3 ms·

"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

"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.

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.