Salon.com once again promoting pedos.

[*bfine32*]

(05-25-2016, 11:48 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: I've also explained it at least one other time in one of the countless threads on this subject.

Nope, you both have provided your interpretion of it as well as a few of the lower courts. Unfortunately there are those that may not/ do not agree with the interpretation. You haven't explained anything except "it's the law because lower courts say so".

[Belsnickel]

(05-25-2016, 01:05 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Nope, you both have provided your interpretion of it as well as a few of the lower courts. Unfortunately there are those that may not/ do not agree with the interpretation. You haven't explained anything except "it's the law because lower courts say so".

I am stating the reasoning used, this is why every time I have explained it I have stated that is the way that the DoE has interpreted its application to Title IX, which is the executive department responsible for enforcing Title IX. I do also state that the courts, up through the circuit/appellate courts, have thus far agreed. SCOTUS won't weigh in until there is a contradictory ruling at the circuit level.

I do happen to agree with the logic, and have provided an example in an attempt to explain the thought process behind it. The attack on that has so far be "nuh uh, I disagree." That is fine, that's your opinion. I am just explaining the logic used to come to the conclusion by those responsible for enforcement and interpretation.

[*bfine32*]

(05-25-2016, 01:23 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I am stating the reasoning used, this is why every time I have explained it I have stated that is the way that the DoE has interpreted its application to Title IX, which is the executive department responsible for enforcing Title IX. I do also state that the courts, up through the circuit/appellate courts, have thus far agreed. SCOTUS won't weigh in until there is a contradictory ruling at the circuit level.

I do happen to agree with the logic, and have provided an example in an attempt to explain the thought process behind it. The attack on that has so far be "nuh uh, I disagree." That is fine, that's your opinion. I am just explaining the logic used to come to the conclusion by those responsible for enforcement and interpretation.

So according to you, the DoE, and lower courts. A white male can be discriminated against based on sex?

Condesend and consider that me saying "nuh uh" if you must.

[Belsnickel]

(05-25-2016, 01:40 PM)bfine32 Wrote: So according to you, the DoE, and lower courts. A white male can be discriminated against based on sex?

Yes. I almost said I had already answered this, then realized I never posted that reply.

(05-25-2016, 01:40 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Condesend and consider that me saying "nuh uh" if you must.

Just restating your attack against the logic used.

[*bfine32*]

(05-25-2016, 01:48 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Yes. I almost said I had already answered this, then realized I never posted that reply.

Interesting that that has been the interpretation. So nobody here can call me playing the Martyr card when I say I am being desriminated againt.

[GMDino]

(05-25-2016, 01:53 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Interesting that that has been the interpretation. So nobody here can call me playing the Martyr card when I say I am being desriminated againt.

[Belsnickel]

(05-25-2016, 01:53 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Interesting that that has been the interpretation. So nobody here can call me playing the Martyr card when I say I am being desriminated againt.

Sure they can. If someone is saying they are being discriminated against for and it is bullshit then it is bullshit. There are a lot of segments of the population that think they are being discriminated against when they are just not receiving favorable treatment over another group. All races do it, all religious segments do it, every segment of the population has done it.

[GMDino]

(05-25-2016, 01:58 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Sure they can. If someone is saying they are being discriminated against for and it is bullshit then it is bullshit. There are a lot of segments of the population that think they are being discriminated against when they are just not receiving favorable treatment over another group. All races do it, all religious segments do it, every segment of the population has done it.

[Belsnickel]

(05-25-2016, 01:58 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Sure they can. If someone is saying they are being discriminated against for and it is bullshit then it is bullshit. There are a lot of segments of the population that think they are being discriminated against when they are just not receiving favorable treatment over another group. All races do it, all religious segments do it, every segment of the population has done it.

I should also note that discrimination based on anything for anyone is often very difficult to prove. Unless someone outright says they are doing something because you are XYZ it isn't likely you will be able to prove discrimination. It's why those cases aren't very common with the EEOC, because even if someone is correct in their suspicions about discrimination due to race or whatever, it's extremely difficult to prove.

[Griever]

(05-25-2016, 01:57 PM)GMDino Wrote:

desriminated againt?

[BmorePat87]

(05-25-2016, 01:05 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Nope, you both have provided your interpretion of it as well as a few of the lower courts. Unfortunately there are those that may not/ do not agree with the interpretation. You haven't explained anything except "it's the law because lower courts say so".

