Previous Post
Next Post

Well that didn’t take long. Tyler Watson of southern Oregon heard the news that both Dick’s Sporting Goods and Walmart had decided to implement their own 21-and-up age requirement to purchase a long gun after the retailers came under pressure from anti-gun groups and their willing stenographers in the media following the Parkland shooting. So the 20-year-old strolled into both companies’ stores and tried to buy a rifle. He was turned down.

Now he’s suing both retailers.

According to his lawsuit against Dick’s Sporting Goods, Watson went into a Medford Field & Stream, which is owned by the company, Saturday, Feb. 24 and asked to buy a .22-caliber Ruger 10/22 rifle. The clerk denied the sale because Watson was under 21.

Watson’s lawsuit against Walmart says he went into its store in Grants Pass on Saturday, March 3 and asked to buy a rifle but was denied because he was under 21.

Of course, it’s perfectly legal for anyone who’s at least 18 years old buy a long gun. But the civilian disarmament industrial complex has very effectively cranked up a post-Parkland campaign designed to push a new “assault weapons” ban, universal background checks and, of course, hiking the age for any gun purchase to 21.

For now anyway, federal and Oregon laws still allow anyone who’s at least 18 to buy a rifle or shotgun. So is it kosher for a retailer to refuse to sell a legal item to someone who’s at least 18 but under 21?

Lewis and Clark Law Professor Tung Yin said last week it’s perfectly legal for a business to set an age limit higher than the law.

“We recognize there are certain categories where it’s wrong to single people out. Race, gender, religion, national origin, and depending on the state, sexual orientation,” said Yin. “But age has never really been one of those.”

Oregon’s public accommodation law covers age restrictions as they pertain to marijuana sales and senior discounts, but say nothing about self-imposed seller age restrictions for other items. Then again, I’m not an attorney. So let’s consult UCLA school of law professor Eugene Volokh:

There are plausible arguments to be made about whether laws banning discrimination in public accommodations are generally a good idea, whether laws banning discrimination in retail sales are generally a good idea (federal law, for instance, doesn’t apply to most retail stores), whether laws banning discrimination in retail sales based on age are generally a good idea (most states don’t ban such discrimination), whether there ought to be exemptions to such laws for 18-to-20-year-olds, whether there ought to be exemptions to such laws for 18-to-20-year-olds who want to buy guns, and more. Those would be plausible arguments to make to state legislatures.

But this case isn’t a common-law tort case, or a constitutional case, in which courts make decisions about what should or shouldn’t be covered — it’s a case applying this particular statute in this particular state. And under this statute, the case seems open and shut for the plaintiff and against Dick’s.

Pop some popcorn and keep an eye on this.

Previous Post
Next Post

169 COMMENTS

  1. I told the misses the other night when they announced this that I was waiting for the lawsuit. Grabbing my popcorn, should be fun to watch them walk back the policy while crying, “we tried to do something”

    • A bunch of young adults need to follow this guy and maybe get a class action or something going. I wish him luck.

    • I love everything about this lawsuit. Liberals tell conservatives not to discriminate, despite that everyone discriminates everything at any given moment. Regardless, Conservatives capitulate. Then liberals discriminate on the basis of age, which they wrote into law themselves. Conservatives call them out on it. Hilarious. They can’t even have the foresight to follow their own ridiculous rules.

      • The left doesn’t follow their own rules because their agenda is not about rules that apply to all people equally. It is about subjugating We The People to an all powerful central government ruled exclusively by them.

    • Hey, if the state of Oregon is going to force a Christian owned bakery make a wedding cake for a gay/lesbian couple then Dicks and Wally World have to sell guns to otherwise eligible person.

      • Yup, you can force, or fine in this case, a baker who makes cakes, who refuses to bake cake because they’re gay. Because gay is a protected class in Oregon since 2007 and federally for the last 3 years.

    • It would be unlikely if it is going to be heard by an Oregon State court. Oregon is so entrenched in leftist ideology, it would be a waste of time, for expecting a fair decision is impossible there. But, if someone sued from a red state….

      • A court in southern Oregon is going to be very different than a court in northern Oregon. I live in Grants Pass and it is not a liberal town and Josephine county is not a liberal county.

