Tuesday, June 30, 2009

here is my take on things

and i've said it countless times. i do NOT care what gender you are. i do NOT care what color you are. i do NOT care who you sleep with (a willing adult of course). i only care if you can DO THE JOB. you can be a 4'11" 1/4 mongolian, 1/4 black, 1/8 white, 1/8 hispanic, 1/4 native american lesbian who is a practicing jain. i don't care. if you're capable of saving me from a fire, you got the job baby! i don't think one group of people should be shunned at the expense of another group of people. if there is a way to make things equal, they should be equal.

i have not seen the firefighters test that is in question here. i have no idea if it is geared toward one race or not. i do know it seems like one group of people WERE in fact discriminated against here. those are the ones that scored well on the exam.

oh and in case you can't tell. i am IN NO WAY CONSERVATIVE and i sort of agree with the outcome here.

Court Rules For White New Haven Firefighters Over Promotions

Supreme Court Firefighter Opinion reverses a decision that U.S. Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor endorsed

The Hartford Courant
The U.S. Supreme Court today ruled in favor of 20 New Haven firefighters who claim in a reverse discrimination case that they were denied promotion for racial reasons.

The 5-4 opinion reverses a decision that high court nominee Sonia Sotomayor endorsed as an appeals court judge.

It could alter employment practices across the country, limiting the circumstances in which employers can be held liable for personnel decisions that touch upon race when there is no evidence of intentional discrimination.

Representatives of both the firefighters and the city are expected to address the decision this afternoon.

The suit, Ricci v DeStefano, turned on an apparent contradiction in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which concerns employment discrimination. The law flatly prohibits race-based discrimination. But it also requires employers to scrap tests that produce "disparate" results among test-takers of different races – unless the employer can prove the test is necessary.

It was apparent from questions by the justices during oral argument on April 22 that philosophical disagreement about racial preference in hiring magnified the divide between the court's conservative and liberal blocs........

No comments: