Sheetz, based in Altoona, Pennsylvania, is privately held and operates convenience stores and gas stations in Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Virginia, Maryland, Ohio and North Carolina. The company has more than 23,000 employees.

The lawsuit was filed Wednesday, the same day President Joe Biden stopped at a Sheetz market in western Pennsylvania while campaigning for re-election. The president bought snacks, chatted with patrons and employees and posed for pictures.

Federal officials said they take issue with the way the chain uses criminal background checks to screen job seekers and do not believe Sheetz was motivated by racial animus, the AP said.

“Federal law mandates that employment practices causing a disparate impact because of race or other protected classifications must be shown by the employer to be necessary to ensure the safe and efficient performance of the particular jobs at issue,” EEOC attorney Debra M. Lawrence said in a statement.

“Even when such necessity is proven, the practice remains unlawful if there is an alternative practice available that is comparably effective in achieving the employer’s goals but causes less discriminatory effect,” Lawrence said.

>>1289136
I'M OUTRAGED!!1 HE OUGHT TO APOLOGIZE!!!11

>>1289136
So, for anyone that doesn't feel like parsing through another false headline /pol/ thread - a few convenience stores were sued because their hiring practices routinely discriminated against black and native american applicants. The store claims it was because every applicant failed a background check but, according to federal law, any hiring practices which have a consistent pattern of discriminating on racial lines must be defended by the employer as necessary to preserve the safety and efficient performance at said position. I.E. if I declined every application from someone who said they lived in Cleveland and all of those applicants happened to be black, according to federal law, simply by the fact that my hiring practices have a racially discriminatory outcome I have to defend why that practice is necessary for my business. So, that's what they have to prove in court. Aside from all that, even if the headline were correct, OP's suggestion is that people with criminal records should be barred from having legitimate jobs, encouraging them to return to a life of crime. OP has become so radicalized by the right wing he's unironically pro-crime. There. You're welcome. I just saved you 45 minutes of arguing in a /pol/ schizo thread.

>>1289141
>it's another "ignorant racist leftist spews bullshit to cope with how indefensible their cult's position is" thread
kek
>a few convenience stores
source?everything I've seen is about Sheetz as a whole, not "a few convenience stores"
>because their hiring practices routinely discriminated against black and native american applicants
lies, the Biden admin doesn't even claim that there was any actual racial discrimination and they don't deny that this race-neutral policy applied equally to White people too.

>I.E. if I declined every application from someone who said they lived in Cleveland
what the fuck are you talking about? Why do leftists insist on using such convoluted analogies? We're talking about criminals, not Clevelanders you fucking child.
>OP's suggestion is that people with criminal records should be barred from having legitimate jobs
never said that and irrelevant. Lowering the voting age to 18 is the biggest mistake we ever made, you children are far too irrational and incapable of even understanding what the debate is about. It's irrelevant whether they "should" be barred, the only thing that's relevant is whether it's racist for a company to refuse to hire criminals regardless of race (it's not).
Also friendly reminder that this is the same Biden admin who believes colleges should explicitly reject candidates due to their skin color and the same Biden admin which withheld Federal COVID aid from businesses owned by White males.
Democrats are the pro-racist, pro-sexist, pro-criminal party.

>>1289141
>any hiring practices which have a consistent pattern of discriminating on racial lines must be defended by the employer as necessary
lol
LMAO
THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS LITERALLY BLAMING THE EMPLOYER BECAUSE BLACKS KEEP FAILING BACKGROUND CHECKS
AHAHAHAHAAAA

>>1289144
>criminals should stay criminals forever
Welp

>>1289143
>source?
The article. If I sue Walmart I don't just sue the one location. I sue the whole company. The Walmart corporation.

>lies, the Biden admin doesn't even claim that there was any actual racial discrimination
"The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filed suit in Baltimore against the company and two subsidiaries, charging that the convenience store and gas station chain’s practices have a disproportionate impact on minority applicants and thus run afoul of federal civil rights law." You either didn't read the article and my response or you're unironically sub 50 IQ. The federal law isn't limited to simply not hiring people because they're black. The scope of the law covers hiring practices that have a racially discriminatory outcome.

