What if I fire you because I don't like you, but the reason I don't like you is because you're black (or lesbian, or whatever)? Is that still illegal? Should it be? Is there any way to prove it?

What if I fire you because you're ugly? Or because you're short? I guess those are currently legal. But studies have shown that both of those groups are definitely statistically discriminated against. Do you think they should be added to the list of protected classes? If not, why not?

I just think it is impossible to ever end the last of groups who are sometimes discriminated against. And while the thoughts behind ALL of them are laudable, I don't think any of the laws are very effective.

Personally I'd like to think that I don't have any conscious irrational biases against people based on such factors, but it has nothing to do with civil rights laws. Unfortunately, I likely do have unconscious biases, as do the vast majority of people based on psychological testing. Should we introduce those into the workplace to root out discrimination? Even most black Americans have been shown to have unconscious anti - black bias. Should we punish them as well?

Ok. I think the businesses that refuse to provide services to LGBT people are harming said people.

I mean, instead of referring to a group, I can refer to all the behaviours encompassed like "men who marry men" or "women who mention that they have a date with another woman", but it's far easier to refer to a group for which we all understand the definition.

This is a very silly game.

This is the kind of abstract thinking that annoys me. Here in reality we actually know what the world looks like when you're allowed to openly discriminate, and we know what the world looks like when you're not. Turns out the civil rights era had a lasting impact for the better.

I think so also. In context, I was referring to what behaviors should be prohibited. Specifically, that pedophile behavior should be but homosexual behavior should not be.

But I'm pretty sure you knew that, and quoted me out of context to try to make me look bad.

Yes, the game you are playing is silly. It doesn't matter by what name you call them, there is still an important difference between behaviors and groups of people. Behaviors are always legislated. There is no reason for groups to be legislated (pro or anti).

We certainly do not know this. We have no idea what the world would be like today without the passage of civil rights laws. I think it would be pretty much exactly the same. The change didn't happen immediately after the laws were passed. These things take time, for bigots to die and others to take their place. Attitudes can also change for the better, but they are unaffected by legislation.

Of course, some parts of the "Civil Rights ERA" were likely effective in changing attitudes. The sitins, marches, speeches etc were wonderful positive propaganda. It's the civil rights laws alone that accomplish nothing.

I haven't read the state laws, but I assumed any federal would be written in a way to prohibit discrimination "based on actual identity or orientation". In which case, it would protect pedophiles as well. Do you think this would be ok, or should they be specifically removed from the protected class?

I don't think your comments really add up to much. I agree, any non-discrimination law isn't 100% effective or always provable. I agree we can't end ALL discrimination, or enumerate ALL possible groups. I agree we can't eliminate ALL things like unconscious biases.

But so what? We have an existing legal structure that reduces - not eliminates - harm on major classes of people with historical oppression. LGBT are precisely such a class, and it seems a pretty easy step to include them. And if the answer is that this is largely ineffective, that nobody would discriminate against LGBT people in a way this law can "see", then even then there is a benefitial symbolic move towards inclusion, and little downside. The slipperly slopes to having to include every potential group and eliminate every potential discrimination just don't seem meaningful to taking this concrete step forward.

No. The way it typically works is to enumerate "sexual orientation" along with "gender" and "race" in the list of protected classes. That the courts would interpret this as an equal protection for pedophiles is extremely unlikely. For instance, in Canada, the Human Rights Act doesn't expand upon what "sexual orientation" means exactly, but the federal court system did the interpretation that this "is a precise legal concept that deals specifically with an individual's preference in terms of gender". So no, your fear of slippery slopes is misplaced.

I'm not worried by a slippery slope. I think pedophiles should be just as protected as anyone else. If they are specifically removed, that just clarifies how this is not really about fairness.

By the way, my quote should have said "SEXUAL identity or orientation", not "actual".

Why do you think the effect is exactly zero? I get your boarder point, that the legal side was occuring in tandem with social and political change. That is usually the case. But that the legal side has no influence at all? What is the basis of this belief?

Correct, it is not "fair". I'm not worried about being "fair" to pedophiles, such that the exact protections that LGBT get are identical for pedophiles. I agree with tame_deuces that "fair" in this sense is rhetorically useless. I'm interested in taking a concrete, pragmatic step forward that treats a major class of historically oppressed people with the same legal framework that other classes like race and gender are protected. That this doesn't "fairly" include every single possible class of people like pedophiles doesn't seem like an argument against it.

Besides, it seems a little disingenuous to act like you are worried about pedophiles protections being "removed" when your position is that there should be absolutely zero employment discrimination protections at all, correct?

In spite of the fact that uke master is Canadian and probably not Jewish, his arguments in this thread are completely correct.

I think that there ideally would be no discrimination against anyone for any of these reasons but I think none of the laws predict anyone. In one way I don't particularly care much one way or another whether the laws are enacted, because I think they accomplish nothing. I am bothered by laws specifically protecting certain people and excluding others, because I am afraid that it may justify / encourage discrimination against those left out.

If these laws are enacted protecting a sexual preference, but only on gender preference, I think it validates discrimination against pedophiles or people with other preferences generally considered to be bizarre or immoral. Luckily it would not likely be experienced by many, as non - practicing pedophiles do not generally advertise their status.

I would still honestly like to know if anyone thinks there should be legislated protection for short people or ugly people, and if not, why not?

Well, I'm tall and devastatingly handsome, so there's that.

I have a mixed-race friend who is 6 foot 6 inches tall and considered very attractive. I'm pretty sure he would agree that the unearned benefits he has received in life based on his appearance and height greatly outweigh any discrimination he has faced for being half black.

