Justifiable discrimination?

[Mogule]

While talking to a friend about the recent Supreme Court case, he brought up an interesting point that I never thought about that hard. Just like with movies, no one under 17 can see an R rated movie without a parent/guardian due to a VOLUNTARY committee. Same with games and M ratings. What is legal about discriminating against someone due to age?

Maybe I'm overlooking something obvious, but any input is appreciated.

I brought up the right of a store to deny service to someone. But to do so solely due to age seems a little wrong.

 

[Dogstile]

Not really, if a five year old wanted to buy porn, would you let it?

Their are some things that almost everyone has agreed to and in most countrys, the mob rules.

 

[Mogule]

Believe me, I understand that. But is there any legal backing to this. Why couldn't someone sue over this.

 

[ImperialSunlight]

If a privately owned business doesn't want to sell something to someone, for whatever reason, they should have that right.

 

[Mogule]

If a privately owned business doesn't want to sell something to someone, for whatever reason, they should have that right.

Gamestop is a publicly traded company who abides by this.

Also thanks to Google, I got this:

dis·crim·i·na·tion:

The unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things, esp. on the grounds of race, age, or sex

 

[Mogule]

Believe me, I understand that. But is there any legal backing to this. Why couldn't someone sue over this.

The reason that this couldn't be sued over is that minors are not considered fully responsible for their own actions and aren't given full rights under the law. The other reason they don't have full rights is the lack of full responsibility and a lack of practical experience.

Therefore an emancipated minor would be able to buy M games?

edit: Just checked wiki and found no minimum age for emancipation for a minor, so long as a court allows it.

 

[Erana]

Ageism is handled differently than things like race and sex because... Well, there's tons of legal precedence for it. You can't legally leave children unsupervised, children can't make their own healthcare decisions, etc.

Not to mention, a lot of descrimination is legally allowed. Just look at how boyscouts discriminate against the openly homosexual.

With things like descrimination, a lot of it involves having to fight for the right to allow or disallow it.

 

[senordesol]

While talking to a friend about the recent Supreme Court case, he brought up an interesting point that I never thought about that hard. Just like with movies, no one under 17 can see an R rated movie without a parent/guardian due to a VOLUNTARY committee. Same with games and M ratings. What is legal about discriminating against someone due to age?

Maybe I'm overlooking something obvious, but any input is appreciated.

I brought up the right of a store to deny service to someone. But to do so solely due to age seems a little wrong.

Consider this. Parents are legally responsible for the wellfare of their children, and are given a wide (but ever-shrinking, it seems) degree of latitude when it comes to making decisions about their upbringing. Selling certain media to children, while legal, can undermine this authority and expose minors to concepts for which they are not yet mentally prepared.

Your question on discrimination is based on the premise that 'it is wrong to discriminate because everyone is equal.' The fact of the matter is: children are NOT equal. They cannot vote, enter into contract, serve on a jury, and a slew of other things. They can even be arrested in some cases if they are out and about on a school day (and even refused service in some establishments for such).

While this does not mean that a police officer, jury, and eventually a corrections officer need be involved if someone sells certain media to a minor, to defer to their legal guardians (meaning the people whom the law expects to make decisions on behalf of the minors) is not amoral, and is -in fact- a very moral and socially responsible thing to do.

 

[Mogule]

So, due to the minor being legally defined as not mentally matured...enough, they chose an arbitrary age to allow them to decide if they want to see adult content (Understanding bureaucrats, I think I can accept that). However, if a minor has been legally emancipated, shouldn't they have the rights of a socially functional adult?

 

[random_bars]

Justifiable discrimination: relevant discrimination. Characteristics that will affect how well a person can do a job, etc.
Unjustifiable discrimination: irrelevant discrimination. Characteristics which would have no effect on how well a person can do a job, etc.

 

[Dogstile]

Not really, if a five year old wanted to buy porn, would you let it?

Their are some things that almost everyone has agreed to and in most countrys, the mob rules.

If a 5 year old even had money to buy pornography with, how could I POSSIBLY say no?

In all seriousness, I'd think it is weird but unless it is against the rules of the store, a sale is a sale.

And your own morals wouldn't come into that? I don't really have all the morals I should but their are things parents should decide. They're in charge of taking care of the kid till they turn 18 after all, I wouldn't take that away from them.

Also, when I was five I frequently had lots of money. Lots of it was stolen off my mother because I thought it was just a paper with a picture on it

 

[Henkie36]

Well, this is easy. A young child is mentally ready for something with an M/R rating. Gory movies like Saw would give a child some nightmares for the next couple of weeks, but then again, this really depends on the child. In my mind, the parents should decide, but they don't want to watch every movie twice, jsut to see if they approve it for the child. Some might, but I wouldn't.

 

[senordesol]

So, due to the minor being legally defined as not mentally matured...enough, they chose an arbitrary age to allow them to decide if they want to see adult content (Understanding bureaucrats, I think I can accept that). However, if a minor has been legally emancipated, shouldn't they have the rights of a socially functional adult?

I believe that they do (minus rights to vote, joined armed services, etc.) However I'm willing to bet only a few carry their bona fides proving their emancipation when out shopping, or that the average retailer would even recognize it if they did.

If they DID provide such documents and were STILL refused service based on age, they might have suit...a flimsy one, but a shot

 

[Mogule]

So, due to the minor being legally defined as not mentally matured...enough, they chose an arbitrary age to allow them to decide if they want to see adult content (Understanding bureaucrats, I think I can accept that). However, if a minor has been legally emancipated, shouldn't they have the rights of a socially functional adult?

I believe that they do (minus rights to vote, joined armed services, etc.)

Sorry, I was assuming a legal status of adult at 17...which, I 'think' you can join the military at 17. You know, with parental consent...which is you.

edit to avoid double post:

So, this court case did literally NOTHING for minors?

 

[Dogstile]

Not really, if a five year old wanted to buy porn, would you let it?

Their are some things that almost everyone has agreed to and in most countrys, the mob rules.

If a 5 year old even had money to buy pornography with, how could I POSSIBLY say no?

In all seriousness, I'd think it is weird but unless it is against the rules of the store, a sale is a sale.

And your own morals wouldn't come into that? I don't really have all the morals I should but their are things parents should decide. They're in charge of taking care of the kid till they turn 18 after all, I wouldn't take that away from them.

Also, when I was five I frequently had lots of money. Lots of it was stolen off my mother because I thought it was just a paper with a picture on it

I don't really treat children any differently than any other Human. So yeah, I don't have morality on this. But don't take that the wrong way or anything, I treat everyone with respect. Children included.

What I was saying in my joke was that your example was a little ridiculous. A five year old who has money, knows the value of money, knows the value of pornography AND knows how to make a sale? Shit yeah I'll make a sale regardless of what the product is. The kid deserves it.

I'll admit, the extremeness in itself was me having a bit of fun. But I don't know, maybe his mum told him that if he picks out a dvd and gives the man this paper, he'll give it to him and the kid could possibly pick up a power rangers porn parody which might not be evident on the case?

I'm gonna stop here, i'm laughing at how ridiculous this is.