Protected Classes: Expand, Reduce or Maintain?

[Ibelsd]

The facts do not support your conclusion.

What I see is a new and unique legal issue, where the primary concept "transgenderism" is kind of vague so there will be gradual changes to legal understanding and rulings as time goes on. But going by prior examples, such as gay rights, I expect this to eventually get hashed out and settled. The notion that this will be an open-ended thing is not supported.





That's not the part I'm asking you to support. It's the statement that "They are using it to dictate (legislate) which ideas are publicly acceptable". I don't see any law that dictates that any particular person must consider any of this acceptable just like no one has to agree that gays are married.





I disagree that it's being used to suppress the conscientiousness of others. I don't think it is and therefore I disagree and ask that you support your assertion.

I'm not even quite sure what you mean by that. So give me an example, even hypothetical, of a person's conscientiousness being suppressed.








First off, it is certainly debatable whether his cake-making does count as speech. There wouldn't be a court case regarding this if it was a slam-dunk that it is indeed speech. Nor is he, as an individual, being compelled to do anything at all. The issue is solely pertaining to his business and his selling of certain products and he can easily avoid the whole issue by not selling wedding cakes at all and therefore there is no case to be made that he is discriminating by refusing to sell wedding cakes to a gay couple.

And we can debate whether the decision is right or wrong but either way, his personal rights are not being infringed upon. One has to take numerous voluntary steps before there can be any issue of whether he is required to sell a cake.





I have another explanation. One should not face discrimination based on gender identity just like one should not discriminated against based on race, gender, or sexual orientation and therefore we are merely taking correct legal action based on doing the right thing just like we did the right thing when it came to race, etc.

I'm not saying that you have to agree with my assessment but it certainly is an explanation for why it's happening and likewise is the one that I personally agree with.

So if you are going say that my assessment is wrong and it is some liberal-marxist conspiracy, you will need to support that.






Since I rebutted your "there's only one explanation" argument, no you have not supported it above.




The motivation is irrelevant to whether one is legally sanctioned. Assuming that one is to be punished for the act of refusal, then his reason for refusal is irrelevant to whether he receives punishment or not and therefore it cannot be said that he received punishment for following his conscience.



But if you are saying that that example means that other particular things will happen in the future, then you are engaging in a slippery slope argument.

If you are saying that this ONE incident is part of a coordinated agenda, you will need to support that. Just cherry-picking certain instances that back up a narrative you want to forward does not mean that your narrative is correct. I mean I don't challenge that SOMETIMES there's a ruling or a law that steps a toe across the line of unwarranted censorship or whatever. Stuff happens. But again, if you are going to say that there is some kind of coordinated agenda, an example that corresponds to your narrative does not suffice.

I am claiming that the laws in question are open-ended and without any sort of criteria for success. Your rebuttal is to demand support. I comply and explain, among other things that definition of transgender (as an example) isn't even legally defined. Your response is to say no big deal and compare it to gay rights. However, you acknowledge that transgender isn't legally defined. Isn't defined really at all in any meaningful way as it relates to law. And you thereby basically concede that these laws are open ended. Your example uses gay rights to explain how a constitutional amendment intended for black people post-slavery was expanded to those who had nothing to do with slavery or black civil rights. At least we can say being black was a well-defined term when the law was created. Furthermore, even expanding the law to include women or gay people used terms which were well understood.

Of course these laws are being used to compel speech. Whether you agree with it or not, the baker is a fine example. The court heard the case associated his behavior as being consistent with religious expression. So, while there may be a fight in the future as to whether the state has a legitimate interest in overriding his religious expression, let's be clear. His behavior was to refuse to express a certain view with which he disagreed on religious reasons and the state attempted to compel him to express a contrarian view. This is similar to the CA law on anti-abortion centers where providers are being compelled to provide pro-abortion messages to its clients/customers. Both of these actions by the state have been predicated by 14th amendment interpretations by those who are attempting to force purely ideological views to unwilling participants.

