4 ms·

What determines if something is a protected class?

tptacek 10y ago
Federal law.
eropple 10y ago
Being denoted as such in federal law. The original Civil Rights Act, in 1964, specified race, color, sex, religion, and national origin; since then a few classes (pregnancy/marital status, age, citizenship, etc.) have been added over time.
- Unklejoe 10y ago
  I see. I honestly didn't know much about the specifics of protected classes before today. So, currently, political affiliation is not a protected class, but it is considered a gray area by many. Many may feel that political affiliation should be considered a protected class, however, if it becomes one, would that mean that Nazism is now protected? Or coming at it from the other angle, as it stands, a religious extremist who believes that all members of a particular race/religion/orientation/etc should be put to death is currently protected. Why is that protected but Nazism not? Or does the protection become void as soon as you use it negatively towards another protected class? I'm genuinely asking. Even though Nazism isn’t technically a religion, it seems very similar to religious extremism in many ways.
  - tptacek 10y ago
    Nazism is in many ways protected. Cities cannot deny permits to neo-Nazi groups to assemble, for instance. The comparison between Nazism and discrimination against black people is pretty creepy, though. The experience of black people on Airbnb is: "Here is an amazing looking listing. I'm psyched to see if it's available for my trip. Click. Oh! It is available! How excellent. I'll plan accordingly." Then, a few hours later, when the owner has noticed the applicant's African American sounding name, the reservation is rescinded. It happens repeatedly, and there's nothing the renter can do about it. The experience of the neo-Nazi is roughly the same, except the first time it happens they take the swastika out of their profile picture and from then on everything works peachy for them.
    - dragonwriter 10y ago
      > Nazism is in many ways protected. Cities cannot deny permits to neo-Nazi groups to assemble, for instance. That's not being a protected class (which is a statutory issue), or even being a Con-law suspect or quasi-suspect class, that's simply application of the 1st Amendment (incorporated by the 14th). Its a whole different, unrelated area of protection. > The experience of the neo-Nazi is roughly the same, except the first time it happens they take the swastika out of their profile picture and from then on everything works peachy for them. Which pretty much also works for many victims of religious discrimination, but even so religion is (and political affiliation, Nazi or otherwise, is not) a protected class under fair housing law. So, insofar as its a difference between "Nazis" and "blacks", its a difference largely orthogonal to the issue of protected class status under fair housing laws.
    - sokoloff 10y ago
      > Nazism is in many ways protected. Cities cannot deny permits to neo-Nazi groups to assemble, for instance. That's a straightforward First Amendment issue. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." You can't prohibit neo-Nazis from peaceably assembling. You can't prohibit people wearing purple shirts from peaceably assembling. In neither case does that make neo-Nazis nor purple-shirt-wearers a protected class.
  - eropple 10y ago
    > Many may feel that political affiliation should be considered a protected class, however, if it becomes one, would that mean that Nazism is now protected? As tptacek notes, in many ways Nazism is protected through other means. But to directly answer your question, I think the answer is a firm maybe. Because it depends on whether Nazism is recognized as a political affiliation. Which means that that question, too, needs to be settled. (Maybe it is. I don't know.) That said, I don't think political affiliation should be a protected class (it's something that isn't intrinsic in the way that race or gender identity is and, as tptacek mentioned, can be "taken off" at will) and I don't think it ever practically could be one so I don't think about it that often. Similarly, I also don't really think religious affiliation should be, except that in a practical sense it serves as a shield to protect minority groups as it currently stands so I don't mind the kluge. > Or does the protection become void as soon as you use it negatively towards another protected class? I am unclear on the interrelations that you posit, though I just asked a con-law friend for his take and (according to him) it depends on whether or not it is a place of "public accommodation"--retail stores, service businesses, educational institutions. In such a case, yes, it is not lawful to refuse to serve that customer.
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  Note also that while "protected class" is often treated in discussion as if it was a consistent list across all of the law (at least, within, e.g., federal law), this is not the case: protected classes for particular anti-discrimination laws can be different, and may be different from the Constitutional-law set of suspect and quasi-suspect classes (a concept often conflated with that of "protected classes") that are relevant to equal protection analysis under the 14th Amendment (and, though the list of classes within those categories may be different, under similar state constitutional provisions.)

