http://www.dailygazette.com

Quoted Text

ALBANY
Reverse discrimination lawsuit on track for trial
BY JAMES SCHLETT Gazette Reporter

    Saying a jury should decide whether former Senate Minority Leader David Paterson committed racial job discrimination, a federal judge Tuesday refused to throw out a lawsuit in which a Schenectady man alleges he lost his Senate cameraman position because he is white.
    U.S. District Court Judge Norman Mordue of Syracuse denied the state Office of the Attorney General’s motion for a summary judgment on Joseph Maioriello ’s suit. That ruling puts the case involving now-Lt. Gov. Paterson on track for trial. In 2005, the cameraman sued the state for $1.5 million, claiming reverse discrimination.
    After working for the Assembly and Senate for 26 years as a photographer and cable TV coordinator, Maioriello lost his job in 2003. His termination came a year after Paterson succeeded Sen. Martin Connor as the minority leader. Maioriello alleges Paterson fi red him so he could be replaced with a black photographer.
    Paterson, who last year became lieutenant governor, claims concerns over Maioriello’s reliability — not his race — prompted the dismissal. Paterson is black and legally blind.
    “[There] is evidence from which a reasonable fact finder could conclude that Senator Paterson’s decision to terminate [Maioriello] based on his doubts about whether [Maioriello] would be loyal to him was a pretext for unlawful discrimination based on race,” Mordue said in his ruling.
    The Attorney General’s offi ce and Maioriello attorney, Anne-Jo McTague, did not immediately return calls Tuesday seeking comment.

There's no such thing as reverse discrimination.

Discrimination is discrimination.

Quoted from Kevin March

There's no such thing as reverse discrimination.

Discrimination is discrimination.

Kevin- your right- but when the law system began to identify discrimination- it reffered to the unfair treatment of the Blacks.   You know hanging them for whistling  at a white girl and whipping the slaves- you know stuff like that-

We are alittle more civil now - so the way the laws are written so that discrimination can apply to ANYONE-  thanks to Martin Luther King

And this is also the reason that the 14th Amendment was added to the Constitution, and as countries change, so must their laws.  

Do away with the 14th Amendment.

Quoted from Kevin March

And this is also the reason that the 14th Amendment was added to the Constitution, and as countries change, so must their laws.  

Do away with the 14th Amendment.

Kevin-
I'm only familiar with the basic concept of the 14th amendment- so Im not sure what part of this premisyou are objecting to

Passed by Congress June 13, 1866, and ratified July 9, 1868, the 14th amendment extended liberties and rights granted by the Bill of Rights to former slaves.

Following the Civil War, Congress submitted to the states three amendments as part of its Reconstruction program to guarantee equal civil and legal rights to black citizens.

The major provision of the 14th amendment was to grant citizenship to “All persons born or naturalized in the United States,” thereby granting citizenship to former slaves.

The fact it opens the door to children of people here illegally ?

Well our country really started off on the wrong foot ( slavery )and we may never fully recover- almost like adam and eve screwing up paradise- essentially forever-

I respectfully disagree with your comparing the sins of slavery and the sins of Adam and Eve. The 'law' Adam and Eve broke and never recovered from was GOD'S law. And God doesn't change.

The law of slavery was from MAN'S law. Hence...it can be changed.

And discrimination is just that...discrimination!

Quoted Text

...treating people differently through prejudice: unfair treatment of one person or group, usually because of prejudice about race, ethnicity, age, religion, or gender

So in all actuality there is no such thing as reverse discrimination.

Well Bumble- thats a very good point- and I have a tendecy to disagree with the idea of  reverse dirimination- but I just like to think things through-

Especially confusing is  using a definition  of discrimination - " being able to tell two unlike things apart "

The Jews were slaves to the Egyptions. But the Jew's broke free from those bonds. They continue to fight to keep their independence but they aren't stuck back in the 'slave thing' era.

Quoted from bumblethru

The Jews were slaves to the Egyptions. But the Jew's broke free from those bonds. They continue to fight to keep their independence but they aren't stuck back in the 'slave thing' era.

The Hebrews didn't quite break away from the 'bonds of Egypt'....they complained in the 'wilderness' that it would be better to live as a slave in Egypt with pots of meat than live in the desert.....and before they left they 'accepted' the gold given to them by the Egyptians to leave their country after the Egyptians were plagued,,,with which the Hebrews proceded to melt down into a golden calf that they worshipped.....so the bonds they sought to break they brought with them---God wondered why he chose 'these stiff-necked people'....

well, here we are just as stiff-necked as ever and with the same bonds of which we try to 'buy-off' discomfort, not much unlike the Egyptians did with the Hebrews. Yet our 'slaves' are our lettuce pickers that we complain about. The golden calf-Master Card, Visa etc....

Quoted from Sombody

Following the Civil War, Congress submitted to the states three amendments as part of its Reconstruction program to guarantee equal civil and legal rights to black citizens.

The major provision of the 14th amendment was to grant citizenship to “All persons born or naturalized in the United States,” thereby granting citizenship to former slaves.

The fact it opens the door to children of people here illegally ?

Yes, because the one part that you're forgetting in this quote is that citizenship is give to all persons born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.

The fact that the parents are not subject to the jurisdiction (by sneaking in illegally) means that their children are also not subject to the jurisdiction.

Since there are no slaves that were alive at the time that this amendment was written and the way that this has since been slanted to be used inappropriately, I really think it needs to be repealed by a new amendment (i.e. Prohibition of Alcohol, 18th Amendment was repealed by the addition of the 21st amendment.)

So far, this is the only amendment to the US Constitution that was added that has been repealed.  I think it's time to add a second to the list, by adding a new amendment to the Constitution (would be the 28th) to remove this amendment.  It's been on the books long enough and as an act to do something at one period of time, it has been misused and needs to be repealed.

I wonder what the Native American Indian thinks of " citizineship " and the constitution ?

The indians have their casino's. They were bought with BS!

Quoted from bumblethru

The indians have their casino's. They were bought with BS!

It was a rhetorical question- obviously no Native Americans posting here-  Kemo Sabe .