Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 4 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 62

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    3,347
    Post Thanks / Like

    Protected Classes: Expand, Reduce or Maintain?

    A protected group or protected class is a group of people qualified for special protection by a law, policy, or similar authority. In the United States, the term is frequently used in connection with employees and employment.

    Where discrimination on the basis of protected group status is concerned, a single act of discrimination may be based on membership in more than one protected group. For example, discrimination based on antisemitism may relate to religion, national origin, or both; discrimination against a pregnant woman might be based on sex, marital status, or both.[1]

    U.S. federal law protects individuals from discrimination or harassment based on the following nine protected classes: sex, race, age, disability, color, creed, national origin, religion, or genetic information (added in 2008). Many state laws also give certain protected groups special protection against harassment and discrimination, as do many employer policies. Although it is not required by federal law, employer policies may also protect employees from harassment or discrimination based on marital status or sexual orientation. The following characteristics are "protected" by United States federal anti-discrimination law:

    Race – Civil Rights Act of 1964
    Religion – Civil Rights Act of 1964
    National origin – Civil Rights Act of 1964
    Age (40 and over) – Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967
    Sex – Equal Pay Act of 1963 and Civil Rights Act of 1964
    The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission interprets 'sex' to include discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity[2]
    Pregnancy – Pregnancy Discrimination Act
    Citizenship – Immigration Reform and Control Act
    Familial status – Civil Rights Act of 1968 Title VIII: Housing cannot discriminate for having children, with an exception for senior housing
    Disability status – Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
    Veteran status – Vietnam Era Veterans' Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974 and Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act
    Genetic information – Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_group

    Some individual states have added protections against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity and perhaps other characteristics.

    So the question for this thread is: Should federal law protecting classes of people against discrimination in employment be expanded and, if so, to cover which additional groups? Or should federal law remain as-is? Or should the list of protected classes be pared down in some way?

    I'm thinking that employment should also not be denied on the basis of political ideology, alcoholism, low IQ, natural body odor and flatulence, because those are all immutable characteristics of an individual.
    Last edited by evensaul; May 26th, 2018 at 01:41 PM.
    "If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on Earth." - Ronald Reagan

  2. #2
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,228
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Protected Classes: Expand, Reduce or Maintain?

    The root of all this is the American egalitarian principle of equality under the law and by extension of that, equality within society.

    The legal principle behind these laws is that the government has an obligation to serve the public in protecting them from significant harm. Civil rights legislation was done in the face of wanton discrimination following a long period of legal discrimination. Both race and gender have been codified by US law as unequal for a good long time, despite the rhetoric of the founding fathers and our foundational documents.

    We have gone somewhat beyond that however so I don't know hos justified such federal regulations really are if there isn't a history of legal discrimination in law. If it is merely widespread social bias, then I think that gives less standing, and if it is relatively narrow social bias, even less so.

    The social agenda is to have people treated without significant prejidice in the wider marketplace. And in a country so defined by the ethos of capitalism and the market, and steeped int he idea of egalitarianism, I think it makes sense we would seek to reduce or eliminate bigotry in marketplace transactions, especially those as essential as work contracts.

    I think it is a well intentioned goal, but I'm not convinced federal regulation is the appropriate vehicle for it. State legislation is better, but ultimately, social and market enforcement is probably the most effective and appropriate remedy for more edge case discrimination.

    I fully support race and sex as they were so badly enforced by law for so long. I support the others in the sense that I think they deserve equal treatment, but I tend not to actually favor such laws at the federal level on principle, even if I do support them from an ethical standpoint. I'm just a bit reluctant to turn all my ethical principles into law.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  3. #3
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    3,347
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Protected Classes: Expand, Reduce or Maintain?

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    The social agenda is to have people treated without significant prejidice in the wider marketplace. And in a country so defined by the ethos of capitalism and the market, and steeped int he idea of egalitarianism, I think it makes sense we would seek to reduce or eliminate bigotry in marketplace transactions, especially those as essential as work contracts.

