Except when it doesn’t.
[citation needed]
:rolleyes: Jackass.
:rolleyes: Jackass.
:rolleyes: Jackass.
Not just Blacks, race.
Not just women, sex (gender)
Not just Jews, religion.
Not just gays, orientation.
If you’d have just bothered to click on the link in JSLE’s post above you wouldn’t look like the typical mouth breathing bigot that opposes equal protection laws “cause them {insert hated group here} shouldn’t have special rights” and doesn’t have a clue that EVERYONE is a part of a Protected Class.
CMC
If you honestly think I oppose equal protection under the law, then you were neither reading nor comprehending what I wrote, and you are in great ignorance of my long history of posting the same. But thanks ever so much for grabbing one thing in complete ignorance and error, stuffing it full of straw and running with it!
Well, you should have gone with Nader, then!
Wait, voted for Buchanan because Bush was a Republican??? How the hell does that work?
My Dad voted for Nixon in '68, and talked my Mom into doing the same (she never forgave him), just because Nixon was running against the Vietnam War (in which Dad was serving at the time, BTW). Lots of things seem like a good idea at the time.
Once again, the Butterfly Effect changes the course of history!
::d&r::
AFAIK, the only protected class that doesn’t protect all of us is age.
Let’s go back to exactly what I said and allow me to explain it in great detail. It probably won’t stop idiots from deliberately misinterpreting it in order to feed their need for outrage, but maybe the actual thinking people on this board will grok it and not feel the need to step in.
Ideally, we should all be equal under the law. This equality should not require anyone to be singled out for special protection, as the law should apply to and protect everyone equally.
‘I realize today isn’t that day’ is a recognition that this does not happen in our current society, that we fail in the ideal of ‘equal protection under the law’, and reluctantly, we do need to place special protections in place because Humans Are Jerks and will seek out any excuse, any reason to continue to be jerks. The battle has not been won, the war is far from over.
As I have said before in other threads, I see this as a ‘last dying gasp’ of a culture that is passing. People trying to justify their anger, their hatred, trying desperately not to be wrong. They will lose, this will pass. But not today.
You don’t understand what a protected class is. Start here.
Protected class does not mean something that I have that you don’t. Protected class means what are the characteristics for which someone is taking an action.
It’s just as illegal for someone to fire you for being white as for being black.
It’s just as illegal for someone to fire you for being male as for being female.
These are not special protections for the PEOPLE, they are requirements that the status or characteristic not be used for an illegal purpose.
Except that they do get used that way.
I’ve seen several employers tolerate behavior that would get me fired in a heartbeat, by people who then wave around ‘protected class’, threaten to sue and end up being untouchable.
My sister fought for several years to get rid of one of her people who waived around ‘protected class’ to cover his incompetence. He even tried to get her fired repeatedly for ‘persecuting’ him, but as she herself stated, the only reason it didn’t work was because she is on that list twice (age, sexual orientation). They finally got the guy falsifying his time card to report he was working when hadn’t come in yet, and he’s STILL suing claiming discrimination.
If someone decides to arbitrarily fire people who are left handed, or under 5’ tall, we should not be required to add to the law to say that you cannot do this.
She’s not on the list twice.
I don’t care about your anecdotes. I care what the actual definition of the words are.
You can fire someone for being left handed or under five feet tall. You can fire them for any reason except one of the exceptions. The exceptions are protected classes. “Classes” does not refer to people but to characteristics.
Sex is a protected class (at least sometimes), race is a protected class, religion is a protected class. That is sex as a whole, race as a whole, religion as a whole.
If you don’t grasp this, you will continue to say things that identify you as ignorant.
So you would accept the following, and say that we as a society have no choice but to say “Yup, got us there, (arbitrary group) is not a protected class.”?
1> McDonalds decides that left handers are too inefficient in operating cast registers and cooking equipment and fires them all.
2> Walmart decides that Scorpios are terrible customer service people and fires the lot.
3> Hobby Lobby decides that Gingers do not in fact have souls, and not only fires all of them, but prohibits gingers from entering their stores.
4> Arizona (or some other state) decides to get around this mess by legalizing discrimination against people with black hair.
So you’re fine with all of those, I take it? Because they’re not on the list? Because I’m not. I don’t give a fuck what the group is, discrimination against any particular arbitrary group is not cool and should not be legal.
And while you may care only about narrow definitions, I care about implementation and abuse of the system. If you think that makes me ignorant, then you have a very funny definition of the word.
I think you don’t know what a protected class is, and not knowing something makes you ignorant. That’s also a matter of definition!
Being ignorant apparently pisses you off, but the great thing about ignorance is that you can fix it! Whee!
I know what they are, I know why they are defined as such. But unlike you, I have extensive experience with how it works in the Real World, including how people use it to their advantage, and how companies are distorted by it based on their lawyers and insurance companies.
But thanks for playing.
No, what you have is useless anecdotal bullshit, a ridiculous persecution complex, and very little common sense.
But thanks for playing.
You may know what they are now. I did link you to a very easy to understand site and a couple of people in the thread did explain things.
And it’s a weird term, so I get why people get confused about what it means.
But I don’t think anyone reading our exchange will actually buy that you knew this all along. It’s actually fairly funny, frankly, but I had some time to kill so I’m not complaining. And you may have learned something, so that’s good.
Your anecdotes are still really really stupid. You might want to invest in some shiny new ones.
Awful lot of ‘useless anecdotal bullshit’ out there, but I guess that’s on you.
Arguing with you or her doesn’t make me ignorant, angry, feeling persecuted or lacking in common sense. Those are just tactics to discount arguments and information you disagree with. Ad Hominem logical fallacy.
Arguing with me doesn’t make you ignorant.
This made you ignorant (or at least marked you as such):
Now, it’s possible that you understand now why this is a really weird thing to say. And like I said, lots of people don’t understand protected classes, so there is no shame in saying “Wow, I don’t get it.” But I think there is shame in being so relentlessly snotty while not getting it. If you’re going to be relentlessly snotty, you should at least be right.
(Countdown to “I know you are but what am I” rebuttal in 3, 2, 1 …)