4 ms·

I sincerely hope that the US will eventually recognize that everyone is a protected class. :)

by krasin 3y ago

lamontcg 3y ago
Yeah, rich assholes have really been missing out, they're so crippled by their lack of empathy and unfair inheritance of wealth and position, people should understand how hard they've had it.
zerocrates 3y ago
"Protected class" is a somewhat misleading phrase: the rule is that there are certain characteristics that you cannot legally discriminate on the basis of, not certain groups of people that are protected and some that aren't (at least mostly). Race, religion, national origin, sex, these all apply regardless of which specific group you're in under that banner. There are a few categories which are really only defined as applying to "one side", but they're generally not controversial (the laws against pregnancy discrimination, for example). Age is the one big outlier: the law against age discrimination in employment applies only to people over 40.
- HarryHirsch 3y ago
  In other words it's a blueprint for discrimination: you can't fire someone because he is homosexual, instead you fire him for the colour of his hair. It's nuts.
  - KennyBlanken 3y ago
    > you can't fire someone because he is homosexual, instead you fire him for the colour of his hair No judge in the developed world would believe such a contrived excuse. It's weird how people think this sort of thing is actually a valid defense.
    - HarryHirsch 3y ago
      In the real world you just find pretexts to fire people, and the laws are written to permit such outs. Your trust in the legal system is touching. (And then there's that Hewlett-Packard class ageism class action that was settled for 18 millions. Is that one or two days of profits?)
      - PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago
        because the real world is complicated. How can I tell that person is an asshole who meant to hurt my feelings vs that person who just said a stupid thing without thinking about it? I can't, so the reality is that some subset of people are going to get away with hurting my feelings on purpose. The alternative is that people who make mistakes get punished unnecessarily. Which side of that would you rather the law be on?
- pauldenton 3y ago
  Everyone is equal, but some people are more equal than others.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
YiraldyGuber 3y ago
In the interim I wish they would stop beating around the bush and simply call it "not a straight White cis man". It's far fewer words with the exact same meaning as listing all the things that are 'protected', and has an air of honesty about it.
- dragonwriter 3y ago
  > In the interim I wish they would stop beating around the bush and simply call it "not a straight White cis man". That's not what "protected class" means, in any of the contexts in which it is used (employment, public accommodation, housing, etc.) To the extent it seems like it means that, that's only because, well, the historically privileged are more likely to be in a position to discriminate in favor of those like themselves. In each of those contexts, race (not "being non-white") is a protected class; it is just as illegal to discriminate against White people in any of those contexts as it is to discriminate in favor of White people. For each of the other descriptors which actually relates to a protected class, it works the same way where it does. > It's far fewer words with the exact same meaning as listing all the things that are 'protected', and has an air of honesty about it. It doesn't have the exact same meaning at all.

I sincerely hope that the US will eventually recognize that everyone is a protected class. :)

by krasin 3y ago

I sincerely hope that the US will eventually recognize that everyone is a protected class. :)

Yeah, rich assholes have really been missing out, they're so crippled by their lack of empathy and unfair inheritance of wealth and position, people should understand how hard they've had it.

zerocrates 3y ago

"Protected class" is a somewhat misleading phrase: the rule is that there are certain characteristics that you cannot legally discriminate on the basis of, not certain groups of people that are protected and some that aren't (at least mostly). Race, religion, national origin, sex, these all apply regardless of which specific group you're in under that banner. There are a few categories which are really only defined as applying to "one side", but they're generally not controversial (the laws against pregnancy discrimination, for example). Age is the one big outlier: the law against age discrimination in employment applies only to people over 40.

HarryHirsch 3y ago
In other words it's a blueprint for discrimination: you can't fire someone because he is homosexual, instead you fire him for the colour of his hair. It's nuts.
- KennyBlanken 3y ago
  > you can't fire someone because he is homosexual, instead you fire him for the colour of his hair No judge in the developed world would believe such a contrived excuse. It's weird how people think this sort of thing is actually a valid defense.
  - HarryHirsch 3y ago
    In the real world you just find pretexts to fire people, and the laws are written to permit such outs. Your trust in the legal system is touching. (And then there's that Hewlett-Packard class ageism class action that was settled for 18 millions. Is that one or two days of profits?)
    - PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago
      because the real world is complicated. How can I tell that person is an asshole who meant to hurt my feelings vs that person who just said a stupid thing without thinking about it? I can't, so the reality is that some subset of people are going to get away with hurting my feelings on purpose. The alternative is that people who make mistakes get punished unnecessarily. Which side of that would you rather the law be on?
pauldenton 3y ago
Everyone is equal, but some people are more equal than others.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

YiraldyGuber 3y ago

In the interim I wish they would stop beating around the bush and simply call it "not a straight White cis man". It's far fewer words with the exact same meaning as listing all the things that are 'protected', and has an air of honesty about it.

dragonwriter 3y ago
> In the interim I wish they would stop beating around the bush and simply call it "not a straight White cis man". That's not what "protected class" means, in any of the contexts in which it is used (employment, public accommodation, housing, etc.) To the extent it seems like it means that, that's only because, well, the historically privileged are more likely to be in a position to discriminate in favor of those like themselves. In each of those contexts, race (not "being non-white") is a protected class; it is just as illegal to discriminate against White people in any of those contexts as it is to discriminate in favor of White people. For each of the other descriptors which actually relates to a protected class, it works the same way where it does. > It's far fewer words with the exact same meaning as listing all the things that are 'protected', and has an air of honesty about it. It doesn't have the exact same meaning at all.