it plays out. Surely the Walmart lawyers should have seen this coming when they made the new policy? If they didn't, they should be looking for new jobs. When did Walmart make the change? Did they think Hillary would be president?

 

[Gazrok]

No need to re-hash the baker case, but federal law trumps state laws.

Since when? It often flows the other way, unless it's unconstitutional. It's kind of the whole point of the state as an entity. We even had a war about this.

Example, federally, marijuana is illegal, but in our nation's capital, Colorado, and many other places, you can light up a joint just fine. (and really, it's still ridiculous to outlaw a damn weed).

There really isn't much in the federal laws that covers religion and commerce...so trying to just lean on freedom of religion is thin.

In this case though, the store policy is an apparent violation of constitutional rights, so that's really a tough spot for Wally World.