Page 9 of 17 FirstFirst ... 7891011 ... LastLast
Results 161 to 180 of 338

Thread: Wmlb?

  1. #161
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Charlotte, NC
    Posts
    3,525
    I offer Ichiro as an example of a very popular player who does not succeed all by power and strength.

    I also think that when most people say they prefer to watch the best they are combining all aspects power, speed, strength, strategy, skill, etc. To disregard the power/strength side is as unfair as dismissing the strategy/skill side.

    When people say they want to watch the best, that means they want to watch the player/team that would win in a competition. Therefore, the best.

  2. #162
    NotAboutEgo Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by metfan13 View Post
    I offer Ichiro as an example of a very popular player who does not succeed all by power and strength.

    I also think that when most people say they prefer to watch the best they are combining all aspects power, speed, strength, strategy, skill, etc. To disregard the power/strength side is as unfair as dismissing the strategy/skill side.

    When people say they want to watch the best, that means they want to watch the player/team that would win in a competition. Therefore, the best.
    Yes, but Ichiro is unique. He's one of the few who is popular without the power numbers. Who are the most popular? Most are the ones with the power numbers. There are very few who don't have power numbers who are popular.

    I don't agree with dismissing the power/strength side, either. But, it doesn't mean someone isn't good or even great without that same power and strength.

    Let's take Polanco again, for an example. Here are some of his stats from 2007 (taken from the Tigers web site)...

    Established career highs with 105 runs scored, 200 hits, 36 doubles and 67 RBI in his third season with Detroit. Third in the American League with a .341 batting average, while he was fifth with 200 hits and 10th with 105 runs scored. Toughest batter to strike out in the American League, fanning once every 21.4 plate appearances.

    Polanco only had 30 K's and 37 BB's all season... in 587 AB's in 142 games. That's astonishing.

    Now let's compare Polanco to Sheffield, another great hitter and probably the hitter with the most power. Polanco had 30 K's, 37 BB's, 9 HR's, a .341 BA, a .388 OBP, and a .458 SLG. Sheffield had 71 K's, 84 BB's, 25 HR's, a .265 BA, a .378 OBP, and a .462 SLG.

    Who's the better hitter? Power and strength certainly add to the mix, but they aren't everything. Now, how would a woman do if she received the same type of training and the exact same types of opportunities as these guys received to develop their talents and skills? Perhaps she wouldn't have as much power as most MLB players, but it doesn't mean she wouldn't be able to be a very successful player. And contrary to popular belief, it doesn't take the most size and strength the be able to make solid contact with the ball while hitting, and it doesn't take the most strength and size to learn to be a great hitter and to do other things well. It takes a combination of things, and size and strength aren't always the most important.

    Some people like to discredit women and put them down because they lack the size and strength of men, and then they go on to say that women aren't as skilled or talented athletically because they lack the size and strength. I agree that size and strength play an important factor and have never refuted that. But, when size and strength don't play important factors or aren't the most important factors, then the results may be different.
    Last edited by NotAboutEgo; 01-02-2008 at 10:00 AM.

  3. #163
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Charlotte, NC
    Posts
    3,525
    There are many popular players, Jose Reyes is another, who don't depend on the power game. There always have been. Guys like Rose, Carew, Boggs, Gwynn. On the other hand even these guys used way more strength that even your most athletic women, to be able to play baseball at the level they did.

    You have to be very strong to last a long time in the game even as a non-power player.

  4. #164
    NotAboutEgo Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by metfan13 View Post
    From what I could find ski jump has not been included because few countries would be able to send competitors. It's not a widespread sport. I do see that women's ski jump will be added to other international competitions over the next couple of years.
    Interesting... these sites are to the contrary of what you're saying about there not being enough countries with women ski jumpers to participate in the olympics. Also, according to final results and the required number of participating countries for a sport to be added to the Olympics, men's ski jumping doesn't qualify.


    http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/...n1283679.shtml


    http://www.womensskijumpingusa.com/timeline.htm

    WOMEN'S SKI-JUMPING MYTHS

    1. There are not enough women involved in competition-level ski-jumping.

    ANSWER = The Official FIS web site lists 142 women ski-jumpers, of which 109 are actively competing.

