In terms of trashiness, I think the Bachelor is just one step above the Jerry Springer Show. It preys on people’s emotions, and it throws attention towards the worst parts of humanity. That said, I think it would be great if there were minorities in the main role. Which is why I think it’s good that two African American men are suing the Bachelor for racial discrimination.
Johnson alleges in the complaint that when he went to a casting call for “The Bachelor,” he was denied the typical application process. He said his application materials were taken by an employee of the defendants named in the suit; the same wasn’t done for other apparent non-black applicants he saw.
Claybrooks alleges that at his casting call for the show he was interviewed for less time than white applicants, rushed through the process, and therefore not given the same opportunity as the white applicants.
The article goes on:
The complaint goes on to posit that neither “The Bachelor” nor “The Bachelorette” has featured “a single person of color – whether African-American, Latino, Asian, or any other minority race or ethnicity — in the central role.” Put another way, “in 16 seasons of ‘The Bachelor’ and 7 seasons of ‘The Bachelorette,’ every person featured in the lead role on either show has been white.”
Think about it. If they had a non-White person in the main role, it would force the people to watch to see beyond stereotypes. It would send a message that the life of a non-white person can be just as fun and interesting as that of a white person. I think they should sue, and I think they should win. Remember that these shows are broadcast over publicly managed television frequencies. Minorities should (“should” added…see conversation in the comments) have a right to have better and more frequent representation than they have right now.
Hi Byron – Just discovered your blog – it’s fabulous! – and shared with my Asian American discussion group your posts on AA masculinity as we’ve discussed that issue twice in just 3 weeks! I had to go searching the web for other Asian perspectives and was happy to find the ones on your blog. Thank you for this blog! What a find.
Anyways, on this topic, of course it would be more fair to have minority representation, but where does that “right” come from? ABC is a private entity, a business; they can choose whatever “product” to target whatever “market” they want. Perhaps they feel that if the protagonist is not white, the viewership would not be as high. I don’t think they’re out there to promote diversity. If anything, someone should come out with an Asian or black version of the The Bachelor. Create your own show. I can’t stand The Bachelor but I may watch it if it was a cute Asian guy (struggling to make his decision among a good mix of girls, mind you, not all white girls!). Wouldn’t that be something? Maybe with Asian folks in the picture, a show like that may be less trashy… Or maybe not.
A female friend of mine was watching that show at my place last year. I was surprised how white it was, not even a token. It was middle of the season so maybe a few had been eliminated.
That being said this is a show not a regular job I doubt they will win. You can cast whoever you want. Honestly I dont want Asians on the show, its not like it is a show showing people in positive light. It is like saying lets have an Asian Jersey Shore.
Oh and prediction, you know the first female non white bachelorette will be Asian, and it will be mostly white men in contention for her, with maybe one Asian man (this coming from me the non radical on the IR debate and media portrayals)
Uyen,
Thanks for reading! Glad you like the masculinity blog posts. I think the discussions in the comment sections have been among the most interesting.
You are correct–they don’t currently have the right, as the law currently defines it. But they SHOULD have the right. (And I made a change in the original post–thanks!)
Here’s why:
ABC is a private entity, but they broadcast their product over public airwaves. Public airwaves are managed by the government. So for example, if ABC broadcasts over, say, 76 MHz, that’s their frequency, and they pay government fees for those rights. By law, I’m not allowed to start my own company and broadcast on the same wavelength, otherwise I’d be a pirate radio operator, which is illegal. For the same reason, it is illegal to jam a cell phone with a transmitter–not because of public safety issues, but because the cell phone company pays fees for the right to use that frequency.
Because these frequencies are public managed, i.e. publicly owned, and because there are a limited number of frequencies, the public should have a right to see some kind of diversity there. Black people, as part of the public, own the waves, so why shouldn’t they be able to see themselves in something they own? Private golf courses cannot legally discriminate based on race, so why should it be legal to discriminate on public airwaves? I’m not saying that it has to be representative of the general population, but when we’re talking 23 seasons without a single divergence from White, that’s a huge imbalance and an obvious case of discrimination–not just for the contestants but also for the public viewers who may not be seeing people who look like them. Truth is that the studios have no idea whether a black bachelor will or will not sell because they’ve never tried it.
ABC can produce whatever it wants. But as for its content on airwaves, I think they should conform somewhat to public demands.
So that’s my answer. They don’t have the right, but I believe they should have the right in a case like this where the discrimination is obvious.
Byron is right, the bandwidth that the networks air on is a public good that they get by tender. In essence, they lease the airwaves from the regulatory body, and this sole possession of this bandwidth provides them with the economic clout and basis for all their other business activities.
Looking at media as only a business would not be a complete view. Media will also inform and educate, so the interaction between media products and audiences must also necessarily be of a high quality or you will have some interesting effects.
If the Bachelor or Bachelorette was a minority, I think it would take this show a notch up in class. I don’t think white ppl’s dating lives are interesting. snore…….. They think “ethnic” is Italian. barf….
In any case, I don’t watch the Bachelor or any of those shows…. except Shahs of Sunset. – H-i-l-ARIOUS!
I hope the guys win their case against Bachelor. ABC is basically staging the dating pool – saying if the bachelor is white, he wants to and should only be interested in dating white chicks. (when we all know, they all want an AF. ha ha). And btw, these “bachelors” have been douchebag ugly as of late. Maybe it’s a sign that white guys got no game and need an entire frickin’ TV series to get laid that includes a nice big mansion and fun dates. You know all those girls just want to stay in a nice place with a pool, rent free. They don’t give a shit about “falling in love.”
In the “old days”, activism was largely for noble causes, like not being forced to sit in the back of the bus. It was largely about fighting for one’s dignity.
Now, it seems it’s mostly about equal access or participation in the great, stinking cesspool called “American Pop Culture”, where everyone is entitled to their 15 min of reality-show fame where they can demonstrate in prime-time that they can be just as banal, vapid, and superficial as anyone else.
A multicultural win would be a black bachelor who is also a staunch believer in Confucian ethics.
“Truth is that the studios have no idea whether a black bachelor will or will not sell because they’ve never tried it.”
Or they could look at the figures from other TV shows that didn’t not star a white person and conclude that selling white is best for a predominately white audience. However, there are exceptions. I’m pretty sure the Cosby Show was an exception but it seems hard (nowadays) to sell anything other than white to a predominately white audience without it being degrading to that non-white race/ethnic group.
“In the “old days”, activism was largely for noble causes, like not being forced to sit in the back of the bus. It was largely about fighting for one’s dignity.
Now, it seems it’s mostly about equal access or participation in the great, stinking cesspool called “American Pop Culture””
I Agree
PS: These shows have a horrible track record. Hardly any of them ever get married much less stay married. Besides I highly doubt that I would watch as in I don’t watch the show now, never have, and probably never will.
