Registered: Feb 2003
Location: Philadelphia, PA
My whole argument isn't that based on race, ethnicity, color, religion, etc., but on age specifically. Youthful age, and in my case, gun ownership, are not covered by the Civil Rights act of 1964. Therefor, it is something that is discriminable.
As far as your comments on gun ownership, and carrier of a concealed weapon and constitutional scholar alike know that a weapon is a necessity to the user when carried for self defense, like my case. Just because I have the physical ability to NOT carry the weapon, doesn't mean I shouldn't. It is prudent, and dangerous to my liberties as a person and as a citizen to not carry my firearm because someone doesn't like it. If I go to a theater that says I cannot carry, and there are no 30.06 laws, I still carry because it is concealed anyway. If it is a 30.06 state, then I obey the law and I do not even go there. Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6.
You have misconstrued me when saying I am for illegal discrimination and I even said that the establishment has to abide by the law of the land. From Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964:
TITLE II -- INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AGAINST DISCRIMINATION IN PLACES OF PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION
"Sec. 201. (a) All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin"
And age is where? The only age based discrimination that I see is for the other end of the spectrum in employer hiring practices for those over a certain age, not under.
You have to understand, I am arguing on the side of the law and the law allows private businesses to say that people are too young to enter an establishment. I never said any other type of discrimination was right or just, and misconstruing my statements to make it look like I am arguing against the CRA of 1964 is kind of insulting. It is as if you are trying to make me sound less credible by creating lies about my argument itself.
Another big point that you may have overlooked is the fact kids that are 13, 14, whatever, are alone, without parental supervision or guardian. If anything, the private establishment is protecting itself from a whole lot of civil lawsuits by not allowing them in unaccompanied.
Any discrimination that is illegal is wrong and we the people should put a stop to it. But, to put it bluntly, telling kids they are too young to enter is perfectly allowable by law.
James M. Mack, Jr.
The Triangle - Ed-Op Editor
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it." - Thomas Paine
POST #40 | Report this post to a moderator
| IP: Logged