    I think it is a well intentioned goal, but I'm not convinced federal regulation is the appropriate vehicle for it. State legislation is better, but ultimately, social and market enforcement is probably the most effective and appropriate remedy for more edge case discrimination.

    I fully support race and sex as they were so badly enforced by law for so long. I support the others in the sense that I think they deserve equal treatment, but I tend not to actually favor such laws at the federal level on principle, even if I do support them from an ethical standpoint. I'm just a bit reluctant to turn all my ethical principles into law.
    Where would you place sexual orientation and gender identity in all of that? Are they worthy of federal protection, state protection, or "social and market enforcement" (which I don't understand)?
    "If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on Earth." - Ronald Reagan

  4. #4
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,061
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Protected Classes: Expand, Reduce or Maintain?

    [QUOTE=Sigfried;560025}I fully support race and sex as they were so badly enforced by law for so long. I support the others in the sense that I think they deserve equal treatment, but I tend not to actually favor such laws at the federal level on principle, even if I do support them from an ethical standpoint. I'm just a bit reluctant to turn all my ethical principles into law.[/QUOTE]

    Assuming one agrees that every single American should have such protections, then a federal law definitely makes sense.

    As a scenario, if we left it to the states and one of the states decides that they won't protect blacks from being fired just for being black (and if was agreed that such a policy cannot stand) then the state would have to be overruled by a higher authority which in this situation would have to be federal government.

    ---------- Post added at 10:40 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:38 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by evensaul View Post
    Where would you place sexual orientation and gender identity in all of that? Are they worthy of federal protection, state protection, or "social and market enforcement" (which I don't understand)?
    Of course they should receive protection. If gays can't find a job because they are gay, then they will have a harder time surviving within our society than a straight person.

  5. #5
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,228
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Protected Classes: Expand, Reduce or Maintain?

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Assuming one agrees that every single American should have such protections, then a federal law definitely makes sense.

    As a scenario, if we left it to the states and one of the states decides that they won't protect blacks from being fired just for being black (and if was agreed that such a policy cannot stand) then the state would have to be overruled by a higher authority which in this situation would have to be federal government.
    It's a question of what federal authority they are claiming such legislation under. From a legal standpoint, the feds can't simply make any law they like, it has to fall under the implicit or explicit powers granted to congress. The states have a much wider latitude. So long as they are not violating the federal or state constitution, they can make just about any law they like.

    ---------- Post added at 11:36 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:34 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by evensaul View Post
    Where would you place sexual orientation and gender identity in all of that? Are they worthy of federal protection, state protection, or "social and market enforcement" (which I don't understand)?
    It's well-intentioned, aka I don't think it is ethical or right to discriminate in the market against someone for those reasons. That said, I think it has to be shown to be a widespread problem in order to justify federal legislation from a legal perspective.

    I'm happy we have such laws, I'm not entirely sure they are legally justified.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  6. #6
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,265
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Protected Classes: Expand, Reduce or Maintain?

    To the extent that laws should exist specifically to protect specific minority groups, I think it is hard to say. I'd want to know what it is the specific goal the law is attempting to achieve. I'd want to know if there is a criterion such that the law is deemed no longer needed and whether there is a mechanism to sunset the law when that criterion is met. I certainly think it is worth having a conversation about whether a specific law is needed to protect some minority group. I'd also want to know how intrusive the proposed law may be. Every law has a trade-off where we agree to trade away some liberty or other value in exchange for something we feel is more important. Laws opposing murder clearly impeded on my right to take someone's life, but we probably all agree that the liberty gained from those who may not be murdered is a worthwhile trade. So, I'd want to know what is the cost of another law to protect the targeted minority group. As it is, at least within the confines of this discussion, I have not heard much discussion regarding any of these things.

    We all can agree that discrimination probably exists. That's an easy bar to reach. We have not really grappled with the question of how much a specifically proposed law will actually solve the problem. Nor have we really grappled with the problem of cost. And if we are not able to be specific about the law being proposed, meaning it is largely hypothetical, then how can we really have a conversation about it at all? A hypothetical law can only have hypothetical costs and benefits and we can set them subjectively and make them whatever fits our argument best. How helpful is that?

