5 ms·

> 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 (rac

> 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 8y 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 8y 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 8y 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 8y 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.
lopmotr 8y ago
That's only roughly true. Many missing classes exist Eg hair color (gingers are often mistreated), beauty (ugly people are discriminated against in hiring), height, intelligence.
- jogjayr 8y ago
  Hair color is changeable. And society hasn't felt that ginger mistreatment has yet become an issue to tackle. There's no major organization lobbying for the rights of redheads (AFAIK). Maybe it's a problem but it sounds like it's isolated and not systemic - apologies if I'm minimizing the suffering of someone who's redheaded and has suffered. Physical fitness, good hygiene, and dressing well can take most people within a standard deviation of being considered attractive. And in any case "beauty" is far more subjective than race or national origin. Height is a trickier one but outside of discrimination against people with dwarfism (disability) I'm not sure there's been a pervasive, ongoing, systemic discrimination against tall people or short people. Correct me if I'm wrong about that. I've read occasional research studies about tall people getting more leadership jobs, but I don't know how rigorous those are. Intelligence - hiring is about capability to do the job, not "intelligence" whatever that means. Employers can use whatever means they want to judge ability with the following conditions: "...it is unlawful to use a test or selection procedure that creates adverse impact, unless justified. Adverse impact occurs when there is a substantially different rate of selection in hiring, promotion, or other employment decisions that work to the disadvantage of members of a race, sex, or ethnic group." If an adverse impact occurs the employer can only continue to use that selection procedure "...if the procedure is job-related and valid for selecting better workers, and there is no equally effective procedure available that has less adverse impact."[1] That second one is (I believe) what makes it legal to put out casting notices asking for actors of a specific sex, age range, or sometimes race. But if an employer can't show that an IQ or aptitude test is job-related, and the test is found to have a disproportionate adverse impact, it can't be used. 1. https://www.onetcenter.org/dl_files/empTestAsse.pdf https://www.onetcenter.org/dl_files/empTestAsse.pdf

tomp 8y 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 8y 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 8y 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 8y 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.

lopmotr 8y ago

That's only roughly true. Many missing classes exist Eg hair color (gingers are often mistreated), beauty (ugly people are discriminated against in hiring), height, intelligence.

jogjayr 8y ago
Hair color is changeable. And society hasn't felt that ginger mistreatment has yet become an issue to tackle. There's no major organization lobbying for the rights of redheads (AFAIK). Maybe it's a problem but it sounds like it's isolated and not systemic - apologies if I'm minimizing the suffering of someone who's redheaded and has suffered. Physical fitness, good hygiene, and dressing well can take most people within a standard deviation of being considered attractive. And in any case "beauty" is far more subjective than race or national origin. Height is a trickier one but outside of discrimination against people with dwarfism (disability) I'm not sure there's been a pervasive, ongoing, systemic discrimination against tall people or short people. Correct me if I'm wrong about that. I've read occasional research studies about tall people getting more leadership jobs, but I don't know how rigorous those are. Intelligence - hiring is about capability to do the job, not "intelligence" whatever that means. Employers can use whatever means they want to judge ability with the following conditions: "...it is unlawful to use a test or selection procedure that creates adverse impact, unless justified. Adverse impact occurs when there is a substantially different rate of selection in hiring, promotion, or other employment decisions that work to the disadvantage of members of a race, sex, or ethnic group." If an adverse impact occurs the employer can only continue to use that selection procedure "...if the procedure is job-related and valid for selecting better workers, and there is no equally effective procedure available that has less adverse impact."[1] That second one is (I believe) what makes it legal to put out casting notices asking for actors of a specific sex, age range, or sometimes race. But if an employer can't show that an IQ or aptitude test is job-related, and the test is found to have a disproportionate adverse impact, it can't be used. 1. https://www.onetcenter.org/dl_files/empTestAsse.pdf https://www.onetcenter.org/dl_files/empTestAsse.pdf