Now, you are trying to split hairs and claim there is no greater conspiracy driving this. The conspiracy is the adherents of the ideology acting on ideological grounds. I've never contended that these individuals or groups of individuals are working in concert. They are simply acting as they have been taught and as their ideology encourages. Certainly, for a post-Marxist the view is that our social structures are all based on oppression and, therefore, they are in a struggle to defeat the oppressor whom they have identified, again ideologically, as Christians, men, and others who appear as the majority or who are aligned with those groups. So, yes, there is a concerted effort to use laws to compel individuals to act a certain way. We have seen these laws created, expanded, and used to great effect.

As such, when someone is contemplating whether we need more laws or arguing that these laws should be expanded, I believe they are other ideologues or are naïve to the dangers.

[mican333]

I am claiming that the laws in question are open-ended and without any sort of criteria for success. Your rebuttal is to demand support. I comply and explain, among other things that definition of transgender (as an example) isn't even legally defined. Your response is to say no big deal and compare it to gay rights. However, you acknowledge that transgender isn't legally defined. Isn't defined really at all in any meaningful way as it relates to law. And you thereby basically concede that these laws are open ended.

First off, I don't agree that transgendered is not legally defined. I did a search and found a legal definition.

"The state of a person's gender identity (self-identification as male or female) not matching their assigned sex at birth."

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/transgender

And besides that, even if you were right (which you aren't), it does not support your conclusion. It seems that you just take a fact and then make a huge leap to a conclusion when the fact does not necessarily point to the conclusion.

Vagueness in a term (assuming the term is vague) does not mean that it leaves things open-ended where one can just set any law they want in the grey area.

Of course these laws are being used to compel speech. Whether you agree with it or not, the baker is a fine example. The court heard the case associated his behavior as being consistent with religious expression. So, while there may be a fight in the future as to whether the state has a legitimate interest in overriding his religious expression, let's be clear. His behavior was to refuse to express a certain view with which he disagreed on religious reasons and the state attempted to compel him to express a contrarian view.

And I already rebutted that in my last post so I will just re-post my counter.

First off, it is certainly debatable whether his cake-making does count as speech. There wouldn't be a court case regarding this if it was a slam-dunk that it is indeed speech. Nor is he, as an individual, being compelled to do anything at all. The issue is solely pertaining to his business and his selling of certain products and he can easily avoid the whole issue by not selling wedding cakes at all and therefore there is no case to be made that he is discriminating by refusing to sell wedding cakes to a gay couple.

And we can debate whether the decision is right or wrong but either way, his personal rights are not being infringed upon. One has to take numerous voluntary steps before there can be any issue of whether he is required to sell a cake.

And the same applies to the CA abortion issue. The law is regarding an establishment, not an individual. No individual is required to provide any information under penalty of law.

This is similar to the CA law on anti-abortion centers where providers are being compelled to provide pro-abortion messages to its clients/customers. Both of these actions by the state have been predicated by 14th amendment interpretations by those who are attempting to force purely ideological views to unwilling participants.

And you have not supported that at all. While you have shown the actions have occurred, it appears to be nothing more than a bald assertion that the reason they are happening is because someone is trying to force an ideological viewpoint on others.

I can forward that the ONLY agenda in the cake controversy is simply making sure that gays are treated equally under the law and therefore it's merely a pro-constitution agenda and I've provided just as much support that that is the agenda of those who are seeking to make the baker treat gay clients the same as straight clients as you have supported that the agenda is as you say it is (which is no support at all).

Now, you are trying to split hairs and claim there is no greater conspiracy driving this. The conspiracy is the adherents of the ideology acting on ideological grounds. I've never contended that these individuals or groups of individuals are working in concert. They are simply acting as they have been taught and as their ideology encourages. Certainly, for a post-Marxist the view is that our social structures are all based on oppression and, therefore, they are in a struggle to defeat the oppressor whom they have identified, again ideologically, as Christians, men, and others who appear as the majority or who are aligned with those groups. So, yes, there is a concerted effort to use laws to compel individuals to act a certain way. We have seen these laws created, expanded, and used to great effect.

I understand your position. Now please support it.

I don't challenge that the laws exist of course. But I see little more than bald assertion in your claim that they exist due to Agenda A.