No, it was explained. You disagree with the reasoning, and that's fine, but suggesting that there was no explanation because you disagree with the reasoning of the explanation is dishonest. 

[Griever]

(05-25-2016, 03:08 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: No, it was explained. You disagree with the reasoning, and that's fine, but suggesting that there was no explanation because you disagree with the reasoning of the explanation is dishonest. 

um

you do know who you are talking to, right?

im sure the fault of all this is the generations upon generations of diluting the gene poll for the sake of "multi-cultural" reasoning

[*bfine32*]

(05-25-2016, 01:58 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Sure they can. If someone is saying they are being discriminated against for and it is bullshit then it is bullshit. There are a lot of segments of the population that think they are being discriminated against when they are just not receiving favorable treatment over another group. All races do it, all religious segments do it, every segment of the population has done it.

My interpretation is that you must fall into one of the protected classes as outlined in the CRA. That document has been bastardized so many times over the last 50 years that Congress needs to do its job. Outside of that thier is always going to be difference of opinion both personally and in the courts.

The "every court has agreed" stance was also used in SSM until courts started to not agree. SCOTUS settled that one although the vote was as close as it could get and the decent was we failed to follow the constitution.

[*bfine32*]

(05-25-2016, 03:11 PM)Griever Wrote: um

you do know who you are talking to, right?

im sure the fault of all this is the generations upon generations of diluting the gene poll for the sake of "multi-cultural" reasoning

I should work to be a more constructive member of the forum like yourself.

[Belsnickel]

(05-25-2016, 04:41 PM)bfine32 Wrote: My interpretation is that you must fall into one of the protected classes as outlined in the CRA. That document has been bastardized so many times over the last 50 years that Congress needs to do its job. Outside of that thier is always going to be difference of opinion both personally and in the courts.

The "every court has agreed" stance was also used in SSM until courts started to not agree. SCOTUS settled that one although the vote was as close as it could get and the decent was we failed to follow the constitution.

The idea that the CRA only protects minorities is a myth. It prevents discrimination based on a number of different things, but doesn't specify non-white, female, etc. The CRA protects someone from discrimination whether it is because of them being white or them being black, male or female, Christian, Jewish, Muslim, it doesn't matter.

[*bfine32*]

(05-25-2016, 04:52 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: The idea that the CRA only protects minorities is a myth. It prevents discrimination based on a number of different things, but doesn't specify non-white, female, etc. The CRA protects someone from discrimination whether it is because of them being white or them being black, male or female, Christian, Jewish, Muslim, it doesn't matter.

I said it assigns protected classes, more directly sex; as we are discussing. Nothing was said about minorities until you introduced a myth.

[Griever]

(05-25-2016, 04:41 PM)bfine32 Wrote: My interpretation is that you must fall into one of the protected classes as outlined in the CRA. That document has been bastardized so many times over the last 50 years that Congress needs to do its job. Outside of that thier is always going to be difference of opinion both personally and in the courts.

The "every court has agreed" stance was also used in SSM until courts started to not agree. SCOTUS settled that one although the vote was as close as it could get and the decent was we failed to follow the constitution.

i agree, only white people deserve civil rights

[*bfine32*]

(05-25-2016, 04:42 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I should work to be a more constructive member of the forum like yourself.

(05-25-2016, 04:59 PM)Griever Wrote: i agree, only white people deserve civil rights

Just like clockwork

[Belsnickel]

(05-25-2016, 04:57 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I said it assigns protected classes, more directly sex; as we are discussing. Nothing was said about minorities until you introduced a myth.

If you weren't trying to say it only applies to minorities (or women, who aren't really a minority but are treated as such for equality purposes) then what did you mean by "you must fall into one of the protected classes as outlined in the CRA?" Since the CRA protects against discrimination based on race, religion, etc., everyone is protected because everyone has a race, everyone has a sex.

[*bfine32*]

(05-25-2016, 05:04 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: If you weren't trying to say it only applies to minorities (or women, who aren't really a minority but are treated as such for equality purposes) then what did you mean by "you must fall into one of the protected classes as outlined in the CRA?" Since the CRA protects against discrimination based on race, religion, etc., everyone is protected because everyone has a race, everyone has a sex.

Yes and you cannot be discriminated against because of your sex, race, ect... Your going to have to do a better job of explaining the "minority myth" or more importantly how I refered to it.