>what the fuck are you talking about?
>We're talking about criminals, not Clevelanders you fucking child.
There's nothing I can do if you can't follow a simple analogy.

>never said that and irrelevant
That's why I said "he suggested" and not "he said". His implication is pretty clear. I chose language on purpose. Your inability to understand it isn't my issue.

>the only thing that's relevant is whether it's racist for a company to refuse to hire criminals regardless of race (it's not).
But this case is not regardless of race - its specifically along racial lines. That's what the federal government alleges, at least. I have no input on whether the suit is legitimate or not. Its up to the courts to decide.

>Also friendly reminder that this is the same Biden admin who believes colleges should explicitly reject candidates due to their skin color and the same Biden admin which withheld Federal COVID aid from businesses owned by White males.
Democrats are the pro-racist, pro-sexist, pro-criminal party.
I notice you people are incapable of talking about one topic. All of your conspiracies and talking points are always all tangled together. As soon as you get called out on one you immediately pivot to another.

>>1289136
>The discrimination occurred, the federal government said, as the company automatically eliminated job applicants that Sheetz deemed to have failed a criminal background check
Sheeeit

>>1289141
... So the employer is racist for not hiring convicted criminals?

>>1289150
Read the article and then read my post again. If you're still confused there's nothing I can do for you.

>>1289136
Based Biden just making sure Trump can get a job after he's a convicted felon.

>>1289148
>"The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filed suit in Baltimore against the company and two subsidiaries, charging that the convenience store and gas station chain’s practices have a disproportionate impact on minority applicants and thus run afoul of federal civil rights law." You either didn't read the article and my response or you're unironically sub 50 IQ. The federal law isn't limited to simply not hiring people because they're black. The scope of the law covers hiring practices that have a racially discriminatory outcome.
that's a lot of words to say "yes you are right there was no actual discrimination"
>simple analogy
and one that has nothing to do with what we're talking about because leftists suck at analogies
> its specifically along racial lines
it's not though and even Biden doesn't claim it is.
>I have no input on whether the suit is legitimate or not. Its up to the courts to decide
annnnd here we have the classic leftist walkback where you realize you jumped in prematurely before you actually learned anything about the story, and once you realized you are completely fucking wrong you want to save face by giving yourself an out.
btw the suit is not legitimate at all. We will see whether the courts uphold the constitution or not.

>>1289150
that's exactly what Biden is claiming, yes
and this anon >>1289152 didn't actually read the article first, he made a knee-jerk reaction to defend his racist cult, then after he got exposed as a brainwashed Democrat shill he tried to walk it back and muddy the waters because he eventually realized how stupid he looks.

>>1289141
>>1289136
this isn't the first time this has happened. obongo sued autozone for being racist for not hiring felons

>>1289159
Thanks

>>1289157
>that's a lot of words to say "yes you are right there was no actual discrimination"
Its all right there in the federal statute. Either you didn't read it or you aren't intelligent enough to understand it. I can't help you with that.

>and one that has nothing to do with what we're talking about because leftists suck at analogies
Your dogshit reading comprehension, again, isn't my problem. It illustrates the difference between direct racial discrimination and racially discriminatory outcomes. A 10 year old could grasp the concept.

>it's not though and even Biden doesn't claim it is.
Firstly, I don't know why you keep saying Biden as if he's personally filing this suit. The EEOC filed this. Secondly, they do claim racial discrimination. Its literally in the first sentence of their statement.

>annnnd here we have the classic leftist walkback where you realize you jumped in prematurely before you actually learned anything about the story
I honestly don't know if you're purposefully acting like this or you're unironically mentally challenged. I never claimed either party was right or wrong. I stated what the feds were claiming and I stated what Sheetz was claiming and said the outcome is up to the courts. That's how court works. You invented me being a leftist and having a hard opinion about this in your mind because online politics has made you deranged. You hallucinate political enemies and arguments that don't exist.