As such, when someone is contemplating whether we need more laws or arguing that these laws should be expanded, I believe they are other ideologues or are naïve to the dangers.

And I believe when someone is saying that the current laws are part of some Marxist agenda, they are being rather paranoid.

[CowboyX]

The court heard the case associated his behavior as being consistent with religious expression.

This is similar to the CA law on anti-abortion centers where providers are being compelled to provide pro-abortion messages to its clients/customers.

Just for clarification there's more to these two cases than that.

[Ibelsd]

First off, I don't agree that transgendered is not legally defined. I did a search and found a legal definition.

"The state of a person's gender identity (self-identification as male or female) not matching their assigned sex at birth."

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/transgender

And besides that, even if you were right (which you aren't), it does not support your conclusion. It seems that you just take a fact and then make a huge leap to a conclusion when the fact does not necessarily point to the conclusion.

Vagueness in a term (assuming the term is vague) does not mean that it leaves things open-ended where one can just set any law they want in the grey area.

I was going to write a point by point rebuttal. I actually did. Then, I came to your last statement and rethought things. First, I am not claiming some vast Marxist conspiracy as you are implying. That would be paranoid and it is not what I'm claiming. This is the second time I've had to make this defense. I'd prefer to not have to make it a third time.

However, it does make me pause in the interest that we are arguing the same thing, or about the same thing. So, first, do we both agree what post-modern neo-Marxism is? Hopefully, we both agree it is a variant on Marxism, but isn't exactly the same thing. Neo-Marxism, distinct from Marxism, believes the oppressed are defined by the group(s) they are members to. Being black, being gay, being a woman, et al. Every individual is oppressed, but some are more oppressed than others. So, we have these hierarchies based on oppression where the most oppressed are at the very bottom and where there is no hope in reaching the top. Hell, reaching the top would only make you an oppressor. So the goal of neo-Marxists is to flatten the hierarchies which exist in society so no one is oppressed. Now, this is the super-Cliff notes version, but can we both agree on it seeing as I didn't offer any sort of critique to it. Now, beyond neo-Marxism, we have post-modernism (PM). This is sort of the tool that neo-Marxists imagine can be used to flatten the hierarchies. PM is, in short, a deconstructionist view of society. Sex, sexuality, gender roles, et al. are merely social constructs and can be undone with the proper awareness and training. At it's base, from the view of Derrida, meaning is meaningless. So, it is very apparent why a group of people, the neo-Marxists, would find PM so appealing. It gave them a sort of hammer to go around smashing all the constructs put in place which created the oppressive hierarchies they felt needed to be flattened.

Now, I fully understand the above set of definitions does not, in any way, support my point in any direct (or possibly indirect manner). However, if we are having the discussion we are having then we should at least determine if we agree or need further exploration of the basic words we are using. For instance you generally replace neo-Marxist with Marxist. This could be shorthand or it could imply that you see no meaningful difference. So, it'd be good to hash that sort of thing out.

[evensaul]

3. Since you have not provided an adequately good reason to expand the classes to include ugliness and smelliness, you have failed to show that we should further interfere with how businesses set their policies regarding who they serve and therefore we should not use those classes as a basis for interference.

I'm using the same good reason you used. In your own words "Assuming one agrees that every single American should have such protections, then a federal law definitely makes sense." Is that not an adequately good enough reason?

Because no one has made a good argument for those being applied as well.

My default is "No restrictions" so until someone makes a good case that we should have a restriction regarding X, I don't agree that we should have a restriction regarding X.

I don't understand your position. You want every single American to be protected from discrimination, and at the same time you think there needs to be a good case made against discrimination for each individual category? You can't have it both ways, unless you are actually okay with most discrimination, but not your pet classes.

I've offered support that "lookism" is a very real form of discrimination. It happens all the time during the hiring process at many businesses. Shouldn't that be illegal? If the job duties can be performed by a hideously ugly person just as well as a beautiful person, shouldn't the beast be protected against discrimination? If you don't think so, then explain why, and how you square your position with those on other forms of discrimination.

[mican333]

I'm using the same good reason you used. In your own words "Assuming one agrees that every single American should have such protections, then a federal law definitely makes sense." Is that not an adequately good enough reason?