^damn all italics
“They think “ethnic” is Italian. barf…. ”
LOL
Actually most TV shows that don’t star White people also happen to be hand-picked by White producers to be marketed specifically to ethnic audiences. The de facto assumption is that “crossover” to mainstream audiences is impossible, but it has actually very rarely been tested. The usual technique is to take a successful White show and then copy and adapt it for an ethnic audience. For example, the popular 1970s show The Jeffersons was just a remake of of The All In The Family (Archie Bunker) adapted for a Black audience. Most of the characters are simply Black versions of the original White characters from the successful White show. But these shows were never truly aimed at reaching the mainstream.
It sounds logical. Why would White people want to watch Chinese characters? Why would they be interested in Black families, right? But bear in mind that the VERY same arguments were being made in the field of music. Before Motown, White bands simply bought (or stole) the rights to Black music and sang it for White audiences.
Yet, when a Black music label in Detroit began marketing directly to the mainstream American Audience, they were wildly successful.
White music producers pooh-poohed rap music as impossible to sell to a mainstream audience. Today the MAJORITY of rap music is bought by teenage White kids. Often what sounds so logical in theory ends up being dead wrong in practice. If a story is well-crafted and intelligently written it will appeal to an audience beyond the obvious demographic.
Pingback: Whiteness and TV | bigWOWO
This case is frivolous and should go no where. If ABC is smart (which I ***ume they are) they’d fight this and not even offer anything to these to football players who have more overdraft than they do common sense ****ome civil litigator is taking them for a ride.
ABC the company cannot refuse to hire black people. They can cast whoever they want or don’t want in their TV shows. Its called artistic freedom just as you couldn’t nor can’t tell the Normal Rockwell’s of the world who to paint. I’ve never seen any blacks in his paintings. What’s the point of BET again? I’m sure BET hires people of all races ****taff, buty to tell the producers who to cast for say Mo’nique? I don’t think so, no more than you could have told the producers of Seinfeld to limit the number of Jews they cast while upping the number of Peurto Ricans they casted.
Look this show is aimed at the wider whiter American audience and despite sad fact that some people still balk at it, interracial romances don’t do so well in American entertainment especially during prime time. You can’t force ABC to doom one of its hit shows just for some guy’s version of diversity. You don’t think the Bachelor is diverse enough? Don’t watch! This suit show go just where the two plaintiff’s football careers have gone… yeah!
This guy has no case and is simply bilking his clients for money on a bad, baseless case.
I dunno how many times people are cast in roles simply based on how they look. Of course its discriminatory. Anyone care to tell me how come Seinfeld which ran in the 1990s had so few black people despite the setting being in Manhattan? I’ll tell you why, producer Larry David in his show “about nothing” really wanted to highlight the nuances of New York City’s Jewish community of which he’s apart. He can do that and no one could have told him to “diversify” his charcters or provide “equal opportunity” to actors who wanted to be part of his show despite his artistic depiction which didn’t include them.
Look I think everyone is well aware of the fact that America has suffered some bumps and bruises because of discrimination. People and particularly blacks in America need to realise that some forms of discrimination are legal and even acceptible. A Catholic school for example can only hire Catholic teachers to the exclusion of all others if it wants. A Chinese restaurant can decide to hire only Asian and Asiatic looking wait staff to goin along with the Asiatic embiance of the restaurant. Similarly “Kim’s Corner store” in Boston can hire only members of the owner’s immediate family if it wants to.
@ MasterWooten
You misunderstand what this case is really all about. This case is not so much about money as it is about bad publicity for the ABC franchise, which can be much more damaging then any actual settlement.
Too simplistic. If ABC actually wants to “cast” a “reality show” like The Bachelor on the basis that the “lead character” must always has be White, then they can state that up front, and simply loose all of their sponsors. However, if they are promoting the show under the premise that all applicants of all races have an equal chance to be selected, then yes, the plaintiffs may have some grounds.
In that case, consider this an education:
http://img.artknowledgenews.com/files2007a/NormanRockwellProblemWeAllL.jpg
http://www.public.asu.edu/~kheenan/courses/472/sp09/New_kids_in_the_neighborhood_Norman.jpg
http://unic.or.jp/untour/imgnor.jpg
BET is run and produced by White people. Didn’t you know that? The point of it is to try and make money by catering to what they think a Black audience would like. Of cfourse, the majority of Blacks don’t watch BET , but that’s another matter altogether.
And finally, the suit is not about Blacks and Whites but about not including ANY people of color as the main character
Master Wooten:
You wrote: “You don’t think the Bachelor is diverse enough? Don’t watch!”
But if non-White people are Americans too, why should ABC benefit from the airwaves sold to them by my government which is supported by my tax dollars? If I’m forced to pay for it, why should I be content to be excluded from it?
Easy response first:
“But if non-White people are Americans too, why should ABC benefit from the airwaves sold to them by my government which is supported by my tax dollars? If I’m forced to pay for it, why should I be content to be excluded from it?”
The airwaves once SOLD belong to the purchasor to do with as he sees fit so long as FCC regulations are not violated. You may have been forced to pay for the airwaves but by that same token you got your money back from the purchasor when he bought them from the government.
Now for King:
“You misunderstand what this case is really all about. This case is not so much about money as it is about bad publicity for the ABC franchise, which can be much more damaging then any actual settlement.”
Perhaps for the 2 black guys King but for the producers of the Bachelor it is very much about the right to cast who they want in their show and NO, reality show or not, they DO have a right to cast who they want or not without having to give reasons in the end for who they choose, that’s the whole point of artistic expression and freedom to so engage. Movie and televsion producers do this ALL THE TIME and everyday actors and actresses have no chocie but to accept the decidion of the producers because they’d have NO case. Discrimination in the area of arts and entertainment is a quintessential part of it. A prodcuer can decide who to choose for a part or not and is answerable to NO ONE on that grounds. There is NO case law that mandates that an actor has a right to a part in a movie or show unless he already has a contract stating such. The its a contractual and not an entitlement/discriminator matter as none exists in that context. Such a right clearly does not exist for people merely invited to try out for roles in a film or TV show.
As for the bad publicity and damage caused, c’mon! Everybody knows that television viewing and tastes in America are as segregated as 1952. Blacks don’t watch white shows and vice versa which means that by casting people in roles according to race you are merely giving the public what it is accustom to and wants. To try to cast interracial couples, the Bachelor would likely loose viewers as primetime America is far less likely to watch as such a relationship would not conform to their vision of a “fantasy” relationship which is what this show is about, fantasy. So to the contrary I don’t think that an all-white Bachelor is detrimental to the show rather it is more beneficial for them in terms of viewership than the alternative.
Your point; “The point of it is to try and make money by catering to what they think a Black audience would like. ” is well taken as that’s what the producers of the Bachelor are doing by keeping a prime time show viewed almost exclusively by whites, white.
