Ummm — no; no it isn’t “just like refusing to bake a cake for a gay wedding.”
There is a very clearly enumerated Constitutional Right in this case, access to which is being illegally denied to some persons by Walmart on the basis of criteria contrary to State and or Federal law, under authority not delegated to them by either Congress nor by the Legislature of any State.
There is no similar Constitutional language protecting the right of a business to refuse service to any specific potential customer.
Walmart is on VERY thin ice, and the heat is on.
>>Ummm — no; no it isn’t “just like refusing to bake a cake for a gay wedding.”
>>There is a very clearly enumerated Constitutional Right in this case, access to which is being illegally denied to some persons by Walmart on the basis of criteria contrary to State and or Federal law, under authority not delegated to them by either Congress nor by the Legislature of any State.
However, Walmart isn’t denying anyone their right to keep and bear arms. They are just being the Leftist Virtue Signaling version of the “Christian cake baker”. Now the question is, will someone file the lawsuit?
Thin ice indeed. WM can just choose not to market firearms...which would be their right as it would be my right not to shop there. 18 v 21 has nothing to do with it nor does a store policy to carry or not to carry certain lines of merchandise regardless of whom they choose to sell or not to sell that merchandise to.
*Cough* Amendment 13.
For a right to be violated, there must be Governmental action. A private business is free to sale or not sale anything or set any requirement for selling that they wish. You do not have to patronize the business. Walmart should face the wrath of the shopper for this stupid and insane decision, but it doesn’t implicate the Constitution in so far as the government isn’t forcing Walmart to do this.
to take it a step further...
“the right of the people to keep and bear arms...”
does not have a age restriction at all.