Sohh Byron Allen fukked up the Civil Rights Act of 1866, walked away with a bag, AND got 3 channels?

[Booker T Garvey]

You don't accumulate that type of wealth in this country without being a narcissistic sociopath, I don't care what type of lip service he gives

All in all though, he dropped many gems about business and racism in his industry that we can learn from forever now

plus he employs a ton of black people...I ain't mad at him at all.

 

[Json]

The blame is squarely on comcast not byron. One can say if comcast was willing to settle, then why did they challenge the law to begin with? Byron was always willing to settle. Amazing how yall will give racist a pass. He had every right to sue and we know they were in the wrong.

Maybe I’m missing something but Byron alleged race and nothing else.

I mean if his channels aren’t valuable he’s not going to admit that.

 

[you're NOT "n!ggas"]

The blame is squarely on comcast not byron. One can say if comcast was willing to settle, then why did they challenge the law to begin with? Byron was always willing to settle. Amazing how yall will give racist a pass. He had every right to sue and we know they were in the wrong.

Who said he shouldn't have sued? The stakes changed and once the but-for causation was challenged he threw a hail mary anyways-- our expense. You got at least one poster admitting it was a lost cause at that point.

Comcast was racist enough to block him, threaten our civil rights, trample them, and he still took the bag and got his channels added to their line up... They're making bread together now. This is something that could affect you far more than it ever would him. Or Comcast. Or the SC Justices.

 

[El Bombi]

fukk this Bedbuck

 

[OGBIGBOY187]

what channels my man got cuz i only see him late night on local channels and his round table of comedians just riffing shyt

 

[Secure Da Bag]

Did he settle before or after George Floyd died? Serious question.

 

[Mook]

I don't think y'all getting this right.

He lost the case and still got what he wanted. That means he was in on the take.

I never thought about it but if a bad actor can get a supreme court case first and craft both arguments they could set their very own precedent for laws and rig the game even more.

 

[---]

What's the point of having the law if we can't use it? Byron tried to use the CRA of 1866, yet the SC(the "liberal ones" too) all sided w/ white supremacy and basically nullified the law.

This exact sentiment!

 

[YourMumsRoom]

The blame is squarely on comcast not byron. One can say if comcast was willing to settle, then why did they challenge the law to begin with? Byron was always willing to settle. Amazing how yall will give racist a pass. He had every right to sue and we know they were in the wrong.

c00ns dont wanna hear logic breh, leave 'em.

As was said before, the law is there to be used, we didnt write but I'd be damned if we don't wanna use it too!

 

[BaggerofTea]

Maybe I’m missing something but Byron alleged race and nothing else.

I mean if his channels aren’t valuable he’s not going to admit that.

No thats what the Supreme court ruled that the Civil rights of 1866 said

Not what he alleged, basically saying he needs a higher burden of proof

 

[EndDomination]

This phrase never was interpreted very narrowly.

So people are mad because he pushed the burden of proof higher official.

Formly it was interpreted as part of a whole.

So if a number of factors came into play and race was one of them, you would win off this clause alone, because of how loose the interpretation was.

Now the Supreme Court ruled that you have to prove that is exclusively about race when bias takes place in a contract.



I don't see how that would affect legal cases unless the Judges were white supremacists tbh

A huge chunk of the federal judiciary are white supremacists.

 

[EndDomination]

I don't think y'all getting this right.

He lost the case and still got what he wanted. That means he was in on the take.

I never thought about it but if a bad actor can get a supreme court case first and craft both arguments they could set their very own precedent for laws and rig the game even more.

Not quite. He was able to get to the Supreme Court on a constitutional issue - there are plenty of avenues for individual civil suits and the like - not based on that issue.

Comcast was also trying to get him to fold and settle prior to the SCOTUS case - they were worried even though the SC is nothing but clowns.

 

[BaggerofTea]

A huge chunk of the federal judiciary are white supremacists.

There is your problem.

However Byron I dont think had a case to begin with.

Basically contract talks broke down and he felt racial animus was involved

I am not sure if he ever proved his case legitimately. I feel like he just threw money at the situation and used the (hate this word) "race card" in a broader public display.

He has never been down for black people so its hard to see a good angle for him here

Allen filed a lawsuit (filed under both Allen's National Association of African-American-Owned Media and Entertainment Studios) in the United States District Court for the Central District of California against Comcast in February 2015, seeking US$20 billion in damages and citing that Comcast had used racial discrimination to deny him a contract, in violation of section 1981 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866.[2] Allen alleged that Comcast was discriminating against 100%-minority owned networks like Entertainment Studios, as only US$3 million of the total US$11 billion carriage fees Comcast paid were to 100%-minority owned networks. Comcast refuted the accusations, stating they had been in negotiations with Allen in good faith for several years to strike a deal.[3] Comcast claimed that the lawsuit was "an ordinary business grievance masquerading as a racial discrimination claim".[4]

 

[you're NOT "n!ggas"]

c00ns dont wanna hear logic breh, leave 'em.

As was said before, the law is there to be used, we didnt write but I'd be damned if we don't wanna use it too!

Ah yes, "c00n"! The Coli's magic word

I think a lot of y'all are hearing what you wanna hear. No one's saying he shouldn't have sued or attempted to invoke the CRA, but once it was at risk of removing protections for all of us the game plan should have changed. I'm a "c00n" but you can't name a single thing that came out of this that benefits you. Unless it's a slam dunk, open and shut case you're fukked-- I'm not lawyer but I'm pretty sure laws like that aren't meant to be needlessly crippled

Not quite. He was able to get to the Supreme Court on a constitutional issue - there are plenty of avenues for individual civil suits and the like - not based on that issue.

Comcast was also trying to get him to fold and settle prior to the SCOTUS case - they were worried even though the SC is nothing but clowns.

Rep pending if you have a link. I've been trying to confirm that before jumping ahead of myself and making the accusation but I remember hearing something about that, wasn't sure if I was just remembering wrong

 

[Field Marshall Bradley]

So wait a minute.... He was supposed to et fukked out of what he should’ve been able to pursue? Or is this wicked legislation that we need to campaign on to get revised? Thread doesn’t make sense