Supreme Court strikes down affirmative action

Yeah bad decision on the law. The idea that the 14th Amendment that gave everyone equal protection was never intended to address race is just a ridiculous rewriting of history. That said I have long been in favor of getting rid of Affirmative Action. Not because it isn't warranted or doesn't work but because it is such an easy lightning rod. The unintended consequence is that people think that all people of color have an unfair advantage which is just ridiculous, but it sure is easy to point to Obama's kids and wonder why they should get preference in anything.

As you said income is a much better way to address inequality and at the end of the day income based preference will end up having the same outcomes for diversity. I understand why minorities want affirmative action based on race because at the end of the day no amount of money will make racism go away, but at some point you have to ask do you want more equality and diversity in institutions or do you want to be right about making a point about systemic racism. 

Finally back to Obama's kids they will be just fine because they are now protected by the biggest affirmative action program. Both of their parents went to Harvard and 35% of the kids who get accepted at Harvard get in under legacy. Funny how there aren't any lawsuits about that. 

Can't please everyone when a caste system is in place. 

6 of these fookers lied at their confirmation hearings...... precedent schwecedent

Yoink!

https://www.gocomics.com/laloalcaraz/2023/06/29

Racists.

They're not done yet.

SCOTUS just overturned protections for LGBTQ folks in business transactions and canceled Biden's student loan forgiveness program.

The ruling on LBGTQ rights is the most disturbing. 
 

First Amendment protection would be the business is free to say nasty shit about LBTQ people.

And it would be up to consumers whether to patronize any business owned by nasty homophobes.

But to extend First Amendment protection to a business owner which legally permits them to refuse service to a  group of people puts us back at the Woolworth counter.

A good test case would to flip the script and have  a business deny service to Evangelical Christians, for example -   because  the business owner finds them morally objectionable, against my religious/atheist beliefs - or whatever excuse the business owner claimed prevented her from doing business with LBGTQ (potential) customers. 

They need to be dead.

what Mark said

also all us white folk can have opinions all day and we will still never understand

has anyone mentioned that white chicks benefit most from affirmative action?

it is the system not those who need to be lifted up just to have basic equality. like, the right to exist, for starters.

also:

wedging some lgbt story into this thread discredits the point of this thread.

eyeroll

I eyeroll your eyeroll.

Fuckery is fuckery.

I may take this route; 

https://www.cnn.com/2023/07/02/entertainment/michael-imperioli-supreme-c...

this ruling legalizing (overt)   discrimination is going to get ugly fast as it just further divides our country as the GOP  use it to deny service to other minority groups. 

GOP talking points in defense of this ruling  are : ' Imagine a Jewish baker being required to put a swastika on a cake' 

question: when did Nazis become a protected group in the USA, legally speaking. 
 

Sotomayor says it best: 
 

https://www.reuters.com/legal/us-supreme-courts-liberals-warn-lgbt-rulin...

The ruling prompted a blistering 38-page dissent by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by fellow liberal Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, warning that it provided a "license to discriminate."

The ruling takes LGBT rights backwards, Sotomayor wrote. Beyond letting businesses deny services, Sotomayor added, it creates "stigmatic harm" and reminds "LGBT people of a painful feeling that they know all too well: There are some public places where they can be themselves, and some where they cannot. ... It is an awful way to live."

The ruling's rationale cannot be limited to discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity and could exclude other groups from many services, Sotomayor said.

Sotomayor gave examples of those who might face discrimination from businesses including interracial couples, disabled people and people in non-traditional families.

Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser, whose office defended the state's anti-discrimination law, offered further examples.

"A payroll company may read today's opinion as license to refuse service to women-owned businesses because the business owner believes women should not work outside the home. A bookseller of religious texts may believe it can refuse to sell books to a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints because he doesn't believe it to be a legitimate religion," Weiser said.