But what you quoted from me was not my rationale for offering protections based on race and gender but merely a statement that says that if one agrees that such protections should uniformly exist, then a federal law makes sense.

So I was justifying national law for protections but I provided no reason that gender or race should be protected and therefore you can't use that as rational for protection based on looks.

I don't understand your position. You want every single American to be protected from discrimination, and at the same time you think there needs to be a good case made against discrimination for each individual category?

Yes. And I don't see why that would be hard to understand.

Since I'm in favor of freedom, I think one needs a good specific reason to deny someone a freedom, including the freedom to discriminate.

You can't have it both ways, unless you are actually okay with most discrimination, but not your pet classes.

I don't quite agree with the way you worded it (those aren't my "pet classes") but yes, I think people should be free to discriminate for any reason they want minus very specific and justified exceptions.

I've offered support that "lookism" is a very real form of discrimination. It happens all the time during the hiring process at many businesses. Shouldn't that be illegal? If the job duties can be performed by a hideously ugly person just as well as a beautiful person, shouldn't the beast be protected against discrimination? If you don't think so, then explain why, and how you square your position with those on other forms of discrimination.

Shifting the burden. You are arguing for expanding discrimination laws to include looks and therefore it's your burden to support your position. Asking me to justify the opposing position before you've supported your claim is shifting the burden.

[evensaul]

You are arguing for expanding discrimination laws to include looks and therefore it's your burden to support your position.

Okay, the following is in addition to what I posted earlier, and all of which is supplemental to what any observant adult with common sense already knows - that ugly people are often discriminated against in hiring.

"A large body of research in social psychology has investigated the role of physical attractiveness in impression formation and selection decisions. The general conclusion of this research is that physically attractive individuals are viewed and treated more favorably than unattractive individuals, including in hiring decisions, promotions, and performance evaluations (K. K. Dion et al., 1972; Griffin & Langlois, 2006; Hosoda et al., 2003)..." However, recent research suggests that attractive people are discriminated against in the hiring process for jobs viewed as undesirable, because the hiring person believes they will be unhappy in the job. http://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/rel...spi0000114.pdf

There is sufficient evidence to support my position that "lookism" (with whatever neutral word will work" should be added to federally protected classes. You just need to say whether your statement in post #6 about gay people should apply to ugly people "Of course they should receive protection. If ugly people can't find a good job because they are ugly, then they will have a harder time surviving within our society than an attractive person." You just need to stop evading the question, and answer it directly. Do believe that discrimination based on "lookism" should be illegal and added to the list of protected classes? If so, great. If not, then rebut my position.

[mican333]

There is sufficient evidence to support my position that "lookism" (with whatever neutral word will work" should be added to federally protected classes. You just need to say whether your statement in post #6 about gay people should apply to ugly people "Of course they should receive protection. If ugly people can't find a good job because they are ugly, then they will have a harder time surviving within our society than an attractive person." You just need to stop evading the question, and answer it directly. Do believe that discrimination based on "lookism" should be illegal and added to the list of protected classes? If so, great. If not, then rebut my position.

I already rebutted your position. Here it is again:

1. PREMISE - Businesses should be allowed to determine their own policy regarding who they serve with as little interference from outside rules as possible
2. THEREFORE - There should be no restrictions on who a business can serve unless there is a good enough reason for the restriction to override the business' freedom to set its own policy.
3. Since you have not provided an adequately good reason to expand the classes to include ugliness and smelliness, you have failed to show that we should further interfere with how businesses set their policies regarding who they serve and therefore we should not use those classes as a basis for interference.

I agree that being less appealing in appearance does give one a relative disadvantage in finding employment so I don't challenge you on that. But then I do not accept the premise that every single characteristic of a person that might disadvantage him/her in finding employment should receive legal protection from discrimination and therefore do not agree that you have provided an adequately good reason to expand the classes to include ugliness.

[evensaul]

3. Since you have not provided an adequately good reason to expand the classes to include ugliness and smelliness...

Bogus. I've provided plenty. If that's all you've got, then my position stands unrebutted. Moving on...

