NAACP issues Missouri travel advisory for people of color

[vraiblonde]

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...ravel-advisory-sponsored-lawmaker-who-n788941

This is pretty hilarious considering St. Louis is predominantly black and brown people and has an enormously high violent crime rate, which means that white people have pretty much already advised themselves against traveling (and living) there.

 

[Sapidus]

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...ravel-advisory-sponsored-lawmaker-who-n788941

This is pretty hilarious considering St. Louis is predominantly black and brown people and has an enormously high violent crime rate, which means that white people have pretty much already advised themselves against traveling (and living) there.

I thought you had a lot of black friends? I don't think they would think your statement was very kind or that this lawsuit was hilarious.

 

[Monello]

Can we just stop with all this nonsense.

They should change the ACP part to Always Causing Problems.

 

[Hijinx]

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...ravel-advisory-sponsored-lawmaker-who-n788941

This is pretty hilarious considering St. Louis is predominantly black and brown people and has an enormously high violent crime rate, which means that white people have pretty much already advised themselves against traveling (and living) there.

People are pretty safe traveling in most states and most cities as long as they stay away from being anywhere near MLK Jr. Boulevard.

 

[Wishbone]

as long as they stay away from being anywhere near MLK Jr. Boulevard.

 

[PJay]

Please can we pick one state, put all (white, black, etc.) heathens there and let them eat each other?

 

[Rommey]

MOTIVATING FACTOR STANDARD

Currently, under the Missouri Human Rights Act (MHRA), a practice is unlawful when the protected classification is a contributing factor in the decision to discriminate. This act changes that standard to the motivating factor. The motivating factor is defined to mean that the employee's protected classification actually played a role in the adverse action or decision and had a determinative influence on the adverse decision or action. The person must further prove that such action was the direct proximate cause of the claimed damages.

This doesn't sound unreasonable to me. It sounds like just being a protected class person was all the grounds someone needed to make a claim, whether there was evidence or justification i.e., "I'm [enter protected class here] and I didn't get my way so I'm going to claim discrimination solely because I'm [enter protected class here]". It sounds like they now have to prove that they were actually harmed in some form and to what extent them being in a protected class actually play in the harm.

 

[GURPS]

I don't think ....

 

[This_person]

"While troubling on its merits, the bill represents a severe abuse of power by a sitting senator," Rep. Joshua Peters wrote to House leadership. "The bill seeks to remove legal protections under which the sponsor of this bill is currently facing litigation. For that reason, even entertaining or participating in a vote on such legislation would make this entire body complicit in the senator's unethical act of corruption and a violation of our oath."

By this logic, any female legislator who has not gone through menopause has no business voting on abortion law; no legislator who pays taxes should be voting on tax law; no legislator who has ever gotten a speeding ticket or any other vehicular violation should be allowed to vote on MVA issues, etc., etc.