Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Judge rules against California's woman on Boards law


spartan max2
 Share

Recommended Posts

 

 

Quote

Superior Court Judge Maureen Duffy-Lewis said the law that would have required boards have up to three female directors by this year violated the right to equal treatment. The ruling was dated Friday.

The conservative legal group Judicial Watch had challenged the law, claiming it was illegal to use taxpayer funds to enforce a law that violates the equal protection clause of the California Constitution by mandating a gender-based quota.

David Levine, a law professor at the University of California Hastings College of the Law, said he was not surprised by the verdict. Under state and federal law “mandating a quota like this was never going to fly,” Levine said.

State Senate leader Toni Atkins, a Democrat from San Diego, said the ruling was disappointing and a reminder “that sometimes our legalities don’t match our realities.”

https://apnews.com/article/technology-government-and-politics-california-los-angeles-1ee602b76a4f9707c923a27da5805bcd

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I think this was a good decision.   Hiring based on sex, race or any other like thing is wrong.  

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Myles said:

I think this was a good decision.   Hiring based on sex, race or any other like thing is wrong.  

I agree. It's seems like a bad move. Just builds resentment.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love this blurb, from a democrat, of course:

More women on corporate boards means better decisions and businesses that outperform the competition,” Atkins said in a statement.
“We believe this law remains important, despite the disheartening ruling
.”


1) If women on boards ==> better decisions, why aren't women being chosen more often?? I thought businesses all wanted to maximum pro$its??

2) The issue is NOT who makes better decisions, it's - do you have the freedom to make the choice you want? It is, after all, your business and your money invested into it.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

A result of California's liberal laws contradicting each other. Can't have equality and favoritism at the same time, if based on race or sex.

Perhaps there should be a law to seek equal representation of Christians on every corporate board. Religion is a protected class after all.

Probably good that its unconstitutional then, huh, Liberals.

Edited by DieChecker
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

) If women on boards ==> better decisions, why aren't women being chosen more often?? I thought businesses all wanted to maximum pro$its??

While I am not in favor of a quota of women on a board, this argument does not hold a lot of water.  The good old boy network will make a lot of money for themselves and claim that was the best that could be done.  I have come to expect through a lifetime of past experience that nobody in power tells the unvarnished truth to the ordinary citizen.

On a corporate board backed by investment banks money management funds and pension funds the money is not their own. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Tatetopa said:

While I am not in favor of a quota of women on a board, this argument does not hold a lot of water.

I find it difficult and actually wrongful to criticize from the sidelines, the ways of the experienced people. 

Did you ever see a female used car salesman? There's a reason for that, Tat. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/17/2022 at 10:38 AM, Myles said:

I think this was a good decision.   Hiring based on sex, race or any other like thing is wrong.  

Without imposition of quotas, or rules that have the same effect, hiring will be based in part on sex, race and other things not related to qualifications.

Doug

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

Did you ever see a female used car salesman? There's a reason for that, Tat. 

Too honest or higher standards?;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Tatetopa said:

Too honest or higher standards?;)

lol

not aggressive enough 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree on the ruling but maybe for California, they should just let it be.  When they revisit what went wrong in California, this would just be one thing that they could point to.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

lol

not aggressive enough 

Do you buy from an aggressive salesman or one who seems interested in what you want and feels trustworthy?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
1 hour ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

I find it difficult and actually wrongful to criticize from the sidelines, the ways of the experienced people. 

Did you ever see a female used car salesman? There's a reason for that, Tat. 

Because woman have a conscience?

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, DieChecker said:

Perhaps there should be a law to seek equal representation of Christians on every corporate board.


I was kinda' hoping to see a law passed making it mandatory that every NBA basketball team have 3 old, slow white men on the roster. :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Tatetopa said:

Do you buy from an aggressive salesman or one who seems interested in what you want and feels trustworthy?

Good luck finding one that fits the description of the latter :-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

Because woman have a conscience?


listen to the pander bear lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:


I was kinda' hoping to see a law passed making it mandatory that every NBA basketball team have 3 old, slow white men on the roster. :rolleyes:

To be inclusive and representational. :nw:

Edited by DieChecker
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Doug1066 said:

Without imposition of quotas, or rules that have the same effect, hiring will be based in part on sex, race and other things not related to qualifications.

Doug

The trick isn't enforced quotas, but to figure how to make your target WANT what your trying to achieve. If there's underrepresentation of woman, create a tax break for those who do meet criteria. Or some other break or regulation relaxation. 

More flies with sugar is what they say.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/18/2022 at 4:50 PM, Tatetopa said:

Do you buy from an aggressive salesman or one who seems interested in what you want and feels trustworthy?

It's doubtful that you get the choice. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/17/2022 at 4:38 PM, Myles said:

I think this was a good decision.   Hiring based on sex, race or any other like thing is wrong.  

Agree. it is by definition discrimination.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Well..........

You see.........

Any devoted Liberal will tell you there's "discriminatory", and then there's "DISCRIMINATORY". One is very, very bad and affects minorities and the under represented. The other is subject to looking away, because it affects those in the majority, and so while defined as "bad", and wrong, it is tolerated, or even celebrated, as the net effect helps minorities.

So.....

Depends on who's being affected as to good or bad. Might depend on the liberals current emotional state also. If their calm, discussion may be possible. If triggered, or hit with microaggressions, they will just scream, and rant, and swear. I've noticed that the swearing is pretty common.

Edited by DieChecker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.