Under age rights 2 (jolyth_a please go here!!!)?

this is a follow up on my other question under age rights specifically being asked to jolyth_a because that was the only person who answered my question intelligently. (Jolyth_a i tried to email you nut you don't allow people to do that)

my rights are infringed because i am denied the full and equal enjoy ment of the goods and services by a place of public acommodations or public services because of my age. this is declared unconstitutional in the Elliot Larson Civil Rights Act of MI in section 302. the "no backpack" rule infringes on my rights because minors are MUCH more likely to be wearing backbacks than adults. If the sign said no puses it would be declared sexist. please remember in answering this question that i am not righting formaly and any typos or misspellings are because of this so please dont criticize me because of this

also no more than 2 teenagers infringes because i have personally needed some energy gum because i needed to buy some energy gum before me semester exams so i would be focused. Energy drinks don't work as well ive learned and the only place that sells this gum is speedway in my neighborhood and the owner made me stand outside in the cold because there were 2 teenagers in the store and had to put up with it to get the gum.

This is a rant, not a question. Just find a way to contact this Jolyth_a person.

Also, if you want to ask a serious question and receive a serious asnwer I suggest that you do learn to "right formaly". Not even formally, just to write coherently and correctly. I'm 16, I'm a minor too and trust me, having English skills will do you no end of good.

I read section 302 of The Elliot Larson Civil Rights Act (http://www.michigan.gov/documents/act_45... )

There is nothing supporting your claim that "no backpack" rules violate this law unless the rule is "no backpacks carried by persons under 18". It dopes not matter that you think more people under 18 carry backpacks or not, they only have to show they enforce the rule equally based on age for the law to not apply to the situation.

yup that is typical self serving underage legal analysis.

I guess I am too old to remember what grade I was in when they taught what is "public property" like a park and what is "private property" like a store.

Eventually you will get to that grade.

There is no problem limiting the number of people in a store, nor is there a problem disallowing them from bringing in items that make it more difficult to prevent theft.

"No purses" does not discriminate against genders - no one is allowed to have one.

Similarly "no backpacks" does not discriminate on age, no one is allowed to have one.

Time for you to grow up, or get caught shoplifting and test your theories out in court. But if you do that, then be prepared to suffer the consequences when you find out how wrong you are.

I am just saying...and yes you can email me!