Nine Supreme Court Judges agree. If you allege racial discrimination in a lawsuit regarding a business decision, there has to be proof that the decision was racially motivated.
It sounds like common sense but if we are honest discrimination is an emotional issue that has everyone on eggshells most of the time. The race pimps like it that way so it is difficult to get any give on that side. Democrats throw the term out like confetti at a wedding which as I’ve intimidated in the past dilutes the value of actual discrimination. Just like fake rape. It needs to stop before we can have that serious discussion everyone talks about but has no interest in having.
As for the case at hand,
The case originally was filed by Byron Allen, a black entrepreneur who owns the Entertainment Studios Network. ESN wanted Comcast to carry its various channels, which include Comedy.TV and Pets.TV. But, as the court explained, “Comcast refused, citing lack of demand for ESN’s programming, bandwidth constraints, and its preference for news and sports programming that ESN didn’t offer. … ESN didn’t dispute that, during negotiations, Comcast had offered legitimate business reasons for refusing to carry its channels.”
In sum, the market supported other channels more than it supported ESN. Nonetheless, ESN sued, alleging that Comcast’s refusal to carry its channels unfairly disfavored African American-owned media companies.
The court’s reasoning was simple and clear. It said that for a plaintiff to win a tort due to racial discrimination, it must show it probably would have received the contract or benefit, or not suffered the alleged injury, “but for” (meaning “except for”) the defendant’s allegedly unlawful conduct. In other words, if the race of the plaintiff caused the decision adverse to him, he may have a case. Contrarily, if legitimate, nonracial factors impelled the decision, the suit isn’t viable.
9-0. Rarely do we get such clarity outside matters of free speech.
And for Ian; not that the opinion of 9 judges actually means anything when it contradicts the constitution. Though, in this case, they seem to have landed on the right side of justice.