Not if I don't want to do your homework. It's much simpler for you to do your own homework. I want you to read the decision, therefore I'm not going to do the legwork for you. There is no royal road to knowledge. You have to do it yourself.
Nah, you're wrong. You could have easily supplied me with the link, 9 days ago, and the discussion could have been that much further along. Instead you'd rather play your stupid game and we've gotten nowhere.
Have you read it? This is at least the third time I've asked you that question and I find it telling that you haven't answered it yet.
But I did answer it.
Despite having looked it up, you still haven't read it, have you?
I didn't get to that actual decision. I would have read it a week ago had you just provided the link. 10 seconds on the SCOTUS website didn't provide the decision like you said it would. I've finally found the decision, though, and have read through most of it.
You've claimed that the firefighter weren't denied promotions...
From
the decision:
(hey look how easy it is to link to what I'm actually quoting so that other people can read it too and since I was already there reading it, its not like I had to do any extra homework or anything, I just had to copy and paste the url, you're idea that this someone makes people learn less is ridiculous)
quote:
Certain white and Hispanic firefighters who likely would have been promoted based on their good test per-formance sued the City and some of its officials. Theirs is the suit now before us. The suit alleges that, by discard-ing the test results, the City and the named officials dis-criminated against the plaintiffs based on their race, inviolation of both Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 78 Stat. 253, as amended, 42 U. S. C. 2000e et seq., and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amend-ment. The City and the officials defended their actions, arguing that if they had certified the results, they could have faced liability under Title VII for adopting a practice that had a disparate impact on the minority firefighters. The District Court granted summary judgment for thedefendants, and the Court of Appeals affirmed.
We conclude that race-based action like the City’s in this case is impermissible under Title VII unless the employer can demonstrate a strong basis in evidence that, had it not taken the action, it would have been liable under the disparate-impact statute. The respondents, we further determine, cannot meet that threshold standard. As a result, the City’s action in discarding the tests was a violation of Title VII. In light of our ruling under the statutes, we need not reach the question whether respon-dents’ actions may have violated the Equal ProtectionClause.
So they likely would have been promoted but they weren't. I suppose technically they weren't actually
denied the promotion, because they weren't offered it in the first place, but we can see that you're just splitting hairs there and the firefighter, indeed, did not get their promotions because of the impermissible action of the City. And those actions came about because of the City's fears of causing a disparate impact which is a direct result of AA law.
So your point was that they weren't technically denied the promotion, and you go out of your way to not provide evidence that this is the case so that you can continue to dress up AA laws and being great, but really you're splitting a minor hair to avoid having to see that the AA laws do have problems. lets look at what you actually wrote and to what I originally responded to :
quote:
The white firefighters were racially discriminated against because of AA guidelines.
No, they weren't. Remember, nobody was denied a promotion. You haven't actually read the case or know the history, have you?
So you're saying that because they weren't technically denied a promotion, then they weren't discriminated against but the decision says they violated Title VII, which is about discrimination.
In
Message 129, you wrote:
If the AA laws did not exist, those people would not have had any recourse. Without the AA laws that specifically and expressly prohibit quotas, U of M could not have been successfully sued for establishing a quota system.
as if to paint some fancy picture of AA, but if it weren't for AA in the first place, then the U of M wouldn't have made quotas, and the City of New Haven wouldn't have feared promoting the firefighters. If the law is causing that which it was set up to prevent, then there's something wrong with it.
I've quoted the decision already. If you're going to say that I erred in that quotation, you're going to have to read the decision and show me where I went wrong.
You went wrong where you spin you opponents claim so that you can take a lesser position and make it look like you're actually arguing against the person, when actually you're talking about something different. And you use obscurity to hide your dishonesty.
quote:
Its because you won't listen to what people are actually saying
Considering that my posting style tends to be to quote every single word of the person I'm responding to, this is a bit laughable. I quote your own words back to you and you claim I'm not listening?
quote:
instead you take the words that you think they would be saying if they were against your position and then put them into their mouths. You're basically lying and saying that they said something that they didn't.
Huh? How am I "lying and saying that they said something that they didn't" if the only thing I ever do is quote people's words back to them?
You try to use my words in whatever way possible, twisting them to mean something totally different than what I meant them to mean, so that you can force me into a different postion, then take a stance against this invented position. You then make obscure claims against that invented position, that happen to sound like the original one, and avoid actually exposing where you have spun my original position. At first, you just come off as a moron who can't understand people, but the level of cleverness needed to do it makes me realize that your actaully intentionally being dishonest.
quote:
Plus, with all the fake astonishment with the blinking n'shit, you're such an annoying little drama queen.
(*chuckle*)
I'm truly sorry about your penis. But since you seem to think I make stuff up about people, let me quote your own words back to you:
This is an internet discussion board. You are here by choice and you don't have to read anything that you don't want to.
Civility is, like, the 10th rule here. Its all the way at the bottom. Its not that important. Plus, it ruins all the fun.
Awe. Poor baby. I think I fell a tear comming on.
"Somebody on the internet was rude to me.... WAAAaaahhhhh!"
If you can't take take reading my posts then don't. Nobody is forcing you to.
Grow up already and stop being such a crybaby.
Is there a reason you expect other people to live up to a standard you refuse to abide by yourself?
See? Right there. I don't expect anyone to live up to a standard that I refuse to abide by. All I was doing was calling a spade a spade.
We can also see from Legends posts how bad you are:
quote:
It isn't and I never claimed that it was! I can only assume one of three things happening here:
1) you are deliberately misrepresenting what I write
2) you don't bother reading what I write
3) You are so consumed by your ideology that you think this is what I must be writing despite what I actually write.
This is what I actually wrote:
...
...is it that you can't read or is it that you won't read?
...
ugh? where did I say that.
...
Listen, if you really want me to increase the font size don't be afraid to ask, ok?
...
?!....[bangs head against wall]......but that's what I've been saying all along
...
ugh?? how the hell did you infer that this means that "AA goes to quotas"?! I must have stated at least a dozen times in this thread that there are many ways to apply AA and quotas is one of the most obvious ones. Argue what I write not what you think I write!
and on and on.
You suck.
Its too bad the business world doesn't work that way.
™ Version 4.2