    2. There are not enough contries involved in competition-level ski-jumping.

    ANSWER = 14 countries are currently active in Women's Ski-Jumping - Austria, Canada, Czech, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, Norway, Slovakia, Swizterland, Sweden, USA.

    3. This is a new discipline, new event and requries extensive review and (sub) committee approvals.

    ANSWER=Ski-jumping has been an Olympic sport since 1924. This is not a new discipline or new event. It only requires additional time allocation to allow the women to jump.




    http://www.skijumpingcentral.com/behind.htm

    Flying Females - Featured Forerunners
    Women's ski jumping growing in U.S. and internationally
    Although there's not yet a women's ski jumping event at the Olympics, the growth of the sport over the last ten years has been spectacular. Some of the forerunners (trial riders prior to competition) at each of the 2002 Olympic events were women.



    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11147829/



    http://blogs.usatoday.com/sportsscop...mping_wom.html

    Ski jumping women grounded
    The documentary Jump Like a Girl follows U.S. women who have taken up the sport and the cause of ski jumping. Today, an unhappy ending was tacked onto the film. Women's ski jumping did not make the cut for the 2010 Olympics.

    The Olympic charter specifies the criteria for including new events in the Games. (Scroll to page 89 of this PDF file.) At least, the powers that be think it does. It's actually a little muddled. A "sport" must be practised by at least 25 countries on three continents for inclusion in the Winter Games (article 47.1.2), but an "event" needs 35 (47.3.3)? What?

    One commentary from Park City, Utah, where the U.S. ski jumpers of both genders train, says of the Olympic charter's 1991 modification: "This loophole has grandfathered in the discrimination against women ski jumpers and continues to allow the IOC to add less developed sports."

    Ski jumping and Nordic combined are the only sports in the Winter Olympics open only to men. In the Summer Games, boxing is currently single-gender, though women's boxing is lobbying for inclusion. The other men-only sport, baseball, is on its way out of the Games, along with softball. That will leave synchronized swimming and rhythmic gymnastics as the only sports open only to women.

    The IOC also ruled out several "team" events (Alpine skiing, luge, bobsled, skeleton) and a couple of mixed events (biathlon relay, curling doubles).

    Making the cut: Skicross (or, by its X Games name, Skier X), which is like snowboardcross except with ski poles and the skis themselves adding to the injury risk. The reaction from Off Wing Opinion: "Why not give them rifles and grenades too? Is that extreme enough for you?"

    Snowboardcross was a hit in Torino, and it has been retained for future Games.



    Thia last story I posted is VERY interesting. It states that at least 25 countries from at least 3 continents need to be represented in order for a sport to be added to the Olympics. I then looked up the 2006 Olympic results of ski jumping (remember... this is only men's ski jumping). I looked at the individual final rankings for Normal Hill and Large Hill... the two events I saw posted. After counting countries, I found that there are JUST 18 on the list. That seems to be a bit under the "required" 25 countries. In addition, in the Men's K120 Team (interesting how they list it as Men's when there's no women's ski jumping in the Olympics), there are only 16 countries listed in the final results. Also, women's international ski jumping includes 14 countries currently... just 4 under the number of countries participating in men's Olympic ski jumping. Seems that this is about politics and discrimination and stereotypes.

    I also find it interesting that most (maybe all... I'm not an expert on foreign names) of the members of the voting committee are men. Hmmmmmmm... It seems to me like there's enough interest and there are enough countries that are already participating in it for women's ski jumping to be added.

  5. #165
    NotAboutEgo Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by metfan13 View Post
    There are many popular players, Jose Reyes is another, who don't depend on the power game. There always have been. Guys like Rose, Carew, Boggs, Gwynn. On the other hand even these guys used way more strength that even your most athletic women, to be able to play baseball at the level they did.

    You have to be very strong to last a long time in the game even as a non-power player.
    You have to be very conditioned and in great shape. Don't even get on that kick, that women aren't strong enough to last long playing a sport at a professional level. We have babies, so give me a break!

  6. #166
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Charlotte, NC
    Posts
    3,525
    Quote Originally Posted by NotAboutEgo View Post
    You have to be very conditioned and in great shape. Don't even get on that kick, that women aren't strong enough to last long playing a sport at a professional level. We have babies, so give me a break!
    And what does one have to do with the other? You're talking about women competing on a level with men in baseball and/or other sports. While more than strength comes into play, strength, even for those men whose game doesn't depend on it (as compared to other men) still gives them a decided advantage over women.