>btw the suit is not legitimate at all
Yet you've seen none of the evidence or heard any of the arguments in court. Its clear that your brain has been melted by partisan politics and you give no shits about the rule of law.

>>1289159
>and this anon >>1289152 didn't actually read the article first, he made a knee-jerk reaction to defend his racist cult
Can you point out in my statement where I claimed the Biden administration was right and that the Sheetz company's hiring practices were racist?

>>1289137
>Federal officials said they take issue with the way the chain uses criminal background checks to screen job seekers and do not believe Sheetz was motivated by racial animus, the AP said.
Well.
So they are weaponizing the justice department then?

>>1289141
I disagree

>>1289168
>So they are weaponizing the justice department then?
No. Being racist is not against federal statute. Hiring practices which have racially discriminatory outcomes is against federal statute. Its similar to a statutory offense - a crime in which intent is not relevant.

>>1289144
>FAILING BACKGROUND CHECKS
A background check isn't required for employment and there's no official grounds to fail one.

Anyway, it's in the government's interest to see former criminals employed and a fucking gas station is about the lowest skill and lowest stakes place to stick them.

Unless you just want them living on the government dole for the rest of their life or mugging you cause they can't get money to feed themselves? Or do you just want them to starve to death? Commit a crime=death?

Dumb motherfucker, criminals reentering and contributing to society is a good thing.

>>1289166
>TLDR: more seething, coping, and walking back

>>1289177
Nice rebuttal

https://files.chud.site/WgoplS.png
So this is how the Biden administration treats you when you don't donate enough to democrat candidates

Interesting...

>>1289173
>A background check isn't required for employment
Bro you're retarded. Literally every semi-serious job runs a background check to make sure you're not a criminal.

The fed is saying that background checks are discriminatory because blacks can't stop being criminals. Which is fucking hilarious

>>1289183
>Literally every semi-serious job runs a background check to make sure you're not a criminal.
1. It's a fucking gas station. Literally the least serious job there is. Even fry cooks have to be trusted with scalding hot oil.
2. You had zero fucking answer for where you expect former criminals to work.

You have an actually fucking negative iq.

>>1289185
>It's a fucking gas station
So the owners don't deserve to not have money taken out of the cash register?
fry cooks aren't always trusted with the cash register.

>>1289141
A gas station chain that wants to maintain the safety of its workers and customers by preventing ex-criminals from working there doesn't seem racist, just because there's a statistically high amount of black criminals in the area doesn't mean they should have to lower their standards.
I'm sure there's plenty of non-criminal blacks in the area who would apply for jobs but they've got better options than trying to work at a gas station chain in what appears to be a sketchy area of Maryland.

>>1289194
>So the owners don't deserve to not have money taken out of the cash register?
They absolutely do. And if an employee does that, that's what cops are for.

I noticed you haven't fucking responded to a single point I've made.

>>1289195
Pretty sure gas stations and their patrons are statistically less likely to be robbed if local ex-cons can find employment.

>>1289185
>It's a fucking gas station.
It's a franchise.
What, is everybody supposed to lower the bar because you can't be bothered to follow the law? Let me guess: it's systemic racism that caused you to be retarded.
>You had zero fucking answer for where you expect former criminals to work.
Not my problem.

>>1289141
Thank you, anon.

>>1289201
>It's a franchise.
A gas station franchise.
>What, is everybody supposed to lower the bar because you can't be bothered to follow the law?
1. What fucking bar? It's a fucking gas station.
2. If the bar for employment is no criminal history, society is permanently fucked. 8% of US adults are felons, to say nothing of misdemeanors.

You've yet to address what to do about that shit, btw. Are you gonna fucking feed them?

>Not my problem.
Nah, pretty sure you being a fuckwit incapable of addressing or even making a point is your problem.

>>1289141
good post

>>1289147
Blacks will always be black, yes. That's just the kind of people they are.

