seems like they give undue privilege and exception to people based on luck and for no apparent current reason.
seems like they give undue privilege and exception to people based on luck and for no apparent current reason.
It is to keep "elites" (the unprotected) in power (via votes) by convincing vast segments that they are too weak to stand on their own two feet and only through the beneficence of governmental/collective power can they ever achieve meaning or dignity.
"In United States Federal anti-discrimination law, a protected class is a characteristic of a person which cannot be targeted for discrimination."
are ugly people a protected class? short people? dumb people?
should gender be a determinant of discrimination?
at what point do we decided that enforcement of these laws are themselves discriminatory?
Name 2 special privileges given to people of protected classes that are not afforded to other classes?
exthrower wrote:
I agree..It's BS...The basic premise of this country is equality, and yet we give certain groups special privilege's.
get used to it.. wrote:
Name 2 special privileges given to people of protected classes that are not afforded to other classes?
exthrower wrote:I agree..It's BS...The basic premise of this country is equality, and yet we give certain groups special privilege's.
"Protected class" was an unfortunate choice of words. As noted above, the concept doesn't create classes of people, eg you can't discriminate black people. It's a list of attributes that cannot be the basis of discrimination. In theory, the idea that you can't discriminate on the basis of race goes both directions. Same with gender. What occurs in practice is a different story.
krispy kremlin wrote:
are ugly people a protected class? short people? dumb people?
should gender be a determinant of discrimination?
at what point do we decided that enforcement of these laws are themselves discriminatory?
If we do start protecting ugly short dumb(as you call them) then it is showing that the laws are working and we are making progress. We are slowly exposing those who are always filled with hate, exposing those who always need someone to kick. Those who once were free to release their hate on groups(blacks, woman, homosexuals) still need to hate. We are narrowing their aim and exposing them for who they are.
krispy kremlin wrote:
seems like they give undue privilege and exception to people based on luck and for no apparent current reason.
Protected classes are a creation of the Democrat party to (a) raise money from trial lawyers while (b) pandering to minorities in order to get their votes.
The answer to all of questions is yes, they should be protected from discrimination. In what way is the expectation of having the same rights and freedoms of any other class of people considered a special privilege? Ensuring that someone has the same rights and freedoms as you do is not a discriminatory act against you. The one thing you do not have the right to is to infringe upon the rights of others. Otherwise our Constitution isn't worth the paper it's printed on and is meaningless.
krispy kremlin wrote:
seems like they give undue privilege and exception to people based on luck and for no apparent current reason.
You don't really have a firm grasp on what a "protected class" entails.
Being black is not a protected class. Race is a protected class.
Being female is not a protected class. Gender is a protected class.
Being gay is not a proctected class. Sexual orientation is a protected class.
And so on.
I'm a white male and my boss is a black female. If she fires me and (this is important) I can prove that the firing was because I'm 1) white and/or 2) male, I can sue her for discrimination.
What's sad is that we need this laws in the first place. The idea of firing people because of their gender, race, or sexual orientation is pretty ridiculous, and yet people did just that.
In addition, these laws wouldn't need to exist if certain 'classes' of people didn't have a history of being systematically discriminated against in the first place. Granting these 'classes' the freedom from discrimination is only ensuring them the rights you already have. BTW, since you can't be discriminated against based on race or gender that includes everybody, even yourself. Oh the evil that is equality under the law...
You guys are morons.
ugly people are discriminated against everyday in many ways. where can they seek protection?
furthermore, if this is defined as one group acting against another, why would any group hire outside their group and expose themselves to a frivolous litigation given these kinds of rules?
krispy kremlin wrote:
. . . , why would any group hire outside their group and expose themselves to a frivolous litigation given these kinds of rules?
Excellent use of irony.
Certain groups did act against other groups in a discriminatory fashion for hundreds of years in this country. In other words, people of a certain race or gender were intentionally denied certain rights based on their race or gender. This practice flies in the face of the ideas in the founding of our country that all people are created equally and have the right life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. If you are arguing that you should have the right to deny the rights of others then what exactly is left to protect YOUR rights? Absolutely nothing. You still clearly don't understand so I will say it again. You do not have the right to deny the rights of others. There is no slippery in that statement. Futhermore, YOU are also a member of a 'protected class'. That is if you are a member of a race, gender, religion, etc... This is purely in a legal sense, not in terms of outcomes. It doesn't mean you will or won't get a job, for instance. It simply states that the decision cannot be made based purely on someone being a member of certain classes of people, which are clearly identified. However, people like you seem to think this is giving something to groups that isn't given to your group, which is complete nonsense especially when you consider it actually protects your group as well. Is that actually how you view the world? Us and them? I hope not. If you do, you certainly have the right to think that way individually. Anyone can have discriminatory beliefs. The law is simply that those beliefs cannot be used to deny someone else's rights. It's the only way to validate any individual rights justly.
Exactly. Why do we give certain protected classes, primarily the top 1%, privileged access to politicians, massive tax breaks and tax subsidies, and essentially the keys to power? Why should the top 1%, for instance, get more in tax subsidies than the bottom 80%? ($95 billion vs. $90 billion or less: much of this is in savings for college, etc.)
At least the pandering by the Democrats is on a scale that makes a difference. As an example the great Republican hope, Ted Cruz, was pandering in not so subtle and actually pretty embarrassing way to get country music listeners? To paraphrase - I used to like rock music but after 9/11 country music just seemed to really be more patriotic... F-ing idiot. I will give you that there are a lot of idiots in the Democratic party but they can't touch his idiocy. I hope he gets all the country music lover votes - Hee Haw.
To ruin the lives of business owners who just want to employ young, pretty, white women.
Next thing they are going to outlaw sexual favors as a condition of employment.
I am just trying to make a living here!!!
In all seriousness, I am a business owner and do employ mostly attractive young women.
In today's job market, without these laws, I would literally only have a staff of hot young women and would get a blowie from a different one every day at lunch. These laws are good for the workers, but I gotta admit there is a part of me that wishes these laws were not on the books.
And THAT is some refreshing honesty thanks to the anonymity of LRC.
Now back to your regularly scheduled trolling.
jjjjjjj wrote:
Exactly. Why do we give certain protected classes, primarily the top 1%, privileged access to politicians, massive tax breaks and tax subsidies, and essentially the keys to power? Why should the top 1%, for instance, get more in tax subsidies than the bottom 80%? ($95 billion vs. $90 billion or less: much of this is in savings for college, etc.)
Socioeconomic status (top 1%) is not a protected class.