  7. #167
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Charlotte, NC
    Posts
    3,525
    Quote Originally Posted by NotAboutEgo View Post
    Interesting... these sites are to the contrary of what you're saying about there not being enough countries with women ski jumpers to participate in the olympics. Also, according to final results and the required number of participating countries for a sport to be added to the Olympics, men's ski jumping doesn't qualify.


    http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/...n1283679.shtml


    http://www.womensskijumpingusa.com/timeline.htm

    WOMEN'S SKI-JUMPING MYTHS

    1. There are not enough women involved in competition-level ski-jumping.

    ANSWER = The Official FIS web site lists 142 women ski-jumpers, of which 109 are actively competing.

    2. There are not enough contries involved in competition-level ski-jumping.

    ANSWER = 14 countries are currently active in Women's Ski-Jumping - Austria, Canada, Czech, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, Norway, Slovakia, Swizterland, Sweden, USA.

    3. This is a new discipline, new event and requries extensive review and (sub) committee approvals.

    ANSWER=Ski-jumping has been an Olympic sport since 1924. This is not a new discipline or new event. It only requires additional time allocation to allow the women to jump.




    http://www.skijumpingcentral.com/behind.htm

    Flying Females - Featured Forerunners
    Women's ski jumping growing in U.S. and internationally
    Although there's not yet a women's ski jumping event at the Olympics, the growth of the sport over the last ten years has been spectacular. Some of the forerunners (trial riders prior to competition) at each of the 2002 Olympic events were women.



    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11147829/



    http://blogs.usatoday.com/sportsscop...mping_wom.html

    Ski jumping women grounded
    The documentary Jump Like a Girl follows U.S. women who have taken up the sport and the cause of ski jumping. Today, an unhappy ending was tacked onto the film. Women's ski jumping did not make the cut for the 2010 Olympics.

    The Olympic charter specifies the criteria for including new events in the Games. (Scroll to page 89 of this PDF file.) At least, the powers that be think it does. It's actually a little muddled. A "sport" must be practised by at least 25 countries on three continents for inclusion in the Winter Games (article 47.1.2), but an "event" needs 35 (47.3.3)? What?

    One commentary from Park City, Utah, where the U.S. ski jumpers of both genders train, says of the Olympic charter's 1991 modification: "This loophole has grandfathered in the discrimination against women ski jumpers and continues to allow the IOC to add less developed sports."

    Ski jumping and Nordic combined are the only sports in the Winter Olympics open only to men. In the Summer Games, boxing is currently single-gender, though women's boxing is lobbying for inclusion. The other men-only sport, baseball, is on its way out of the Games, along with softball. That will leave synchronized swimming and rhythmic gymnastics as the only sports open only to women.

    The IOC also ruled out several "team" events (Alpine skiing, luge, bobsled, skeleton) and a couple of mixed events (biathlon relay, curling doubles).

    Making the cut: Skicross (or, by its X Games name, Skier X), which is like snowboardcross except with ski poles and the skis themselves adding to the injury risk. The reaction from Off Wing Opinion: "Why not give them rifles and grenades too? Is that extreme enough for you?"

    Snowboardcross was a hit in Torino, and it has been retained for future Games.



    Thia last story I posted is VERY interesting. It states that at least 25 countries from at least 3 continents need to be represented in order for a sport to be added to the Olympics. I then looked up the 2006 Olympic results of ski jumping (remember... this is only men's ski jumping). I looked at the individual final rankings for Normal Hill and Large Hill... the two events I saw posted. After counting countries, I found that there are JUST 18 on the list. That seems to be a bit under the "required" 25 countries. In addition, in the Men's K120 Team (interesting how they list it as Men's when there's no women's ski jumping in the Olympics), there are only 16 countries listed in the final results. Also, women's international ski jumping includes 14 countries currently... just 4 under the number of countries participating in men's Olympic ski jumping. Seems that this is about politics and discrimination and stereotypes.

    I also find it interesting that most (maybe all... I'm not an expert on foreign names) of the members of the voting committee are men. Hmmmmmmm... It seems to me like there's enough interest and there are enough countries that are already participating in it for women's ski jumping to be added.
    I read the first article you posted and in it it mentions numbers who jump, but also questions whether many are even competitive.

