2 ms·
I believe it's "protected classes" under 14th amendment that people sometimes conflate with 1A. As an example, there's a gay teacher who was fired from a Catho
by stillsut 10y ago
I believe it's "protected classes" under 14th amendment that people sometimes conflate with 1A.
As an example, there's a gay teacher who was fired from a Catholic school near where I live after he was outed. It was completely un-related to anything having to do with the school or his teaching responsibilities. Despite the church's insistence that it would be absurd, as you put it for "all speech [lifestyles] should be respected or listened to, that all speakers are equally respectable" there is string public sentiment that his job (economic security within a vocation he has a passion for) outweighs the moralizing from even a very powerful institution. And there are attempts to correct his dismissal through the law.
If we're trying to build a just society, there needs to be strong protection in favor of inclusion for those who think, act, and are born differently. The best way to protect your own peculiarities from the state, or a"tyranny of the majority" mob, is by actively protecting your out-group. A mutual live-live sentiment should be what we aspire to.
- bambax 10y ago> If we're trying to build a just society, there needs to be strong protection in favor of inclusion Yes, you're right -- however, what if the person in question was an anti-vaxxer? Shouldn't an organization have the right to fire anti-vaxxers? How do we protect LGBT people without offering the same protections to anti-vaxxers is a difficult question. (Or, to put it another way, how do we prevent anti-vaxxers from using the just protections offered to LGBT people, to further their agenda?) I don't know. An even more difficult question is, if we can't resolve the previous question, should we err on the side of protecting everyone ("legitimate" minorities AND dangerous crazies) or noone? I'm not sure of the answer to that one either.