    Let me go a little deeper. In the post-antebellum south, where men were rather suddenly freed from bondage and where the structures of control, particularly in the south, continued to exist, it seems rather obvious we needed laws to explicitly undo those structures and to provide some amount of guidance to the general public on how to recognize people as complete citizens with equal rights. The cost was high, but the benefits were clearly worth the cost. If one criticism could be made, there was never a criterion established which we could use to determine that these laws were no longer needed. So, rather than the laws being allowed to end and giving everyone equal standing, promoting a sort of equilibrium, we expanded on these laws, adding more groups. Even if you don't think we'd have ever met the criterion should it have been established, it would at least offer a tangible goal. Imagine running a race, marathon, and having no idea how far you'd run nor how far you have left to go. Eventually, you'd stop. You'd quit. Maybe even just a few minutes from the end line.

    So, I think simple arguments like, such laws take away freedoms or conversely, what if society is discriminatory; are ideological arguments, but aren't, in any way, reasonable for a meaningful and thoughtful discussion.
    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

  7. #7
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    3,347
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Protected Classes: Expand, Reduce or Maintain?

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Assuming one agrees that every single American should have such protections, then a federal law definitely makes sense.
    Lookism is discriminatory treatment toward people considered physically unattractive; mainly in the workplace but also in social settings.[1] While not classified in the same way as racial, cultural, sexual discrimination, "lookism" is widespread and affects how people are perceived as well as affecting their opportunities in terms of romantic relationships, job opportunities, etc... According to Nancy Etcoff, a psychologist at Massachusetts General Hospital, "we face a world where lookism is one of the most pervasive but denied prejudices".[12] Referring to several studies, Angela Stalcup writes that "The evidence clearly indicates that not only is there a premium for prettiness in Western culture, there is also penalty for plainness." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lookism

    Should ugly be a protected class?
    "If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on Earth." - Ronald Reagan

  8. #8
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,061
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Protected Classes: Expand, Reduce or Maintain?

    Quote Originally Posted by evensaul View Post
    Lookism is discriminatory treatment toward people considered physically unattractive; mainly in the workplace but also in social settings.[1] While not classified in the same way as racial, cultural, sexual discrimination, "lookism" is widespread and affects how people are perceived as well as affecting their opportunities in terms of romantic relationships, job opportunities, etc... According to Nancy Etcoff, a psychologist at Massachusetts General Hospital, "we face a world where lookism is one of the most pervasive but denied prejudices".[12] Referring to several studies, Angela Stalcup writes that "The evidence clearly indicates that not only is there a premium for prettiness in Western culture, there is also penalty for plainness." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lookism

    Should ugly be a protected class?
    First off, there are no protected classes.

    Regarding race, the rule is not that one cannot discriminate against blacks. The rule is that one cannot discriminate against people based on race. So while that rule does mean that one cannot refuse to serve someone because he's black, it also means that one cannot refuse to serve someone because he's white, asian, latino, native American and so on. So basically the law protects everyone equally and therefore there are no protected classes that one person belongs to but another person does not. As an analogy, the fact that it's illegal to kill a black person does not make blacks a protected class because the law that protects blacks from murder protects non-blacks as well.

    So the question should be whether comeliness should join race and gender and sexual orientation as something that one cannot refuse service based on. Since that is not part of my argument, I currently have no position on that. If you want to make an argument regarding whether comeliness should be included, go ahead.
    Last edited by mican333; June 17th, 2018 at 10:03 AM.

  9. #9
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,265
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Protected Classes: Expand, Reduce or Maintain?

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    The root of all this is the American egalitarian principle of equality under the law and by extension of that, equality within society.

    The legal principle behind these laws is that the government has an obligation to serve the public in protecting them from significant harm. Civil rights legislation was done in the face of wanton discrimination following a long period of legal discrimination. Both race and gender have been codified by US law as unequal for a good long time, despite the rhetoric of the founding fathers and our foundational documents.

    We have gone somewhat beyond that however so I don't know hos justified such federal regulations really are if there isn't a history of legal discrimination in law. If it is merely widespread social bias, then I think that gives less standing, and if it is relatively narrow social bias, even less so.