    I'm also still looking for the data that shows, as you claimed, that women jump farther than men.

  8. #168
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Charlotte, NC
    Posts
    3,525
    And let me just say that personally, I see no reason why there shouldn't be a women's ski jump competition at the Olympics. But apparently they have rules where you need to have a certain number of international competitions first, then there needs to be enough countries participating, etc.

  9. #169
    NotAboutEgo Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by metfan13 View Post
    And what does one have to do with the other? You're talking about women competing on a level with men in baseball and/or other sports. While more than strength comes into play, strength, even for those men whose game doesn't depend on it (as compared to other men) still gives them a decided advantage over women.
    Think about it. Being pregnant and having a baby is VERY physically demanding and is very hard on the body and also on the emotions (because of spiking hormone levels). That's almost a whole year of physically supporting not only yourself, but another person as well... eating enough, eating right, the physical strain and pain, carrying around excess weight, etc. It's even harder on the body than playing pro sports. Millions and millions of women throughout time have had 10 or more children in their lifetime. My maternal great grandmother had 11 children... all around 2 years apart from the next one. That's over 20 years of being pregnant and having babies. Since a woman is pregnant for around 9 months, that leaves just around 3 months of each of year that my great grandmother wasn't pregnant for those 20+ years.

    Now, you're saying a woman wouldn't be able to sustain a pro sports career for 10... 15... 20 years? Give me a break!

    So, if a woman was able to compensate for not having as much strength as men do, by training harder, by honing her skills more, by preparing enough, by having enough talent... she would still be able to compete and be successful... even if some men have a just a slight strength and size advantage.

    And the point of comparing a Polanco to a Sheffield was to show that even though Sheffield has way more power, Polanco is by far the better hitter as a whole, as is shown by his level of success. I'd take a team full of Polanco's over a team full of power hitters. I'm not degrading power hitters, but Polanco-type hitters are going to give you more day in and day out and therefore, will give you more production.

  10. #170
    NotAboutEgo Guest
    Oh, I forgot. Then, there's the recovery time after having a baby.

  11. #171
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Charlotte, NC
    Posts
    3,525
    Quote Originally Posted by NotAboutEgo View Post
    Think about it. Being pregnant and having a baby is VERY physically demanding and is very hard on the body and also on the emotions (because of spiking hormone levels). That's almost a whole year of physically supporting not only yourself, but another person as well... eating enough, eating right, the physical strain and pain, carrying around excess weight, etc. It's even harder on the body than playing pro sports. Millions and millions of women throughout time have had 10 or more children in their lifetime. My maternal great grandmother had 11 children... all around 2 years apart from the next one. That's over 20 years of being pregnant and having babies. Since a woman is pregnant for around 9 months, that leaves just around 3 months of each of year that my great grandmother wasn't pregnant for those 20+ years.

    Now, you're saying a woman wouldn't be able to sustain a pro sports career for 10... 15... 20 years? Give me a break!

    So, if a woman was able to compensate for not having as much strength as men do, by training harder, by honing her skills more, by preparing enough, by having enough talent... she would still be able to compete and be successful... even if some men have a just a slight strength and size advantage.

    And the point of comparing a Polanco to a Sheffield was to show that even though Sheffield has way more power, Polanco is by far the better hitter as a whole, as is shown by his level of success. I'd take a team full of Polanco's over a team full of power hitters. I'm not degrading power hitters, but Polanco-type hitters are going to give you more day in and day out and therefore, will give you more production.
    And again, what does one have to do with the other?

    That's like saying, if I can run marathons I can have a successful baseball career.

    As for Polanco vs. Sheffield, I think you can get a lot of arguements that the Sheffield type is the more valuable player. but all I was doing was giving a few examples of nonpowers who were successful/famous, etc.

  12. #172
    NotAboutEgo Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by metfan13 View Post
    And again, what does one have to do with the other?

    That's like saying, if I can run marathons I can have a successful baseball career.

