Title VII is not limited to employment situations, although that constitutes the bulk of the claims for obvious reasons. But there also a host of accomodation cases (refusing to serve a customer based upon race). Disparate impact is not really about legislation. It developed from employment cases (because that is the source of most Title VII claims).

Phillip….like FITS said… take your medicine.

I still stand by my first assertion thoug that I don’t think it was Clyburn’s intent to call global warming racist, via the usual understanding of the term or the more legally ensconced disproportionate impact theory - despite mother earth’s lack of intent.

All racial discrimination is governed by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, and it covers private action as well as public action. In fact, the primary thrust of the CRA was private action (namely private employers in the South). The SCOTUS first sanctioned the theory in a case where the employer was Duke Power.

Aahh… SO !!

Dr. SULU… LOL

He’s a typical pandering black (or white Democrat desperately trying to be black a.k.a. Brad Hutto). His basic idea about America, just like Obama’s is that blacks have ruined their neighborhoods by dropping out of school, having having too many babies with no baby daddies around and letting gangs and drugs take over, so all the rich white folks need to have their taxes raised to pay for it because after all its really all our faults because of slavery. I agree, we should have left y’all in Africa.

Clyburn obviously wasn’t suggesting that the earth is racist (despite FITS’ nonsensical interpretation), but that does not let him off the hook. Under the law, there are more than 1 kind of racial discrimination. There is the obvious, direct kind (e.g. telling an employee you would not promote him because he is black).

However, most people have enough sense to not broadcast that they are racists. So courts have developed the concept of disparate impact discrimination, which means that even race neutral policies can be illegal if they have a disparite impact on a protected class.

The logical implication of Clyburn’s claim of victimhood is that we are all (except for minorities of course, because we all know they cannot be racists) guilty of racial discrimination by driving SUV’s and using regular light bulbs because these seemingly race neutral choices have a disparate impact on minorities.