    The social agenda is to have people treated without significant prejidice in the wider marketplace. And in a country so defined by the ethos of capitalism and the market, and steeped int he idea of egalitarianism, I think it makes sense we would seek to reduce or eliminate bigotry in marketplace transactions, especially those as essential as work contracts.

    I think it is a well intentioned goal, but I'm not convinced federal regulation is the appropriate vehicle for it. State legislation is better, but ultimately, social and market enforcement is probably the most effective and appropriate remedy for more edge case discrimination.

    I fully support race and sex as they were so badly enforced by law for so long. I support the others in the sense that I think they deserve equal treatment, but I tend not to actually favor such laws at the federal level on principle, even if I do support them from an ethical standpoint. I'm just a bit reluctant to turn all my ethical principles into law.
    Should we have laws which are rooted to a social agenda? It sounds like you are not entirely sure and I don't blame you. Here is where I think your argument needs more thought. You and I agree that the U.S. was founded on the concept of egalitarianism. All men are created equal. Justice. These are all concepts that the American legal system are based upon. However, how much intent was there in the government actively enforcing these? Consider that the U.S. federal government was created to prevent some malevolent, horrible, evil person from mucking things up. The system, the bicameral legislature, the separation of powers, check and balances were all designed to limit the ability of a small group of people from ruining the whole experiment. So, when you comment on actions which are based on a social agenda, if you've been paying attention to world history, your ears should perking up and hair should standing on end.

    Having good intentions is nice, but we've already established that our government wasn't designed to assume good intentions. You can be damn well sure that, at some point in the future, someone with very bad intentions will come along and use all the tools used to promote the well-intentioned social agenda. Marx may have had good intentions, but Stalin and Lenin certainly didn't. Both used the idea of egalitarianism as justification to kill millions. And if you think we are so much better and nothing like that could happen in the U.S., just keep creating the kinds of openings tyrants have always used to form revolutions and impose changes. And to me, these laws, as well-meaning as they may seem to be, by there open-ended nature and lack of defining problem, are just massive black holes waiting to be exploited.

    You support sex and race anti-discrimination laws, but consider the following: According to the progressive left, sex is completely subjective. What do you think bad actors can do with that? Well, we've seen what they are doing. They are using it to dictate (legislate) which ideas are publicly acceptable. It isn't merely to ensure everyone has some sort of access to the marketplace of things. It is being used to suppress the conscientiousness of others. If a baker cannot choose to refuse to be part of a ceremony he feels is immoral or a group which opposes abortion is compelled by law to advertise for abortion, we can certainly see where these sorts of laws are headed and really, the true intention of the people behind these laws.

    I say all this and understand you and I probably are similarly positioned to mistrust laws like these. I think, though, you may be a bit more accepting of them than I am and I think you should trust your instincts here and not be swayed by your impulse towards moderation.
    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

  10. #10
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,061
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Protected Classes: Expand, Reduce or Maintain?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    And to me, these laws, as well-meaning as they may seem to be, by there open-ended nature and lack of defining problem, are just massive black holes waiting to be exploited.
    And I disagree on that. From my perspective, they are not open-ended and the restrictions are quite specific and I've seen no supported position that it will lead to anything else in particular. Just positing a slippery slope does not support that one exists.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    You support sex and race anti-discrimination laws, but consider the following: According to the progressive left, sex is completely subjective. What do you think bad actors can do with that? Well, we've seen what they are doing. They are using it to dictate (legislate) which ideas are publicly acceptable.
    I've seen no such thing. Please support this assertion.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    It isn't merely to ensure everyone has some sort of access to the marketplace of things. It is being used to suppress the conscientiousness of others.
    Again, I disagree so please support this.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    If a baker cannot choose to refuse to be part of a ceremony he feels is immoral or a group which opposes abortion is compelled by law to advertise for abortion, we can certainly see where these sorts of laws are headed and really, the true intention of the people behind these laws.
    No baker is forced to be part of a ceremony unless one takes a really, really, really broad interpretation of what level of involvement qualifies as being "part of a ceremony". There has been no valid legal case that argues that the baker who is baking a cake is a participant in the ceremony.