    As for Polanco vs. Sheffield, I think you can get a lot of arguements that the Sheffield type is the more valuable player. but all I was doing was giving a few examples of nonpowers who were successful/famous, etc.
    It's NOT saying the same thing. Running a marathon and having a successful baseball career require a different set of skills and talents. Yet, both require physical endurance and conditioning and training. You were talking about strength. If women have the strength to have babies for years and are able to endure it... then they have the strength to play pro sports for a number of years, since having a baby is way more physically demanding. And women DO train to have babies to make the birth process easier. The more one trains, the more they will be prepared. THAT'S the connection.

    People who focus on power over production might argue that Sheffield is more valuable. Both are extremely valuable. They compliment one another in their talents and skills... therefore, they are both extremely important to the team. But, Polanco has proven he produces more. Sure, when Sheffield hits the ball, it's a bit more dramatic than when Polanco hits the ball. But, Polanco hardly ever is unsuccessful at getting on base. Polanco was 2nd in hits with the Tigers in 2007 (200) and Sheffield was 7th (131). Polanco had 36 doubles and Sheffield had 20, while Polanco had 3 triples and Sheffield had 1. Polanco had 269 TB's and Sheffield had 228, despite Sheffield having around 2.5 times more BB's than Polanco. Sheffield beat Polanco in runs, RBIs, HRs and SLG. Polanco just knows how to hit... period. Each one has different talents and skills that help them more than others, but power isn't the most dominating factor at all. It's just one of them.

  13. #173
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Long Island, NY - Dallas, TX
    Posts
    472
    oh my god.... the subject that will never cease or die lol

    gone for a couple of months and i havent missed a thing!

  14. #174
    NotAboutEgo Guest
    Core strength to be able to hit a baseball far or to be able to throw a baseball hard is not the same as having the strength to endure/persevere a long baseball season. The strength to endure/persevere has to do more with physically conditioning and training and also with the power of one's mind. It's not about sheer core muscle mass/strength or physical size.

  15. #175
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Charlotte, NC
    Posts
    3,525
    Quote Originally Posted by NotAboutEgo View Post
    It's NOT saying the same thing. Running a marathon and having a successful baseball career require a different set of skills and talents. Yet, both require physical endurance and conditioning and training. You were talking about strength. If women have the strength to have babies for years and are able to endure it... then they have the strength to play pro sports for a number of years, since having a baby is way more physically demanding. And women DO train to have babies to make the birth process easier. The more one trains, the more they will be prepared. THAT'S the connection.

    People who focus on power over production might argue that Sheffield is more valuable. Both are extremely valuable. They compliment one another in their talents and skills... therefore, they are both extremely important to the team. But, Polanco has proven he produces more. Sure, when Sheffield hits the ball, it's a bit more dramatic than when Polanco hits the ball. But, Polanco hardly ever is unsuccessful at getting on base. Polanco was 2nd in hits with the Tigers in 2007 (200) and Sheffield was 7th (131). Polanco had 36 doubles and Sheffield had 20, while Polanco had 3 triples and Sheffield had 1. Polanco had 269 TB's and Sheffield had 228, despite Sheffield having around 2.5 times more BB's than Polanco. Sheffield beat Polanco in runs, RBIs, HRs and SLG. Polanco just knows how to hit... period. Each one has different talents and skills that help them more than others, but power isn't the most dominating factor at all. It's just one of them.

    You're talking about different kinds of strengths with your analogy just as I am.

  16. #176
    NotAboutEgo Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by metfan13 View Post
    You're talking about different kinds of strengths with your analogy just as I am.
    One of dictionary.com's definitions of strength is:

    1. the quality or state of being strong; bodily or muscular power; vigor.


    It's definition of stamina (an synonym of endurance) is:

    stam·i·na1 /ˈstæmənə/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[stam-uh-nuh] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
    –noun strength of physical constitution; power to endure disease, fatigue, privation, etc.


    Stamina/endurance, or strength of physical condition, is what determines whether one lasts or not. Core strength, level of bodily/muscular strength, is not the same. Having a baby takes conditining in the form of breathing exercises and physical conditioning, and things like meditation help... therefore, endurance/stamina. The more one is conditioned, the easier the birthing process will be for her. The same as an athlete... the more conditioned and prepared they are, the longer they will last during the season without burning out. That doesn't mean they are the strongest in terms of core strength (body/muscle strength).

    You stated that women aren't strong enough to handle playing a pro sports season. Core strength doesn't determine whether one is conditioned or not. Conditioning (or in other terms, preparation and state of the body and mind in order to do so) does.