Thanks for the education on Norman Rockwell. My point still stands, Norman Rockwell an artist had the choice to feature who he wanted to depict in his paintings and this is why the 2 black Bachelor wannabees don’t have a case. The producers of the Bachelor, are essentially artists as they are in the entertainment industry (television show producers) and as such have the CHOICE not to feature a black guy opposite a white girl in the presentation of what is THEIR production.
Once again you and some of the black community need to understand that some forms of discrimination are both legal and acceptible based on the proprietorship of the activity and or institution in question.
Master Wooten:
I usually assume that people read the earlier comments in blog posts with relatively few comments, but maybe that’s not a fair expection for everyone. Here is what I wrote just a few spaces above, in response:
http://www.bigwowo.com/2012/04/suing-the-bachelor-for-racial-discrimination/#comment-22957
Still, even without my prior post, my question to you still stands on its own: why SHOULD I be content to be excluded from it?
Also, you’re probably aware that it’s actually licenses that are sold, and that those are renewed from time to time. Why SHOULD we have no say in how those airwaves are distributed based on the diversity of their shows?
I actually didn’t know this–and I actually question it. Were there lots of black shows in 1952? What were the popular black shows back then? I thought that the very reason this law suit came about was that at least some black people watch the Bachelor. If that’s true today, what are black people watching? Even when I had cable, I didn’t see all that many black shows.
Again MasterWooten,
I understand and acknowledge the need for artistic freedoms in casting. But what I am saying is that those freedoms do not exist in a vacuum. Television is a market-driven arena, and therefore producers must respond to certain market realities like audience composition. Now, when producers make intelligent and reasonable casting decisions you don’t see too much pressure to change them. For example, Mad Men is cast based on the probable staffing of an Advertising in the 1960′s. Guess what… none of the ad execs or creatives are ethnic minorities and only one is a woman. Everybody gets why.
But when a modern “reality show” only casts Whites in the leading role over 18 years, understandably, some consider it to be exclusionary. I say again, if they think that the lead role can only be filled by a White participant, then they should put out a casting call for Whites only and deal with the consequences. But if they want to pretend as if they’re really considering every ethnicity, but then only select Whites, then eventually someone may call them on it. In such a case, the producers will simply have to explain what their actual policy is and why. That is the hand that the lawsuit is forcing.
So, you’re saying that the same people White majority who could elect a Black President, and the same White kids who buy up Snoop Dogg, Li’l Wayne, Nicki Minaj, etc., somehow would be terrible off-put by watching an occasional Black bachelor or bachelorette. I think you’re making assumptions based on a far distant past, as are the producers of The Bachelor.
“I understand and acknowledge the need for artistic freedoms in casting. But what I am saying is that those freedoms do not exist in a vacuum. ”
Clearly you don’t understand the nature of fundamental freedoms as they exist in American law because they by legal definition DO exist in a vacuum. I CAN exercise my right to expression however I wish so long as it is non-violent. In America free speech is more unrestricted than it is anywhere. If the Klan can march in Skokie and elsewhere in the country, the Bachelor can host all-white shows. It might be ugly, piss people off (like you) but it is not illegal! They can do it irrespective of what others think and that is the nature of expressive and property rights. One can be as unreasonbale with both as they wish to be.
“Television is a market-driven arena, and therefore producers must respond to certain market realities like audience composition. Now, when producers make intelligent and reasonable casting decisions you don’t see too much pressure to change them. ”
This has NOTHING to do with the argument that the Bachelor producers are gonna make which is “its our show we cast who we want on it without regard for anyone else’s opinion.” There’s NO WAY any court is gonna accept any argument attempting to refute that should ANY lawyer be stupid enough to try and make one.
You are trying to argue that its in the best interests of the Bachelor to consider other markets or the “potential” damage to their image, maybe, but LEGALLY SPEAKING if they decide to say “screw it, we cast who we like”, then there is SFA anyone can do about it.
“But if they want to pretend as if they’re really considering every ethnicity, but then only select Whites, then eventually someone may call them on it. ”
There’s NOTHING in law saying that they can’t do this again because the show is owned by the Bachelor. Neither Affirmative Action nor the EEOC rules apply to these guys. There is NO obligation for such a private institution or undertaking to advertise who they wish to chose to film for THEIR OWN SHOW!
“So, you’re saying that the same people White majority who could elect a Black President, and the same White kids who buy up Snoop Dogg, Li’l Wayne, Nicki Minaj, etc., somehow would be terrible off-put by watching an occasional Black bachelor or bachelorette.”
Apparently thats what TV ratings based on who watches what and ratings based on interracial romance dramas and movies have suggested thus far. Things aren’t always what they seem.
Once again counsel for the Bachelor are going to compare the show to a Hebrew School looking for teachers and not selecting a non-Jewish person where the issue turns on the proprietorship of the institution involved and the fact that the law either through silent statute or stare decisis states that they can so discrminate even if they didn’t advertise “No Christians or No Muslims.”
King I think the issue here is that you don’t get the distinction between legal rights and market demands. I can exercise my legal rights however I want. If I go bankrupt as a consequence then it is MY business NOT yours, not anyone else’s especially the 2 black guys’.
The Court is gonna hear the question as such “Can the Bachelor negate to cast visible minorities on THEIR show despite not drafting a caveate to that effect when they call for auditions?”
Based on the fact that there is NO case law or legislation saying that they can’t negate to cast visible minorities then the judge will most certainly rule in favour of the Bachelor that is if it even gets this far without being dimissed for want of merrit. This case has NO legal merrit. Reason being is that the plaintiffs are trying to argue against someone’s right to do something with arguments detailing why (according to the plaintiffs) it would be in their best interests not to exercise their rights as they see fit.
Its a loser of a case. The only winner is legal counsel for the 2 black guys! He gets huge retainer and other billing fees plus publicity for having taken on ABC and or the Bachelor!
Master Wooten wrote:
I’d be very, very, very surprised if they tried to make that argument in court.
It’s anti-discrimination. You can’t own, say, an accounting firm and refuse to hire black people–you simply don’t have the right to do so. If the judge applies similar precedents to the Bachelor and the court finds that it’s applicable in the same way, then there could be legal merit. If it were such an open and shut case, it wouldn’t make the news. But because they could win, it becomes newsworthy.
I’m guessing they’ll probably settle out of court. That’s my guess.
Master Wooten, I disagree. I think the issue here is that you don’t understand that lawsuits are often part of a publicity strategy to leverage media attention and pressure regardless of if they ever actually go to court in the end or not, let alone win the case. You keep insisting that ABC has certain rights, and I keep trying to tell you that it’s not necessarily just about rights, but leverage. So let me try once again.
If you are under the impression that every lawsuit filed is about winning the actual case, then your impressions about civil litigation are a bit naive. This is a classic case where someone is using a lawsuit to bring attention to an issue. The plaintiffs may never even intend to fully litigate this case. Do you understand?
now it’s also possible that they will actually go to court, but this is the CLASSIC “bad publicity case” that get’s settled by one side agreeing to at least some of the terms of the plaintiff. In such cases “legal merit” is not as important as public opinion. IT’S A STRATEGY. Do you see? It’s not really about anything that you’re arguing above. You are missing the forest for the trees.
