6 ms·

> The law doesn't see "all comers" as equal AlexB138 was asking whether are laws are ethical, not whether the laws were legal. Describing the laws in more deta

> The law doesn't see "all comers" as equal AlexB138 was asking whether are laws are ethical, not whether the laws were legal. Describing the laws in more detail doesn't really resolve the tension. In other words, why are some classes protected while others aren't? Is there a principle that we should be applying impartially (as in Rawlsian justice)?

dbasedweeb 9y ago
Sure when certain classes aren’t protected, other classes roadhaul them and keep them from integrating into schools and neighborhoods? From the end of slavery through Jim Crow, until the civil rights movement there was a big experiment of not protecting anyone, and it failed. Even after you got explicit redlining, and now redlining through other means. It’s not as though there’s a lack of data for outcomes here, and it’s weighed against slippery slope fallacies and “what if’s.”
bilbo0s 9y ago
"why are some classes protected while others aren't?" Let's be frank, a lot of the times, the idea of "protected classes" arises from the problems incurred by NOT protecting them. If something will cause problems in society, I think governments will tend to consider that thing with a great deal of care and caution. That said, your point is still well taken. We can see the problems that, for instance, having slavery caused in terms of bloodshed. It's more difficult to see the problems caused by, taking the original example, not making wedding cakes for the LGBTQ community? So those laws are, at times, UNQUESTIONABLY ethical. I think it would be difficult to argue against the ethical foundation of the idea that in some cases, (again, slavery, Jim Crow, etc), protected class status is pretty good policy. (Certainly preferable to slavery, Jim Crow, etc.) The questions arise more when the stakes don't seem quite as high to the average person. (Taking from AlexB138's comment, the example of wedding cakes for instance.) Maybe "protected class" is simply an idea that developed via "scope creep" over time? It starts out with everyone, quite rightly, saying "we're going to enshrine the rights of enslaved people into the Constitution so they can never again be assailed or threatened." But it develops over time into, "Well, you did it for blacks or women or whatever. So why not for nazis and pedophiles?" What you need to realize though, is that the average person, myself included, is going to think that is an extremely silly argument. Blacks and women, are not the same as nazis and pedophiles. Even if it's simply for the sake of making your argument, people will have a hard time with that equivalence being drawn.
- azernik 9y ago
  I do think that equivalence is useful for the sake of argument. But it's useful because it forces people to think about why those categories should be treated differently, not because they should be treated the same.
- BurningFrog 9y ago
  I'm not saying you're wrong. But I prefer to think of it as who is a protected class reflects who has the political power to make protected classes. It's a model that generalizes well, even back to when Jim Crow laws decided who was protected. And I expect it will continue to reflect the changing conditions of future society.
- lopmotr 9y ago
  I think a class gets protected when it's powerful enough to have popular support to demand that. The examples of Nazis and peadophiles show that it's not really a fundamental principal - Nazism is an ideology, much like a religion so shouldn't it get the same protection as religions? Peadophilia is a sexuality so shouldn't it be protected just like any other. Maybe it already is?
  - apatters 9y ago
    Well maybe religions should receive the same protections as Nazism, which is to say, not many beyond those which are provided for free expression in general. Pedophilia is a special case versus other sexualities because pedophilic sex acts are criminal acts. Sure you can argue that all laws ultimately reflect common societal values which do change, but the justification for criminalizing pedophilia has some awfully deep roots -- namely in the idea that minors are incapable of certain types of consent, rendering pedophilia a form of assault.
    - lopmotr 9y ago
      Back in the day, one of the reasons people didn't like gay men was because they might molest their children. Eventually people realized that not all gays are child molesters, and now that association is gone. But the same misjudgment still exists, only it's been concentrated on an even narrower minority - peadophiles. I would expect the vast majority have never molested a child because it's such a difficult, risky, and cruel thing to do. Your immediate association of attraction to children with abuse of children is common but also a bigoted stereotype. We hardly know anything about peadophiles because the only ones who are known are the criminals. Nobody else can admit to such a preference without being persecuted. I think these are people who are still in need of legal protection but they haven't managed to achieve something like a gay rights movement to persuade people to stop hating them.
ucarion 9y ago
I do think describing (American) law in more detail here did help resolve some tension, because it clarified an alternative between absolute tolerance and absolute prejudice. I don't see why protected classes aren't an impartial standard? Admittedly, the inclusion of a particular class into the set of protected classes is perhaps a bit arbitrary, but it has the advantage of being simple while also addressing the common and egregious cases of injustice fairly well. I fail to see the connection to Rawls, aside from an interest in "impartiality".
- lmm 9y ago
  > I don't see why protected classes aren't an impartial standard? Admittedly, the inclusion of a particular class into the set of protected classes is perhaps a bit arbitrary, but it has the advantage of being simple while also addressing the common and egregious cases of injustice fairly well. You're begging the question there. Unless there's an impartial standard for what constitutes a protected class, they're no more impartial than saying that people called Dave are allowed to break the law.
jogjayr 9y ago
> In other words, why are some classes protected while others aren't? Protected classes tend to be things about themselves that people either can't change (race, nationality, gender, age, sexual orientation, family status, disability) or that it would be unconstitutional to force them to change (religion) and that people have been discriminated against on the basis of in the past.
- tomp 9y ago
  I often wonder why religion is protectes, whereas political opinion isn’t... after all, both are opinions, often concerning the same subjects, and the difference is mainly nominal. Would James Damore be spared if he claimed not that he thinks that women are whatever, but that he believes so?!
  - apatters 9y ago
    I think the answer here is that religion was much more fundamental to American identities in 1776 than it is today. In US history and still today in other countries there are lots of examples of people being violently persecuted for believing in a certain religion, much fewer for holding a political opinion. You could make an argument that in the US people of different religions get along better than they used to and as a result religion no longer requires the Constitutional protections it currently enjoys. I would respond that as a society we probably have bigger fish to fry.
    - TheCoelacanth 9y ago
      At that point in history, two wars fought over religion, the 30 Year's War and the French Wars of Religion were the first and third deadliest wars in European history (the Napoleonic Wars were second). They hardly could have avoided having their political thinking shaped by that.
  - humanrebar 9y ago
    Whether a god exists isn't something one can change either. Sure, we can force people to at least act like they believe in a god (or not). But is it tyrannical to do so? Plausibly, yes.
azernik 9y ago
I think understanding the logic of the law itself makes clear the ethical considerations in play when it was drafted. The general principle is, indeed, to allow businesses to make decisions about who they want to serve and how; but in view of the injustice and negative social effects springing from certain types of discrimination (particularly over race, gender, religion, and sexual orientation) the state decided to protect certain classes of people and expression from private businesses' power to decide whether to serve them.
ouid 9y ago
minorities are protected because a simple majority suffices to oppress them. I think the abstract solution is probably more along the lines of exchanging simple majorities for near unanimous agreements.

