What’s true is that there are certain categories you can’t discriminate on the basis of.
A restaurant may for example refuse to let in people who aren’t wearing shirts or shoes or even, at certain high end restaurants, formal clothing but they can’t prevent someone from coming in because of their race, religion, national origin, etc.
Too put it another way, if I’m running a pizzeria I can refuse to let in people wearing sandals or T-shirts with foul language but I can’t forbid someone from coming in because he’s white.
Threatening to sue for discrimination claiming you are a member of a protected class and are being persecuted for that reason is not exactly unheard of, and it isn’t a ‘weird’ thing for me to say it. I have seen a fairly wide variety of people (black, white, young, old, gay, straight) use it to try to stop disciplinary actions and firings, or even just to try to not be told to actually do their fucking jobs. Of course, some of the professions I wandered through over the last 10 years were thick with it (Security work), while it is almost unheard of in the IT field I’ve spent most of my adult life in.
I’m not trying to be ‘right’, I’m telling you where I’m at with this. But since you’d rather be right, and rather insult me while doing it, while ignoring the questions I asked you (except to insult them) I’ll just mark the kind of person you are and move on. I note that at no point have we been on the opposite side of the base issue, and you could have been happy with that, but it wasn’t enough for you.
Being right is important when ignorance leads people to believe and advocate things that are not true. You were wrong, got called out on it, started calling people jackasses, said some stupid stuff, and now are trying to say that being right doesn’t matter. But it does matter. Your anecdote demonstrates that you do not know what a protected class is. You want to get rid of them without knowing what you are getting rid of.
Assuming you were talking to me, no, we are not on the same side. We cannot be on the same side until both of us actually knows what the sides represent.
That’s how groups get on the list. If that sort of thing happened, then the courts would, in rather short order, add those classes to the list, to prevent it happening further.
To be clear (since there is widespread confusion), it’s how discriminating on the classification (say “red head” or “Scorpio”) becomes unacceptable. Protected classes are sets of characteristics that you are not allowed to use base certain types of decisions on. So if they became protected classes, the classes would be “hair color” or “astrological sign.”
I, for one, like and support the idea of protected classes. There will always be certain people picked out of a group and abused because of their perceived membership in that group. I don’t care that some people use it to their advantage to rebuff discipline, the fact that a big enough problem exists with discrimination of those groups to justify the broad existence of such protection. When it causes problems, address those problems specifically but leave the law intact. I’d rather a minority group get some undeserved protection than remove that protection and become disproportionately targeted.
I think all of the current federally protected classes deserve to be there and to them we should add a lot more.
Good point. It wouldn’t be “It is illegal to discriminate against redheads,” but “It is illegal to discriminate on the basis of hair color.”
Too many people imagine that protection on the basis of sexual orientation only protects gays; it doesn’t. It protects straights (and all others) also. There might be some gay business-owner who would like to refuse to provide service to straights, and that’s not acceptable either.
So instead of ‘Equal Protection under the Law’ meaning that it is illegal to discriminate on the basis of arbitrary groups, we must instead build lists of the arbitrary groups against which it is illegal to discriminate? :dubious:
You need the lists because it is generally legal to treat people differently. It’s when groups of people routinely face discrimination that we let the government step in to protect them.
If one random store owner decides that he won’t bake a cake for a blond couple, the government doesn’t need to step in, because blond people do not face a pattern of discrimination.
So let me get this straight : Arizona tried it, it caused a huge backlash even among conservatives, the very lawmakers who proposed the bill wound up speaking out against it and the Republican governor eventually vetoed it as “staggeringly stupid” (well, maybe not in those exact words ), and lawmakers in *other *states are now thinking “yup, that there was a bright idea, let’s get us some of that !” ?
When did the Republicans join Anonymous ? Or if this isn’t trolling for the lulz, is it some kind of performance art ? I don’t… what the fuck ?
Nah, it’s just the culmination of the Republican Religious Persecution Propaganda Campaign. “Oh woe is us, those meanies are forcing us to be tolerant against our wills! It ain’t right!”
Like I say, it is the last gasp of a dying culture. They’re going to lose this battle too, because there is just no way you can couch this (and believe me, they’re trying everything they can think of!) to make it palatable and conceal the fact that it is nothing more than an attempt to legalize and normalize racism and bigotry.
I’m with those who feel that you simply don’t understand what Protected Classes are. No need to be so defensive, if you don’t know what they are, just ask
), and lawmakers in *other *states are now thinking “yup, that there was a bright idea, let’s get us some of that !” ?