Your posting amidst some of the youngsters here that hate "the man". You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink. Or better yet, your throwing pearls to the swine... You get my point.

true enough.
/shrug

oh well they will learn -=hopefully=- -=eventually=-.

I believe the people who agree the most about this are adults. I myself don't agree with "the man" comments. Why, because the person buying the product doesn't fall underage.

In all respect, adults are just as easy to influence. The government has controlled alcohol, taxed smokers, enforced gun laws and basicly created laws to protect us as a citizens.

Technically, based on some of these "the man" statements, we as adults aren't capable of making intellectual chooses either. So laws are created to protect us from ourselves.

The only difference here with the underaged laws are that kids can't fight back. Their rights don't extend to the same levels as adults. The majority of adults fall under two categories: (1) adults simply don't care about it as it doesn't effect their rights (2) Adults that totally support it because they hold authority status. This mismatch leads to a one sided argument that's lose lose.

It's actually more like a liquor store not selling you booze because you have a 15 year old with you. It's like a convenience store not selling you cigarettes because you're with your buddies who are underage. Or like a movie theater refusing to sell tickets to R-rated movies to minors. All of those situations are entirely legal and NOT prejudiced.

Your logic is way off. The teller was 100% in the right here. Not that EBgames does much right, but this isn't that big of a deal.

I think he is, the teller is making an assumption that he's selling this to his little brother. He says no it's for me. This he's calling the customer a lier. It's legal to refuse sale but it doesn't make it right in respects to customer relationship.

If the customer literally made a statement that he was buying it for his little brother then yes. The customer said specifically "No it's for me" by making that statement the teller transfers all legal responsibility to the 18+ person buying the product. The teller can then wash their hands of it.

As for your alcohol statement, if the adult smelled drunk or wasn't in sound mind perhaps. People buy booze every day with their kids at their side, there is nothing wrong with buying booze for yourself and having a minor at your side, as long as it's for your and your mature enough to consume it at the proper time and location.

What you have here is an employee accusing a customers of attempts to break the law before the fact. The teller ask the questions and the customer answered them in good faith. Yet, the teller still refused sale on an assumption.

It appears to me as though the teller was on a witch hunt and no matter what the customer said his choice was made before the sale. This underminds the dignity if the customer by insinuating he's a lier. I'd clearly see that as premeditated discrimination.

So please explain to me how i'm "way off" by selling the product to an adult they aren't breaking any laws and by not selling it they aren't. So, this leads to only one possible conclusion, the customer is being discriminated against for some reason or another.

The actual point of sale isn't the issue. It's the possibility of an outside discriminating factor. This undesclosed factor has more impact then the refusal to sale on marit.

I'll end this response with a quote from Frank Barron.

"Never take a person's dignity: it's worth everything to them and nothing to you."

He didn't sell him the game because he wasn't the kid's legal guardian. If I walk into a liquor store with my 15 year old son, then I can buy all the alcohol I want. If a frat boy walks into a liquor store with his 15 year old brother, no sale. This case is the second one. Same with cigarettes and porn. Saying "No, it's for me" doesn't absolve you of anything.

You're not "way off," but there's no discrimination here. The younger kid was too young to play the game, that's it. That's why we have these rules and policies.

Based on what I read the teller was looking for a reason not to sale it. It's besides the point that he had a minor with him.

If he came back and the same teller was there he'd probably remember the face and say no again to save face over his previous ruling.

I'm thinking that the disagrees i'm getting aren't from people diagreeing with the customers rights their more less at arms over the possibility that i'm in defense of the "sale to minors" concept. This isn't the case though. I stand by the store protecting the minors but I don't condone the abuse of these policies to discriminate without proper marit.

To clarify, I don't discourage refusal to sale mature games to minors. I reject the accusations that this employee assumed.

or maybe he just sold her their last copy - He could have just been wrong the first time.

Maybe she was fourth in line and the other 3 people bought GTA4. There's lots of reasons this could have happened. I highly doubt there was anything nefarious going on...