By Timothy I. Crawley

As major retailers such as Fred Meyer, Walmart and Dick's Sporting Goods voluntarily lift the age of those to whom they will sell firearms, we harken back to the story of Sweet Cakes by Melissa, a Gresham bakery that made national headlines when the owners denied service to a lesbian couple.

The Sweet Cakes case is strikingly similar to a lawsuit that could eventually erupt over retailers' latest age restriction policies on guns resulting from the aftermath of the horrific slaughter last month at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida.

First, in the Sweet Cakes case, the Bureau of Labor & Industries determined, and the Oregon Court of Appeals affirmed, that denying service on the basis of sexual orientation amounted to unlawful discrimination. In the case of Fred Meyer, Walmart and Dick's Sporting Goods, raising the age to whom they'll sell firearms amounts to age discrimination.

If there was a public law enacted to prohibit the sale of firearms to members of a particular age group -- as opposed to a rule imposed by a private entity -- the standard of review as to the law's constitutionality would be subject to a rational basis test. That test is a question of whether the law is rationally related to a legitimate government interest. Such a rule would likely be upheld as constitutional as has been the case with cigarettes and alcohol. With firearms, lawmakers could rationally relate a law restricting the sale of firearms to those under the age of 21 with the legitimate government interest of keeping firearms out of the hands of our youth who might be more prone to use the devices improperly.

Such a law would not likely be overturned by a Second Amendment challenge as well, because prohibiting sales of firearms to youth does not directly impact the specific right of our youth to "keep" those firearms or to "bear" them. Under our Constitution, even a three-year-old has a right to possess a firearm. The plain language of the Second Amendment deals with actual possession of arms -- not acquisition of them.

However, a private entity enacting its own rules is not subject to a rational basis test. As landlords may not refuse to rent their units to families with children (as such an action amounts to age discrimination), it appears that Fred Meyer's, Walmart's and Dick's Sporting Goods' unilateral age restrictions would amount to age discrimination as well.

We have the means to enact rational legislation aimed at curbing youth gun acquisition. However, allowing, and even praising private entities, for taking up such a banner endangers our civil rights -- even when it appears such actions are well-intentioned. In facing our societal problems, leaving the task in the hands of private entities has its dangers, so we must seek public solutions that protect our civil rights and are rationally based in accordance with our Constitution.

Timothy I. Crawley is a political activist for civil rights and an attorney in Portland.