“I’d be very, very, very surprised if they tried to make that argument in court.”
How so when they are being challenged by the plaintiffs on that very point. The plaintiffs are challenging their right to do so.
“It’s anti-discrimination. You can’t own, say, an accounting firm and refuse to hire black people–you simply don’t have the right to do so.”
I’ve already made the distinction between the network ABC not hiring blacks (they can’t) and the specific show the Bachelor being allowed to hire or not hire who they like for merely cosmetic (factor discriminatory) purposes and there is NO law that says they can’t. A TV show is not like a business or public entity that has a duty to be fair to all. They CAN discriminate based on the fact that the show is essentially free expression. Who they hire to cast goes to that right of free expression. I gave you the examples of Seinfeld, Monique even Survivor when they decided to chose people and categorize them based on race. In that case the formed teams and only hired people from three races, white, black and Asian. Hispanics were excluded and NO ONE could have challenegd this legally if they tried.
Even with businesses and institutions you CAN in some cases discriminate. Private ethnic institutions like restaurants, schools and cultural centres could legally discriminate.
“If the judge applies similar precedents to the Bachelor and the court finds that it’s applicable in the same way, then there could be legal merit. If it were such an open and shut case, it wouldn’t make the news. But because they could win, it becomes newsworthy.”
What you fail to realise is that there ARE NO PRECEDENTS whereby TV show producers are forced to hire people based on race and it is HIGHLY UNLIKELY that this case will go anywhere simply because it lacks merit. As for the newsworthiness. Clearly you have little legal experience. All kinds of frivolous cases make news briefly and they fade before they are summarily dismissed, this happens all the time, especially in cases where a large entity is sued by attention seeking plaintiffs and counsel. It makes brief news then the large entity challenges the suit and gets it tossed and the plaintiffs end up with nothing but bills. So YES I do see both the forest and the trees as this game in litigation has been played, won and lost by the same kinds of characters over and over.
“You keep insisting that ABC has certain rights, and I keep trying to tell you that it’s not necessarily just about rights, but leverage. ”
These two black guys don’t HAVE any leverage. First off the case is NO LONGER in the news which goes to their abilities to capture and hold media attention. Whatever strategy they had (embarrass the Bachelor and or ABC) clearly hasn’t/isn’t working as neither entity seems damaged at the moment.
“If you are under the impression that every lawsuit filed is about winning the actual case, then your impressions about civil litigation are a bit naive. This is a classic case where someone is using a lawsuit to bring attention to an issue. The plaintiffs may never even intend to fully litigate this case. Do you understand?”
I understand … more than you do. I know that not every lawsuit is about winning. They are about attention seeking (the 2 black guys) and sending a message (the Bachelor/ABC). The 2 black guys want to bring attention to racism in society a story that the wider public already knows and is growing weary of hearing from guys like this. The Bachelor/ABC want to send a message by squashing these guys by both asserting the right of TV producers to their artistic and expressive freedom whilst blowing away frivolous litigants leaving them with NOTHING but their attorney’s fees. The defendants here will/SHOULD stick to their guns and win which they likely will then either push for or serve as an example WHY America needs tort reform whereby loser must be forced to cover the winner’s court costs both direct and indirect both for filing a frivolous lawsuit and or for not accepting settlement, litigating and winning less than what was offered to them or even losing.
Master Wooten:
Correct, the plaintiffs are challenging that right. My point is that the producers of the Bachelor are NOT going to assert that that is a right. First, because simply saying, ““its our show we cast who we want on it without regard for anyone else’s opinion” will run them afoul of anti-discrimination laws, and two, because, as King has said several times, they lose leverage in public opinion by stating that the opinions of the public do not matter.
I don’t know about that. It would be hard to sue over Lena Dunham’s “Girls” since lots of white people hang out with each other and the story makes sense (even if it takes place in NYC, one could argue that some New Yorkers only hang out with white people). The plaintiffs have a little more of a case here, since it’s a reality show which offers prizes. I say they could do five episodes or so and still get away with it, but 23 episodes?
And when I wrote about “precedent,” I was talking about other industries. I don’t know if a court would interpret an accounting firm as being different from a reality TV show. You don’t know that either. I’m also not convinced that there has never in history been a successful discrimination suit against a TV producer for what/who goes on air.
Actually no, you can’t. You can “discriminate” by requiring that your staff speaks Chinese, and you can be a small family-run business that only employs your own family, but you can’t just say “we don’t hire people who aren’t of a certain race.” I’m sure some small restaurants discriminate and get away with it because it’s not worth a lawsuit, but it is illegal.
I’d just be very surprised if they simply admitted to discriminating and said, “That’s just the way we do things.” Even if they won after saying that (and they wouldn’t), they’d have a public relations nightmare, even among their white fans. It’s most likely that they will settle. We’ll see.
“My point is that the producers of the Bachelor are NOT going to assert that that is a right. First, because simply saying, ““its our show we cast who we want on it without regard for anyone else’s opinion” will run them afoul of anti-discrimination laws, and two, because”
Well you’re wrong. Anti-discrimination laws do NOT prevent show producers from casting whoever they want. This is a fallacy on your part. Casting whoever they want is free artistic expression and NO TV show or movie to date has ever been told by a court who they must cast. So you’re wrong on the law.
“as King has said several times, they lose leverage in public opinion by stating that the opinions of the public do not matter.”
Again this is NOT the case that the Bachelor is going to make since they are being challenged on the right to cast who they like or reject who they want. This is the case that is going to go before the judge. Public opinion is NOT a legal matter and the plaintiffs are NOT suing the Bachelor over “public opinion” but because the Bachelor didn’t chose them (discrimination). Losing leverage in public opinion is of NO concern to the court and they won’t hear that nor will they rule on that issue. Besides the Bachelor might say that by being forced to cast people they wouldn’t normally cast that they will LOSE public support.
“And when I wrote about “precedent,” I was talking about other industries. I don’t know if a court would interpret an accounting firm as being different from a reality TV show. ”
Well NO! Precedent is LEGAL precedent as in cases already decided by courts at the same or higher level jurisdiction whose principles are the same as this with similar fact scenarios and where the legal issues are the same. This would mean that the court in question would be if not bound by those past decisions, heavily persuaded by them. An accounting firm is definately different from a reality TV show. An accounting firm is essentially a business whose services are open to the public whereas a reality TV show is a private creation whose rules and creation are governed by the producers. Becoming an accountant is based purely on one’s ability as an accountant, wanting to be a reality TV contestant is all about whether or not the producers who own the show like you and want you and their methods for selection can be as unrealistic and subjective as they want. This is what is meant by artistic expression. TV is entertainment and the shows are owned by the creators or artists if you will. They can reject fat people, short people even black people all of whom cannot be rejected on those basis by accounting firms if they were fully qualified accountants.
