Registered: Jan 2002
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Originally posted by RegBarc
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.
I am not arguing that it is not legal to discriminate in this manner, only that it is wrong and should be illegal.
As far as your comments on gun ownership
I have made no comments on gun ownership. Again you attribute to me things which I did not say.
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.
This is completely contradictory. First you say that you should always be able to carry your gun, then you say that there are laws that prevent you from doing so at all times. Which is it?
You have misconstrued me when saying I am for illegal discrimination
You are clearly misconstruing me. I never said you are for illegal discrimination, I said you were for discrimination, which happens to be legal. Not all that is legal is right. Slavery was once legal, that doesn't mean that it was ever right.
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.
In your first post on the subject, you mentioned nothing about laws. Read your own post, you mention how you think things should be, and you don't say a single thing about laws.
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.
There's a difference between not allowing 13 year olds in an establishment and not allowing 20 year olds. There is no liability involved in letting 18-20 year olds into an establishment alone.
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.
I never argued that it was illegal (it is in fact illegal in the City of New York, but that's beside the point), only that it is wrong.
POST #41 | Report this post to a moderator
| IP: Logged