Does any white or Anglosaxon person really have the right or moral authority to make rules or laws of fairness

Question

It appears that the civil rights act of 1964 and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission was both enacted and established to protect the rights of minorities and people of color.
Yet it also appears that both of these acts were established to enacted by the all white voters in Congress and Senate.
At the same time these very voters who were all white and owners of businesses set in place limitations that makes it impossible for people of color to fight for their rights in courts by setting statue of limitations and passing and or supporting private justice called "Arbitration" that allow the empl;oyers to keep the charges of racial discrimination out of courts.
Aren't the congressman and senators all taking part in racial discrimination by allowing employers to protect themselves from lawsuits?
What is the point of making laws that are impossible to enforce or does not allow the persson of color to who is victimized to have his day in courts by obstacles of lack of money.

Answer 1

You really don't know what you are talking about.

I suggest you take the time to 1) learn the English language (something you obviously have very little knowledge of) and then 2) study the law (which you know even less about).

The law does require that a complaint be filed with the EEOC before proceeding to court. If the EEOC cannot resolves the matter than the complainant is given a "right to sue" letter and may proceed to the courts.

The law provides that the lawyer for a plaintiff who prevails under the civil rights act may submit a post trial motion for fees to be paid by the defendant employer. As a result, anyone with a reasonable case will have no trouble finding a lawyer who is willing to take his case.

The key phrase however is "reasonable case." Just because someone thinks he has a case doesn't mean he actually has one. My firm, of which I was senior partner before retiring, handled many employment discrimination cases.

However, more often than not, people who complained of being discriminated against were not. For example, I can't imagine hiring someone with as miserable a command of either the English language or logic as you display for any job other than toilet attendant or ditch digger. Refusing to hire you for any job requiring even a modicum of intellectual ability would not be "discrimination" but a rational and non-discriminatory act.

Answer 2

Hmmm should I be choosing just one? LOL! Eeek too hard. Will just write my first thought for each thing: Adherence to rules: I do go by the "rules" for the most part, but it is more for ethical reasons and because I am very honest as well. I don't follow rules for rules sake and do not think that they are the most important thing Adherence to laws: ehh, kind of the same as above, maybe a strong connotation as laws are more concrete than rules maybe. Again, if I am aware of them, and it is possible to adhere to them, then I do. Don't see any reason to break a low but I am not a law enforcer perse. Adherence to ethics: I'd say that I am ethical. It is like innate in me. I like to win, but will not win by any means necessary. Cheating to win, is not winning at all imo. Adherence to fairness: Yes, I like fairness. Very important to me and it annoys me when people don't play fair. Kind of linked w. ethics I guess. Again, if you didn't play fair, then you didn't win to me. Adherence to truth: I love truth. It is extremely important to me. An honest person, even if what they are telling me is awful, will still get my respect for not being a liar. I just love honesty and am definitely closer to people who are direct and honest Adherence to people feelings: I have a high regard for peoples feelings. I do consider how a person will feel or how it might make them feel when making a decision or before saying something. I do not think feelings are the end all of all things, but I do give them consideration. However, logic, fairness, truth, and ethics, will win over selfish feelings (like, I think it's okay to go after this married man because I love him and want to have him---those are stupid feelings and will not be given any consideration from me). Me: Sun: Sadge, Moon: Leo, Mercury: Capricorn, Venus and Mars: Scorpio

Answer 3

Move on. Being a person of color makes you just as capable as any human being anywhere. Yes, I didn't answer question, I got that, but I wanted to get a point across: We can't depend on the courts or politicians to set things right. We must. And that starts by sending my fellow human being such as yourself this message: You've got red blood like I do, we are one.

J

Answer 4

Forget about race and just work hard at your goals. Its far to easy to blame problems on race and conspiracy. It is also a waste of time emotion and effort. Go after your dreams you can succeed it has been done too many times to say that it can't be done. The ones who fail usually are the ones who swell on the racial problem rather than self improvement.

Answer 5

people have all rights granted to them by the constitution and the laws. if that person happens to be white or anglo, then YES he or she does have the right. so to if he is any other race or creed or religion or color etc. to refuse to let whites participate in lawmaking then would be itself a form of racism and wrong.
every white person is not responsible for every past act done by any other white person nor is he or she the same in thoughts or ideas or character by virtue of white color. to think otherwise is to be prejudiced and not be a good american.

Answer 6

uh did you vote? get a black person to run for president or congress. remember majority rule dude. oh yeah this america most black can't put their crack pipes down long enough anything or pimping tha ho's but love the 2,000 dollar hubcaps on your 20 dollar car

Answer 7

nobody has the right to tell anyone what to do.. only reason they do and get away with it, is because we let them :o