>>1289220
it's not a good post and he's been BTFO on it which is why he backpedalled and changed the topic. Now he's talking about whether companies should hire criminals or whether a gas station should have standards for who they hire. Which actually has absolutely nothing to do with the actual question which is:
Is it RACIST for a company to refuse to hire convicted criminals?

whether you personally think they should hire criminals or not is irrelevant. We're discussing whether it's racist to not hire them, but since that anon knows he can't win that argument he changed the topic.

>>1289210
If "no criminal history" makes an employer without employees, then so be it if that's what they want.

Not everyone smokes fentanyl and lives in a tent like you do, anon. That's a reasonable policy, even for "a fucking gas station"

Literally, who are you to dictate what character requirements each business must pursue? It's none of yours, or biden's, fucking business.

>>1289223
Good post.
Btfo that samefag

>>1289221
Trump is orange

>>1289223
racism isnt real.

When you've served your sentence, your debt to society is erased and you become a citizen like everyone else, with the same rights.

>>1289251
>When you've served your sentence, your debt to society is erased and you become a citizen like everyone else, with the same rights.
But a *much* higher statistical likelihood of continuing to be a criminal.

The US government won't give a clearance to anyone with a felony. Why are they excluded from being prosecuted for this racist practice?

>>1289150
It's actually dumber than that. The Justice Dept is saying that because more blacks fail the background checks, then the background check requirement is illegal.

>>1289225
That's how the left works. They know normal people won't agree to it so they have to force them to do it.

>>1289262
The left are the normal people. Chuds don't live in this reality.

>>1289141
As a career criminal who has a sideline of real jobs i would never steal or shoplift from a mom & pop joint. I only steal from Wal-mart,Amazon etc.
Moms & Pops have been good to me and the only requirement that i have is that mom puts out.

>>1289262
>The Justice Dept is saying that because more blacks fail the background checks, then the background check requirement is illegal.
That isn't what they're saying at all. You didn't read the article.

>>1289313
That is 100% what it says
>nigs are criminals
>therefore not hiring criminals is waciss against nigs

>>1289343
That isn't what it says. Either you didn't read the article or you unironically don't have the IQ or the good faith to honestly repeat back what the argument is.

>>1289225
>Literally, who are you to dictate what character requirements each business must pursue?
In this scenario, the government. Eat shit. Making sure over 8% of the population isn't unemployable is a government interest. Nobody wants their tax dollars going to supporting ex-cons that could support themselves if allowed.

>If "no criminal history" makes an employer without employees, then so be it if that's what they want.
I wasn't even arguing from that angle. God you're unbelievably dumb. As in I literally do not believe you are this dumb and you're just dodging the obvious point because you have no response.

>>1289252
>But a *much* higher statistical likelihood of continuing to be a criminal.
In no small part due to a lack of opportunities.

>>1289359
Address the second half of that post

>>1289360
The US government isn't a gas station. I'm not arguing pedos should be allowed to be teachers or arsonists firefighters either. If there is an inherent risk associated with a job such that excluding a criminal is rational, that's fine.

Maybe don't let people that have robbed gas stations work at gas stations.

Also, if I wanted to be a cheap motherfucker, I'd point out that the US government was run by a felon for 4 years and he was in charge of giving out clearances, or that the president has absolute discretion for clearances and could wave any felony disqualifiers as the president has waived other disqualifiers to get his son in law a clearance in the past or how the standards to get a clearance absent interference are much higher than to get your average job and go well beyond shit like a criminal history to include shit like being in debt (a standard which if employed generally would literally destroy the American economy).

But I don't need to be cheap and get you on technicalities, your argument was stupid outright, as previously mentioned.

>>1289369
>If there is an inherent risk associated with a job such that excluding a criminal is rational, that's fine.
So what your doing is making a subjective value judgement and deciding that this has station operator doesn't deserve to have employees of positive moral character?