  2. If you can be forced to bake a cake for gay people who don’t have to get married, you should be forced to sell guns to someone who can’t instantly make themselves 3 years older.

    • @ anonymoose

      You just gave me a idea,with gay wedding cakes,gender neutrality,self identification ,what if a 18 year old self identifies as a twenty five year old or 65 year old.

      Out the window goes the 21 for alcohol,handguns,age limits for senior housing,ect.

      Whats good for the goose certainly is good for the gander

      • Nope, not how laws work in America. You have to be in a protected class, gays are, 20 year olds aren’t.

        • Still nope, under federal law, age discrimination is only employment based, and only for those of us over 40.

          Some states have laws that expand it, Michigan the most extensive, mainly because its 40 years old, Oregon’s is only a couple of years old, has some exclusions that specify public, i.e. owned by the public, not commercial, place exclusions based on accommodation, which blah blah, you can read below, blah blah.

  3. We all knew it was coming.

    “We recognize there are certain categories where it’s wrong to single people out. Race, gender, religion, national origin, and depending on the state, sexual orientation,” said Yin. “But age has never really been one of those.”

    Age discrimination is still discrimination,finding plaintiff,next case.

  4. Ok then change it to 21..while your at it change voting age to 21..selective service to 21..car insurance/health insurance to 21..sign up for credit card/bank loan to 21..yeah thats a good start

    • I might suggest 30 for voting… make people live in the real world for a while before they get a say in how the rest of us have to live.
      🤠

      • Dude, you can only get 53% of registered voters to show up in presidential elections, about half that for off years, and if its an off year without a house seat, good luck with 20%. Only about 70% of all eligible are registers.

    • To be consistent, also raise the age for sexual consent to 21.

      That also “magically solves” most of the college date rape issues.

      Sex, the power of procreation, is far more powerful than a firearm. People who can’t be trusted with a firearm, can’t be trusted with sexual activity either.
      😄

      Also, to be consistent, we need to charge 18-20 year olds in the juvenile justice system.

      We probably shouldn’t allow them to work or drive cars either.

      Either 18 is an adult, or it isn’t.

  5. What’s a statist to do, when byzantine laws and regulations are so thick on the ground that they get in the way of effective virtue-signalling?

  6. Where is that Johannes guy that did the legal topics, I miss his excellent posts. (Not disparaging Dan’s posts)

  7. “But age has never really been one of those.”
    You mean other than the Age Discrimination and Employment Act of 1967?
    Age has been a protected class in this country for 50 years.
    This idiot got a law degree?

    • jwtaylor,

      That is the entire point of our laws and law degrees: they enable attorneys to “characterize” a case whatever way is necessary to hit pay dirt.

      At this point in time, our laws and precedent have been so abused and distorted that any attorney can make a solid case for anything that benefits the party with deep pockets.

      Saying it another way, there is always some “exception” to the plain text of sensible laws that give “lawful support” to blatantly wrong/illegal conduct.

    • He teaches this stuff. It doesn’t necessarily mean he knows how to do it.

      He’s been a professor since 2002. He only practiced law for four years before that. His bio didn’t mention whether he had any actual trial experience. I doubt he’s ever even seen the inside of a courtroom.

      • He needs to go back for more practice. He certainly isn’t fit to PERFORM law; much less teach it if he can’t get the facts straight without inserting his personal biaes (if there were any. If not, the he is spewing out of pure ignorance of the topic.)

    • Read the Volokh link. Federal age discrimination is explicitly limited to those over 40.

      This lawsuit is about an Oregon law which explicitly does not allow age discrimination except a very few enumerated cases.

    • That is purely about employment law, hence the name. This lawsuit will be dismissed, as there is no standing to sue.

      • No, you don’t understand. The lawsuit is in Oregon state court and based on oregon law. Oregon law does not allow businesses open to the public to discriminate based on age, gender, etc. The kid is going to win and it’s certain. The OR state law is very clear and what walmart and dicks are doing to discriminating against him because of his age. They cannot do that, the law doesn’t allow it.

        • Oregon law, helps to read it, actually has explicit limits, which this wouldn’t be applicable to.

