Don't get me wrong, I disagree with the stance they are taking. As an airline, they should fly people to places and not engage in politics.
Printable View
Don't get me wrong, I disagree with the stance they are taking. As an airline, they should fly people to places and not engage in politics.
My point was just that the "discount" had nothing to do with virtue signalling before (which makes their virtue signalling with cancelling the discount all the more egregious). From what I could tell, the discounts available by being a member of the NRA or American Legion or whatever were off their top-priced fares so actually cost more than buying tickets directly via delta.com or ua.com and getting the lowest available fare. In other words, pretty much useless. I'm surprised they even got 13 people to apply the so-called discounts.
You're probably correct, especially since they didn't advertise the discount.
Interesting question. Pre-Heller I don't think it would have stood a chance of going anywhere.Quote:
Originally Posted by CavSct1983
But with Heller as a precedent, it would be difficult to argue that 18 - 20 year olds can be effectively deprived of a fundamental Constitutional right without due process.
And even though the law would not prohibit 18 - 20 year olds from possessing firearms, I think it could easily be argued that a prohibition against purchasing from a federally licensed FFL is tantamount to a de facto ban on possession since there are many states (like CO) where that is the only way a person can legally purchase a firearm.
In fact, there are lots of challenges to gun laws that could be made post-Heller, for example people convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence crimes and are forever barred from owning firearms.
That would be akin to telling convicted sex offenders that they're never allowed to use the internet, ever. I don't think that would fly as it would be a clear 1st amendment violation.
I think the only reason these kind of suits HAVEN'T been brought is because of the "optics", i.e. nobody wants to front the cash to represent an unpopular plaintiff. Nobody wants to be 'that guy' who represents convicted wife beaters in front of the Supreme Court.
You don't have to be male, or even married, to have a domestic charge. There is a good candidate out there, it's just a matter of finding them.
So in the Democrat view, 18 year olds (and younger) should have the right to vote and the right to smoke pot (not tobacco!) and declare whatever gender they want without parental notification but not have the right to drink alcohol or acquire firearms to defend themselves. Nor should they even be exposed to firearms (unlike Drivers Ed, which some people want to make mandatory). Yeah, there's consistency for you.
Silly rabbit, logic and reason is lost on them.
Where can you buy pot at 18?
The only company that should be caving to anything is Cave of the Winds.