>>1289369
>the US government was run by a felon for 4 years
[citation needed]

>>1289358
>In this scenario, the government.
That isn't the job of the Executive Branch. Congress would have to pass a law requiring businesses to hire criminals. I think some states have passed or at least attempted to pass laws like that. But Congress hasn't passed a law yet, which is why the Biden admin isn't bringing a case against Sheetz for violating a law against not hiring criminals (because such a law doesn't exist and the Executive Branch can't pass laws). Instead they have to cry racism and hope they end up with a liberal judge who agrees that anything and everything is racist.
>>1289313
Yes it is what the Feds are claiming. Did you read the article? The entire basis of the suit is:
>Sheetz won't hire criminals
>Blacks are more likely to be criminals
>Therefore it's racist and Shieetz

>>1289369
>The US government isn't a gas station.
So it's OK for the US government to discriminate, but not anybody else?

>>1289166
>begging the question
>"Biden doesn't control executive branch agencies"
>>1289344
>makes bad faith arguments
>accuses others of not arguing in good faith

Other than arguing pointless semantics and telling people they don't understand the article or the case when they do and can argue so perfectly coherently, what is your purpose in this thread?

Most businesses, especially larger chains, that require background checks for applicants do so in part because if they were employing felons they'd lose their insurance, because insurance companies don't want to take on the risk of backing businesses that hire felons. No insurance= no business.

The notion that a criminal background check is discrimination and requires justification is so ridiculous on its face that only the Biden administration would think it'd be a good PR stunt to try and pull.

I guess they're trying to take attention away from Kamala Harris getting BTFO by community notes on X because she made a pro-weed tweet and the world reminded her she personally put 1900 people in prison for marijuana possession as DA.


>>1289251
>When you've served your sentence, your debt to society is erased and you become a citizen like everyone else, with the same rights.
Not even remotely true. You can't vote or own a gun. There are lots of jobs that don't hire felons. You're a second class citizen. it's shitty but it's also really easy to not be a felon.

>>1289418
Kind of, that's my what I'm trying to tell you, the Biden administration is infallible, it's physically impossible for them to discriminate, but the trump admin it's the opposite

>>1289369
>I'd point out that the US government was run by a felon for 4 years
Really? What was crime was he convicted of and how long was he in prison before he became president?

>>1289429
Sorry, I made it up. I have a lifelong battle with schizophrenia

>>1289313
I read it. Did you?
>
The discrimination occurred, the federal government said, as the company automatically eliminated job applicants that Sheetz deemed to have failed a criminal background check.

>The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filed suit in Baltimore against the company and two subsidiaries, charging that the convenience store and gas station chain’s practices have a disproportionate impact on minority applicants and thus run afoul of federal civil rights law.

>>1289136
So, Trump will still be employable? Biden shot himself in the foot with this one.

>>1289445
Trump is black.
>loud
>retarded
>multiple baby mama's
>mugshot
>whores
>fast food

>>1289429
A felon becomes a felon when he commits the felony, not when he's convicted. Bitching that I'll be right retroactively doesn't change reality to one where your pumpkin king isn't a felon.

>>1289416
>muh regulations are unconstitutional
They're enforcing Title VII which is absolutely the job of the executive.

Eat all the shit.

>>1289504
>Title VII
The idea that criminal background checks are a violation of the civil rights act makes me lulz pretty hard. I'm sure there won't be any negative consequences for your shitty policies this time, amirite libshits?

>>1289439
>disproportionate impact on minority applicants
Annnnd that is because more of them are criminals? I'm legitimately not seeing the problem here. Race is not a factor in Sheetz policy at all.

>>1289506
Title VII is mid last century policy. If you think it's too liberal for you, you're out of time in more than one sense. Sucks to suck I guess.

>>1289515
Disproportionate impact is the federal standard. Don't bitch about Congress needing to pass a new law just cause you're too dumb or mad to accept that the old law covers this shit.

>>1289524
>Title VII is mid last century policy.
Re-interpreted ancient laws for brand new ideals is a libshit specialty. (destruction of the language)

>>1289515
Disproportionate impact definitionally means something being disproportionately impacted isn't being directly targeted, you dumbshit.

It's like how hiring guidelines against mental disability would disproportionately impact Republicans. Fortunately for you all, discrimination based on disability is illegal outright, so people like you can get jobs as baggers and shit. After all, political affiliation isn't protected.

