2 ms·

But that struggle being lengthened also means the continued systematic oppression of certain groups for decades, perhaps even generations longer. I'm unsure if

But that struggle being lengthened also means the continued systematic oppression of certain groups for decades, perhaps even generations longer. I'm unsure if that's really acceptable to say "eventually worthwhile things will get through" when groups of people right now are dealing with systemic social issues. If a homosexual person is fired for being homosexual (legal in many states), is it really acceptable to approach that with "well if its truly worthwhile to fight for, sexuality will eventually become a protected class"?

brightball 11y ago
I'd generally look at issues like that from an entirely different perspective (personally). If it's possible for legislation to oppress people, it seems like the goal should be to make that less feasible. What consequences come to businesses in general by classifying certain groups of people as protected classes while others aren't? Does it discourage businesses from hiring those groups in the first place simply from a risk management perspective? Experience will definitely show that as you approach a certain age, you'll have a harder time finding a job and a big part of that is the risk a business takes on if they have to fire you for underperforming. Understanding that there are always consequences to legislation, no matter how noble the intentions, will lead to looking at solutions from different angles. The legislative solution is "Make THEM do this!" while the non-legislative solution is "Campaign to help people be more understanding, tolerant and welcoming to homosexuals." The latter improves society as a whole while they former may help in the short term but create risk-management tendencies among businesses along with resentment from non-protected classes.