It isn't the edginess of the case that is relevant, it's the fact that you seem to believe it's ok for society to discriminate against some sexual orientations but not others. Historically, homosexuality was in the group of discriminated against sexual orientations, right? So why doesn't every sexual orientation deserve special protections? It isn't just pedophilia. It's the whole subset of immutable sexual desire, which includes some behaviors that are between consenting adults, such as incest.

But clearly there is. Imagine the level of discrimination that would be metered against someone who went to a job interview and admitted they have regular sex with their sibling. This situation is "two consenting adults that doesn't harm anyone", and they clearly suffer from societal non-acceptance of their behavior, so do they deserve special protection as well?

The quotes of what. You just quoted yourself in saying that some discrimination is justified. You don't just get to say something without justification. That's not an argument. Justify your position (or call me a disgusting homophobe, that's worked well so far).

The two things I asked you to cite.

Restating your strawman doesn't make it any less of a strawman. I do think it's highly interesting that you think laws should apply to 'wants' though. Is the desire to murder the same as murder?

Political stances are more often than not informed by beliefs, especially religious ones. When you claim someone's political stance is unacceptable, and that political stance is informed by their religious beliefs, then you are discriminating against someone's religious beliefs.

Aside from that, Nazism has all the facets of a religion. It has a god (Hitler), an original sin (genetic 'purity'), a sworn nemesis (Judaism), an eschatological goal (aryan utopia), a proper way of behavior, etc.

It's not as concise an analogy as others, but it's not as bad as your apple-pie strawman.

You just quoted yourself in saying that some discrimination is justified. I'm asking you to justify it. Or is the conversation over?

Are you advocating the CRA be expanded to prevent employment discrimination on the basis of attractiveness?

Basically I think your entire line of argument is bull****. The position you layed out ITT was that you want ZERO protections for any class of people at all. You think I can fire you for being black, religious, gay or whatever. So this whole "but but but what about short people" act - when you clearly would not support any laws for protecting short people - is just silly. As in, we could go down the rabbit whole of trying to put a dividing line between gay people and short people, but your position puts the line way off on the wrong side of race and gender, so why on earth bother equivocating the difference way over here.

FYI, as mentioned earlier, 1/4 LGB people mentioned workplace discrimination in the prior 5 years: https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.e...ty-and-health/

I absolutely never said this, or even implied it. I suppose the closest I came to that was saying that I thought current laws were meaningless because they accomplished nothing; maybe that is where your incorrect inference came from, but it's hardly the same thing. For that reason (it accomplishes little or nothing), I don't exactly advocate for attractiveness to be added to the list of protected classes.

I specifically stated that I thought that EVERYONE should be protected against unfair discrimination, and I certainly do not think anyone should be fired for any of those reasons you just mentioned.

While I'm not sure it would accomplish much, I would be ok with a law stating that any workplace discrimination for reasons other than actual job performance would be illegal.

And homophobic, and bigoted, and disgusting. Why?

Yet it's ok for you to put a dividing line between homosexuals and incestual couples? You're special pleading just as hard as Bladesman.

I imagine an even greater percentage of African Americans and women would report experiencing workplace discrimination in the prior 5 years, and they have "protection". Legal protection accomplishes very little, if anything at all.

No, you definitely implied laws that enumerated protections were bad, not just ineffective:
You can write platitudes about the pipe dream of"everyone" being protected, which might be lovely, but the world we live in is one where major classes have innumerated protections. Without radically turning over the western democratic order, we CAN make a simple, pragmatic improvement by including LGBT on the enumerated list as many countries have already done.

Note that this statement also - of course - immediately defeats your argument since you believe passing laws DOES have actual real world effects and justifies and encourages discrimination. Indeed! You just laughably dismiss that these laws could have any meaningful effect on justifying and encouraging discrimination on LGBT while furiously worrying about how big the effect is on other groups of people.

Ugh. Doordonot keeps quoting me and I keep accidentally reading his posts until I notice it was him. I told you I wasn't going to respond any more to you hundreds of posts ago. Doesn't look like anything has improved since then, so off to the ignore list you go.

Saying "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" is absolutely not the same as saying was that I "want ZERO protections for any class of people at all".

Stating that I don't like the current laws very much doesn't mean that I don't want anyone to have protection from discrimination. I want everyone to have protection. Yes, I worry a bit that naming some groups could hurt others while thinking that the laws do very little or nothing to help those groups. I don't find that to be a contradiction, sorry if you do.