>>1289136
>Sheetz
Sheeeeiiittt!!

>>1289527
>hiring guidelines against mental disability would disproportionately impact Republicans
Statistically speaking the democrat party in the US is associated with a much higher rate of mental illness tho

>>1289530
Only if you care about numbers. Which are racist.

>>1289530
1. Mental illness isn't mental disability. You'd know that if your weren't disabled.
2. Obviously complacent sheep that don't believe in psychiatry are going to report lower rates of mental illness. You view anxiety as a weakness and you need to be strong to please your masters.

>>1289531
Good point

>>1289532
>1. Mental illness isn't mental disability. You'd know that if your weren't disabled.
I thought we were talking about protected classes for the purposes of employment. Are the mentally ill not at the same risk of being unemployable?

>>1289538
Health isn't a protected class, no.

Although you're welcome to fight for that. Might be good groundwork for you for the next pandemic, since we know you're too dumb to get your shots.

Way to invent new laws in your head whole cloth though.

>>1289527
>Fortunately for you all, discrimination based on disability is illegal outright, so people like you can get jobs as baggers and shit.
>>1289539
>Health isn't a protected class, no.
Notice how the same faggot will argue both sides.

>>1289210
why would you hire a felon to handle money?
>2. If the bar for employment is no criminal history, society is permanently fucked. 8% of US adults are felons, to say nothing of misdemeanors.
isn't it weird how those felons are disproportionately black and hispanic?

>>1289546
>isn't it weird how those felons are disproportionately black and hispanic?
No. Why is it weird? Explain.

>why would you hire a felon to handle money?
"A felon" is not an archetype. Its a person who has been convicted of a felony - some worse than others. The idea that being a felon automatically makes someone a bad, irredeemable person is the kind of backwards, dogshit mindset that keeps our prison system the most expensive and ineffective in the entire first world.

>>1289551
>No. Why is it weird? Explain.
because you would expect whites to do felonies at the same rate.
>"A felon" is not an archetype. Its a person who has been convicted of a felony - some worse than others. The idea that being a felon automatically makes someone a bad, irredeemable person is the kind of backwards, dogshit mindset that keeps our prison system the most expensive and ineffective in the entire first world.
putting criminals in jail in the 90s literally dropped the murder rate in half. the current cashless bail, blm DA, weak on crime bullshit has caused crime to spike

>>1289539
> since we know you're too dumb to get your shots.
How's your myocarditis doing?

>>1289551
>The idea that being a felon automatically makes someone a bad, irredeemable person is the kind of backwards, dogshit mindset that keeps our prison system the most expensive and ineffective in the entire first world.

And the idea that all felons are simply misunderstood, wayward children who "just need a chance" is how women keep getting punched in the face by random strangers in NYC.

Furthermore, felons have tried suing businesses that don't hire them because they failed a criminal background check and courts have ruled against the felon pretty much every time. It's not the job of of a gas station to explain why they shouldn't have to hire felons anymore than it's a gun store's job to explain why it shouldn't have to sell guns to one.

Also the notion that criminal background checks necessarily discriminate against minorities is lol. Next time we're going to abolish clocks because holding people to a schedule is also racist.

>>1289570
My heart's fine. Yours seems a bit black though. Shrunken brain too. Long COVID's a bitch, huh?

>>1289541
Health and disability status aren't the same thing. A person can be missing both legs but be healthy. Or in your case be sub room temp.

I know you're a dim bulb, but is the light even on?

>>1289546
>why would you hire a felon to handle money?
Because they are able to and you're hiring? Especially in a gas station where you're always on camera.

And statistically the person more likely to rob someone in that relationship is the fucking employer. Wage theft is by far the largest and most common form of theft in this country. Lot of employers deserve to be in fucking jail that skirt by due to underenforcement.