          So still, nope, will be thrown out in the initial hearing. You can file suit for nearly anything, getting past summary judgement is another thing.

        • The law is explicit, not implicit, everything is excluded EXCEPT for what’s specifically called out for in the accommodation.

    • @jwt, discrimination is legal unless it’s not. Meaning, in the absence of specific laws making discrimination illegal, people are free to do business or not do business, or associate or not associate, with whoever they choose.

      Even racial discrimination, which has risen to the highest form of prohibited discrimination, is legal in certain settings (private clubs are one example).

      Age discrimination laws, with some exceptions, generally protect older workers. In some cases, they protect workers of any age. But the plaintiff in this case isn’t claiming employment discrimination.

      It’s also noteworthy — but not determinative — that in NRA V. BATFE, the Fifth Circuit (in Texas!) upheld the federal prohibition against FFLs selling handguns to people under age 21.The case was brought on Second Amendment and Due Process grounds.

      • federal law states handgun purchases must be 21. This kid is suing because the law in OR protects based on age, gender, etc. discrimination. If OR raises the age to purchase to 21, or exempts firearms, Dicks & Walmart would be fine legally. OR has not, there for it’s age discrimination to not sell the rifle to the kid when OR law and Fed law allows it. They are not singling people out and saying a certain person is a risk and they refuse to sell, it’s a blanket policy which is illegal under OR law

      • Meaning, in the absence of specific laws making discrimination illegal

        This is literally about a specific Oregon law making this sort of discrimination illegal.

        • No, making (inter alia) any discrimination by age against those “of age” illegal in any place of Public Accommodation, to include the denial of any advantage, facility, or privilege, with only a couple of enumerated exceptions. The definition of “place of Public Accommodations” makes clear that goods are an example of “advantages, facilities, or privileges” :

          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.

  8. Frankly I hope he Tacks on some emotional damages to the suit. Get a couple million out of it.

  9. No Freedom of Speech till age 21
    No Miranda Rights till age 21
    No Voting rights till age 21
    No rights against self incrimination till age 21

    See how stupid those all sound?

    This is no different.

  10. Anti discrimination laws don’t exist for an FFL under BATFE. Any FFL for any reason can refuse to sell a firearm without risk. This legal action is going no place.

    • ” Any FFL for any reason can refuse to sell a firearm without risk.”

      That’s pretty much the way I understand it.

      And is it that way because of the “particular dangerous-ness” of guns, I wonder?

      • I have a few FFL friends, and they have all been told by ATF, verbatim, that they don’t have to sell to anyone they don’t want to.

    • This is OR we’re talking about, not BATFE rules. They are not selective in their denial, it’s a blanket policy based on age and yes, Dicks and walmart are going to lose. What BATFE allows has nothing to do with this suit.

    • No, they can’t, unless you refuse service to a protected class. That’s why they call them protected classes.

      Jesus, this isn’t secret stuff here, the is purely legal basics 101, OK LAW265 I think the class was.

  11. Young people’s brains really aren’t fully developed until around 25 so in light of that I would consider raising the age for everything to anywhere from 21-25.

    That being said if you are old enough to join the military, sign legal docs etc then you are old enough to enjoy ALL of your rights. If you are old enough to vote in elections that shape the future of this country you are old enough to handle a rifle (or pistol).

    • I think the “fully developed” talking point is a red herring. The question is not whether development is “complete”, but whether a person possesses sufficient faculties such that their interest in their own liberty outweighs any need to protect them from themselves.

    • Meh, I know a lot of older people whose brains aren’t fully developed, and one of them is the Chairman of Dick’s.

  12. When the Government licenses you to do business in a heavily regulated business such as selling firearms, you can’t pick and choose your customers based on something as arbitrary as whether they turned 21 last month or will turn 21 next month as long as they are legally permitted to make the transaction. You are, after all, denying the State and Federal Government the tax revenue from that transaction. They are going to want their money.

    • That’s 100% wrong, you absolutely can, in fact the actual wording of your FFL application and the legal framework for it allows for blanket refusal for any reason without justification, and that has been legally tested and validated many times.

