People wanted rights to live as people. The story of a lot of liberal activism over the last 120 years. Women have the right to vote? ABSURD! Black people have the right to vote and eat in white restaurants!!! Its folk wisdom, common sense, and science that black people are inferior!!! (you can literally find this back then too). For a long time our government was part of those suppression efforts. Doesn't mean they were right to do so. As a parent I don't know what my children will be. But I know I don't want people to treat them like shit if they don't like something about them and I really don't want the government to help people to treat them like shit if they make them feel uncomfortable. If black people make you feel uncomfortable should we ban them from places too? We did for a while.
Did you read the full quote even? The suit was literally about a lack of appeal procedure in their hiring policy. That is part of the normal HR legal process. Its not even a high bar or as onerous as other HR laws. Some appeal procedure rarely used that people probably won't know they have access to, and companies will probably have filled the position by the time they go through it most of the time. Your making the lowest of bars sound absurd, when they are pretty useless. Again, I find this argument kind of silly as I think the current laws are pretty toothless. My guess is the suit will be dropped when the company puts into place said appeal process. Please make your argument on why hiring candidates can't make the case they aren't auto disqualified for a job. If I'm convicted for not paying parking tickets does that mean I can't work at a convenience store? Maybe, something for the appeals procedure. Its not like the appeals process has to always say yes, it just has to exist. Maybe that is disqualifying, but at least the company has to have some kind of justification. Again certain types of crimes are very much more persecuted among minority communities. There is long standing known racial profiling in prosecuting and sentencing. Is an appeals process existing to determine if that conviction is relevant to job duties over the line? I'm an accountant. Conviction of fraud, absolutely relevant. Small amount of weed 10 years ago. Probably not relevant; way more relevant how well you can operate a computer. BTW Guess which of those convictions probably carried more jail time.
They used the current law to say discrimination of any kind was bad. Is that not the point of the law? I know the liberal justices dissented, but to me this ruling has merit even if I understand the intent of what they were trying to do. If we got rid of the law, they could discriminate if they wanted to though, but so could others in much worse ways. Again, just do blind admissions. Have whomever is viewing the applications not know the race or name. Seems better to me /shrug. Again, I don't think the answer is to do nothing. Pretending there isn't a problem is just being blind. In general I think this is a problems liberals have. There is A problem. Conservatives only have to say "no there isn't / do nothing". Its one of the things that really turned me off. They aren't even willing to try conservative solutions unless it involved a tax cut or they can fear monger off of it. Liberals have to actually do something to fix it. Sometimes they are wrong or it doesn't work and then conservatives get to say "see its wrong or it doesn't work, tear it down and no we won't be replacing it with something else". I don't always agree on the democrat / liberal solution. Again, this court case I agree with the conservative justices (which rarely happens now a days), but it doesn't mean its not a problem that needs something.
Did you read the full quote even? The suit was literally about a lack of appeal procedure in their hiring policy. That is part of the normal HR legal process. Its not even a high bar or as onerous as other HR laws. Some appeal procedure rarely used that people probably won't know they have access to, and companies will probably have filled the position by the time they go through it most of the time. Your making the lowest of bars sound absurd, when they are pretty useless. Again, I find this argument kind of silly as I think the current laws are pretty toothless. My guess is the suit will be dropped when the company puts into place said appeal process. Please make your argument on why hiring candidates can't make the case they aren't auto disqualified for a job. If I'm convicted for not paying parking tickets does that mean I can't work at a convenience store? Maybe, something for the appeals procedure. Its not like the appeals process has to always say yes, it just has to exist. Maybe that is disqualifying, but at least the company has to have some kind of justification. Again certain types of crimes are very much more persecuted among minority communities. There is long standing known racial profiling in prosecuting and sentencing. Is an appeals process existing to determine if that conviction is relevant to job duties over the line? I'm an accountant. Conviction of fraud, absolutely relevant. Small amount of weed 10 years ago. Probably not relevant; way more relevant how well you can operate a computer. BTW Guess which of those convictions probably carried more jail time.
They used the current law to say discrimination of any kind was bad. Is that not the point of the law? I know the liberal justices dissented, but to me this ruling has merit even if I understand the intent of what they were trying to do. If we got rid of the law, they could discriminate if they wanted to though, but so could others in much worse ways. Again, just do blind admissions. Have whomever is viewing the applications not know the race or name. Seems better to me /shrug. Again, I don't think the answer is to do nothing. Pretending there isn't a problem is just being blind. In general I think this is a problems liberals have. There is A problem. Conservatives only have to say "no there isn't / do nothing". Its one of the things that really turned me off. They aren't even willing to try conservative solutions unless it involved a tax cut or they can fear monger off of it. Liberals have to actually do something to fix it. Sometimes they are wrong or it doesn't work and then conservatives get to say "see its wrong or it doesn't work, tear it down and no we won't be replacing it with something else". I don't always agree on the democrat / liberal solution. Again, this court case I agree with the conservative justices (which rarely happens now a days), but it doesn't mean its not a problem that needs something.