3 ms·
In concept, in a lot of ways: yeah, it fits. Or it's extremely similar in goals and mentality anyway. In legal terms: it's massively different because non-Bra
by Groxx 3y ago
In concept, in a lot of ways: yeah, it fits. Or it's extremely similar in goals and mentality anyway.
In legal terms: it's massively different because non-Brahmin isn't legally recognized as a protected minority race, so there are essentially no explicit guards or support in place.
Pretty much only the legal use of any of this is relevant for a legal blocker on discrimination, so it can get oddly pedantic at times. The goal is to stop widely-known and well-documented discrimination, but the terms are whatever will achieve that in a legal environment.
- pfannkuchen 3y ago> protected minority race Is this a legal concept in the USA? I thought it just left it at “race” and everything legally was symmetric across all “races” (though perhaps not always in practice).
- Groxx 3y agoEssentially. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_group https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_group For this case, you'll need to get X to be legally recognized as a distinct race from Y (that has not happened in this case), and minority races have MUCH more protection than ones that are seen as a majority. It also tends to be sensitive to employment statistics broadly and in an area, and "Indian" is often not "under-represented" even if some sub-races are being massively oppressed. It's more of a "yes, race is a protected characteristic. that doesn't mean it matches your definition of race" thing. You could probably successfully sue on it and get it effectively recognized via that precedent, but it'll be a substantial legal battle to get there and many cases do not establish legal precedent.