>>_Hernandez v. New York_ was not concerned with housing discrimination,
>>Stephen. Did you read the quote at all?
>
>You claimed that equal pay for identical pay claims presumed
>discrimination.
I don't recognize that gibberish. It's certainly not anything _I_ claimed.
>I state you were incorrect; you still are. Since the
>case you cited was not about equal pay for identical work, I did not
>any more closely than I had to in order to determine that the
>statement I subsequently posted was correct.
It was about discrimination, Stephen. You should have read it more
closely.
>>>I think the non-responsiveness of this is obvious.
>>
>>It was very responsive. In the first place, the cite I made from
>_Hernandez v.
>>New York_ contained at least one statement of law which applied
>generically to
>>_all_ forms of discrimination, not just racial discrimination. In the second
>>place, in the scale of Equal Protection claims, race is much more recognized
>>as a basis of discrimination than gender is. The ERA *FAILED*, remember,
>>Stephen? It was in all the papers. If racial discrimination requires a showing>of discriminatory intent, it's a fairly safe assumption that the burden of
>>proof in gender discrimination is at least as high. Lastly, I note that while
>>I have provided legal cites which may or may not be 100% on point, Stephen has>declined to present any legal cites whatsoever in support of his side of this
>>argument about law. He has done scarcely more than blither vaguenesses about
>>"critical legal theory", and attempt to pick little crawly nits in my
>>arguments. I leave neutral observers to make their judgments based on the
>>facts and reasoning presented.
>
>You are making an ass of yourself, Kevin.
And you're starting to sound really shrill, Stephen.
>Equal pay for identical
>work cases do not require showing discriminatory intent.
Perhaps not, due probably to conscious efforts to write the laws in such a
way as to relieve the claimants' burden of proof, but most discrimination
claims DO require a showing of discriminatory intent. Since you are the one
attempting to generalize from "equal pay for equal work" to other forms of
discrimination, the burden is on you to show that the generalization is
valid, i.e. that the intent-neutrality of "equal pay for equal work" is
the rule, rather than the exception. I have given counter-examples where
discrimination claims DO require a showing of intent. I have put the ball
back in your court. Now it's up to you to go the distance with your claim.
