20-year-old Dick's employees are quitting their jobs

a reply to: howtonhawky

then stop pretending that it is legal to discriminate

You're right, it's not. Which makes it all the more perplexing that your entire "solution" is to discriminate against people who haven't received formal firearms training.

you are smarter

I know.

i will not hold your hand

Thank god.

study and get smart it is still legal

Indeed. Perhaps one day you'll give it a try.

The ignorance is strong here. Dicks can set any policy that it wants. They have that right. I do find it strange that a bakery can be fined for not making a cake for a guy wedding. I also have rights. I used to spend quite a bit of money in Dicks. I won't any more.

a reply to: GeechQuestInfo

I truly hope you are, lest I believe our schools failed you

Sadly, it's not trolling.

Just the rantings and ravings of somebody who's watched a video on facebook and is now a legal expert.

If you don't want to work for a company, then that's your own business.

It's inevitable that the public will start to change the agenda when it comes to firearms in the US, as politicians either won't, or don't care. Companies are sensitive the the public because they are customers.

I have always wondered how many mass shootings in US schools it would take before the public started to get annoyed. Maybe this is the start and companies are responding to that change.

a reply to: Shamrock6

every thread you come too and begin to unravel

you always resort to msm style quoting one or two words to obfuscate your point that became dull and SOFT

make a valid logical point and i will take notice and perhaps maybe learn something other than weak tactics

btw did i see you in that san fran shootout video yesterday?

originally posted by: paraphi
If you don't want to work for a company, then that's your own business.

It's inevitable that the public will start to change the agenda when it comes to firearms in the US, as politicians either won't, or don't care. Companies are sensitive the the public because they are customers.

I have always wondered how many mass shootings in US schools it would take before the public started to get annoyed. Maybe this is the start and companies are responding to that change.

no this is not the start of more breaking of our rights

this is the start of regaining our collective sanity

if you work for a company and they ask you too break federal law then you absolutely have valid recourse if you choose to not break the law.

originally posted by: howtonhawky
a reply to: GeechQuestInfo

you are thick

i have made clear that my belief backed by the constitution is that only discrimination based on ABILITY is legal.

all else is going against logic just like the piss you took in your last post

If you truly believe this idiocy you’re stating, do something about it. Challenge it in court. You probably won’t make a docket, but quit complaining and take action.

Let us all get a nice laugh at your expense at least.

I full expect you to write in Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Herbert Camacho for President in 2020.

originally posted by: howtonhawky

originally posted by: paraphi
If you don't want to work for a company, then that's your own business.

It's inevitable that the public will start to change the agenda when it comes to firearms in the US, as politicians either won't, or don't care. Companies are sensitive the the public because they are customers.

I have always wondered how many mass shootings in US schools it would take before the public started to get annoyed. Maybe this is the start and companies are responding to that change.

no this is not the start of more breaking of our rights

this is the start of regaining our collective sanity

if you work for a company and they ask you too break federal law then you absolutely have valid recourse if you choose to not break the law.

What law was someone asked to break?

originally posted by: howtonhawky
no this is not the start of more breaking of our rights

It's your right to shop where you want. It's a companies right to sell what it likes, in the way it likes. I don't see why that is offensive to people.

a reply to: JIMC5499

It sounds like you used to love dicks, there is nothing wrong with that! Stand proud brother

originally posted by: paraphi

originally posted by: howtonhawky
no this is not the start of more breaking of our rights

It's your right to shop where you want. It's a companies right to sell what it likes, in the way it likes. I don't see why that is offensive to people.

the difference is corporate person-hood vs companies

monopolies on the federal level do not have the same rights that companies do

a mom and pop shop operating on a state level is not the same as a dicks or wal-mart

this has been largely ignored

originally posted by: howtonhawky

originally posted by: paraphi

originally posted by: howtonhawky
no this is not the start of more breaking of our rights

It's your right to shop where you want. It's a companies right to sell what it likes, in the way it likes. I don't see why that is offensive to people.

the difference is corporate person-hood vs companies

monopolies on the federal level do not have the same rights that companies do

a mom and pop shop operating on a state level is not the same as a dicks or wal-mart

this has been largely ignored

Lehman’s terms please, preferably in coherent English so we can understand what you are actually trying to say. I’d also appreciate appropriate sentence structure with proper punctuation.

Wild guess here: You’re 16-23 years of age and have listened to Alex Jones everyday for the past week? Am I close?

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: howtonhawky

originally posted by: paraphi
If you don't want to work for a company, then that's your own business.

It's inevitable that the public will start to change the agenda when it comes to firearms in the US, as politicians either won't, or don't care. Companies are sensitive the the public because they are customers.

I have always wondered how many mass shootings in US schools it would take before the public started to get annoyed. Maybe this is the start and companies are responding to that change.

no this is not the start of more breaking of our rights

this is the start of regaining our collective sanity

if you work for a company and they ask you too break federal law then you absolutely have valid recourse if you choose to not break the law.