Cops would rather throw someone in jail for smoking pot than stealing from their employees.

felon here, some of us do try to change and go on to live productive lives. I committed my felony 9 years ago. Since then I have attended many treatment programs, have not gotten arrested, and even through covid maintained steady gainful employment and stayed at the same apartment for 6 years no evictions. People can change if they want to. But they have to want to.I for one (being a sex offender) do think they should have that data up for people to see. My case was I met a women on tinder and she was a teen. Strict liability state sadly so even though I didnt know im still convicted thats life. But that data is online to help people make informed decisions for where they and their children will live. this is awful and they should change it.

>>1289576
>Because they are able to and you're hiring? Especially in a gas station where you're always on camera.
they are literally going to rob me. they are criminals. Plus I bet they can't count
>And statistically the person more likely to rob someone in that relationship is the fucking employer. Wage theft is by far the largest and most common form of theft in this country. Lot of employers deserve to be in fucking jail that skirt by due to underenforcement.
complete fucking non sequitur

>>1289591
>they are literally going to rob me.
You are literally mentally ill. Anyway, if you're that worried about your employees robbing you, simply pay them a livable wage so they won't feel tempted to.

>>1289594
>You are literally mentally ill.
someone is mentally ill for thinking a convicted criminal is going to break the law? you sound like a fucking retard
> if you're that worried about your employees robbing you, simply pay them a livable wage so they won't feel tempted to.
they are going to rob no matter what because no amount of money will ever be enough, that is why they became a criminal in the first place. Plus if I am paying a good wage, why higher a felon why I can higher someone who is a good person instead?

>>1289560
>because you would expect whites to do felonies at the same rate.
Why would you expect that?

>putting criminals in jail in the 90s literally dropped the murder rate in half
That's not really what happened, no.

>the current cashless bail, blm DA, weak on crime bullshit has caused crime to spike
There is no one cause for crime rates. Its multi-variate into the literal hundreds. The fact that you think there is says that you know nothing about this topic.

>>1289600
>Why would you expect that?
because all races are the same ;)
>That's not really what happened, no.
that is literally what happened. between 1994 and the mid 2010s the murder rate dropped by 50% due to "over policing"
>There is no one cause for crime rates. Its multi-variate into the literal hundreds. The fact that you think there is says that you know nothing about this topic.
crime is caused by hiphop culture and the current crime spike is caused by "reforms" done by the dems to "eliminate over policing" int he wake of obongo being elected and the blm shit

>>1289571
>And the idea that all felons are simply misunderstood, wayward children who "just need a chance" is how women keep getting punched in the face by random strangers in NYC.
You've somehow managed to string a dogshit strawman into an even more dogshit non-sequitor. Rehabilitation programs are backed by years of data. It just works. Job programs for felons work. Job training in prison works. Access to housing voucher post-release works. Every other first world country has figured this out. These things all massively reduce recidivism. The U.S. is still stuck in the 19th century because of dipshits like you.

>Furthermore, felons have tried suing businesses that don't hire them because they failed a criminal background check and courts have ruled against the felon pretty much every time
This has nothing to do with anything I've said. The society you're advocating for is one in which felons never gain legitimate employment, never integrate back into society and continue to commit crime essentially for the rest of your lives because once someone is a felon, in your mind, they're a pariah who should be excluded from the rest of society. You are, unironically, pro-crime.

>Also the notion that criminal background checks necessarily discriminate against minorities is lol
Well, it factually does. Even you agree. The question isn't whether or not background checks discriminate against minorities - the question is whether that discrimination is good or bad. Children are discriminated from buying alcohol. Adults are discriminated from participation in kids sports. Discrimination can be good or bad. Its your job to argue which, not blindly claim that discrimination doesn't exist because its a thought terminating cliche that triggers you when you hear it.

>>1289601
>because all races are the same ;)
I like that you know you can't answer the question you immediately pivot to memes. Nice.

>that is literally what happened. between 1994 and the mid 2010s the murder rate dropped by 50% due to "over policing"
Not really, no. Its infinitely more complicated than that. I can tell you haven't read any of the data. I mean, you don't even know the difference between correlation and causation.

>crime is caused by hiphop culture and the current crime spike is caused by "reforms" done by the dems to "eliminate over policing"
Jesus, okay. So you know absolutely nothing about this topic. That explains a lot.