[mican333]

Bogus. I've provided plenty. If that's all you've got, then my position stands unrebutted. Moving on...

No you didn't. You just said that since the unattractive have a harder time finding work than the attractive due to discrimination based on looks, we should ban discrimination against the unattractive.

That is nothing more than your opinion and your mere opinion is not support.

[evensaul]

Height discrimination (more commonly known as heightism) is prejudice or discrimination against individuals based on height. In principle, it refers to discriminatory treatment against individuals whose height is not within the normal acceptable range of height in a population. Height discrimination is most common against shorter than average men and is generally accepted and ignored... studies have shown that short people are paid less than taller people, with disparities similar in magnitude to the race and gender gaps.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Height_discrimination

Taller workers receive a wage premium. Net of differences in family background, the disparity is similar in magnitude to the race and gender gaps. We exploit variation in an individual’s height over time to explore how height affects wages. Controlling for teen height essentially eliminates the effect of adult height on wages for white men. The teen height premium is not explained by differences in resources or endowments. https://www.sas.upenn.edu/~apostlew/paper/pdf/short.pdf

A comprehensive analysis of the relationship of height to workplace success finds that taller people have advantages in hiring, promotions and earnings. http://timothy-judge.com/Height%20pa...0published.pdf

There is enough evidence to include height as a federally protected class.

[mican333]

Height discrimination (more commonly known as heightism) is prejudice or discrimination against individuals based on height. In principle, it refers to discriminatory treatment against individuals whose height is not within the normal acceptable range of height in a population. Height discrimination is most common against shorter than average men and is generally accepted and ignored... studies have shown that short people are paid less than taller people, with disparities similar in magnitude to the race and gender gaps.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Height_discrimination

Taller workers receive a wage premium. Net of differences in family background, the disparity is similar in magnitude to the race and gender gaps. We exploit variation in an individual’s height over time to explore how height affects wages. Controlling for teen height essentially eliminates the effect of adult height on wages for white men. The teen height premium is not explained by differences in resources or endowments. https://www.sas.upenn.edu/~apostlew/paper/pdf/short.pdf

A comprehensive analysis of the relationship of height to workplace success finds that taller people have advantages in hiring, promotions and earnings. http://timothy-judge.com/Height%20pa...0published.pdf

There is enough evidence to include height as a federally protected class.

Support please. There is a specific criteria for when a characteristic meets the standard for receiving such protection and I know it's not whatever you happen to think deserves such protection.

So how does height meet the federal criteria?

Or are you saying that the federal standards should change so that things like height and attractiveness would be included? If so, please support that such a change should occur.

Because at this point, this all seems to be based on your say-so and nothing else.

[evensaul]

There is a specific criteria for when a characteristic meets the standard for receiving such protection and I know it's not whatever you happen to think deserves such protection.

Well, then do please show us that specific criteria, Mican. Because it seems to me that history shows it is not specific criteria that creates protected classes, but rather acts of Congress based on popular opinion among its members, with general support from their constituents. Prove me wrong, if you have the "specific criteria".

[mican333]

Well, then do please show us that specific criteria, Mican. Because it seems to me that history shows it is not specific criteria that creates protected classes, but rather acts of Congress based on popular opinion among its members, with general support from their constituents. Prove me wrong, if you have the "specific criteria".

Shifting the burden. You are the one arguing that the criteria does, or should, grant the ugly and the short legal protection from discrimination so the burden is on you to show that either the criteria does protect them or that it should protect them.

[MindTrap028]

Support please. There is a specific criteria for when a characteristic meets the standard for receiving such protection and I know it's not whatever you happen to think deserves such protection.

So how does height meet the federal criteria?

Or are you saying that the federal standards should change so that things like height and attractiveness would be included? If so, please support that such a change should occur.

Because at this point, this all seems to be based on your say-so and nothing else.

Seems like your argument would apply here.
IE "if that is what the people deem as moral/immoral, then they can use the gov to make rules accordingly".
I think that is all Even is appealing to, a consistent application of your argument.

--
Anyway, had my response to your post to me deleted. .. when I was almost done. Will craft again.