“Actually no, you can’t. You can “discriminate” by requiring that your staff speaks Chinese,”
Of course you can. If knowledge of Chinese is an essential part of the business. If being Chinese adds a comprehensible embiance to your business, say the restaurant is decked out like one is in Hong Kong! If the business caters to that community you can. Immigration Law firms catering to Latinos in California often discriminate against Non-Spanish speaking lawyers. Why? Because all too often you need to be able to understand Spanish to communicate with your clients and being a lawyer communication is your bread and butter. Hebrew schools hire ONLY Hebrew speaking Jewish teachers. Why? Because they are teaching Jewish children the primary Jewish language and the Jewish faith as requested by the parents of those children who send their kids to those schools at huge cost in the first place for that purpose.
“and you can be a small family-run business that only employs your own family, but you can’t just say “we don’t hire people who aren’t of a certain race.”
Sure you can! What’s to stop you from saying that if you ONLY hire your immediate family? If you’re not advertising jobs to the public then you can communicate what you like. Once agai n a feature of this case you fail to comprehend.
Do you really think that strip clubs which hire only female dancers aimed at men would be barred from refusing to hire male exotic dancers? These kinds of discriminatory actions happen all over America and their right to be so discriminatory IS LEGAL!
Look you need to read some law or something but discrimination while not always legal IS LEGAL and acceptible in some circumstances. If an atheist tried to becoem a nunn and sued on the basis of sexual and religious/anti-religious discrimination the court would undoubtable reject his claim and spell out WHY the catholic church’s discriminatory policy would stand in that case.
People have leeway to discriminate over their own productions and entrprises which are of a private nature especially where expression is at the core of what they are doing. Blacks can’t sue to join the Klan nor can they sue to get on the Bachelor. Public opinion notwithstanding, in purely private settings people have a right to associate with who they want which includes a right NOT to associate with certain people. Businesses and public institutions open to the public may not have this right, but private clubs, fraternities and YES TV shows have the right to exclusive memberships including casts.
PS> I didn’t even get into the fact that the 2 blacks are claiming discrimination based on class action. Here they need to find other minorities willing to sign on to their crazy case and (get this) prove harm! They have to show that they “suffered” due to this discrimination and that the suffering cannot be mitigated by “looking for love” as they claim they’re doing elsewhere.
Like I said, do some legal research and try talking to a lawyer about the pure merits of the claim (public opinion aside) because rights cases are NOT about opinion but unhindered liberties!
“I’d just be very surprised if they simply admitted to discriminating and said, “That’s just the way we do things.” Even if they won after saying that (and they wouldn’t), they’d have a public relations nightmare, even among their white fans. It’s most likely that they will settle. We’ll see.”
They’ll admit to saying we discriminate on the basis of who we think looks the part.” Whether the discrimination is intentional or not is irrelevant, but the court will be ruling on whether or not one is allowed to discriminate in casting actors for a movie role. I’d be shocked if they say NO YOU CAN’T simply becaue a movie role is NOT like a regular job where skill is not necessary for the role and where LOOKS are almost everything. Think about forcing a Shakespaere company to have to cast a white Othello or the new film on Liz Taylor having to cast a black girl or any NUMBER of situations where a prodcuer is forced to hire him or her who simply doesn’t LOOK the oart largely because they are ethnically incompatible.
Ofcourse they would win EVEN if they say we discriminate in selecting people for roles because it is NOT like any other business and the court would not want to:
-Deprive people for freedom of expression
-Deprive people of freedom of association
-Totally upend the TV and film industry by for the first time forcing producers to film people they don’t want to film.
-Open the floodgates to frivolous lawsuits that are going to be baseless and where the plaintiff can’t prove harm or lack of oportunity due to widespread “discrimination.”
Like I said, do some research and you’ll find contrary to your belief that some discrimination IS legal!
Wooten:
So…is there a law that says show producers can discriminate? From what you’re telling me, this is an open-and-shut case, and that the studios almost don’t even need a lawyer because the law, according to you, clearly states that it’s okay to discriminate. I disagree. Most lawyers would disagree too.
And nope, you can’t discriminate by race. Speaking Chinese has nothing to do with race, nor does speaking Spanish, nor does being Jewish or speaking Hebrew. Totally unrelated to this discussion. Sure, they’d probably need a white girl to play Liz Taylor, but not because of race, more because of resemblance. You can have casting calls for white people or Asian people based on a certain storyline based on race, but that too is irrelevant in this discussion. Who, in the example of the Bachelor, are the contestants supposed to be playing/resembling? They’re not supposed to be playing White people, they’re supposed to be playing themselves.
I want to go back to this statement of yours:
I actually wouldn’t be surprised if they did exactly the OPPOSITE, by saying they’ve tried to diversify and for whatever reason haven’t found any black contestants. Yup. They’re going to say exactly the OPPOSITE of what you’re predicting. That’s my prediction.
Oops, I apologize…I just googled it, and even before the trial, they have ALREADY done the exact opposite of what you predicted. Sorry, Wooten. That’s 1-0, bigWOWO. Ba-BAM! Well, in your defense, I’ve been blogging about race for a LONG time, and so predicting the outcomes has almost become second nature.
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/lifestyle/54006422-80/bachelor-black-lawsuit-race.html.csp
“So…is there a law that says show producers can discriminate?”
Actually NO but the Common law system under which the US operates is governed on the principle that holds where statute and legal precent do not barr action that action is permissible.
“From what you’re telling me, this is an open-and-shut case, and that the studios almost don’t even need a lawyer because the law, according to you, clearly states that it’s okay to discriminate. I disagree. Most lawyers would disagree too.”
Actually you’re wrong on the MOST lawyers bit. I’ve had this conversation with three seasoned litigators all of whom feel this case is going no where for want of action. The law doesn’t state that its okay to discriminate but that the case against the Bachelor can be successfully challenged on so many grounds not least of which is the right of a TV show not to HAVE to consider certain classes of people for its show as the plaintiffs are asserting. BTW discrimination is NOT 100% illegal anywhere in the US, a fact that you’d know if you did your legal research as I had asked you too. There ARE legal grounds for discrimination even such which catch people in protected classes.
“Sure, they’d probably need a white girl to play Liz Taylor, but not because of race, more because of resemblance.”
Race IS resemblance on that point! There’s NO WAY a Liz Taylor character or say a Whitney Houston character (should one make a movie about her) could be properly portrayed by someone outside of those racial groups. This would ALSO would explain why Asian and African women would be turned down again for a position playing Queen Elizabeth II where the castor gets to set his or her own criteria on his or her own basis as ALWAYS HAPPENS.
“Speaking Chinese has nothing to do with race, nor does speaking Spanish, nor does being Jewish or speaking Hebrew. ”
Sure they do. By putting those criteria you are directly limiting the applicant pool to people PRIMARILY of those ethnic groups, kind of how they banned poll taxes for voting in the south. It wasn’t direct racial discrimination but was close enough to be deemed discrimination. This too is legal in other contexts. For Jews OFCOURSE one has to be Jewish to teach at a private Jewish school and this constitutes religious based discrimination but you know what? Its legal!
