4 ms·

Protected class is a term used in US law. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_class http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_class Why shouldn't pets be a pr

Protected class is a term used in US law. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_class http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_class Why shouldn't pets be a protected class? Because pets are not people, for one, and protected class refers to a class of people. Secondly, making something a protected class involves taking some freedom away from another group of people. It is a balancing act. Most people don't think you have the "right" to bring your misbehaving dog everywhere you go. Everywhere, no matter if it is appropriate or not. If most people did, it is possible pet owners would be made a protected class in US law. Family status is a protected class for housing. I can't say "I only rent to families without children" but I can ban children from my restaurant. It isn't all or nothing. Probably because kids can misbehave and the type of person who has a misbehaving child probably also is the one taking their child to places inappropriate for children.

baddox 12y ago
I'm well aware of the term as it's used in the United States. I was asking why you think the list of legally protected classes should not include pets. > Why shouldn't pets be a protected class? Because pets are not people, for one, and protected class refers to a class of people. Well, what we're talking about is pet ownership by humans as the protected class. I don't think anyone was thinking of forcing employers to not discriminate again non-human animals. > Most people don't think you have the "right" to bring your misbehaving dog everywhere you go. Perhaps, but I suspect most people who bring their misbehaving dogs everywhere do think they have the right. If your argument is that anything which the majority of the population believe should be a protected, should indeed be a legally protected class, that's a reasonable proposition, but I think you'd find the list of legally protected classes would be a lot different than it is today.

baddox 12y ago

I'm well aware of the term as it's used in the United States. I was asking why you think the list of legally protected classes should not include pets. > Why shouldn't pets be a protected class? Because pets are not people, for one, and protected class refers to a class of people. Well, what we're talking about is pet ownership by humans as the protected class. I don't think anyone was thinking of forcing employers to not discriminate again non-human animals. > Most people don't think you have the "right" to bring your misbehaving dog everywhere you go. Perhaps, but I suspect most people who bring their misbehaving dogs everywhere do think they have the right. If your argument is that anything which the majority of the population believe should be a protected, should indeed be a legally protected class, that's a reasonable proposition, but I think you'd find the list of legally protected classes would be a lot different than it is today.