  17. #177
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Charlotte, NC
    Posts
    3,525
    Actually I never said women aren't strong enough to handle playing a pro sports season. WNBA players already do. (Though their season is shorter)

    You have a habit of latching onto part of a statement and running with it.

    I did say that players like Rose, Gwynn, Boggs, etc had to be strong to have the long careers they did. Even though they aren't considered power players.

  18. #178
    NotAboutEgo Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by metfan13 View Post
    Actually I never said women aren't strong enough to handle playing a pro sports season. WNBA players already do. (Though their season is shorter)

    You have a habit of latching onto part of a statement and running with it.

    I did say that players like Rose, Gwynn, Boggs, etc had to be strong to have the long careers they did. Even though they aren't considered power players.
    You stated, "You have to be very strong to last a long time in the game even as a non-power player." We had been talking about men having size and strength advantages over women. When talking about players who are not power players, I stated that if a woman had the same opportunities to develop as men had, then she would be able to be successful as a non-power play. You said one has to be very strong to make it even as a non-power player... even if you didn't say it directly, it sounds like you are inferring that women are not strong enough, since they are not considered very strong compared to men. If you weren't inferring that, then I don't know what the point of stating it was.

    I run with certain things, because a lot of people say a lot of crap on here... based on opinions taken from stereotypes and myths but not taken from fact... one of them being that skill and talent is the same as strength and power and that women aren't as skilled or talented because they lack the same strength and power of men.

    Like I said before, if women and men were equal in size and strength/power, would we be having these discussions?

  19. #179
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Charlotte, NC
    Posts
    3,525
    Quote Originally Posted by NotAboutEgo View Post
    You stated, "You have to be very strong to last a long time in the game even as a non-power player." We had been talking about men having size and strength advantages over women. When talking about players who are not power players, I stated that if a woman had the same opportunities to develop as men had, then she would be able to be successful as a non-power play. You said one has to be very strong to make it even as a non-power player... even if you didn't say it directly, it sounds like you are inferring that women are not strong enough, since they are not considered very strong compared to men. If you weren't inferring that, then I don't know what the point of stating it was.

    I run with certain things, because a lot of people say a lot of crap on here... based on opinions taken from stereotypes and myths but not taken from fact... one of them being that skill and talent is the same as strength and power and that women aren't as skilled or talented because they lack the same strength and power of men.

    Like I said before, if women and men were equal in size and strength/power, would we be having these discussions?
    I doubt you'll find the woman able to compete at the major league level with the strength of even the non-power hitters I mentioned. Again what that has to do with childbirth, I don't know.

  20. #180
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Q.U. Hectic
    Posts
    5,135
    Quote Originally Posted by captlid View Post
    The original militia act only included males from the age of 17 to 45. That is the same age group that is used for the military draft if I am not mistaken.

    In terms of discrimination and constitutional law, its pretty simple. If an organization or company is in anyway benefitting from public funds (which the MLB is because of funded stadiums) than it has to abide by the Equal Employer guidelines.

    Now on the other hand if the MLB totally funded everything by itself, it has every right as a private entity to associate or not associate (the first amendment) with anyone it pleases. And that includes black folk back in the day. Whether its morally right is a whole nother story.

    I guess thats why america has so many lawers. We have alot of city, state and federal laws.
    Again, not my area of expertise, but I don't believe this is correct.

    Private entities still have to abide by Constitutional law. No entity, private of public can discriminate on the basis of race. It is a fully protected class, meaning that the burden to prove the justification of discriminating by race is almost impossible to meet.

    Gender is not in the same legal class as race, religion, and (now duplicative?) creed. This means that it is possible to justify discrimination based upon gender, gender is a semi-protected class. It is pretty difficult to create a compelling enough argument, but it can be done.

    Discrimination against non-protected classes (you can't ride the rollercoaster if you are over X amount of pounds or something) are very easy to discriminate against, in a legal sense. The burden of proof one needs to justify the policy is pretty light.

    An entity being private or public isn't the determining factor.
    THE REVOLUTION WILL NOT COME WITH A SCORECARD

    In the avy: AZ - Doe or Die

Page 9 of 17 FirstFirst ... 7891011 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •