OK, I won't argue the law with you. Maybe you can remove my legal ignorance by pointing me to the law which keeps you from losing a lawsuit when you refuse to sell a product to a person who is not legally disqualified from owning one. Or losing the suit by the Feds for depriving someone in a protected class of his civil rights.
I'm waiting for the legal citations.
In order to win a lawsuit, the plaintiff would have to prove that a law was violated. So your challenge to point you to a law which keeps a person from losing a lawsuit is completely backwards in the legal realm. The proper challenge is to state the law upon which a lawsuit would be won. Since Glock20 is in Nebraska, let's look at Nebraska law:
Here is Nebraska State Law regarding equal enjoyment of public accommodation:
Link Removed
The protected classes in Nebraska law are:
Section 20-132. Full and equal enjoyment of accommodations.
All persons within this State shall be entitled to a full and equal enjoyment of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this act, without discrimination of segregation on the grounds of race, color, sex, religion, national origin, or ancestry.
I'm not seeing physical disability protected under that law.
Now, if Glock20 happens to be in Omaha, we do have this Omaha Code:
Link Removed
Sec. 13-84. - Unlawful practices.
It is an unlawful practice for any person, wholly or partially because of race, color, creed, religion, sex, marital status, sexual orientation, gender identity, national origin, age or disability, to do any of the following:
(a)
To deny an individual a full and equal enjoyment of any place of public accommodation;
So, Omaha Code does include disability. Now it gets interesting. First, a plaintiff would have to prove that the business was a place of public accommodation:
Sec. 13-83. - "Place of public accommodation" defined.
For the purposes of this division, the following phrase shall have the meaning ascribed to it:
Place of public accommodation: Unless the context otherwise requires, any place or business offering or holding out to the general public goods, services, privileges, facilities, advantages, and accommodations for the peace, comfort, health, welfare, and safety of the general public, and any public place providing food, shelter, recreation and amusement
If the business is a gun RANGE, then it certainly could fall under the definition of a public place providing recreation and amusement. If the business is purely a gun STORE the next question is a gun considered to be "for the peace, comfort, health, welfare, and safety of the general public." Millions of people in this country live their lives to the fullest without owning a gun. So, it would be tough, but not impossible, to convince a court that a gun store is a public accommodation. Next, Glock20 needs to revise his/her reason for not selling the gun to that particular person. Glock20 needs to base his refusal to sell based on a belief that the person would pose a danger to themselves or to the public by possessing the item being sold.
I am a 48 year old absolutely average in every way white guy. If I walked into Glock20's gun store are they required by law to sell me a gun? What if I walk in with my pants half off my rear end and pick up a handgun and point it sideways, sweeping several customers in the process, and say, "Bang, bang, bang, puttin' a cap in your a$$", is Glock20 required to sell the gun to me because I can pass the background check? No, absolutely not. Now, Glock20 feels that a blind person would present a danger to themselves and the public if they possessed a gun and refuses to sell the gun based on that belief alone. Does he have a legal and reasonable basis for that belief? I feel that, especially in Nebraska, he/she certainly does. Why doesn't any state issue a driver's license to blind people? Because the state considers them to be a danger to themselves and the public if they operate a motor vehicle on a public highway. Is that discrimination against the blind? Not yet it isn't. Now, particularly in Nebraska, that state requires vision for a concealed carry permit. So Glock20 can use that fact that it is reasonable to believe that firearms possession is a danger to the person and public because why would the state of Nebraska determine that sight is required to conceal a firearm?!? Is it because the blind person might lose it if they conceal it?
And that is why, I believe that a blind person could NOT win a lawsuit for discrimination against Glock20. "I'm not refusing to sell the blind person a gun because they are blind. I am refusing to sell them a gun because I believe they would pose a danger to themselves and the public by possessing a gun as supported by the state law prohibiting a blind person from obtaining a concealed carry permit." That being said, the blind person would certainly have a rebuttal, and might win, if they can convince the court that a reasonable person would not consider it a danger for a blind person to merely possess a gun and to base a belief of danger solely upon the person being blind is discrimination because, according to Nebraska law it is not illegal for a blind person to possess a firearm - only to carry it concealed.