Dick's is Getting Sued in Oregon.
- Thread starter Marshal Jim Duncan
- Start date
No, just that someone would sue for discrimination and being denied their 2nd amendment rights.
It’s under a state law, not under federal law or the Constitution.
I wonder whether everyone’s opinion on this will be consistent with their positions re. bakers not being forced to sell gay marriage cakes. The two are pretty similar....particularly from a legal perspective.
I wonder whether everyone’s opinion on this will be consistent with their positions re. bakers not being forced to sell gay marriage cakes. The two are pretty similar....particularly from a legal perspective.
He isn’t suing for being denied his 2nd Amendment rights.
So your prediction wasn’t accurate.
The baker doesn’t have cakes for sale on the counter that he is refusing to sell to homosexuals. He would actually have to bake a specific cake for the homosexuals. Does that matter? Maybe it doesn’t matter.
Either way, I think the baker probably should bake the cake and Dicks should sell the guns to anyone of age unless a law is passed similar to that for alcohol.
I disagree. I think the baker and Dicks should both be able to say no. The 2nd Amendment is saying that the government can’t deny you, Dick’s should be able to sell to whoever they want, just like the baker.
I don’t like the government stepping into private business and tell them who they have to have as customers. The free market will work itself out.
Both are discriminating in the providing of a good that they offer for sale to the general public.
Like I said, it’ll be interesting to see if people are consistent. You are.
IF the baker must sell an already displayed cake that is for sale to the general public, THEN Dick's and Wal-Mart should have to sale a firearm that is on display and for sale to the general public.
IF the baker isn't required to bake a cake, then Dick's or Wal-Mart shouldn't be required to order one.
The inverse also holds.
IF the baker isn't required to bake a cake, then Dick's or Wal-Mart shouldn't be required to order one.
The inverse also holds.
But if the baker is going to bake more cakes and Dick’s order more guns, I think they need to sell to the homosexuals and under 21s.
Also largely consistent. What if Dick’s or Wal-Mart orders only orders guns for sale to those over 21 (never for sale to the general public of all ages), but orders them in advance? What if the “service” (like the baking of a cake) Walmart etc. refuses to provide is going to the stock room to pull the weapon.
The distinction of “baking a cake” and selling an already displayed cake is without meaningful substance, IMO.
So they hold them in inventory in the back and they are readily available then there is no 'order for anyone over 21'. I think that is a loophole that is also a distinction with out a difference. Either they are for sale to the general public or not.
Fair enough. I primarily only made that distinction as an analogy to the the one being made to the cake maker one so I agree they are both distinctions without a difference.
The reason I said already baked and on display was that I thought the legal ruling was that if the cake was for sale then it was for sale - period. But that the baker couldn't be compelled to produce a new product for them.
If the firearm is for sale, then it is for sale to anyone legally able to purchase it.
If they don't have a firearm for sale, they can't be compelled to order one for purchase.
I think those are material distinctions.
The distinction of having it on display or having it in the back in inventory to me is the distinction with no difference. Maybe my original example was a bit ham-fisted.
I do not think they are material distinctions. If you are in the business of selling something to the public, whether you make it to order or go pull a gun off a shelf in the back or sell a gun custom ordered, you are in the business of selling to the public.