What law was someone asked to break?

discrimination is against the law when it comes to age

where you been?

if your are expecting me to bog down in one unconstitutional ruling after another i will not

there are many unlawful rulings stacked on each other to get to the point we are at today

you have to get BACK TO BASICS to find the most equality

a reply to: Vector99

that's where you are wrong, corporations using their position of power over people to try to usurp the constitution is illegal and the only reason nothing has been done about these corporate abuses(the TSA as an example) is because no one has challenged them in the supreme court yet.

when people decide to seriously challenge these corporations they will finally be reminded of their place and be forced to quit meddling in our system.

i'm starting to think free market capitalism is a threat to the constitution and our independence just as most every president from washington to roosevelt said it was, believe it or not america was always a protectionist capitalist country focusing on it's own welfare and independence over wealth and power until 1945, free market capitalism was a trap to bind us to foreign powers through international corporations and the banks.

a reply to: howtonhawky

every thread you come too and begin to unravel

You seem to be confusing "pressing you on your inability to defend your point with anything other than ad homs" for "unraveling." It's okay.

you always resort to msm style quoting one or two words to obfuscate your point

Nope, sure don't. I'd challenge you to find that pattern of behavior in my post history. Typically I quote the entirety of a comment and respond to the entirety of a comment. In your case, I made an exception to turn your ad homs back around on you.

that became dull and SOFT

Sounds like you should talk to a doctor about that.

make a valid logical point and i will take notice and perhaps maybe learn something other than weak tactics

Just because you don't like the points being made doesn't make them illogical. You employing an argument from incredulity doesn't negate my points.

btw did i see you in that san fran shootout video yesterday?

I dunno, did you?

originally posted by: howtonhawky

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: howtonhawky

originally posted by: paraphi
If you don't want to work for a company, then that's your own business.

It's inevitable that the public will start to change the agenda when it comes to firearms in the US, as politicians either won't, or don't care. Companies are sensitive the the public because they are customers.

I have always wondered how many mass shootings in US schools it would take before the public started to get annoyed. Maybe this is the start and companies are responding to that change.

no this is not the start of more breaking of our rights

this is the start of regaining our collective sanity

if you work for a company and they ask you too break federal law then you absolutely have valid recourse if you choose to not break the law.

What law was someone asked to break?

discrimination is against the law when it comes to age

where you been?

if your are expecting me to bog down in one unconstitutional ruling after another i will not

there are many unlawful rulings stacked on each other to get to the point we are at today

you have to get BACK TO BASICS to find the most equality

I believe age discrimination is only illegal in certain circumstances. I don't believe there is any federal law that would apply here.

originally posted by: GeechQuestInfo

originally posted by: howtonhawky

originally posted by: paraphi

originally posted by: howtonhawky
no this is not the start of more breaking of our rights

It's your right to shop where you want. It's a companies right to sell what it likes, in the way it likes. I don't see why that is offensive to people.

the difference is corporate person-hood vs companies

monopolies on the federal level do not have the same rights that companies do

a mom and pop shop operating on a state level is not the same as a dicks or wal-mart

this has been largely ignored

Lehman’s terms please, preferably in coherent English so we can understand what you are actually trying to say. I’d also appreciate appropriate sentence structure with proper punctuation.

Wild guess here: You’re 16-23 years of age and have listened to Alex Jones everyday for the past week? Am I close?

and with that you begin to unravel like most

resorting to insinuating flaws in my personal life will not win you any battles

claiming incomprehension as a disqualifier will not win any battles

go back to the basics of the issue

is age discrimination against the law or not

you can not have it both ways

my position that only ABILITY is a legal form of discrimination as per the 2nd is indeed correct and that would render any on the opposite side to be incorrect. that is easy maths right there

a reply to: howtonhawky

you have to get BACK TO BASICS to find the most equality

Your electricity thread was classic so....

How do you feel about discrimination in the "electric dicks" department of the adult book store. And should they be discriminating against those under age. It's a crying shame you can buy an AK before you can buy an "electric dick", believe me, it's really really sad.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: howtonhawky

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: howtonhawky

originally posted by: paraphi
If you don't want to work for a company, then that's your own business.

It's inevitable that the public will start to change the agenda when it comes to firearms in the US, as politicians either won't, or don't care. Companies are sensitive the the public because they are customers.

I have always wondered how many mass shootings in US schools it would take before the public started to get annoyed. Maybe this is the start and companies are responding to that change.

no this is not the start of more breaking of our rights

this is the start of regaining our collective sanity

if you work for a company and they ask you too break federal law then you absolutely have valid recourse if you choose to not break the law.

What law was someone asked to break?

discrimination is against the law when it comes to age

where you been?

if your are expecting me to bog down in one unconstitutional ruling after another i will not

there are many unlawful rulings stacked on each other to get to the point we are at today

you have to get BACK TO BASICS to find the most equality

I believe age discrimination is only illegal in certain circumstances. I don't believe there is any federal law that would apply here.

i can do this all day
you are incorrect in your belief that discrimination is legal in any form other than ability

originally posted by: howtonhawky

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: howtonhawky

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: howtonhawky

originally posted by: paraphi
If you don't want to work for a company, then that's your own business.

It's inevitable that the public will start to change the agenda when it comes to firearms in the US, as politicians either won't, or don't care. Companies are sensitive the the public because they are customers.

I have always wondered how many mass shootings in US schools it would take before the public started to get annoyed. Maybe this is the start and companies are responding to that change.

no this is not the start of more breaking of our rights

this is the start of regaining our collective sanity

if you work for a company and they ask you too break federal law then you absolutely have valid recourse if you choose to not break the law.

What law was someone asked to break?

discrimination is against the law when it comes to age

where you been?

if your are expecting me to bog down in one unconstitutional ruling after another i will not

there are many unlawful rulings stacked on each other to get to the point we are at today

you have to get BACK TO BASICS to find the most equality

I believe age discrimination is only illegal in certain circumstances. I don't believe there is any federal law that would apply here.

i can do this all day
you are incorrect in your belief that discrimination is legal in any form other than ability

Reference the law broken then.