Driving for sure.

 

This is what I am getting at everyone, allowing aged based discrimination, no matter how good of an idea we think it is in a given circumstance, opens pandora's box for endless discrimination and restrictions on your rights as an American citizen.

 

So let's just let everyone do whatever they want whenever they want. Should work out just fine.

Driving for sure.

 

This is what I am getting at everyone, allowing aged based discrimination, no matter how good of an idea we think it is in a given circumstance, opens pandora's box for endless discrimination and restrictions on your rights as an American citizen.

 

Exactly!!!

So let's just let everyone do whatever they want whenever they want. Should work out just fine.

 

Now you are picking up what I am putting down.

Age is a Federally protected class.

I was speaking specifically from my idea. To lump age in with other real forms of discrimination is ridiculous to me. If a business wants to prohibit or refuse service to someone based on age I have zero problem with it.

I was speaking specifically from my idea. To lump age in with other real forms of discrimination is ridiculous to me. If a business wants to prohibit or refuse service to someone based on age I have zero problem with it.

 

What about the opposite, what if a business decides to sell to someone underage? It's basically the same thing, but when you look at selling to someone underage it looks much worse...but it's basically the same.

Driving for sure.

 

This is what I am getting at everyone, allowing aged based discrimination, no matter how good of an idea we think it is in a given circumstance, opens pandora's box for endless discrimination and restrictions on your rights as an American citizen.

When your rights as an American citizen directly affect the safety of other citizens you forfeit those rights. Driving is definitely one of those rights that should be forfeited if you are a hazard, specifically elderly citizens. I'd be perfectly fine with a law that after you turn 70 you have to pass a driver safety course every couple of years in order to keep your license. That is perfectly reasonable to me.

What about the opposite, what if a business decides to sell to someone underage? It's basically the same thing, but when you look at selling to someone underage it looks much worse...but it's basically the same.

But aren't there reasons why we have age restrictions? We as a society at one point or another said we don't think people under the age of 18 should be able to buy cigarettes, guns, fireworks, etc. because they are either not mature enough physically or mentally to make such decisions. If a business disagrees and says 18 is fine, but we don't believe people are really able to make those kind of decisions for themselves until they are 21, I have no problem with that. To me that is the difference.

But aren't there reasons why we have age restrictions? We as a society at one point or another said we don't think people under the age of 18 should be able to buy cigarettes, guns, fireworks, etc. because they are either not mature enough physically or mentally to make such decisions. If a business disagrees and says 18 is fine, but we don't believe people are really able to make those kind of decisions for themselves until they are 21, I have no problem with that. To me that is the difference.

 

I disagree I guess...if the law says I can buy a beer, buy a gun, drive a car or vote at a given age, then no one should be able to impeed me without due cause, just because they disagree.

When your rights as an American citizen directly affect the safety of other citizens you forfeit those rights. Driving is definitely one of those rights that should be forfeited if you are a hazard, specifically elderly citizens. I'd be perfectly fine with a law that after you turn 70 you have to pass a driver safety course every couple of years in order to keep your license. That is perfectly reasonable to me.

 

Cell phones with capability of texting while driving?

 

Cars that go over 75?

I disagree I guess...if the law says I can buy a beer, buy a gun, drive a car or vote at a given age, then no one should be able to impeed me without due cause, just because they disagree.

That's just where we will have to agree to disagree. I think a business should retain that right on the basis of age.

Cell phones with capability of texting while driving?

 

Cars that go over 75?

Texting while driving and going over 75 are technically against the law.

Texting while driving and going over 75 are technically against the law.

 

So is shooting someone.

Texting while driving and going over 75 are technically against the law.

 

Not in west Texas. But even at 85 MPH it takes forever to get anywhere.

So is shooting someone.

Obviously. Where are you going with that?

I don’t believe age discrimination is a real thing. At least not how I define discrimination. Discrimination to me has to be without basis. So things like race, gender, sexual orientation would be without basis. Age has a very defined and accepted basis with which to discriminate. I have zero problem with refusing service based on age. I often disagree (such as the drinking age) and I’m not sure I agree with Dick’s decision, but there is a reason behind it that usually makes sense.

To keep this narrow, in regards to Dick's desicion to only sell guns to those 21 and older, what is the reason that makes sense?