Question for the legal scholars

My recollection is TRUMP is the first President to take a downgrade to fly on Air Force 1. Originally Posted by Why_Yes_I_Do

He's also iirc the ONLY sitting president who's ever given his paycheck to charity!

What I don't get is how a retailer can get away with preempting states laws. For example, Texas has a law for 'State preemption of local restrictions laws'. Basically, a municipality, county or city cannot pass and enforce guns restrictions that are more restrictive than the state laws (LGC §229.001). In their case, they have some socialist cities like Austin, that wanted to infringe upon gun owners by making more restrictive ordinances - think Sh*tcago as an example also. I recall other states have similar laws.

It is a sneaky way for the loony-lefty-leaning (tipping over more like) mayors of socialist enclaves to enact their utopian infringements on both the state and US Constitutions within a red state. I suspect they probably didn't consider adding in retailers as well. Might just be high time they did... Originally Posted by Why_Yes_I_Do

a retailer is a private entity whereas a govt. organization is s public entity Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

Then why is it when all those bakers used their private entity 'right' to say "Sorry but out religion does not let us cater to a gay wedding" they all got sued and many went bankrupt?

WHY is it ok for these companies to 'pre-empting state law, cause they are private entities", but not bakeries/florists??

Then why is it when all those bakers used their private entity 'right' to say "Sorry but out religion does not let us cater to a gay wedding" they all got sued and many went bankrupt?
Originally Posted by garhkal

People can sue and be sued for just about anything. Even if they prevail in the lawsuit the expenses of the litigation can be overwhelming.

As a conservative I believe that a business has a right to refuse service to some people but only if that service would force the OWNER of the business to have to give up their own beliefs to accommodate someone else. Mikes, Walmart, etc do not have an actual owner anymore. They may have a CEO with a board of directors and they are probably publicly traded which does limit to whom they can refuse business. In this case, it looks to be a case of ageism. Buying a weapon at 18 is still legal, buying a beer at 21 is still legal and I don't think a publicly owned business can make a good case that they can supersede federal law by requiring a higher age for service. Plus there is the military angle. Do you really want to be known as the anti-servicemen company that refuses to sell to servicemen returning from overseas? This may only be decided by the threat of a class action lawsuit and those take time...unless the company wants to avoid embarrassment.