>>1289603
rehabilitation doesn't work, we should maim them so they can't do crimes
>>1289604
>I like that you know you can't answer the question you immediately pivot to memes. Nice.
what meme? I said its weird blacks and latinx do crimes at a higher rate than whites because all races are the same so you should expect the same rates ;)
>Not really, no. Its infinitely more complicated than that. I can tell you haven't read any of the data. I mean, you don't even know the difference between correlation and causation.
it isn't. you are just retarded and don't understand and are trying to be condescending. locking criminals up prevents crime.
>Jesus, okay. So you know absolutely nothing about this topic. That explains a lot.
again, condescension but no real argument. policing black neighborhoods and throwing black criminals behind bars lowers the crime rate. simple as

>>1289574
>Health and disability status aren't the same thing.
Not when you're a hairsplitting faggot libshit.

>>1289603
>The U.S. is still stuck in the 19th century because of dipshits like you
Best I can do is deploy the National Guard to the subway. Remember to keep voting Blue!

>>1289603
>The U.S. is still stuck in the 19th century because of dipshits like me who put more importance on protecting criminals than protecting people from criminals
FTFY, cry more

>This has nothing to do with anything I've said.
Seems like you don't know what it is you're saying then. Criminal background checks aren't discrimination, you failing one doesn't mean you've been discriminated against.

>You are, unironically, pro-crime.
>Now hire these criminals and if they do anything to your business it's your fault, and you're not allowed to say no
>Pay no attention to me voting to put violent criminals back on the street with no bail cause bail is racist
>It's part and parcel to have to have the National Guard in the subway system because crime is so bad because of what I voted for
You're so unaware it's amazing.

>Well, it factually does.
Factually it does not.
> Even you agree.
Lmao, no you retard. You may continue to cope.
>Children are discriminated from buying alcohol. Adults are discriminated from participation in kids sports
Ah yes, the "if we reduce words down beyond their original definition they can be used in any context I want" tactic.
>Discrimination can be good or bad.
So you agree that criminal background checks aren't inherently bad? Perfect. It seems you agree with me instead. Tee hee.


Also- I bet that the reason you're being such a whiny faggot pissbaby over background checks for employment is, not only can you not pass a criminal background check, you also have to go door to door to your neighbors when you move somewhere new to let them know you're on a registry.

>>1289603
>You've somehow managed to string a dogshit strawman into an even more dogshit non-sequitor. Rehabilitation programs are backed by years of data. It just works. Job programs for felons work. Job training in prison works. Access to housing voucher post-release works. Every other first world country has figured this out. These things all massively reduce recidivism. The U.S. is still stuck in the 19th century because of dipshits like you.
you are literally comparing countries that are 85%+ white (and korea and japan) to the US who mostly has black and latinx criminals.
rehabiltation doesn't work. you know what did work? the war on drugs, mandatory minimums, throwing people in jail for 20 years for weed, stop and frisk, "over policing". you know what doesn't work "bail reform"/cashless bail, BLM DAs, legalizing weed, decriminalizing drugs and not throwing criminals in jail for minor crimes

>>1289628
I'm not hairsplitting. This started in the first place from someone equivocating mental illness with mental disability yo imply one was the other. Fuck off. The distinction matters here.

>>1289671
So surely you could give me an example of how "mental illness" and "mental disability" are different in regards to employment?

>>1289676
A mental illness is a disease that affects your ability to regulate emotions or remain cognizant.
A mental disability is a handicap that physically limits you from doing certain things.
If someone tasks you with assembling a cardboard box, and you're too depressed to care, that is mental illness.
If someone tasks you with assembling a cardboard box, and you literally cannot do it because you're a sub-80 IQ retard, that's a mental disability.

>>1289678
So you can't give a single example then? That's what I thought.

It is hard to believe that it is not common knowledge individuals with a background check are pretty much relegated to a life of unemployment or the lowest form of employment possible. While I don’t necessarily agree with that in certain circumstances. It does not appear to be illegal?