      Plus, you can discriminate against a non protected class all you want any way.

      • Yes under federal law. this suit is in OR state court and the claim is a violation of OR state law. So no, a business in OR cannot refuse to sell to someone based on age, it’s very clear from the text of the law. There is no question as to why they are not selling to him, they clearly have a policy of not selling to anyone under 21 which violates OR state law.

        • You keep repeating this, it still doesn’t make it true, that’s not what the Oregon law says.

        • They’re a protected class you twit.

          While federal age discrimination laws and those in most states apply only to people over 40, Oregon’s law generally prohibits age discrimination against the selling of goods to anyone above the age of 18, said John Donohue, a professor at Stanford Law School.

          “It is only because of this unusual state law that there is even an opportunity to bring this claim,” he said.

        • Nope, still not true under Oregon law.

          By the way, 21year old restriction will be Oregon law within the month, so this is all moot. They already passed restrictions today, and this is on the way, with overwhelming democrat support, and they’re in control of both branches.

  13. In Massachusetts, nobody can buy a gun (or ammo) of any kind without a firearms license, either a License to Carry (LTC) for handguns or a firearms Identification card (FID) for long guns only.

    With parental consent, a teen can be granted an FID at the age of 15; without parental consent, the age is 18 for an FID, at which time a teen can buy a long gun under state and Federal law.

    Teen FID applicants are subject to the same vetting and training requirements as adult LTC applicants, and MA is “may issue” for both and the police have discretion on issuing.

    So it strikes me as absurd that the anti-gun Commonwealth of Massachusetts and the local Chief LEO trusts 18-20 year olds with guns, but Dickhead’s and Walmart do not.

    • Please don’t remind of The People’s Republic of Massachusetts…The Very Definition of an “Authoritarian, Communist Police-State ! ” Yup, and not to long ago, before the 2014 Gun 🔫 control act by Obama acolyte ex governor Deval Patrick…MA. Residents had to do the same thing to get a “Restricted FID” just to purchase Mace and Pepper Spray–(if they could find any that was effective…)All Residents had to fill out an Application for an “FID Restricted”, get an appointment with the local licensing Authority at the local police station, then grarval to the licensing officer at the local police station on why the citizen needs to “purchase/own/ posess said item…” Then the poor MA resident had to wait 3-6 weeks, pay $25.00, see if the “Pepper spray permit” was approved and sent in the s-mail…What a Joke ! Because in Massachusetts, just like it’s always been…” Absolute power corrupts absolutely…”

      • Thanks for reinforcing my point.

        BTW, many (maybe even most) towns in MA are de facto “shall issue” for LTCs. The cities? No.

        The power of the Irish Mafia in the Commonwealth is pervasive.

        • The power of the (insert type or version here: Militant Liberal Pro-Aggressive, Socialist, Communist , Marxist, etc.) MA. DemoCRAPic Representatives, and RINOs….Knows no boundaries! As the same with the Local/State Law Enforcement Community in this State…(re: STASI, local LEO police gangs, Aggressive Union Police, etc…Some with personal or Left-Wing Political axes to grind. So much so that most MA gun owners, or licence applicants were afraid to fill out GOAL.Org complaints about mistreatment a local police stations. regarding 2nd Amendment issues…In fear their permits/licenses might be interfered with for said complaints…..) Also, very recently at a Massachusetts state committee on gun control. A female DemoCRAP exclaimed that there is NO 2nd Amendment rights in the state of Massachusetts. only a barely tolerated privilege by the politicians of Massachusetts and it’s local and state law enforcement community. I believe this demonstrates the very definition of authoritarian police-state…

  14. “We recognize there are certain categories where it’s wrong to single people out. Race, gender, religion, national origin, and depending on the state, sexual orientation,” said Yin. “But age has never really been one of those.”

    That’s funny. I recognize the Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution, which states in part: …nor shall any state… deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

    And under this statute, the case seems open and shut for the plaintiff and against Dick’s.

    That can’t possibly be true. Right here in the TTAG comments, when I asked an earlier question about the legality of such a policy, I was told that such policies are legal, because they are legal (and subsequently castigated for pointing out the tautological nature of such argument).