“Who, in the example of the Bachelor, are the contestants supposed to be playing/resembling? They’re not supposed to be playing White people, they’re supposed to be playing themselves. ”
Irrelevant! The Bachelor can say simply put “we choose people based on looks and we don’t like the looks of said people. You can’t use “who are they trying to play” as a reason for telling them who to cast for a show. Another principle now comes to mind and that is TELLING PEOPLE TO DO SOMETHING. You NEVER get courts telling businesses how to run their affairs. They may fine them, but impose operating conditions on businesses let alone casting for TV shows. Again you’re talking nonsense in that you are expecting the court to intrude in a matter which is so personal that its alien to American legal culture. Ever since the Civil Rights Era there has NEVER BEEN an order by ANY court telling a TV network to diversify or movies to diversity who they cast and in what roles. NEVER!
“They’re going to say exactly the OPPOSITE of what you’re predicting. That’s my prediction.”
It would be a bad argument due to the fact that they’d be ceding ground where they don’t have to and the judge might even weigh in and say “that’s NOT the business of the courts” which it isn’t!
As for your above post,
“The lawsuit quotes Michael Fleiss, creator of the series, telling Entertainment Weekly that “we always want to cast for ethnic diversity. It’s just that for whatever reason, they don’t come forward. I wish they would.””
It STILL doesn’t mean that the case is with merit or would be decided in favour of the 2 black guys so once again its still 0-0!
There STILL IS NO LEGAL REQUIREMENT FOR THEM TO CAST MINORITIES! A fact the 2 black guys will find out soon!
“http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/lifestyle/54006422-80/bachelor-black-lawsuit-race.html.csp”
PS. This is OLD NEWS. It is STILL within the timeline of the claim and has changed NOTHING for the 2 black guys hence their action continues. If they DO decide to take it to litigation (I’m sure their lawyer wants to $$$) and the Bachelor producers grow some backbone even to the level of a typical Bachelorette, then the case WILL disintigrate as I’m sure NO California judge wants to weigh into the world of Television and Movies telling these people who to cast! Entertainment is NOT a merit based activity, nor is acting a normal form of employment where the normal rules of employment always apply. The selection process for these kinds of engagements leave PLENTY of room for justifiable and LEGAL discrimination. Ever ask why some sports teams weren’t as diverse ethnically as others? Do you THINK someone could have sued for racism and won? Selection for sports and entertainment is NOT the same as whatever it is you do. They can pick who they want, not pick who they want and they don’t have to tell ANYBODY why they picked or even considered (or not) who they did.
Wooten,
As with your other quote: they’re not going to say that because that too would bring them into a bad LEGAL position AND would compromise their relationship with the public.
Wooten, you’re welcome to your opinions and thanks for sharing. But clearly, most of what you say is factually wrong. You may have never met a White person who speaks Chinese or Spanish or one who works in a Chinese or Mexican restaurant based in part because of that fact, but that has nothing to do with whether they exist. I’m talking about discriminating based on race, and you’re talking about discriminating based on qualifications for the job, which is not relevant.
1-0 WOWO, soon to increase to 2-0 when they present the argument, and then probably (I’m not going to say it’s 100% because I follow cases and KNOW–unlike some people–that nothing is guaranteed) 3-0 when they settle out of court or lose.
i’ve been reading about BFOQ cases, and it seems as if the entertainment industry wins unless they do something blatantly stupid and offensive in their casting methods.
I dont think the plaintiffs will win here.
“Oh and prediction, you know the first female non white bachelorette will be Asian, and it will be mostly white men in contention for her, with maybe one Asian man..”
Like the dream act, we can all dream and you can bet that the racist white female viewers of whom there are many in this country will turn it off and literally throw up!
The problem with the entertainment industry is that they have already stated that blacks are not on the show because they dont apply to be on the show. This case seems to prove otherwise. Now are there other minorities particularly Asian women who applied for the show and were turned down? After all, the white man-Asian woman couple are the most accepted in America eventhough the racist white American women who watch the show may not like it. Will these minorities who applied for the show and were told not to apply come out of the wood works?
“As with your other quote: they’re not going to say that because that too would bring them into a bad LEGAL position ”
No you’re wrong there. It would NOT bring them into a bad legal position in that it is theire RIGHT to cast or refuse to cast who they like. You need to get your head around the fact that NO ONE HAS A RIGHT to be cast in a TV show absent a contract stating such.
“Wooten, you’re welcome to your opinions and thanks for sharing. But clearly, most of what you say is factually wrong.”
Not my opinion but the law which sadly you lack comprehension in. Your position simply put is that the twi black guys have a righta at either or both common law or statute based law to be cast on the Bachelor. This couldn’t be further from the truth in that NO SUCH RIGHT EXISTS.
“Which in SOME mind you a few areas or venues is PERFECTLY legal.” Sure there are Chinese restaurants which hire white people but if one were sued by a white guy on the basis of race and the restaurant raised the defence of “cultural ambiance” it being a chinese restaurant or a movie wanted to cast someone in a role and race or skin colour was either a writen or implied quality upon which they included or exclude charcaters then they’d almost certainly win. Positions which call for a certain artistic presence with regards to people WILL be allowed to discriminate in those specific circumstances.
Again you’re talking not from a legal perspective but froma lay person’s persective whihc holds that all race based discrimination is not defensible. Sometimes however it IS defensible even if you were to look at the logic of Affirmative Action where it is used as a “consideration” call it what you like, it happens and is seldlom challenged because there is no case in those circumstances.
““The Bachelor can say simply put “we choose people based on looks and we don’t like the looks of said people.”
As with your other quote: they’re not going to say that because that too would bring them into a bad LEGAL position AND would compromise their relationship with the public.”
I’ve already addressed the fact that your argument is NOT based on law because ou can’t site any legal authority agreeing with your opinion and don’t try to state California anti-discrimination law because that statute does NOT cover this kind of activity. I’ve done the research.
Your position states here is absurd. “The Bachelor wouldn’t use the defence that they pick people based on looks?” A reaality dating show? Are you mad? What the hell do you think is the point of that show? You think they pick ugly or average looking people because they tell a good story? “Compromise their position with the publci?” You think the public thinks that the Bachelor ISN’T choosing people based on looks?
Not only are you wrong in law, you barely have a grasp of the concept here.
Aight Wooten, you’re making yourself look very foolish. You already said that they would say, “its our show we cast who we want on it without regard for anyone else’s opinion,” and they’ve already said exactly the opposite. They clearly didn’t take legal advice from you. Let’s just wait until the trial starts, and then we can revisit this. There are a lot of other threads on this site where you can entertain us. I will check from time to time on the progress of the lawsuit.
“you’re making yourself look very foolish.”
