Federal jury: N-word use by blacks not acceptable (rating, world, work)

[SourD]

Originally Posted by Chimuelojones

That is a supposition that is unprovable. The award was granted...so where is the double standard? Surely the case having to go to court cant be the double standard. The rulling can't be the double standard. The award can't be the double standard.

There are numerous cases of "White bosses" taken to court on a EEOC cases which were not fired "on the spot". The only reason this made the "hit parade" is the race of the boss. nothing more.

Let it all be known that you support racism depending on skin color of the offender.

[Chimuelojones]

Originally Posted by SourD

Let it all be known that you support racism depending on skin color of the offender.

the opposite. Under the EEOC guidelines no race has the right to discriminate against another...regardless of the race of the person doing the discriminating.

That has nothing to do with a "double standard".

[pknopp]

Originally Posted by Chimuelojones

the opposite. Under the EEOC guidelines no race has the right to discriminate against another...regardless of the race of the person doing the discriminating.

That has nothing to do with a "double standard".

The courts discarded the argument of a legitimacy of the double standard. That is what was being argued.

[Dale Cooper]

Originally Posted by SourD

Let it all be known that you support racism depending on skin color of the offender.

A common anomaly.

[HappyTexan]

Originally Posted by Chimuelojones

the opposite. Under the EEOC guidelines no race has the right to discriminate against another...regardless of the race of the person doing the discriminating.

That has nothing to do with a "double standard".

The court case itself is about double standard.
The argument was that saying it Black to Black was not offensive or discriminatory.

Maybe you need to READ the OP link.

Had the employer been White there would be no court case about "context".

[TheMoreYouKnow]

Originally Posted by Chimuelojones

the opposite. Under the EEOC guidelines no race has the right to discriminate against another...regardless of the race of the person doing the discriminating.

That has nothing to do with a "double standard".

So you agree with the outcome of this court case then right?

[Chimuelojones]

Originally Posted by pknopp

The courts discarded the argument of a legitimacy of the double standard. That is what was being argued.

that is not the reason the jury rulled the way it did. the author and CD commenters may wish to see that as the reason...

the defense's defense was not on trial, the actions of the boss were.

[Chimuelojones]

Originally Posted by TheMoreYouKnow

So you agree with the outcome of this court case then right?

Of course, I dont agree with any contention that this proves a double standard ...in this case. As the OP contended.

[TheMoreYouKnow]

Originally Posted by HappyTexan

The court case itself is about double standard.
The argument was that saying it Black to Black was not offensive or discriminatory.

Maybe you need to READ the OP link.

Had the employer been White there would be no court case about "context".

He knows. He ain't that stupid.

[TheMoreYouKnow]

Originally Posted by Chimuelojones

Of course, I dont agree with any contention that this proves a double standard ...in this case. As the OP contended.

The OP never claimed that this case proved a double standard, this case took place because of an exiting double standard and this decision went against that double standard which is a good thing.