    It seems Eugene Volokh, at least, sees some validity to the argument.

    • Yeah, because a man with a blog in California, blogs about something that he’s never going to have to actually back up.

      He’s wrong, pure and simple, if it really believes that, that might be a reason he’s never practiced law.

    • Chip, the NRA based it’s case in NRA v. BATFE (contesting the prohibition on 18-20 year olds from buying guns from FFLs) on 2A and Due Process.

      The NRA lost.

      Besides, Dickhead’s and Walmart are private actors; they are not the government.

      • They are businesses open to the public. Who cares about the NRA v. BAFTE suit, that’s a suit challenging a federal law and has nothing to do with a state discrimination suit in OR. The only thing that matters is OR state law which very clearly says you cannot discriminate based on age.

      • The NRA is also the reason that law got passed in the first place, so they may have intentionally flunked that case.

      • Hey Puke if you hadnt dumbly dismissed your teachers as “the stupidest” you might not be so ignorant of basic civics and law and history, you might have some rudimentary understand of how math works and so be able to deal meaningfully with the crime stats you are so fond of…

        You might have cultivated your intellectual and emotional maturity and have something interesting to talk about instead of this ceaseless vacuous gun-blather… I cant think of anything more boring and childish, only “the stupidest” of the stupid would make this the center of their parochial lives…

    • You picked the topic Dipstick Bennett namely yalls racist trope (endlessly repeated without evidence) that a disproportionate number of criminals being black accounts for/explains the police disproportionately shooting unarmed black folks

      And I cited indisputable evidence in the form of a peer reviewed study (what you stupidly dismiss as the ““substance” (such as it is) of this comment”) correcting your racist excuse/delusion:

      “There is no relationship between county-level racial bias in police shootings and crime rates (even race-specific crime rates), meaning that the racial bias observed in police shootings in this data set is not explainable as a response to local-level crime rates.”
      http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0141854

      The reality of racism/implicit bias in policing remains:

      “The results provide evidence of a significant bias in the killing of unarmed black Americans relative to unarmed white Americans…”
      http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0141854

      And so there is of course nothing admirable or “remarkable” as you say that the police are not even more disproportionately killing unarmed black folks

      Chip Bennett says:
      December 13, 2017 at 13:24
      Ballpark, according to FBI UCR data, the rate of black-perpetrated violent crime is eight times the rate of white-perpetrated violent crime. In that context, it is remarkable that the rate of police-involved shootings of black suspects is a mere 2-2.5 the rate of police-involved shootings of white suspects.

      Chip Bennett says:
      March 2, 2018 at 08:49
      Clean up on aisle seven…?

      And no, I’m not even going to address the “substance” (such as it is) of this comment, because it is entirely off-topic.

      • Whomever you are, you seem to have a crush on me. Kindly troll someone else, please.

        • We already covered this Dipstick:

          “… dismissing educated reality-based folks like me as “trolls/commies/terrorists/monkeys/” and ignoring the evidence we favor you with : D”

          You picked the topic Dipstick Bennett namely yalls racist trope (endlessly repeated without evidence) that a disproportionate number of criminals being black accounts for/explains the police disproportionately shooting unarmed black folks

          And I cited indisputable evidence in the form of a peer reviewed study (what you stupidly dismiss as the ““substance” (such as it is) of this comment”) correcting your racist excuse/delusion:

          “There is no relationship between county-level racial bias in police shootings and crime rates (even race-specific crime rates), meaning that the racial bias observed in police shootings in this data set is not explainable as a response to local-level crime rates.”
          http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0141854

          The reality of racism/implicit bias in policing remains:

          “The results provide evidence of a significant bias in the killing of unarmed black Americans relative to unarmed white Americans…”
          http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0141854

          And so there is of course nothing admirable or “remarkable” as you say that the police are not even more disproportionately killing unarmed black folks

          Chip Bennett says:
          December 13, 2017 at 13:24
          Ballpark, according to FBI UCR data, the rate of black-perpetrated violent crime is eight times the rate of white-perpetrated violent crime. In that context, it is remarkable that the rate of police-involved shootings of black suspects is a mere 2-2.5 the rate of police-involved shootings of white suspects.

