Let the lawsuits begin....

Discussion in 'The Duck Hunters Forum' started by Wareagle1, Mar 6, 2018.

  1. J.Bennett

    J.Bennett Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    6,517
    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2008
    Location:
    Acampo, California
    Here is a good write up that pretty much outlines the case...
    https://reason.com/volokh/2018/03/06/age-discrimination-suit-against-dicks-sp

    Apparently it is also illegal in Oregon to advertise that you are going to discriminate...

    659A.409 Notice that discrimination will be made in place of public accommodation prohibited; age exceptions. Except as provided by laws governing the consumption of alcoholic beverages by minors, the use of marijuana items ... by persons under 21 years of age, the frequenting by minors of places of public accommodation where alcoholic beverages are served and the frequenting by persons under 21 years of age of places of public accommodation where marijuana items are sold, and except for special rates or services offered to persons 50 years of age or older, it is an unlawful practice for any person acting on behalf of any place of public accommodation as defined in ORS 659A.400 to publish, circulate, issue or display, or cause to be published, circulated, issued or displayed, any communication, notice, advertisement or sign of any kind to the effect that any of the accommodations, advantages, facilities, services or privileges of the place of public accommodation will be refused, withheld from or denied to, or that any discrimination will be made against, any person on account of race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, national origin, marital status or age if the individual is of age, as described in this section, or older.
     
  2. The_Duck_Master

    The_Duck_Master Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    5,674
    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2004
    Location:
    Salem, Oregon
    While that's the way it SHOULD be, why then do civil rights laws protect people from discrimination by other people?
     
  3. J.Bennett

    J.Bennett Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    6,517
    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2008
    Location:
    Acampo, California
    Are those civil rights laws that you are referring to part of the constitution?
     
  4. TheDuckSlayer

    TheDuckSlayer Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    10,385
    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2002
    Location:
    Mobile Delta
    No, but that doesn’t stop the SC from ruling on things beyond the scope of the Constitution. Roe v. Wade is a well-known example.

    I know that technically the SC ruled that abortion was protected under the 14th Amendment, but I agree with Scalia that the decision was an overreach by the SC and the issue should have been deferred to the states.
     
    Last edited: Mar 7, 2018
    The_Duck_Master likes this.
  5. J.Bennett

    J.Bennett Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    6,517
    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2008
    Location:
    Acampo, California
    I don't know what you are responding to or how it applies to anything that I've posted.

    I said this:
    To which The_Duck_Master replied:
    In other words, he was questioning why (since the the Constitution only applies to what government can and can't do) do civil rights laws protect people from discrimination by other people? By asking him if those civil rights laws that protect people from discrimination by other people are part of the Constitution, I was pointing out the fact that they aren't. There are federal laws which protect people from discrimination by other people (well, not really other people, but places of public accommodation and employers) that are not part of the Constitution.

    The Supreme Court and what they will or won't rule on had nothing to do with it.
     
  6. The_Duck_Master

    The_Duck_Master Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    5,674
    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2004
    Location:
    Salem, Oregon
    Actually, @TheDuckSlayer hit on the next logical step to where I was going. That the courts apply constitutional protections where they don't exist and ignore them where they do based on "what they deem best." What they should do is stick to strict interpretation of the constitution and leave the rest to congress and the people.
     
    TheDuckSlayer likes this.
  7. TheDuckSlayer

    TheDuckSlayer Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    10,385
    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2002
    Location:
    Mobile Delta
    This post:

    Was in response to this post:

    Since it’s the SC’s job to determine the legality of the nation’s laws with regards to the Constitution, I don’t see how the SC doesn’t have everything to do with the conversation. Is that not what we are discussing- the legality of certain laws and how such laws pertain to citizens’ rights afforded by the Constitution?
     
  8. J.Bennett

    J.Bennett Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    6,517
    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2008
    Location:
    Acampo, California
    Still don't understand how any of the above is applicable to my "the Constitution only applies to what government can and can't do" statement? Do you disagree with my statement?
     
  9. The_Duck_Master

    The_Duck_Master Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    5,674
    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2004
    Location:
    Salem, Oregon
    No, I agree with you 100%. The courts don't always apply it that way, though.
     
  10. stevena198301

    stevena198301 Elite Refuge Member Supporting Member

    Messages:
    13,138
    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2015
    Location:
    HSV, Alabama
    I don’t think this is the first time you have typed that same thing here... I’m seeing a pattern with you. ;)
     

Share This Page