Recent Supreme Court Rulings

djchameleon · 06-26-2013, 07:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by misspoptart

I mean that was the premise of my whole example -- the policy exists, and people who may not have otherwise gotten in to a school are preferred simply based on their backgrounds, which has nothing to do with their character. The plan assumes that certain people get extra points for something beyond their control. It's a different kind of discrimination that I don't think should exist in America. Everyone is fighting to get into schools, there are equally disadvantaged people from every background in the country, and they all deserve a fair shot at going to the college of their choice.

One thing that stuck in my head from my Econ teacher in high school is that "Life isn't fair and when you remove the word from your vocab then you'll understand"

Also, if their backgrounds were the same they would still have gotten in but the reason the policy actually exists is to help give ethnic groups that under represented at different schools a chance to succeed. It's also secondary to their academic achievements. If they were the majority's race they would have gotten in but since they aren't without affirmative action in place they would be overlooked.

misspoptart · 06-26-2013, 07:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by djchameleon

One thing that stuck in my head from my Econ teacher in high school is that "Life isn't fair and when you remove the word from your vocab then you'll understand"

Also, if their backgrounds were the same they would still have gotten in but the reason the policy actually exists is to help give ethnic groups that under represented at different schools a chance to succeed. It's also secondary to their academic achievements. If they were the majority's race they would have gotten in but since they aren't without affirmative action in place they would be overlooked.

Could be, but then you're assuming that the schools they are applying to are inherently racist. Who would want to go to a racist school, anyway?

djchameleon · 06-26-2013, 07:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by misspoptart

Could be, but then you're assuming that the schools they are applying to are inherently racist. Who would want to go to a racist school, anyway?

Under represented doesn't not equal racist

It looks like the Supreme Court has an axe to grind against minorities with the results of these rulings lately.

Here is another case dealing with racial discrimination and sexual harassment at work.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/25/bu...nted=all&_r=1&

misspoptart · 06-26-2013, 07:28 AM

Dude don't get me started in regard to that new link. I worked with a guy (Steve) who had our whole bakery/café sued because my boss jokingly wrote "steve is gay" on a cupcake and gave it to him.

That guy a) could not take a joke b) was not gay c) was trying to get money and d) had used "fag" to describe my boss multiple times. He also still works there.

The definition of "sexual harassment" is so loose that I agree something has to be done about that, too.

djchameleon · 06-26-2013, 07:39 AM

The sexual harassment they are describing in that link is more about placing a heavy burden of proof on the plaintiff against the employer for ignoring unprofessional behavior going on between two employees but in your situation. Your boss was being unprofessional and it doesn't matter that he was joking or that the guy says fag all the time. Your co-worker should have been reprimanded for constantly using slurs in the workplace like that but your employer let it slide so too bad.

misspoptart · 06-26-2013, 07:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by djchameleon

The sexual harassment they are describing in that link is more about placing a heavy burden of proof on the plaintiff against the employer for ignoring unprofessional behavior going on between two employees but in your situation. Your boss was being unprofessional and it doesn't matter that he was joking or that the guy says fag all the time. Your co-worker should have been reprimanded for constantly using slurs in the workplace like that but your employer let it slide so too bad.

Heh, heh. I guess they both probably crossed the line, but I still believe it's something small enough to be handled without people suing each other. I mean, in that workplace, we were all madly guilty of so-called sexual harassment. So what's to be done, fire the lot of us and close the place down?

Teenagers + college-aged supervisors = definitely non-kosher activity going on.

djchameleon · 06-26-2013, 07:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by misspoptart

Heh, heh. I guess they both probably crossed the line, but I still believe it's something small enough to be handled without people suing each other. I mean, in that workplace, we were all madly guilty of so-called sexual harassment. So what's to be done, fire the lot of us and close the place down?

Teenagers + college-aged supervisors = definitely non-kosher activity going on.

No, I'm not saying that.

When I heard about the ruling , I mostly thought about how hard it will be for females in general to prove the shady sexual harassment going on at their workplaces and how it's a step back for women's rights.

misspoptart · 06-26-2013, 08:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by djchameleon

No, I'm not saying that.

When I heard about the ruling , I mostly thought about how hard it will be for females in general to prove the shady sexual harassment going on at their workplaces and how it's a step back for women's rights.

I hope that doesn't happen.

djchameleon · 06-26-2013, 09:00 AM

Update on the Prop 8 appeal and the benefits for same sex couples

The Supreme Court struck down part of DOMA and dismisses the appeal.
So same sex marriages in California can now continue to happen.
Supreme Court strikes down part of DOMA, dismisses Prop. 8 appeal – This Just In - CNN.com Blogs

hip hop bunny hop · 06-26-2013, 01:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by djchameleon

]

This one confuses me a bit. They struck down a part of the voting rights act of 1965 in 9 southern states. I hear that if they start requiring tests for black people in the south to vote then they can still be sued and have a case brought up against them. I guess the point may be that black people can't afford to lawyer up and sue. I know most of those southern states will enact the Voter ID laws to further disenfranchise blacks in the south but those states are always won by republicans.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/26/us...ling.html?_r=0

Voter ID laws were not enacted to disenfranchise any particular group. They were enacted to help ensure that only people who are legally allowed to vote are the ones doing the voting.

Regarding the underlined, hoorah for conspiratorial nonsense.

06-26-2013, 07:28 AM	#14 (permalink)
misspoptart gimme gimme Join Date: Dec 2012 Location: istanbul Posts: 897	Dude don't get me started in regard to that new link. I worked with a guy (Steve) who had our whole bakery/café sued because my boss jokingly wrote "steve is gay" on a cupcake and gave it to him. That guy a) could not take a joke b) was not gay c) was trying to get money and d) had used "fag" to describe my boss multiple times. He also still works there. The definition of "sexual harassment" is so loose that I agree something has to be done about that, too.