[Squatch347]

I want to point out that we will not tolerate personal attacks here. While I understand that debating can be frustrating, especially when you feel you've reached an impasse, venting that frustration into a personal attack is never appropriate.

Back and forths that do not move the debate forward rarely are resolved by the debaters involved. "Yes I did" and "No you didn't" don't, after all, give much room for discussion. And often, they escalate tensions and result in negative outcomes. Rather, when you've reached an impasse, especially about whether something has been supported, appealing to a moderator for review will solve the problem. If you really feel a claim wasn't supported it, report it and it will be adjudicated. Or, if you want, PM a mod and ask for review.

So that the thread can get back on track, here is my evaluation.

The discussion began on post 34 with Even posing a hypothetical, should lookism be a protected category? There is specific back and forth, essentially boiling down to Even stating that by Mican's words any discriminition in effect warrants federal protections.

Mican, however, did not make that claim, but rather stated that all members within a category of class are protected equally (IE whites, blacks, asians, etc.) Or, to be more precise, that the criteria composing that class is barred from consideration, regardless of what sub-group one falls into.

While Even has supported that there is discrimination based on looks, height, etc, he has not supported why that discrimination should be relevant to a change in federal law. Even if we set aside misinterpretting Mican's statements, they are not sufficient to support that point. Thus there is no support offered for why other critieria should be included into federal anti-discrimination rules.


In addition, Mican made a positive claim in post 52 that "There is a specific criteria for when a characteristic meets the standard for receiving such protection..."" Even's request for support does not imply burden shifting. This claim has not been supported either.

While Even's claim is the first, both claims must be supported or retracted. However, if Mican retracts this claim, the burden still remains on Even to support why such criteria should be included.

[mican333]

In addition, Mican made a positive claim in post 52 that "There is a specific criteria for when a characteristic meets the standard for receiving such protection..."" Even's request for support does not imply burden shifting. This claim has not been supported either.

While Even's claim is the first, both claims must be supported or retracted. However, if Mican retracts this claim, the burden still remains on Even to support why such criteria should be included.[/indent]

First off, I know one is not suppose to respond to a moderator's red-letter post but I since there is an adjudication on the debate which involves a post that has been deleted, I would like to make clear that in post 57 (the deleted version) I said:

"While I'm not going to say that there is no specific criteria, I am going to retract the claim (by not repeating it) since it's actually irrelevant to whether you have supported your claim. "

So I did retract the claim which does not mean that I concede that it's not true. I believe there is specific criteria but choose to not currently forward it in the debate so the claim is not currently in play.

[evensaul]

While Even has supported that there is discrimination based on looks, height, etc, he has not supported why that discrimination should be relevant to a change in federal law. Even if we set aside misinterpretting Mican's statements, they are not sufficient to support that point. Thus there is no support offered for why other critieria should be included into federal anti-discrimination rules.

This issue and related topics will be addressed here: http://www.onlinedebate.net/forums/s...al-Affiliation

[Squatch347]

So I did retract the claim which does not mean that I concede that it's not true. I believe there is specific criteria but choose to not currently forward it in the debate so the claim is not currently in play.

This is a valid correction, thank you.

This issue and related topics will be addressed here: http://www.onlinedebate.net/forums/s...al-Affiliation

If you like. Any claim of the sort made above would need to be supported in that thread as well.

[evensaul]

But Jim Crow laws were wrong in origin. They were not meant to address an injustice, but to create one.

When someone is stolen from, what is the most just compensation? To pay them back of course. There may also be cause for some punishment from the state.

So when the US government stole liberty and opportunity from Black Americans, the just compensation is only to stop doing that? No. The most just compensation is to pay back the liberty and opportunity that was stolen by gicing them greater opportunity. (greater liberty is a near impossible thing to grant, though I can think of some possibilities).

What you propose is actually an injustice by any normal standards. Its saying that the crimes that were done should simply be forgiven and forgotten and that the victims should simply lump it and accept the damage done.

Protections against discrimination don't provide greater liberty and opportunity. That isn't compensation, but simply equal liberty and opportunity.

Compensation might come through affirmative action or reparations. Are you advocating for one of those?