Your lack of knowledge of the law makes ou look stupid indeed.
“its our show we cast who we want on it without regard for anyone else’s opinion,”
That’s what they’re doing anyways as it is thei right to do. These are the facts which your tiny brain has yet to comprehend. They have NOT said that we will surrender the decision on who to cats to anyone.
Trial starts? You actually think that in California with manditory pre-trial this “banana” of a case is going to trial? Now I know I’m dealing with someone who knows less than they let on.
What’s your rush, dude? Just wait to see how it turns out. You act like you know everything, but you’ve already been owned once. I don’t think anyone else equates “its our show we cast who we want on it without regard for anyone else’s opinion,” and “we always want to cast for ethnic diversity. It’s just that for whatever reason, they don’t come forward. I wish they would.”
“Yeah, it’s our show and we do what we want! Ra! Ra! Ra!” LOL. Hahaha.
You’re right that they might not go to trial. Above, I predicted they’d settle out of court. But who knows? Not even lawyers can accurately predict the outcome of a trial.
Just be patient, dude. My site will still be here when this gets resolved.
I’m surprised at how many white people find matters like this important, even as their Constitution is being brutally sodomized by NDAA and CISPA.
“You act like you know everything, but you’ve already been owned once”
Owned??? You know don’t know your ass from your elbow about law, a fact that I’ve pointed out here too many times to count. Furthermore I’ve also shown that you don’t even have a grip on the facts of the case itself.
“I don’t think anyone else equates “its our show we cast who we want on it without regard for anyone else’s opinion,”
Well anyone but those versed in the law which you and many other’s aren’t. I’m simply stating the FACT that the Bahcelor stands on firm legal ground to state that they can decide to cast who they like. You think that they don’t but this is NOT based on any law either common law or statute.
No its not going to trial and NO I do not believe that this matter is going to get settled with the two black guys getting anything as you might daftly think they do because they’re NOT entitled to a spot on the Bachelor NOR can they point to any duty that the show owes them. Can you think of any dudty that the show owes those two men in particular? Was there an agreement? You’ll have to pull one out of your ass because even the two black guys themselves don’t have one.
Here some facts, (since you obviously don’t know them too well …) The two black guys are attempting to file a class action suit on behalf of minorities everywhere vis a vis the Bachelor. This cannot and will likely not succeed first because the rules regarding class action are usually very difficult owing to the fact that you have to have many people coming together claiming the same kind of harm from the exact same treatment. The first test here will be diffifcult. The second test … well that doesn’t even exist.
I know what I say here goes well above your head. Its normal, I’m educated, you’re not so. Yeah we’ll wait and and see…. are California courts as crazy as you think they are or do they address legal issues in the same sane matter as do court throughout the Anglo-American world!
Dude!
Sorry, Wooten…where again did you get your law degree?
I’m guessing it wasn’t Berkeley. Am I right?
I guess you’re going to tell us that this Berkeley professor and ENTERTAINMENT LAWYER who graduated from Harvard Law doesn’t know his “ass from his elbow” about law either, right?
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/05/21/the-bachelor-and-bachelorette-inside-the-racial-discrimination-lawsuit.html
Son, have you actually READ his statement?
He’s NOT saying as you do that this case has merit. He is confirming what I have said all along…
“But because of issues of creative freedom, the entertainment industry operates untethered to the rules of antidiscrimination law”
And this is merely his musing
“If it survives discovery to reveal internal emails, conversations, and casting call descriptions that include discriminatory remarks or assumptions about viewer and sponsor biases, Robinson said, “the lawsuit could change the industry in a significant way.””
The lawyer you quoted hasn’t stated whether or not he thinks this case has merrit. Read the statement that you posted again. He’s not saying “this case has a good chance of success”. He’ll he IS not predicting anything one way or another.
However I bet if you were to ask him his opinion, whether or not he thinks some Californian court of first instance will try to upset the entire entertainment industry only to have its ruling likely appealed and overturned…. I bet you he’d say they won’t do it.
Once again you’ve been owned like a slave!
So then why are you predicting it one way over the other? He clearly thinks there’s a chance, otherwise he wouldn’t muse about how groundbreaking it could be.
Again, let it play out.
Yeha bigWOW…
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/bachelor-racism-lawsuit-343528
Levin and Pierce have expounded upon what I have been saying for weeks. There is NO proof a racism, rather what is operating on the part of ABC here are decisions to decide who and who not to include NOT in employment or accademic scenarios but in private and special events with a view to public expression as referenced in the 1995 Supreme Court decision so mentioned in the link.
You should hear that the defence motion to have this vexatious case dismissed GRANTED any time soon!
The more this Master Wooten guy posts here, the more I think he is a clown.
Raguel, you don’t have an argument worthy of any consideration here so kindly return to the position of silence to which we’ve become accustom from you!
bigWOWO look …
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/bachelor-race-discrimination-case-first-amendment-332624
It turns out that the Bachelor producers actually ARE mounting a First Amendment defence to this frivolous racism lawsuit. They’re arguing as I have argued all along casting people in television programs IS protected first amendment expression! It may not be a popular position to hold in some quarters but popularity is NEVER the measure of rights claims and their constitutionality. Black people most of all people know this principle to be true.
Why don’t we wait till the case is decided on. I am one who thought this case would go nowhere too but when you start posting any news on this case and acting like it’s already gotten a judgement, it seems a bit neurotic. Don’t you agree?
You little clown, what language did you just speak to me? Dungeons and Dragons language?
After a hiatus of a few months, when you jumped up and down like a mongoloid hill billy product of incest (yeeehaw!) whose father had just bought him his first hooker I thought that a judgement had already been passed on the case. Then I find out, the defendants have merely begun filing their defence.
What a disappointment. But then again, with you that’s probably the norm.
You are a premature ejaculator in all aspects of life, aren’t you?
“Why don’t we wait till the case is decided on. I am one who thought this case would go nowhere too but when you start posting any news on this case and acting like it’s already gotten a judgement, it seems a bit neurotic. Don’t you agree?”
The first step to solving premature ejaculation is acknowledging the problem.
What makes me suspect he doesn’t have the strength to face his inadequacies?
Even if there was a handsome Asian guy on the Bachelor, it wouldn’t matter much, as there was one in the show a few years ago who got very little play. The fact of the matter is, most Asian men are not physically attractive to garner attention from non-Asian women.
Chr Wrote: Even if there was a handsome Asian guy on the Bachelor, it wouldn’t matter much, as there was one in the show a few years ago who got very little play. The fact of the matter is, most Asian men are not physically attractive to garner attention from non-Asian women.
And what does this have to do with this thread? One track mind I tells ya.
Totally out of left field, Chr. Not sure how it’s relevant at all. This isn’t even about Asian men.
Wooten:
“You should hear that the defence motion to have this vexatious case dismissed GRANTED any time soon!”
Sure, you’re telling me what will happen “soon,” right after you post an article from FOUR MONTHS ago.
