• FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.

discriminated against as a minor

Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills   Please click a topic or scroll down for more.

hsbabygirl16

Junior Member
Wyoming

I feel as if I am being descriminated against as a minor. I am not able to see my boyfriend because he is 21 and I am 16. Age didn't matter 30 years ago, why should it now? His ex-wife threw a fit and called the cops. I am now not able to see or speak to him. I feel that age shouldn't matter, just because we were born in different years doesn't mean that it's wrong. My parents know his real age and they are fine with it. I don't know what to do. Am I right as far as how I think? Or am I just a dumb minor who diesn't know what she's talking about. Feedback please.
 


BelizeBreeze

Senior Member
You are not being discriminated against. You are, by law, answerable to your parents until you are 18. That's the law, that's the reality.

Either grow up and accept it or not. That is your choice.
 
S

shell007

Guest
So...you are 16 and dating a 21-year-old who has already been married once and divorced. :eek:

My advice...date someone your own age! Geeeez!!! :rolleyes:
 

HomeGuru

Senior Member
hsbabygirl16 said:
Wyoming

I feel as if I am being descriminated against as a minor. I am not able to see my boyfriend because he is 21 and I am 16. Age didn't matter 30 years ago, why should it now? His ex-wife threw a fit and called the cops. I am now not able to see or speak to him. I feel that age shouldn't matter, just because we were born in different years doesn't mean that it's wrong. My parents know his real age and they are fine with it. I don't know what to do. Am I right as far as how I think? Or am I just a dumb minor who diesn't know what she's talking about. Feedback please.


**A: you are not only a dumb minor but you are an ignorant idiot with no knowledge of family law.
 

justalayman

Senior Member
shellandty said:
So...you are 16 and dating a 21-year-old who has already been married once and divorced. :eek:

My advice...date someone your own age! Geeeez!!! :rolleyes:

My advice: at minimum; get the 21 year old some psych help.

(the fact that it is state offered while he is incarcerated doesn't hurt my feelings at all.)
 
S

shell007

Guest
justalayman said:
My advice: at minimum; get the 21 year old some psych help.

(the fact that it is state offered while he is incarcerated doesn't hurt my feelings at all.)

Sounds like the 16-year-old could use some too!! It certainly would not hurt!
 

dallas702

Senior Member
All right Babygirl;

If you want to prove you are mature enough to have an adult relationship you can start by staying as far away from this loser as possible. If you don't care about yourself enough to choose a better boyfriend, then show how much you "love" this guy by dumping him before he gets PUT INTO JAIL!
 

racer72

Senior Member
I picked this up a few years ago, I can't remember where but it would apply perfectly in this case.


"Nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." (U.S. Const., 14th Amendment)

My Bar Exam Constitutional Law is rusty, but here's a sample. I'm sure someone will correct my errors.

The analysis has nothing to do with "rights" vs. "privileges".

Basically states are free to restrict your right to liberty by law (via the state's broad "police power") unless the law infringes upon your "fundamental rights" (e.g., right to vote, etc.) Drinking is not a fundamental right. A law restricting something less that a fundamental right (e.g., drinking) need only be "rationally related to a legitimate government interest" to be constitutional. Here, the legitimate government interest is to protect youth from the so-called evils of alcohol. The age restriction is rationally related to that end. Therefore, the law limiting the age of drinkers does not violate the "due process clause" and is constitutional.

What about discrimination under the "equal protection clause"? Well, unless the law discriminates against a "suspect class" of people, the above analysis is the same. A "suspect class" of people is basically those people who have been getting a raw deal for years and years (e.g., minority races, religions, and people from certain nations, etc.) Discrimination on the basis of age does not affect a suspect class (minors). Since the law barring minors from drinking doesn't affect a suspect class, and it is rationally related to a legitimate government interest, that law doesn't violate the equal protection clause either. The analysis would be totally different if the law prohibited Argentinean-Americans or Muslims from drinking, or what-have-you.

The same rational applies to keeping a minor away from an adult.
 

cbg

I'm a Northern Girl
Am I right as far as how I think? Or am I just a dumb minor who diesn't know what she's talking about.

You are just a dumb minor who doesn't know what she's talking about. You aren't alone - there's a lot of other dumb minors out there with the same feeling. But if I were a betting woman, I'd bet a sizeable amount that in about five years you'll be wondering what you ever saw in this idiot and thanking whatever gods you worship that someone was smart enough to keep you away from him.
 

HomeGuru

Senior Member
cbg said:
Am I right as far as how I think? Or am I just a dumb minor who diesn't know what she's talking about.

You are just a dumb minor who doesn't know what she's talking about. You aren't alone - there's a lot of other dumb minors out there with the same feeling. But if I were a betting woman, I'd bet a sizeable amount that in about five years you'll be wondering what you ever saw in this idiot and thanking whatever gods you worship that someone was smart enough to keep you away from him.


**A: cbg, you're way too nice. Five years is a long time.
 
C

CheeseBlotto

Guest
hsbabygirl16 said:
Wyoming

I am not able to see my boyfriend because he is 21 and I am 16. Age didn't matter 30 years ago, why should it now? His ex-wife threw a fit and called the cops.

Get off the phone, the Springer people are trying to call you.
 

nanas_angels

Junior Member
Boyfriend Vs 16 Yr Old

I don't know about others but at 16 yrs. old you have your whole life ahead of you and so many things to do.If this guy truly loves you,he can talk to you on the phone and be willing to wait two years for you until you are of legal age.It can and does happen if the true love and feelings are there.In the meantime enjoy your life and your young years you only have them once in a lifetime. :)
 

BSharp

Member
If your parents are okay then fine.

Age 18 is consent without parents.

Age of consent with parents approval is usually a few years younger. Research your local laws.
 

kyman1

Junior Member
little girl

I agree with the others who say stay away from this loser.
Who is saying you must stay away? Was it a judge? I think if you parent are ok with you seeing him it would be illegal to say you can not see him because
of your age. You can get an abortion but can not see him at this age? What law or authority is being used here?
 

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

Fast, Free, and Confidential
Top