Quote:
Originally Posted by skooter
i agree with a quote from the article
while i dont agree with the loose interpretation of law,
or someone trying to use a law written in 1866 to decide a present day issue,
we have to do everything we can to allow people to reveal discrimination,
or there will always be discrimination.
so i view the decisions as 'necessarily loose' interpretations,
and im okay with them.
a.k.a.
i don't really care.
loose interpretations suck,
but so does punishing someone for revealing discrimination.
 the court still hangs to the right |
loose interpretation?
Quote:
|
In a pair of decisions, the court concluded that claims of retaliation were covered by long-standing civil rights laws, even though this kind of discrimination was not mentioned specifically in the statutes.
|
...if something isn't specifically mentioned it isn't covered, so this offends your sensibilities, or you have issues with the court upholding "long-standing civil rights laws" as a practice?
what principles are involved? was this an activist decision?