          Chip Bennett says:
          March 2, 2018 at 08:49
          Clean up on aisle seven…?

          And no, I’m not even going to address the “substance” (such as it is) of this comment, because it is entirely off-topic.

        • This is how the racist liar Chip Bennett et al operate, they post racist bullsheet and when they receive a documented correction they ignore it in favor of smearing me as a “troll” etc.

          Naturally the documented fact remains:

          “There is no relationship between county-level racial bias in police shootings and crime rates (even race-specific crime rates), meaning that the racial bias observed in police shootings in this data set is not explainable as a response to local-level crime rates.”
          http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0141854

          Dipstick Bennett and the rest of the racist liars on The Lies About Guns will endlessly repeat the contrary but that will NOT magically change this documented reality

  15. A quick reading of Michigan’s Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act suggests that such a lawsuit would also have traction here. The Gun Control Nutters are going to just love the non-retaliation / non-interference provisions.

  16. Bottom line is the pro-property rights / seller discretion argument is defunct. We had those rights pre-1960s but no longer. There are dozens of laws from the Federal level down to local statutes that tell business to whom they must buy and sell. If you live in a locality where corporations are attempting to discriminate against firearm customers tell your legislators to pass laws to make them stop.

  17. This young man might have a pretty solid case against Dicks. Based on all the stories I have seen he tried to make the purchase on 2/24. Dicks announced there policy 4 days later. The optics will look horrible for Dicks if these dates are correct.

  18. said Yin. “But age has never really been one of those.”

    Yet we have an entire amendment (stupid) giving the vote to 18yr olds

  19. Like my senior citizen Dad said…It won’t take long before some “Authoritarian A******” decides old folks and old people shouldn’t be able to buy Firearms or other self-defense items…Next thing you know, No one over the age of 60 yrs can purchase/own /posess/carry, anything…..Then America is swimming up schitt’s creek without a paddle…

  20. That lawsuit will go over like a turd in a salad bowl, my business, my rules, you don’t like it don’t shop here

    • Oh yeah? Open a business and try to have that policy and deny service based on gender, race, religion, etc. If it’s a private golf club, etc. you can set the rules and who can join. If it’s a business open to the public, you cannot.

      You are ignorant of the law.

        • they are protected under OR law you twit. There is an age protection for anyone over 18 in OR and 19 other states. There is something wrong with your brain.

        • Nope, go fish

          2015 ORS 659A.009 states:

          It is declared to be the public policy of Oregon that the available workforce should be utilized to the fullest extent possible. To this end, the abilities of an individual, and not any arbitrary standards that discriminate against an individual solely because of age, should be the measure of the individual’s fitness and qualification for employment.

          EMPLOYMENT LAW All of these “experts” quoting the law should read the text, that is the text.

          Wait, I know the law on accommodation.

          2015 ORS 659A.403
          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]

          So does that mean sales, well what is a Reasonable Accommodation?
          A reasonable accommodation is an adjustment made in a system to accommodate or make fair the same system for an individual based on a proven need. That need can vary. Accommodations can be religious, physical, mental or emotional. Academic, or employment related and are often mandated by law. Each country has its own system of reasonable accommodations. The United Nations use this term in the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, saying refusal to make accommodation results in discrimination. It defines a ‘reasonable accommodation’ as:

          “Reasonable accommodation” means necessary and appropriate modification and adjustments not imposing a disproportionate or undue burden, where needed in a particular case, to ensure to persons with disabilities the enjoyment or exercise on an equal basis with others of all human rights and fundamental freedoms.

          Could the legal language in Oregon have been better worded, sure, I guess, if you aren’t writing it in legal language which defines the meaning. But as written, Dick’s is fine and dandy on legal footing for being dicks.

        • Dick’s isn’t denying access to, or accommodation to their facilities, or Walmart too I guess, just denying sales, which they are free to do.

          • Dick’s isn’t denying access to, or accommodation to their facilities, or Walmart too I guess, just denying sales, which they are free to do.

            Just like a certain baker was free to do, too?

        • AHHH!!! GAY IS A PROTECTED CLASS, under both federal and state law.

          It’s like you don’t want to know things because FEELZ.

