politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
I would bet she was passed over for the promotion because of her attitude, because you have to be an awful person to sue for this.
The white part doesn't even matter. This is just an awful person blaming DEI for their failures.
I know the white part doesn't matter because the actual suit is for being straight alone. The justices (unnecessarily) added the discussion of race.
I know the suit is an attack on DEI because it made it to the Supreme court. It takes years and tens (or hundreds) of thousands of dollars to maintain a court case. Private individuals usually can't afford this. The client, who works for the Ohio Department of Youth services, certainly couldn't. Most SC cases are funded by special interest groups looking to push a particular change in the law. Trump and the Conservatives have made it very clear that they are against DEI because it makes it harder to discriminate against minorities. This decision weakens the protections for those groups.
I know she's awful because no decent person would bring such an obviously bigoted suit.
Jesus Christ, please read what I wrote again because you obviously failed to understand what I was explaining.
Not just any case gets before the SC. They choose cases for a reason, usually because it involves an aspect of the law they wish to clarify or (increasingly commonly) overturn. Special interest groups shop around for cases that they can find a defense for to make the political changes they want (for example Masterpiece Cakeshop v Colorado was funded by Alliance Defending Freedom). As you said this case began in 2017. There is NO WAY a middle manager at a state agency can afford to pay some of the best lawyers in the country for 8 years. She's not some secret billionaire. Yes, her funding is unknown but that's exactly why it is relevant. Dark money groups pushing political agendas are manipulating the justice system.
This woman is just a convenient tool to weaken minority protections. Previous SC precedent from 1973 holds that Title VII cases consider a history of discrimination of groups in question when determining how much evidence is required to prove the case. There is no history of straight discrimination but there is significant past history and current LGBT discrimination. It makes NO SENSE to treat these events as equally probably but that is exactly what overturning this decision does.
This strips protections for LGBT, black, disabled people, non-Christians, and other protected minority groups. Now to prove they are discriminated against, they cannot rely on the well-proven precedent of this fact. This makes discrimination against these groups easier which of course is the point of all this anti-DEI stuff. It is Christian white supremacy in action.
Oh please tell me who I am being bigoted towards.
And neither do you. You don't even know what it costs to retain multiple top law offices for years on end.
Which reverses previous SC precedent which was put in place to protect minorities.