Steward Butler Catches a Break

[Y.A.G Si Ye Nots]

Understand that employers are automatically guilty in so-called civil rights cases. If you are a job creator and you fire a white male, he is fired. If you fire a viaible minorty, an unelected board will reexamine the while matter and INFER, without any actual evidence, a "discrimatory animation".

That is completely false. Why do you throw bullshit out there and think you won't be called out on it on this board? That is entirely NOT how civil rights cases work. Hell, I just went through one within the last couple of years. Other than the actual filing of the court documents, I did the entire thing on my own; compiled everything, wrote everything, represented myself in all hearings, etc. I was just served with a subpoena about an hour ago telling me when and where I have to be deposed for another federal civil rights case (not my litigation). You not only are clueless about the process, but you are also clueless about what you think happens.

First, the ONLY defense a job creator has is numerical. And, with a few things around the edge that are not worth arguing about, you can find the numbers for blacks, women, Presbyterians, wheel-chair bound, whatever. OK. How many homosexuals are there? Some homosexual advocates say 10%. Scientists say less than 1%. So I guess we have to register all the homosexuals. Maybe make them wear a pink triange. That works out really well. Remember the last time socialists started dividing people into groups like that. Worked real well.

Second, who are these people? So we are not going to register homosexuals, right? If a job creator fires a Jew and does not know he is Jewish, is that actionable? And, just as importantly if a job creator fires a guy name Goldfarb because he thinks he is Jewish, but Goldfarb is a Catholic, is that actionable. So how, exactly do we cover homosexuals. Whoever they are and how many of them there might be. What if I don't like my neighbor, who is a never-married, flashy dressing, 35-year old, Miata driving, florist? But what if he is as straight as an arrow?

You're answering your own questions. Are you too dumb to see this?

Third, the supposed reason for special priviliges for visible minorities is to remediate past generations of wrongs. 100% of homosexuals are the product of hetrosexual sex. Not the same thing as being born into a black family whose ancestors were denied an even shot, now is it?

Wrong on so many fronts it is comical. That is entire bullshit. Protected classes are not protected by legislation as some sort of reparations for past abuses or past discrimination. Protected classes are protected due to current and ongoing discrimination against them. Hell, this thread and the words against gays proves the need for that legislation.

Do you really believe that the legislation passed since the Civil Rights Act and expanded since is to "remediate past generations of wrongs?"

The Civil Rights Act (and expansion) is to protect against current wrongs; current discrimination that would happen (and still does) if not for the legislation.

Further, you claimed that this legislation was somehow "special privileges" granted to these minorities. This is going to be my second nomination for the dumbest argument of the month.

There are no "special privileges" granted by this legislation. A white male has the same exact protections as does a female, black, Muslim under this legislation. You can't fire the white Christian male based on his race, religion, or sex anymore than you can the female, black, Muslim based on her race, religion, or sex. In other words, there is no "special privilege." The protection applies to all . . . except for gays (sexual orientation).

"Special privilege" . . . that is some pure stupidity exhibited there.

But lastly, most social scientists will state that homosexuals, unlike those given the special priviliges by such laws, are, as a group, wealthier than average. It is a remedy without a wrong.

.

This is my third nomination for dumbest argument of the month.

Whites, as a whole, have a higher wealth than blacks. So, if a white guy at an HBCU is discriminated against due to being white, should he not be able to sue? Claiming that just because gays AS A WHOLE have a higher than average wealth doesn't mitigate the fact that gays are still discriminated against.

There are so many grossly foolish gaps in this argument that I won't even spend time on it.

Now, run along and pretend that nobody destroyed your arguments. Focus only on people mocking you for being too dumb to spell. Hell, you got destroyed on the first page of this thread where you argued irrelevant things and looked at the wrong issue, yet you avoided it and claimed only your spelling was discussed.

 

[ARandomHerdFan]

In other words, you have no point to make, so you checkspell, say people who have different opinions than you are "dumb", and post a meme.

Sad really.