    And to say the intention is something other than the stated intention of the laws likewise requires support. What you are forwarding sounds like a conspiracy theory.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    I think, though, you may be a bit more accepting of them than I am and I think you should trust your instincts here and not be swayed by your impulse towards moderation.
    I think such laws are in place to ensure that people have equal access to the marketplace and making sure that people are treated equally regardless of race, gender, and sexual orientation and I've seen no real evidence that the agenda is something other than that. If you are going to argue that there is a different agenda, please support that.

  11. #11
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,265
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Protected Classes: Expand, Reduce or Maintain?

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    And I disagree on that. From my perspective, they are not open-ended and the restrictions are quite specific and I've seen no supported position that it will lead to anything else in particular. Just positing a slippery slope does not support that one exists.
    Just recently, the a U.S. court has decided to include gender identity within the scope of the equal rights amendment even though the law makes no mention of identity. In fact, when the law was created, it'd be hard to imagine that Congress intended it to be included.

    http://www.rutgerspolicyjournal.org/...tection-clause
    "Evancho and Johston begin to illustrate how the Third Circuit may decide a Fourteenth Amendment claim brought by a transgender student. In Evancho the students in question succeeded by presenting sufficient evidence of an Equal Protection violation and the Western District of Pennsylvania found that “discrimination based on transgender status in these circumstances is essentially the epitome of discrimination based on gender nonconformity, making differentiation based on transgender status akin to discrimination based on sex for these purposes”[26], whereas two years earlier this decision may have fallen more in line with Johnston. [27] In Johnston the Western District of Pennsylvania found that both the Third Circuit and the Supreme Court of the United States have yet to recognize transgender as a “suspect classification” under the Equal Protection Clause and therefore applied the rational basis standard. The future of transgender students’ bathroom rights is still murky and unclear throughout the nation, however New Jersey and the Western District of Pennsylvania are trending towards granting transgender students’ the right to choose the bathroom which conforms with their identity, be it through state legislation, such as New Jersey, or case law, such as in the Western District of Pennsylvania."

    So, no, the rules are not specific, are open to interpretation, and easily expanded based on the ideological view of the court.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post

    I've seen no such thing. Please support this assertion.
    Of course, the progressive left views gender to be subjective. This is why New York now has 31 different categories to describe gender and the list is growing.
    http://dailycaller.com/2016/05/24/ne...er-identities/


    Facebook has over 50.
    https://www.thedailybeast.com/what-e...-options-means


    Obviously, these are not based on some sort of objective science. The labels, themselves are based on an individual's self-identification. That is the very definition of subjective.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Again, I disagree so please support this.
    I'd have to know why you disagree here. It isn't clear.


    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    No baker is forced to be part of a ceremony unless one takes a really, really, really broad interpretation of what level of involvement qualifies as being "part of a ceremony". There has been no valid legal case that argues that the baker who is baking a cake is a participant in the ceremony.
    Fair enough. Let's allow that the baker isn't expressly being forced to be part of a ceremony. However, the baker in the example is being compelled to use his art/skills to create a message which is antagonistic to his conscientious beliefs. It should be noted that the case recently decided by the Supreme Court noted that the city allowed bakers to refuse service for messages that were anti-gay. The point is not whether he is being made to participate in a ceremony. The point is whether the laws we are discussing may be used to compel individuals to certain forms of speech. Clearly, that is one way these laws are being used. That isn't even up for debate as I believe your claim is that forcing the baker to write a message which is against his beliefs is necessary.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    And to say the intention is something other than the stated intention of the laws likewise requires support. What you are forwarding sounds like a conspiracy theory.
    Not a conspiracy theory at all. We have seen the 14th amendment, originally intended solely to ensure blacks post-civil war were considered citizens, was expanded by the courts, not Congress, to include gender, and now sexual identity. And seeing as how those pushing for gender identity to be included don't even believe that gender identity is an objective truth, but based on subjective feelings, then there is no other explanation than to acknowledge these laws are being hijacked by the progressive left which is an ideology based on post-modernism and neo-Marxism.