Of course they’re going to use the First Amendment. That’s completely different from saying, “its our show we cast who we want on it without regard for anyone else’s opinion,” which is your claim. As usual, the first article you cited contradicts your own opinion.
“And what does this have to do with this thread? One track mind I tells ya”.
The Bachelor show doesn’t have a racial minority as the main role. Let’s say they finally get a BM on the show and guess what? He’s going to be popular with White women, which is already a trend in real life anyway. I don’t see any point to this. From what I’ve seen, college bound African Americans particularly Black men especially in top schools, also do well with White women in their respective campuses.
Now let’s put an AM on the show with the same scenario, the chances of this is NIL, but let’s say it happens. Not only does this give a misleading social boost for Asian guys, it distorts reality because non-Asian women generally don’t like Asian men. Just like most real life AMs aren’t martial artists portrayed in the movies.
But this thread is about discrimination, what does it have to do with interracial dating? My God you’re w weirdo.
I think Byron should ban this Clown. He brings nothing to the discussion but isconstantly saying the same things over and over and over again on every thread. I guess it is a source of entertainment to some of us to see a train wreck of a person.
Byron has a choice of course. He can deal with this character decisively, or he can watch as every topic, every discussion is steadily, aggressively derailed to fulfil this anonymous coward’s warped agenda.
Chr,
Frank Chin answered this in the early 1970′s.
http://chintalks.blogspot.com/2008/08/racist-love.html
I do agree with Moro and Rags. Chr, if you believe that Asian men are objectively less attractive (as Satoshi Kanazawa believes is the case with black women), then make your case, and we’ll put it down on the front page as an opinion piece. Otherwise, let’s move on and discuss other topics.
Actually, hold the show on that one–I’m rescinding that offer for a front post, but I’m extending a podcast offer. If you believe we’re objectively less attractive, let’s do a podcast. We should invite urb4n and Moro on this!
“I do agree with Moro and Rags. Chr, if you believe that Asian men are objectively less attractive (as Satoshi Kanazawa believes is the case with black women), then make your case, and we’ll put it down on the front page as an opinion piece. Otherwise, let’s move on and discuss other topics”.
Just look at the multiracial dating and social dynamics in America and see if Asian men are just as attractive as other men. They’re not. Studies have proven this, and it’s not just the hated Columbia University dating experiment which has opened a pandora’s box about this touchy subject that only “unPC racists” would openly talk about.
Again, I personally eyewitnessed fellow Asian men getting the cold shoulder by non-Asian women at eating establishments and social events to say that discrimination towards many of our brothers is not a race issue, but one based on a physical attractiveness.
I would not disagree with any of you that most AMs have no problems dating Asian women.
LOL, look at the way this dickless man avoids Byron’s invitation and goes limp yet again.
Chr isn’t just ugly on the inside.
He’s also a big DICKLESS CHICKEN.
ROFLMAO
In 2010, Time published an article on interracial dating that cited a study which examined 1,558 Yahoo! Personals profiles. Asians won the prize for having the least attractive men — fewer than 10 percent of those surveyed expressed an interest in them.
So Chr is repeating again and not wanting to do a podcast or article. I say he should be banned from this site or we’ll see his garbage for years.
“Of course they’re going to use the First Amendment. That’s completely different from saying, “its our show we cast who we want on it without regard for anyone else’s opinion,” ”
Well you’re wrong son. First Amendment argument argument is just that Freedom of Expression! Freeedom of Expression or speech means that you can say what you want without regard for anyone else’s opinion. Freedome of Speech or expression means YOUR speech or expression without regard for anyone elses. Try reading the amendment.
Try reading the articles you send.
“Try reading the articles you send.”
I read the articles. Then I discuss the legal aspects of the matter. You try to refute those points I make but to futile results. To argue that a first amendment defence is not the same as saying “I can say/cast/print, publish what I want” demonstrates your ignorance of what the first amendment stands for. So when you argue as you tried to do a while back, what I take away is that you don’t get the complexity of this case.
I’m make it simple for you. I’ve wikied the first amendement for you. Voila! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
Now read this and some related law and you’ll see where this case is in all probability going.
Wow. Now you’re bringing in the term “probability.” And now you’re saying the case has “complexity.”
I take it you’re trying to backtrack in the quietest way possible. Am I right?
You read too much into individual words son! I’m still of the opinion that this case WILL fail for want of action and that the Bachelor’s defence is rock solid!
The defence motion to have this case dismissed will suceed as the two blacks have NO CASE!
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/bachelor-discrimination-case-dismissed
Well, looks like this one’s in the books!
“I can’t stand The Bachelor but I may watch it if it was a cute Asian guy (struggling to make his decision among a good mix of girls, mind you, not all white girls!). Wouldn’t that be something?”
Dream on!
This master wooten fellow keeps coming back again and again like a bad case of herpes.
“This master wooten fellow keeps coming back again and again like a bad case of herpes”.
He proved his point. Case closed.
Here’s a play by play of what happened in this case.
ABC like most corporations perhaps couldda paid those two bozos off and would not miss the payout, but as is the case with most large corporate entities, the folks at ABC who received this claim went to “legal” first before acting.
Legal likely told ABC that the black guys had no claim and that paying them off would expose ABC and the entire television and film industry to a torrent of frivolous and vexatious claims. This would make ABC a pariah in its own industry. Legal then also told ABC that it can have this action dismissed in motions court using junior counsel which would cost ABC far less than the payout that they may have been considering.
Legal appears to have been correct.
Thanks for following this, Wooten.
As I said before, let’s just let it play out, and it did. Thanks for keeping us all updated!
Wooten, I agreed with you from the beginning. Just as Byron said, just wait for a conclusion.
No way these guys had a case. They were looking for ABC to settle which they did not. If ABC were to settle, you’d have everyone coming out of the woodwork suing everyone about why there aren’t enough minorities in this TV show or this feature. There was no way this case if it went would have gone to the those guys. Again, it would set a precedence. You can’t control what Artists, (in this case writers, producers, etc) what to do with their art.
Reminds me of this case which was also tossed out.
http://www.splc.org/news/newsflash.asp?id=1252
“You can’t control what Artists, (in this case writers, producers, etc) what to do with their art”.
Oh yeah? A few weeks ago, you, Rag and Urb had a discussion about protesting Hollywood and its negative portrayals of Asian men.
Oh yeah? A few weeks ago, you, Rag and Urb had a discussion about protesting Hollywood and its negative portrayals of Asian men.
LOL! so quick to jump at anything. It’s okay to complain and say there aren’t’ any good images of Asian men or in your case hunchbacks represented fairly but suing, that’s a different thing altogether. As I said before, the only way you can have Hollywood give more portrayals is show that Asians can make the studio money. I remember a friend who was a network exec back in the day told me they would show a toy monkey hitting a w cymbals if people would watch. I still don’t doubt that seeing things that are on the air like the Kardash, and Jersey Shore.