LITEROTICA PODCAST
LIT CAMS (200 Free Tokens)ADULT TOYSVOD MOVIES

SCOTUS watch thread: Trump immunity, Capitol riot defendants, abortion, censorship

Funny thing is, they call these major cases, but they probably don't affect a majority of people. I don't really have a personal interest in any of them.
 
jaF0 said:
Funny thing is, they call these major cases, but they probably don't affect a majority of people.
Click to expand...

There is a widespread effect to not having as many minorities on prominent collegiate campuses, which is what the consequence of this first decision will be. It will trickle down into multiple facets of our society. That's why it became a thing in the first place.

And I say this as a non-fan of Affirmative Action (which is well-documented here @ Lit; I have the receipts).
 
jaF0 said:
Funny thing is, they call these major cases, but they probably don't affect a majority of people. I don't really have a personal interest in any of them.
Click to expand...
Honestly…
Ok…
Whew.
I need to take deep breaths here and count to 10.
I’m not trying to start an argument with you, but it is my opinion that what you just said is not a good take for any subject matter. You start threads all the time that invite political discussion, but now, on a supreme court decision that is major and that people have warned could come - you become ambivalent. How does one do that?
How should a minority, a woman with an ovary, or a person who’s lgbtq view you? Do you actually believe that decision is made by the supreme court only go as far as the tip of your nose? Seriously?
 
Bn2f said:
How should a minority, a woman with an ovary, or a person who’s lgbtq view you?
Click to expand...
None of those are directly affected by these three cases as a population at large.

One affects people who apply for college, all people, which is not a majority of any population group.

Another affects people who have loans for colleges, all people who have loans and are of a qualifying income level.

The third concerns private businesses, all private businesses when dealing with a non-protected class. Any private business should be able to make decisions on who to serve as long as protected classes are not at issue.
 
jaF0 said:
None of those are directly affected by these three cases as a population at large.

One affects people who apply for college, all people, which is not a majority of any population group.

Another affects people who have loans for colleges, all people who have loans and are of a qualifying income level.

The third concerns private businesses, all private businesses when dealing with a non-protected class. Any private business should be able to make decisions on who to serve as long as protected classes are not at issue.
Click to expand...
OK, so my question was specific to affirmative action and I wasn’t clear on that, but the jist of my question still is how one can seem so political and then turn ambivalent and dismissive. It’s the phrasing of your answer that’s rubbing me the wrong way. Why not just say that you don’t know enough about the decision just yet to comment? Imagine, saying that the Roe decision doesn’t matter to me because I am a man or no longer capable to reproduce. Again, I’m not trying to argue, but it just seems like a tone deaf apolitical response and I didn’t expect that to come from someone like you.
 
I have been against affirmative action ever since I was forced to grade tests differently while I was a TA at The Ohio State University. I had no problem allowing minorities to be preferentially accepted AS LONG as the standards were the same. Why should a student be graded easier because of the color of their skin? Grades are determined by how hard you work in college...do you show up to class? Do you ask questions? Do you put 2 hrs outside of class for every hour in? Grades are not determined by where yiu came from. I know this because of where i came from. This ruling will change little since how race has affected an applicant can still be used in the process.
 
jaF0 said:
https://www.courthousenews.com/supreme-court-backs-sabbath-sunday-accommodations-for-workers/



I've always been opposed to employers forcing an employee to work any specific day or shift, regardless of reason. Request, yes, Require, no.
Click to expand...
Then the question can be asked in an interview process.

There are 2 people in a dept...one must be present everyday the business is open. Is it fair one person MUST ALWAYS work ALL weekends because someone claims religious rights?
 
No. The answer may need to be hire a third person part time as a floater.

THAT test may let the business use the 'unreasonable' accommodation challenge as a business that can only afford two employees in a department might find it unreasonable to be able to take on a third. That situation would not apply to something like USPS. If DeJoy weren't an unreasonable piece of shit, there would have been funds allocated for additional staff at those POs.
 
Dribble said:
Then the question can be asked in an interview process.

There are 2 people in a dept...one must be present everyday the business is open. Is it fair one person MUST ALWAYS work ALL weekends because someone claims religious rights?
Click to expand...

Mmm, good point. Maybe just don't hire the religious one.

Er...oops. Now we got trouble again.
 
jaF0 said:
No. The answer may need to be hire a third person part time as a floater.

THAT test may let the business use the 'unreasonable' accommodation challenge as a business that can only afford two employees in a department might find it unreasonable to be able to take on a third. That situation would not apply to something like USPS. If DeJoy weren't an unreasonable piece of shit, there would have been funds allocated for additional staff at those POs.
Click to expand...
Well I can tell you never owned a company. So your opinion means nothing
 
RoryN said:
There is a widespread effect to not having as many minorities on prominent collegiate campuses, which is what the consequence of this first decision will be. It will trickle down into multiple facets of our society. That's why it became a thing in the first place.

And I say this as a non-fan of Affirmative Action (which is well-documented here @ Lit; I have the receipts).
Click to expand...
Asians are a minority, why are Harvard and other overrated snobberies ragging on them?
 
RoryN said:
Mmm, good point. Maybe just don't hire the religious one.

Er...oops. Now we got trouble again.
Click to expand...
Not at all. Supreme Court already ruled on this with the Hobby Lobby decision. What is good for the goose is good for the gander
 
jaF0 said:
None of those are directly affected by these three cases as a population at large.

One affects people who apply for college, all people, which is not a majority of any population group.
Click to expand...

So you don't believe college students and graduates have a measureable effect on the population at large outside those institutions?

I see - interesting.
 
Last edited:
SCOTUS sides with designer who didn't want to do gay wedding sites.

Predictable.
 
RoryN said:
SCOTUS sides with designer who didn't want to do gay wedding sites.

Predictable.
Click to expand...
But why would anyone want the services of a Republican? You know they cut corners and charge full price.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

SugarDaddy1
'Era of polarization': Amy Coney Barrett hints at reason for SCOTUS docket loaded with Trump, censorship cases
Replies
2
Views
201
PaxNurgle
P
P
There is an American "Deep State," but it is not what Trump thinks it is
2
Replies
33
Views
685
Politruk
P
DeluxAuto
GOP Candidates Scrub Their Sites of Abortion and Trump "The Big Scrub" is On
Replies
3
Views
496
jaF0
jaF0
U
What would General Washington do?
2 3 4
Replies
88
Views
3K
Bigtitsbitch1000x
Bigtitsbitch1000x
butters
head of fbi 'unwilling to provoke trump further'
Replies
7
Views
491
butters
butters
Back
Top