Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> >   The accuser (in this case the government imposing the quotas) has the
> > burden of proof, not the accused (in this case the employer). That's
> > judicial procedure 101. It doesn't matter what statistics may say. You
> > can't go making guilty-by-default assumptions.

> Nobody said the employer is guilty of discrimination. We said they get 
> investigated.

  The context, at least from my part, was hiring quotas imposed by the
government.

  If someone is suspected of a crime, then it should be investigated.
A hiring quota is not investigation. It's assumption of guilt.

>  >   That's as ridiculous as claiming that forbidding women's
>  >  suffrage applies equally to all people, and hence it's fair.

> Anyone with enough money is allowed to own slaves, right? So it's not 
> discrimination.

  I like how you keep bringing up examples of discrimination as examples
of non-discrimination.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message