        • Rick, you’re trying to take the definition of “reasonable accommodation” from employment law and morph it into “public accommodations”. It’s kind of vicariously embarrassing to watch, actually.

        • 2015 ORS 659A.400¹
          Place of public accommodation defined

          (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]

          2015 ORS 174.109¹
          “Public body” defined

          Subject to ORS 174.108 (Effect of definitions), as used in the statutes of this state “public body” means state government bodies, local government bodies and special government bodies. [2001 c.74 §2]

        • Rick is a twit.

          Also, there is no federal protection for gays in law. There is a ruling from an appeals court in 2017, long after the baker cases in CO, WA and OR. But keep making stuff up, you’re doing great.

        • So you missed Obergefell v. Hodges in 2015, its kinda famous.

          In which the Supreme Court ruled that the fundamental right to marry is guaranteed to same-sex couples by both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The ruling meant that all fifty states must lawfully perform and recognize the marriages of same-sex couples on the same terms and conditions as the marriages of opposite-sex couples, with all the accompanying rights and responsibilities.

          Knowledge is not your enemy, or maybe it is YOUR enemy, but generally not everyone’s enemy.

  21. How about Retailers stop selling alcohol 🍸 beverages to anyone who is age 44-50 yrs of age because of a potential of middle life crisis! How about Retailers screen potential customers of alcohol 🍸 to see 👀 if they are having family, marital, divorce, Etc…And Prohibit them from purchase if they fear 😱 that customer is going to cause a drunk driving incident 🚗….or worse….Right?!

    • Why don’t we require a license to buy alcoholic beverages and suspend it if you become involved in too many alcohol related incidents within, say two years. Imagine the reductions in alcohol related health care costs, traffic fatalities, lost work hours , birth defects, etc. Hell, that would save a hundred times more lives than whatever fictitious number the gun control lobby is claiming that stronger gun laws would save.

      • Dude, we have that all the time, at least legally, there’ no NICS for beer, but get busted for DUI, much less several of them, and you can get banned for life from alcohol. You can’t really enforce it beyond drug tests, which if you don’t do daily you can’t really do anything about. There have been talks about ankle monitors that do that too, but I don’t know if any jurisdiction has actually used them.

        I’m an old, so its not like I’m ID’d anymore.

        I have a loser cousin that had something like 12 DUI’s by 30, half were plead down to something else, but he had his DL canceled for life at 28 or so, still has cars, still gets DUI’s, spends a week or two in jail, then they boot him for overcrowding, he inherited a bunch of money, so he doesn’t care.

  22. Applicable Oregon state statute:

    659A.403 Discrimination in place of public accommodation prohibited. (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.

    There really isn’t any wiggle room there.

    • Chip, you are completely correct. These people who say the suit has no merit keep talking about BATFE allowing dealers to refuse sale or thinking about private groups who restrict who can join their club. Neither of those apply here, this is purely an OR law issue and what BATFE allows has nothing to do with what OR law says businesses must do. And these businesses are open to the public, it’s not a private college or golf course. If you are open to the general public, you MUST follow OR discrimination laws which as you said are very clear. You cannot discriminate against anyone over 18 in oregon based on age. Dicks and Walmart denied the sale based solely on his age. This is a very open and shut case.

      There are 19 states who have similar anti discrimination laws for anyone over 18. In those states, Dick’s and Walmart are going to forced to sell to those under 21.

      • Please read some settled law, it will help your incredible naivte.

        Lemme give you the abridged version – the court can do whatever it wants, and justify it with precedent.

        The highest law in the land says “shall not be infringed”. Let me know how your slam dunk case against the GCA goes…

    • Yeah, read the whole thing, public ACCOMMODATION, doesn’t mean what you think it means in this context. An 18 year old has access, and can be accommodated, but doesn’t mean you have to actually sell them X product.

      • While federal age discrimination laws and those in most states apply only to people over 40, Oregon’s law generally prohibits age discrimination against the selling of goods to anyone above the age of 18, said John Donohue, a professor at Stanford Law School.

        “It is only because of this unusual state law that there is even an opportunity to bring this claim,” he said.

        Rick, you’re dense.