dbasedweeb 9y ago

Sure when certain classes aren’t protected, other classes roadhaul them and keep them from integrating into schools and neighborhoods? From the end of slavery through Jim Crow, until the civil rights movement there was a big experiment of not protecting anyone, and it failed. Even after you got explicit redlining, and now redlining through other means. It’s not as though there’s a lack of data for outcomes here, and it’s weighed against slippery slope fallacies and “what if’s.”

bilbo0s 9y ago

"why are some classes protected while others aren't?" Let's be frank, a lot of the times, the idea of "protected classes" arises from the problems incurred by NOT protecting them. If something will cause problems in society, I think governments will tend to consider that thing with a great deal of care and caution. That said, your point is still well taken. We can see the problems that, for instance, having slavery caused in terms of bloodshed. It's more difficult to see the problems caused by, taking the original example, not making wedding cakes for the LGBTQ community? So those laws are, at times, UNQUESTIONABLY ethical. I think it would be difficult to argue against the ethical foundation of the idea that in some cases, (again, slavery, Jim Crow, etc), protected class status is pretty good policy. (Certainly preferable to slavery, Jim Crow, etc.) The questions arise more when the stakes don't seem quite as high to the average person. (Taking from AlexB138's comment, the example of wedding cakes for instance.) Maybe "protected class" is simply an idea that developed via "scope creep" over time? It starts out with everyone, quite rightly, saying "we're going to enshrine the rights of enslaved people into the Constitution so they can never again be assailed or threatened." But it develops over time into, "Well, you did it for blacks or women or whatever. So why not for nazis and pedophiles?" What you need to realize though, is that the average person, myself included, is going to think that is an extremely silly argument. Blacks and women, are not the same as nazis and pedophiles. Even if it's simply for the sake of making your argument, people will have a hard time with that equivalence being drawn.