Federal law.

Being denoted as such in federal law. The original Civil Rights Act, in 1964, specified race, color, sex, religion, and national origin; since then a few classes (pregnancy/marital status, age, citizenship, etc.) have been added over time.

Unklejoe 10y ago
I see. I honestly didn't know much about the specifics of protected classes before today. So, currently, political affiliation is not a protected class, but it is considered a gray area by many. Many may feel that political affiliation should be considered a protected class, however, if it becomes one, would that mean that Nazism is now protected? Or coming at it from the other angle, as it stands, a religious extremist who believes that all members of a particular race/religion/orientation/etc should be put to death is currently protected. Why is that protected but Nazism not? Or does the protection become void as soon as you use it negatively towards another protected class? I'm genuinely asking. Even though Nazism isn’t technically a religion, it seems very similar to religious extremism in many ways.
- tptacek 10y ago
  Nazism is in many ways protected. Cities cannot deny permits to neo-Nazi groups to assemble, for instance. The comparison between Nazism and discrimination against black people is pretty creepy, though. The experience of black people on Airbnb is: "Here is an amazing looking listing. I'm psyched to see if it's available for my trip. Click. Oh! It is available! How excellent. I'll plan accordingly." Then, a few hours later, when the owner has noticed the applicant's African American sounding name, the reservation is rescinded. It happens repeatedly, and there's nothing the renter can do about it. The experience of the neo-Nazi is roughly the same, except the first time it happens they take the swastika out of their profile picture and from then on everything works peachy for them.
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    > Nazism is in many ways protected. Cities cannot deny permits to neo-Nazi groups to assemble, for instance. That's not being a protected class (which is a statutory issue), or even being a Con-law suspect or quasi-suspect class, that's simply application of the 1st Amendment (incorporated by the 14th). Its a whole different, unrelated area of protection. > The experience of the neo-Nazi is roughly the same, except the first time it happens they take the swastika out of their profile picture and from then on everything works peachy for them. Which pretty much also works for many victims of religious discrimination, but even so religion is (and political affiliation, Nazi or otherwise, is not) a protected class under fair housing law. So, insofar as its a difference between "Nazis" and "blacks", its a difference largely orthogonal to the issue of protected class status under fair housing laws.
  - sokoloff 10y ago
    > Nazism is in many ways protected. Cities cannot deny permits to neo-Nazi groups to assemble, for instance. That's a straightforward First Amendment issue. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." You can't prohibit neo-Nazis from peaceably assembling. You can't prohibit people wearing purple shirts from peaceably assembling. In neither case does that make neo-Nazis nor purple-shirt-wearers a protected class.
- eropple 10y ago
  > Many may feel that political affiliation should be considered a protected class, however, if it becomes one, would that mean that Nazism is now protected? As tptacek notes, in many ways Nazism is protected through other means. But to directly answer your question, I think the answer is a firm maybe. Because it depends on whether Nazism is recognized as a political affiliation. Which means that that question, too, needs to be settled. (Maybe it is. I don't know.) That said, I don't think political affiliation should be a protected class (it's something that isn't intrinsic in the way that race or gender identity is and, as tptacek mentioned, can be "taken off" at will) and I don't think it ever practically could be one so I don't think about it that often. Similarly, I also don't really think religious affiliation should be, except that in a practical sense it serves as a shield to protect minority groups as it currently stands so I don't mind the kluge. > Or does the protection become void as soon as you use it negatively towards another protected class? I am unclear on the interrelations that you posit, though I just asked a con-law friend for his take and (according to him) it depends on whether or not it is a place of "public accommodation"--retail stores, service businesses, educational institutions. In such a case, yes, it is not lawful to refuse to serve that customer.
dragonwriter 10y ago
Note also that while "protected class" is often treated in discussion as if it was a consistent list across all of the law (at least, within, e.g., federal law), this is not the case: protected classes for particular anti-discrimination laws can be different, and may be different from the Constitutional-law set of suspect and quasi-suspect classes (a concept often conflated with that of "protected classes") that are relevant to equal protection analysis under the 14th Amendment (and, though the list of classes within those categories may be different, under similar state constitutional provisions.)