Sitting around, and we were writing regulations for i dont remember if it was the Fair Housing Act or the housing part of the americans with disabilities act, but anyway we were there and we were deciding you know what the rule should be for employers when it came to ramps and door knobs and sunken living rooms and all kinds of stuff like that. And it was appalling. You know, none of us knows at that table knew anything about the business of how to build an apartment complex. Why were we sitting around, you know making up all these rules . It was just very scary. Hes another part did i hear you say earlier in your testimony that you didnt have to have a familiarity with something in order to do the job . Well, no, i didnt say that. I said that you didnt think you had to be to put it bluntly, i dont think that you have to be a black person in order to be able to sell pepsis to a black person. And this notion that only members of a particular group can effectively market to members of th
Employees. We have a body of law and several years at least of experience. But title 7 has been worked out perfectly but its very controversial. One of the things that developed quite late sometimes 50 years after it passes. For example, right here, weve been told that title 7 can be used in terms of Sexual Orientation and gender identity. Nobody would have thought that in 1964. And maybe thats the right way to interpret it, or maybe its the wrong way. But its wrong to suggest that the language is not going to be a problem, because its not a problem now. Thats not the way statutes work. I understand that but i think its more important in your considerations to address what is the real problem now that we are trying to ameliorate. I think thats the wrong approach. We have a problem we have to deal with it right now. Lets go with whatever good language we have. We want good language. That wont be abused in the future. We want it to cover only the things we want it to cover. Do we have th