If we're going to have laws on this, I think it would be better to have the law saying that everyone is protected, as I said above.

OK. It's a bit interesting. Others in this thread advocate not making any protections, that I can fire whoever i want for whatever reason, I can refuse to sell anyone public goods for whatever reason. You are claiming, however, that you would prefer to protect everyone, the completely opposite end of the spectrum. So despite both being the sort of ideological extremes, you guys share the view that extending the existing legal structures that are already in place to LGBT is something to be opposed, and both argue with me despite being so radically opposed to each other.

I think the other side actually makes more sense. To protect EVERYTHING from discrimination, even just you're conjectured can't fire anyone for anything but job performance would be an incredibly radical shift from modern society, and it isn't clear how this could even remotely function. So it is a very weird thing for someone to suggest particular one who seems to view that basically all of these laws have close to zero effect anyways. Just everything about your position doesn't make sense.

It just doesn't make any sense. If writing laws CAN have big meaningful effects on how people justify discrimination, why are you so convinced that the big meaningful effects are all on the people not protected, but that it is close to zero effect on the group the law actually protects? If you accept the premise that the way our laws are written will affect people's behaviour - which it appears you do - why then reject that it affects people's behaviour in positive ways?

I guess I think that bigots have a fixed amount of hatred and desire to discriminate. I think it's unlikely that the laws have much effect, but to the extent that they do, it is not too decrease discrimination but to shift it one from group to another.

These legal protections in the US stem from the Civil Rights Act, one of the US' most impactful legislations (if not the most impactful) in the 20th century, and certainly one of the most momentous acts in US history.

Legal protection accomplishes a lot. What you are demanding is perfection. Like saying that regulations for car safety is nonsense because people still get killed in traffic.

So says you. Unless you have traveled to an alternate history universe where the law was never passed, you can't know what the country would have now been like without it.

Ok, so me pointing to the actual historical impact of the civil rights act is "you don't know how an alternate universe would have panned out!" (paraphrased), but you ignoring history and actually basing your argument on how said alternate history would have panned out is is all dandy.

I'm speculating, just like you are. Neither of us can know, but I think the country would be pretty much the same if those laws were never passed.

While the laws still aren't in effect for homosexuals in some states, and all those laws are fairly new, I've never seen a business with a sign up saying "straights only". If the law for African Americans had not been passed, I don't think there would still be businesses with signs saying "whites only" either.

By the way, I've never seen a business for "men only" either, but I've seen quite a few for "women only". How the hell is that legal?

I quoted myself saying something different to what you accused me of saying. The other time I asked for a cite was because you'd also made something up.

Ok, so if there were any history of tangible legal discrimination, if I still saw groups around the world preaching the immorality of shortness, if I saw hate crimes against short people, if there were short advocacy groups telling me about all the horrendous things that happened to them because of their height, you could persuade me to legislate for them too.

Not sure why there are no groups for them, but the unattractive definitely face a lot of harassment.

Honestly I don't think it should matter what happens in other countries or even what happened here in the past. All that should matter is what needs to be fixed here and now.

And there is a problem that needs to fixed here and now. You've said you want to end discrimination for all people (which implies you think there is discrimination).

I don't see the problem in making steps to end some of it even if we can't end all of it.

I'm not speculating, I'm explicitly referring to the impact of the legislation and how it was used to change society over the years. You are the one claiming insider knowledge of alternate timelines.

You're argumentation is getting increasingly obtuse. You're now down to "we have no way of knowing if legislation works, therefore you can't disprove what I say". I realize that this a religion forum and that "god of the gaps" is a thing, but we can generally reserve that for discussions about the supernatural and spiritual.

As for your views, I find them extremely naive. Legislation is one of the most powerful tools for shaping society and culture, and a laissez-faire approach to upholding citizen rights is just... bad.

OK, Mea Culpa. You obviously know everything and will settle for nothing less than such an admission. It is now clear to me that without previous legislation, African Americans would still be sitting in the back of the bus, and women wouldn't be allowed in most workplaces. And I would be a racist, chauvinist bigot, instead of the non-prejudiced person I currently am. Bow down to the almighty Civil Rights Act that caused such miracles. And all praise the forthcoming act which will cause 100% of the people to embrace their LGBT neighbors and wave the rainbow flag!