I'm not quoting out of context to make you look bad. I'm doing the same I did with Doordonot and refusing to engage with this ridiculous argument that I need to make comparisons between homosexuals and paedophiles.

They are not the same and they don't require the same treatment.

I am also not particularly interested with this argument about groups, because referring to groups is a point of semantics here. When I'm talking about LGBT or homosexuals as a group I'm aware that rights refer to individuals in practice. I'm not talking about "special rights" where heterosexuals can be fired for being heterosexual. I'm talking about protecting a certain set of behaviours that can be loosely called "homosexual".

Laws against firing someone based on gender are not "special rights" for women, but if we'd been having this conversation in the past it would've been far easier for me to refer to it as "women's rights" and women as a group than play the language game with you.

You argue against your own position. You are worried that a discrimination law WILL have an effect, that by leaving people out it might justify and encourage discrimination. Yet right before you believe that discrimination laws accomplish nothing. Well, do they encourage discrimination or not?

I believe that extending anti-discrimination protections for LGBT alongside race and gender will help to discourage discrimination. Partly it is just symbolic, as in not a direct fear of a lawsuit but by the fact that society has accepted this principle functions in society to enshrine increased acceptance and decreased discrimination. It is like with gay marriage. It let gay people marry, but it ALSO helped random gay teens contemplating suicide because it said yes, as a society, we accept you and will protect you and afford you protections against discrimination even thought 45% of the population would deny that right.

Are you worried that protecting being black but not being gay validates discrimination against gay people?

Again, I'm not worried about discrimination against "non-practicing pedophiles". Pedophilia is extremely harmful "in practice" - unlike being gay - and is rightly ostracized in society to the point that people,as you say, don't generally advertise their status. This should never be used as an argument against protecting gay people.

Also, you should be aware of the long, and disgusting history of comparing gay people to pedophiles by people advocating against rights like ability to marry, and before that even to exist in society. I really think if you want to advance this discussion you should find a comparison with less of a disgusting and homophobic history.

I do not think so. I agree, there is discrimination based on physical appearance. And I actually think it can be quite bad, and is something our society is currently not doing enough to combat. However, it has a distinctly different historical flavor than for blacks or gays. It isn't the same kind of category discrimination as faced them. I may be statistically less likely to hire a short person, but it isn't like my religion advocates that being short is an abombination, or that I believe being short makes you a lazy monkey. I see cleanly how to append sexual orientation onto the existing, successful, legal apparatus of enumerated protected classes, but not these.

You don't have to make the comparison, but you should acknowledge others' comparisons. I don't think that pedophiles should face workplace discrimination; do you?

I am not just stating this to prove a point or invalidate the discrimination faced by anyone else, I truly don't think anyone should be discriminated against for his sexual orientation, including that one.

By specifying particular groups in laws you are implying that other groups do not have the same rights. I once believe I did not get a job because I was a man, and the hiring employer thought that a woman would fit in better with the mostly female workplace. Do you think that was good / fair? I don't think men should be discriminated against for gender reasons either. Admittedly I am sure it happens less often than does the reverse, but that doesn't make it right or less deserving of protection.

Maybe I'm getting worn down by this whole thing, but obviously ****ing yes. Not only is it a thing we already do in reality, but it's a pretty important thing too.

Actually, this is better. Given the homophobic history of comparisons between homosexuality and pedophilia, and how disgustingly this has been used, any part of people's arguments that require comparison to this (or bestiality as the other) are henceforth going to be ignored.

For instance, feel free to continue comparing to nazis, as that gives us auto-wins due to godwin. But other than that, pick a spot say half way down the slippery slope.

I believe that enumeration of protective rights for certain groups does not particularly help members of those groups, but may harm members of other groups.

I doubt race and sexual preferences are close enough in people's minds that I would worry about rights being enumerated for blacks hurting homosexuals. But I do believe if the law only stated "there shall be no discrimination against African Americans", it would likely have the result of worsening discrimination against Hispanics, Asians, and Native Americans. Bigots always want a scapegoat, and if someone is not allowed to punish a particular person or group, they will look for someone else to punish.

I only mentioned pedophiles because they were already being discussed in this thread. If you have a better comparison, please suggest it. But I am not using it in that old, abhorrent way, saying both are depraved. I think both are unchosen, likely caused by a combination of genetics and upbringing, and neither orientation should be punished.

Then you're clearly an irrationally biased person. Do you really think anyone ever freely chose to become a pedophile? What benefit would that provide him?

There is a clear context behind the CRA, or efforts to include sexual orientation in enumerated protected classes. Namely, given widespread historical discrimination, these laws protected against that. The idea that protecting historically oppressed groups is actually implying that have MORE rights than "other" groups is a bit silly. "People who argue on internet forums" may be a "group" in some sense, but it isn't a group we do some great disservice to when we say you can't fire black people.

You just have a contradiction in your views. On the one hand, you claim these laws are ineffective and don't do anything. On the other hand, you argue about the implications and how they may encourage or justify discrimination against other groups. So which is it? Does these laws have significant effects on society or not? I'm with your second hand; when you don't legally protect LGBT people you DO encourage or justify discrimination - at least at some level - against this historically oppressed group. And that we don't need to worry about some sort of epistemological consistency over every type of "group" of people to make a pragmatic step forward extending the current legal regime by an extra item in the enumerated list of protected classes.



OK. If you faced employment discrimination based on your gender, that is protected by the US federal government and the majority of state governments. So nobody is saying you are less deserving of protection.