    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    I think such laws are in place to ensure that people have equal access to the marketplace and making sure that people are treated equally regardless of race, gender, and sexual orientation and I've seen no real evidence that the agenda is something other than that. If you are going to argue that there is a different agenda, please support that.
    Sure. I supported my argument above. If you disagree, then please help us understand gender. There isn't a legal definition for transgender, so explain how this identity can be protected by the law. As a society, and this is supported by the New York and Facebook examples above, we don't even agree on the basis for explaining non-binary gender types. It is a figment of the progressive-lefts imagination and supports their deconstructionist views. This is an ideological argument which they are trying to code into law. In other words, they are trying to make their ideological view into law. In the example of the baker, he was not denying service to gay people, or women, or anyone else. He simply refused to use his trade to convey a message which went against his conscience. Anti-abortion centers in CA are being required to post info to people on how to obtain an abortion. Again, the laws are being written to enforce an ideological view such that people aren't merely prevented from using certain words or performing some action, but are being compelled to say things. This isn't merely a slippery slope I am presenting because the examples already exist.
    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

  12. #12
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,061
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Protected Classes: Expand, Reduce or Maintain?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Just recently, the a U.S. court has decided to include gender identity within the scope of the equal rights amendment even though the law makes no mention of identity. In fact, when the law was created, it'd be hard to imagine that Congress intended it to be included.

    http://www.rutgerspolicyjournal.org/...tection-clause
    "[FONT="] [/FONT]Evancho[FONT="] and [/FONT]Johston[FONT="] begin to illustrate how the Third Circuit may decide a Fourteenth Amendment claim brought by a transgender student. In [/FONT]Evancho[FONT="] the students in question succeeded by presenting sufficient evidence of an Equal Protection violation and the Western District of Pennsylvania found that “discrimination based on transgender status in these circumstances is essentially the epitome of discrimination based on gender nonconformity, making differentiation based on transgender status akin to discrimination based on sex for these purposes”[/FONT][26][FONT="], whereas two years earlier this decision may have fallen more in line with [/FONT]Johnston[FONT="]. [/FONT][27][FONT="] In [/FONT]Johnston[FONT="] the Western District of Pennsylvania found that both the Third Circuit and the Supreme Court of the United States have yet to recognize transgender as a “suspect classification” under the Equal Protection Clause and therefore applied the rational basis standard. The future of transgender students’ bathroom rights is still murky and unclear throughout the nation, however New Jersey and the Western District of Pennsylvania are trending towards granting transgender students’ the right to choose the bathroom which conforms with their identity, be it through state legislation, such as New Jersey, or case law, such as in the Western District of Pennsylvania."

    [/FONT]
    So, no, the rules are not specific, are open to interpretation, and easily expanded based on the ideological view of the court.
    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.



    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Of course, the progressive left views gender to be subjective. This is why New York now has 31 different categories to describe gender and the list is growing.
    http://dailycaller.com/2016/05/24/ne...er-identities/


    Facebook has over 50.
    https://www.thedailybeast.com/what-e...-options-means


    Obviously, these are not based on some sort of objective science. The labels, themselves are based on an individual's self-identification. That is the very definition of subjective.
    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.



    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    I'd have to know why you disagree here. It isn't clear.
    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.






    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Fair enough. Let's allow that the baker isn't expressly being forced to be part of a ceremony. However, the baker in the example is being compelled to use his art/skills to create a message which is antagonistic to his conscientious beliefs. It should be noted that the case recently decided by the Supreme Court noted that the city allowed bakers to refuse service for messages that were anti-gay. The point is not whether he is being made to participate in a ceremony. The point is whether the laws we are discussing may be used to compel individuals to certain forms of speech. Clearly, that is one way these laws are being used. That isn't even up for debate as I believe your claim is that forcing the baker to write a message which is against his beliefs is necessary.
    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.



