quote:

Originally posted by 4x5:
If the headlines read 'Walmart refuses to sell birth control to people under 21', the left would explode.

quote:

Originally posted by BurtonRW:
I cringed this morning when I heard the teaser for the story on the radio. Can someone explain to me how this is a good thing?

These are private businesses run by private corporations. Do they not have the right to set their own policies or to do business with whom they please?

Or does that right only apply if they're bakers who don't want to provide material support to the celebration of a gay wedding? Or perhaps employers who terminate employees whose vehicles bear Obama or Hillary stickers?

Now, I understand from what I heard this morning (if it was being reported correctly) that Oregon has a particular state law that prohibits any kind of age discrimination, such that this gentleman's case is likely covered. In states which have no similar laws, however, why should the courts step in and create them? Are we really prepared to argue that judicial activism is a good thing as long as it works in a direction we perceive as a good one?

Serious question, and as always, I'm willing to be convinced that I'm wrong.

-Rob

quote:

Originally posted by LS1 GTO:

Rob,

It is age discrimination.

quote:

Imagine you are 70 years old and want to buy a firearm but yet denied because you are "too old" even though the law states otherwise.

quote:

Originally posted by BurtonRW:

quote:

Originally posted by LS1 GTO:

Rob,

It is age discrimination.

[facepalm]

Yes. Thank you. Of course it's age discrimination. By definition, it's age discrimination. That doesn't necessarily make it illegal age discrimination.

For example, it's perfectly legal under Federal law to discriminate against someone in an employment context based on age if they're 39 years old. That's because the Federal age discrimination laws only protect those 40 years old and above. There may or may not be state laws that provide a broader age range.

I was opining that in cases where there is no law (Federal or State) that covers refusal to sell goods or merchandise to 18-21 year olds in terms of prohibitions against age discrimination, it's not a good idea to encourage judicial activism just because we happen to wish there were a law in this particular case.

quote:

Imagine you are 70 years old and want to buy a firearm but yet denied because you are "too old" even though the law states otherwise.

If the law states otherwise (which it doesn't in terms of Federal law, but may or may not depending on state law), then that would be illegal age discrimination, which is not at all what I was talking about.

-Rob

quote:

(1)
A place of public accommodation, subject to the exclusions in subsection (2) of this section, means:


(a)
Any place or service offering to the public accommodations, advantages, facilities or privileges whether in the nature of goods, services, lodgings, amusements, transportation or otherwise.


(b)
Any place that is open to the public and owned or maintained by a public body, as defined in ORS 174.109 ("Public body" defined), regardless of whether the place is commercial in nature.


(c)
Any service to the public that is provided by a public body, as defined in ORS 174.109 ("Public body" defined), regardless of whether the service is commercial in nature.


(2)
A place of public accommodation does not include:


(a)
A Department of Corrections institution as defined in ORS 421.005 (Definitions).


(b)
A state hospital as defined in ORS 162.135 (Definitions for ORS 162.135 to 162.205).


(c)
A youth correction facility as defined in ORS 420.005 (Definitions).


(d)
A local correction facility or lockup as defined in ORS 169.005 (Definitions for ORS 169.005 to 169.677 and 169.730 to 169.800).


(e)
An institution, bona fide club or place of accommodation that is in its nature distinctly private. [Formerly 30.675; 2013 c.429 §1; 2013 c.530 §4]

quote:

(1)
Except as provided in subsection (2) of this section, all persons within the jurisdiction of this state are entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities and privileges of any place of public accommodation, without any distinction, discrimination or restriction 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)
Subsection (1) of this section does not prohibit:


(a)
The enforcement of laws governing the consumption of alcoholic beverages by minors and the frequenting by minors of places of public accommodation where alcoholic beverages are served;


(b)
The enforcement of laws governing the use of marijuana items, as defined in ORS 475B.015 (Definitions for ORS 475B.010 to 475B.395), by persons under 21 years of age and the frequenting by persons under 21 years of age of places of public accommodation where marijuana items are sold; or


(c)
The offering of special rates or services to persons 50 years of age or older.


(3)
It is an unlawful practice for any person to deny full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities and privileges of any place of public accommodation in violation of this section. [Formerly 30.670; 2003 c.521 §1; 2005 c.131 §1; 2007 c.100 §5; 2015 c.614 §27]

quote:

Originally posted by BurtonRW:
In states which have no similar laws, however, why should the courts step in and create them? Are we really prepared to argue that judicial activism is a good thing as long as it works in a direction we perceive as a good one?

quote:

Originally posted by BurtonRW:
I cringed this morning when I heard the teaser for the story on the radio. Can someone explain to me how this is a good thing?

quote:

Originally posted by jcsabolt2:

It violates a CONSTITUTIONAL right and state law. It is the Courts job to sort this matter out and make a determination if their policy is indeed valid under U.S. and Oregon law.