 |
Re: US Supreme Court throws the Banhammer on California Law |
 |
06-27-2011, 02:28 PM
|
#1
|
No Pants
KillerGremlin is offline
Location: Friggin In The Riggin
Now Playing: my ding-a-ling
Posts: 4,566
|
Re: US Supreme Court throws the Banhammer on California Law
What does that mean for private sales though...a store can turn down black customers if it is privately owned, so can't they not sell violent video games?
*SUMMONING BOND: the milf hunter and lawyer.*
Also, this topic is hilarious...but needless to say, after reading numerous legit studies on violent behavior and gaming, I'm not remotely convinced that gaming is the culprit.
|
|
|
 |
Re: US Supreme Court throws the Banhammer on California Law |
 |
06-27-2011, 02:59 PM
|
#2
|
HOW DAAAAARE YOUUUU
magus113 is offline
Location: Miami
Now Playing: Borderlands 2, DKCR3D, TLoU: Remastered
Posts: 1,240
|
Re: US Supreme Court throws the Banhammer on California Law
Quote:
Originally Posted by KillerGremlin
What does that mean for private sales though...a store can turn down black customers if it is privately owned, so can't they not sell violent video games?
|
I think there's a little bit more of a problem with that first part but I believe it is ultimately up to the owner of the business of whether they want to sell the games or not, but if they don't want to sell the games to someone who has consent from their parents if they're underage, then they shouldn't really stock the game at all, but then of course not only do they lose the money from the parents who buy these games but they lose the money from the people that are old enough to buy the games as well, so it's not smart business.
That almost makes me sound like I'm putting corporate America before the mental health of the children and the safety of the community!
Quote:
Originally Posted by KillerGremlin
Also, this topic is hilarious...but needless to say, after reading numerous legit studies on violent behavior and gaming, I'm not remotely convinced that gaming is the culprit.
|
People just need a reason to justify everything but there are definitely some more deep seated issues regarding violence in video games and it's correlation to violent behavior.
Everyone wants a scapegoat.
__________________
 
3DS Friend Code: 1590-4790-6369
|
|
|
 |
Re: US Supreme Court throws the Banhammer on California Law |
 |
06-28-2011, 10:12 AM
|
#3
|
Living Legend
BreakABone is offline
Location: Resident of Alfred.. Yes the town named after Batman's butler
Now Playing:
Posts: 10,317
|
Re: US Supreme Court throws the Banhammer on California Law
Quote:
Originally Posted by KillerGremlin
What does that mean for private sales though...a store can turn down black customers if it is privately owned, so can't they not sell violent video games?
*SUMMONING BOND: the milf hunter and lawyer.*
Also, this topic is hilarious...but needless to say, after reading numerous legit studies on violent behavior and gaming, I'm not remotely convinced that gaming is the culprit.
|
Wait a store can't turn down a customer based on their race, age, gender or anything else.
Private or publicly owned or am I mistaken?
__________________
Dyne on Canada's favorite pasttime,
Quote:
I loved ramming into animals as they ran away
|
|
|
|
 |
Re: US Supreme Court throws the Banhammer on California Law |
 |
06-28-2011, 10:47 AM
|
#4
|
Abra Kadabra
Vampyr is offline
Location: Johto
Now Playing: Xenogears
Posts: 5,594
|
Re: US Supreme Court throws the Banhammer on California Law
Quote:
Originally Posted by BreakABone
Wait a store can't turn down a customer based on their race, age, gender or anything else.
Private or publicly owned or am I mistaken?
|
I do not believe you are mistaken, unless we were conquered by some ultra-Libertarian nation last night.
__________________
3DS Friend Code: 2707-1776-3011
Nintendo ID: Valabrax
|
|
|
 |
Re: US Supreme Court throws the Banhammer on California Law |
 |
06-28-2011, 10:59 AM
|
#5
|
HOW DAAAAARE YOUUUU
magus113 is offline
Location: Miami
Now Playing: Borderlands 2, DKCR3D, TLoU: Remastered
Posts: 1,240
|
Re: US Supreme Court throws the Banhammer on California Law
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vampyr
I do not believe you are mistaken, unless we were conquered by some ultra-Libertarian nation last night.
|
Someone probably could find a way around it, like to mask that they don't want to sell a game because of age or something when there's probably racism or something that's really behind it.
It'd be a pretty hard loophole kinda deal though.
__________________
 
3DS Friend Code: 1590-4790-6369
|
|
|
 |
Re: US Supreme Court throws the Banhammer on California Law |
 |
06-28-2011, 12:15 PM
|
#6
|
Living Legend
BreakABone is offline
Location: Resident of Alfred.. Yes the town named after Batman's butler
Now Playing:
Posts: 10,317
|
Re: US Supreme Court throws the Banhammer on California Law
Quote:
Originally Posted by magus113
Someone probably could find a way around it, like to mask that they don't want to sell a game because of age or something when there's probably racism or something that's really behind it.
It'd be a pretty hard loophole kinda deal though.
|
There's a difference between refusing to sell someone something and refusing to allow someone to buy something in your store.
Gun store owners don't just sell to anyone, but its never because the person is black or a female.
Same way you can't sell violent games to minors, but you can't deny them from buying games in your store.
__________________
Dyne on Canada's favorite pasttime,
Quote:
I loved ramming into animals as they ran away
|
|
|
|
 |
Re: US Supreme Court throws the Banhammer on California Law |
 |
06-29-2011, 09:58 AM
|
#7
|
Devourer of Worlds
Professor S is offline
Location: Mount Penn, PA
Now Playing: Team Fortress 2, all day everyday
Posts: 6,608
|
Re: US Supreme Court throws the Banhammer on California Law
For the record, you are allowed to refuse people service as a private business, but you can't do so for the reason of race or gender. Example: You can refuse service to a black person if they are being a jerk or if you just don't like them, but you can't refuse service for the sole reason of their color. Some have tried to refuse service to a race and claimed its for other reasons, but the courts look at a pattern of behavior to make their determinations.
__________________
|
|
|
Thread Tools |
|
Display Modes |
Hybrid Mode
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is On
|
|
|
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:00 AM. |
|
|
|
|