    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Not a conspiracy theory at all. We have seen the 14th amendment, originally intended solely to ensure blacks post-civil war were considered citizens, was expanded by the courts, not Congress, to include gender, and now sexual identity. And seeing as how those pushing for gender identity to be included don't even believe that gender identity is an objective truth, but based on subjective feelings, then there is no other explanation than to acknowledge these laws are being hijacked by the progressive left which is an ideology based on post-modernism and neo-Marxism.
    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.




    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Sure. I supported my argument above.
    Since I rebutted your "there's only one explanation" argument, no you have not supported it above.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    If you disagree, then please help us understand gender. There isn't a legal definition for transgender, so explain how this identity can be protected by the law. As a society, and this is supported by the New York and Facebook examples above, we don't even agree on the basis for explaining non-binary gender types. It is a figment of the progressive-lefts imagination and supports their deconstructionist views. This is an ideological argument which they are trying to code into law. In other words, they are trying to make their ideological view into law. In the example of the baker, he was not denying service to gay people, or women, or anyone else. He simply refused to use his trade to convey a message which went against his conscience.
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Anti-abortion centers in CA are being required to post info to people on how to obtain an abortion. Again, the laws are being written to enforce an ideological view such that people aren't merely prevented from using certain words or performing some action, but are being compelled to say things. This isn't merely a slippery slope I am presenting because the examples already exist.
    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.

  13. #13
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,265
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Protected Classes: Expand, Reduce or Maintain?

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    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.
    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

  14. #14
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,061
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Protected Classes: Expand, Reduce or Maintain?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    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.



    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    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.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    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).


    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    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.
    Last edited by mican333; June 21st, 2018 at 01:31 PM.

  15. #15
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,265
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Protected Classes: Expand, Reduce or Maintain?

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    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.
    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

  16. #16
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    2,152
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Protected Classes: Expand, Reduce or Maintain?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    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.
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  17. #17
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    2,152
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Protected Classes: Expand, Reduce or Maintain?

    Quote Originally Posted by evensaul View Post
    [INDENT]natural body odor and flatulence
    Has this happened to you?
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  18. #18
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    3,347
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Protected Classes: Expand, Reduce or Maintain?

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    Has this happened to you?
    LOL!. I should have expected that.
    "If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on Earth." - Ronald Reagan

  19. #19
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,715
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Protected Classes: Expand, Reduce or Maintain?

    I think such laws inherently violate the freedoms to associate. While it is nice and good to not discriminate for stupid reasons it is ultimately the job of the church and not the state to effect people's moral choices like these. It also isn't effective as long as people put a little thought into their actions. Like, you can in fact discriminate based on sex, if you call then models. As it is a motivation that is being legislated against, it can be impossible to police, and is impossible to actually stop in by the state.
    To serve man.

  20. #20
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    2,152
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Protected Classes: Expand, Reduce or Maintain?

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I think such laws inherently violate the freedoms to associate. While it is nice and good to not discriminate for stupid reasons it is ultimately the job of the church and not the state to effect people's moral choices like these. It also isn't effective as long as people put a little thought into their actions. Like, you can in fact discriminate based on sex, if you call then models. As it is a motivation that is being legislated against, it can be impossible to police, and is impossible to actually stop in by the state.
    What happens, though, when your religious institutions fail to do so? Are complicit. Or worse yet, their beliefs are used to support such practices?

    As for your example, the law makes provisions for "reasonable accommodations". Yes, you're not going to have a fat, bald, hairy guy as a waitress at Hooters, nor would you have a non-endowed female. But that doesn't preclude them from working in the kitchen, as management, or in the corporate office.
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

 

 
Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 4 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 21
    Last Post: October 30th, 2016, 03:49 PM
  2. Replies: 0
    Last Post: February 13th, 2012, 03:28 PM
  3. Replies: 6
    Last Post: December 19th, 2009, 11:51 PM
  4. Expand the forum?
    By starcreator in forum Politics
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: October 22nd, 2007, 12:32 PM
  5. an abortion of the lesser classes
    By Bf55 in forum Philosophical Debates
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: December 31st, 2005, 11:39 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •