Politics And Current Events

Postby **columbia** » Mon Jan 30, 2017 9:37 pm

What is the "special treatment" to which you're referring?

That phrase has a pretty specific historical connotation.

Postby **Freddy Rumsen** » Mon Jan 30, 2017 9:40 pm

Postby **Freddy Rumsen** » Mon Jan 30, 2017 9:42 pm

YouTube · Postby **mikey** » Mon Jan 30, 2017 9:42 pm

What is the "special treatment" to which you're referring?

"Protection" these groups are a "protected class"...so whatever comes with that...anyhwere from college admissions quotas to special language as to "not offend" (when I was in property management, there was a short time where HUD (?) passed down orders to stop referring to closets as "walk-in closets" as it is potentially offensive to the differently-abled...Jesus H. ****...

)

Postby **eddy** » Mon Jan 30, 2017 9:45 pm

https://twitter.com/rachaelmbade/status ... 9464770560

Postby **slappybrown** » Mon Jan 30, 2017 9:46 pm

What is the "special treatment" to which you're referring?
"Protection" these groups are a "protected class"...so whatever comes with that...anyhwere from college admissions quotas to special language as to "not offend" (when I was in property management, there was a short time where HUD (?) passed down orders to stop referring to closets as "walk-in closets" as it is potentially offensive to the differently-abled...Jesus H. ****... )

I think you need to sit down and read a lot of case law.

Postby **eddy** » Mon Jan 30, 2017 9:47 pm

https://twitter.com/tribelaw/status/826251933656678404

Postby **AuthorTony** » Mon Jan 30, 2017 9:47 pm

.but is the thought that if we said "ok, no more 'protected classes' everyone is just a person...figure it out..." that's viewed as negative, and inherently discriminatory...even though, on the surface, it's the opposite...

You do realize there's a huge difference between, "Let's treat everyone exactly the same, so a person is just a person" and saying, "Businesses should be allowed to not hire gays or Muslims, or any group they don't like because they're different", right?

Postby **MR25** » Mon Jan 30, 2017 9:47 pm

This is indefensible **** right here, in regards to firing the AG for doing the right thing.

YouTube · Postby **mikey** » Mon Jan 30, 2017 9:47 pm

What is the "special treatment" to which you're referring?
"Protection" these groups are a "protected class"...so whatever comes with that...anyhwere from college admissions quotas to special language as to "not offend" (when I was in property management, there was a short time where HUD (?) passed down orders to stop referring to closets as "walk-in closets" as it is potentially offensive to the differently-abled...Jesus H. ****... )
I think you need to sit down and read a lot of case law.

Care to point me to anything in particular, especially something digestible for a non-law student...?

Postby **slappybrown** » Mon Jan 30, 2017 9:48 pm

Is this for real?

Postby **MWB** » Mon Jan 30, 2017 9:48 pm

These seem to be two different arguments you are making. "Protected people" and not discriminating are two different things. I don't really know what the practical implications are of a "protected group" are, but I think it's negligible. However, saying it's okay to discriminate against someone has more far reaching implications, and laws were put in place because there were negative effects.

Postby **Freddy Rumsen** » Mon Jan 30, 2017 9:49 pm

https://twitter.com/AnarchyNoww/status/ ... 3785842688

Postby **columbia** » Mon Jan 30, 2017 9:49 pm

Betrayed

Postby **eddy** » Mon Jan 30, 2017 9:49 pm

https://twitter.com/Massawyrm/status/826250759767457794

Postby **obhave** » Mon Jan 30, 2017 9:50 pm

I mean, how long did Yates think she would be temp AG?

Postby **columbia** » Mon Jan 30, 2017 9:52 pm

I mean, how long did Yates think she would be temp AG?

I'm sure she was aware of what would happen in her near future.

YouTube · Postby **mikey** » Mon Jan 30, 2017 9:53 pm

.but is the thought that if we said "ok, no more 'protected classes' everyone is just a person...figure it out..." that's viewed as negative, and inherently discriminatory...even though, on the surface, it's the opposite...
You do realize there's a huge difference between, "Let's treat everyone exactly the same, so a person is just a person" and saying, "Businesses should be allowed to not hire gays or Muslims, or any group they don't like because they're different", right?

Honestly, not especially...or at least it's not the government's role to do such...if a business wants to cut off it's own face to feature its nose, that's their right...they are unlikely to survive...why minimize your talent market and your sales market and your supply market...? But if a business wants to give that a shot, why is there a third party authority to save them from their own stupidity...?

Postby **obhave** » Mon Jan 30, 2017 9:53 pm

https://twitter.com/DougHeye/status/826248577756311552

This is something I'm not familiar with, re NDA within a government agency. It seems like a poor idea, as with any job where you do something g behind your bosses back.

Postby **count2infinity** » Mon Jan 30, 2017 9:54 pm

Seems odd that the HUD would mandate an order to stop using the phrase walk-in closet when there's a fair housing act design manual that has a picture captioned "walk-in closet" with a person in a wheel chair in it as show on page 3.15 here:

https://www.wbdg.org/FFC/HUD/fairhousing.pdf

#fakenews

Postby **obhave** » Mon Jan 30, 2017 9:57 pm

My head can't stop spinning with all this stuff. Was this what it was like when Obama first took office for the Republicans/libertarians/whatever you call yourselves?

YouTube · Postby **mikey** » Mon Jan 30, 2017 9:57 pm

Seems odd that the HUD would mandate an order to stop using the phrase walk-in closet when there's a fair housing act design manual that has a picture captioned "walk-in closet" with a person in a wheel chair in it as show on page 3.15 here:

https://www.wbdg.org/FFC/HUD/fairhousing.pdf

#fakenews

Like I said, it was for a short time before common sense rose up and beat that back. However, it's noteworthy that a lot of that literature goes out of its way to say that "Walk-in closet" is an "acceptable" term. I can't imagine that anyone thought otherwise, until they flip-flopped on the issue...

Postby **count2infinity** » Mon Jan 30, 2017 10:01 pm

My head can't stop spinning with all this stuff. Was this what it was like when Obama first took office for the Republicans/libertarians/whatever you call yourselves?

Nope... they were strong, mature, and knew that Obama wasn't the end of the world. Or it could have been that Obama wasn't on the same playing field of whackadoodle that Trump is on, and there were freakouts, but social media was just starting to blossom so not everyone saw what everyone was thinking, just those immediately around them and what they saw on the news.

Postby **shafnutz05** » Mon Jan 30, 2017 10:02 pm

My head can't stop spinning with all this stuff. Was this what it was like when Obama first took office for the Republicans/libertarians/whatever you call yourselves?

But seriously, no. I'm actually starting to get a shade of anxiety when I watch the news now. I am trying to keep a level head with this stuff, but it's hard to watch and not be a little uneasy.

This was a good read:

https://www.axios.com/the-trump-bulldoz ... 44529.html

But from the point of view of the president's brain trust, he's getting his way, and, with each passing day, more Republicans and outside leaders seem to be falling in line, even as critics rage. This is more a bulldozer than a runaway train.

Postby **Freddy Rumsen** » Mon Jan 30, 2017 10:03 pm

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/vol ... 9e5a03e38b