3 ms·
It's not really a fine line. There are specific, protected people-features you can't use to discriminate. Saying stupid shit isn't one of them. Race is. Those
by mrkurt 8y ago
It's not really a fine line. There are specific, protected people-features you can't use to discriminate. Saying stupid shit isn't one of them. Race is.
Those laws don't exist because we don't agree with their reasons. They exist to protect people who have been categorically repressed for hundreds of years.
- sharpneli 8y agoThis brings an interesting workaround to mind. What if they register their ideology as a religion? Iirc it is a protected class in US so they cannot be banned due to it. However people getting banned like this rarely are inventive enough to figure out ways to fight back.
- krapp 8y ago>What if they register their ideology as a religion? Iirc it is a protected class in US so they cannot be banned due to it. The thing about the law is that it doesn't operate like code. You can't just cast<Religion>(ideology) and expect it to work within the framework of law, because the law is (luckily) interpreted by people who expect it to be taken advantage of by the unscrupulous. Otherwise, literally every corporation would already have registered themselves as a religion just to avoid paying taxes.
- creaghpatr 8y agoWhat if a law is passed to make political affiliation a protected class?
- krapp 8y agoIANAL, but as I understand it, the typical qualifiers for being a protected class tend to be immutable (sex, race, age, disability, color, creed, national origin, religion, or genetic information, per Wikipedia[0].) Obviously you can change your sex and religion, though, and disability status in some cases, though. Maybe a case could be made for political affiliation under "creed," since there appears to be no specific legal definition for that[1], although the consensus seems to be centered around religious belief. In any case, since one can (and many people do) change their political affiliations often, I would expect such a law to meet with some extreme legal challenges at the very least, because it seems like such an obvious attempt to game the system, particularly since "discrimination against a political group" is pretty much the purpose of other political groups. [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_group https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_group [1]https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/8686/what-is-a-creed-legally https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/8686/what-is-a-creed...
- darkpuma 8y agoPeople can and do change their religion. I am proof of that.
- krapp 8y agoTrue. I have to admit I'm having a hard time coming up with rationales that include religion and whatever "creed" is that would exclude political affiliation as well. I personally think there's something fundamentally undemocratic about barring discrimination against political ideology because that comes too close to interfering with freedom of speech or freedom of association or the exercise of politics itself.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- dkersten 8y agoWhat about refusing someone because they voted for the other guy in the last election?
- johnny22 8y ago"Right to refuse service to anyone" is a sign that was common once.
- tnolet 8y agoThis is the opposite of a fine line. One is something you are born with/into. The other is a conscious choice.