azernik 9y ago
I do think that equivalence is useful for the sake of argument. But it's useful because it forces people to think about why those categories should be treated differently, not because they should be treated the same.
BurningFrog 9y ago
I'm not saying you're wrong. But I prefer to think of it as who is a protected class reflects who has the political power to make protected classes. It's a model that generalizes well, even back to when Jim Crow laws decided who was protected. And I expect it will continue to reflect the changing conditions of future society.
lopmotr 9y ago
I think a class gets protected when it's powerful enough to have popular support to demand that. The examples of Nazis and peadophiles show that it's not really a fundamental principal - Nazism is an ideology, much like a religion so shouldn't it get the same protection as religions? Peadophilia is a sexuality so shouldn't it be protected just like any other. Maybe it already is?
- apatters 9y ago
  Well maybe religions should receive the same protections as Nazism, which is to say, not many beyond those which are provided for free expression in general. Pedophilia is a special case versus other sexualities because pedophilic sex acts are criminal acts. Sure you can argue that all laws ultimately reflect common societal values which do change, but the justification for criminalizing pedophilia has some awfully deep roots -- namely in the idea that minors are incapable of certain types of consent, rendering pedophilia a form of assault.
  - lopmotr 9y ago
    Back in the day, one of the reasons people didn't like gay men was because they might molest their children. Eventually people realized that not all gays are child molesters, and now that association is gone. But the same misjudgment still exists, only it's been concentrated on an even narrower minority - peadophiles. I would expect the vast majority have never molested a child because it's such a difficult, risky, and cruel thing to do. Your immediate association of attraction to children with abuse of children is common but also a bigoted stereotype. We hardly know anything about peadophiles because the only ones who are known are the criminals. Nobody else can admit to such a preference without being persecuted. I think these are people who are still in need of legal protection but they haven't managed to achieve something like a gay rights movement to persuade people to stop hating them.

ucarion 9y ago

I do think describing (American) law in more detail here did help resolve some tension, because it clarified an alternative between absolute tolerance and absolute prejudice. I don't see why protected classes aren't an impartial standard? Admittedly, the inclusion of a particular class into the set of protected classes is perhaps a bit arbitrary, but it has the advantage of being simple while also addressing the common and egregious cases of injustice fairly well. I fail to see the connection to Rawls, aside from an interest in "impartiality".

lmm 9y ago
> I don't see why protected classes aren't an impartial standard? Admittedly, the inclusion of a particular class into the set of protected classes is perhaps a bit arbitrary, but it has the advantage of being simple while also addressing the common and egregious cases of injustice fairly well. You're begging the question there. Unless there's an impartial standard for what constitutes a protected class, they're no more impartial than saying that people called Dave are allowed to break the law.

jogjayr 9y ago

> In other words, why are some classes protected while others aren't? Protected classes tend to be things about themselves that people either can't change (race, nationality, gender, age, sexual orientation, family status, disability) or that it would be unconstitutional to force them to change (religion) and that people have been discriminated against on the basis of in the past.

tomp 9y ago
I often wonder why religion is protectes, whereas political opinion isn’t... after all, both are opinions, often concerning the same subjects, and the difference is mainly nominal. Would James Damore be spared if he claimed not that he thinks that women are whatever, but that he believes so?!
- apatters 9y ago
  I think the answer here is that religion was much more fundamental to American identities in 1776 than it is today. In US history and still today in other countries there are lots of examples of people being violently persecuted for believing in a certain religion, much fewer for holding a political opinion. You could make an argument that in the US people of different religions get along better than they used to and as a result religion no longer requires the Constitutional protections it currently enjoys. I would respond that as a society we probably have bigger fish to fry.
  - TheCoelacanth 9y ago
    At that point in history, two wars fought over religion, the 30 Year's War and the French Wars of Religion were the first and third deadliest wars in European history (the Napoleonic Wars were second). They hardly could have avoided having their political thinking shaped by that.
- humanrebar 9y ago
  Whether a god exists isn't something one can change either. Sure, we can force people to at least act like they believe in a god (or not). But is it tyrannical to do so? Plausibly, yes.

azernik 9y ago

I think understanding the logic of the law itself makes clear the ethical considerations in play when it was drafted. The general principle is, indeed, to allow businesses to make decisions about who they want to serve and how; but in view of the injustice and negative social effects springing from certain types of discrimination (particularly over race, gender, religion, and sexual orientation) the state decided to protect certain classes of people and expression from private businesses' power to decide whether to serve them.

ouid 9y ago

minorities are protected because a simple majority suffices to oppress them. I think the abstract solution is probably more along the lines of exchanging simple majorities for near unanimous agreements.