According to this site of legal articles, there is a list of groups that are protected classes under the U.S. government. According to our government, it is illegal to discriminate on the basis of age, pregnancy, national origin, race, ethnic background, religion, or sexual orientation. These are what the government recognizes as "protected classes". The protection is against discrimination. Anti-discrimination laws only regard unequal or unfair treatment as unlawful discrimination when the victim is a member of a defined group known as a protected class.
Now, sometimes the whole concept makes no sense at all. The EEOC, for instance, tells us that "a help-wanted ad that seeks 'females' or 'recent college graduates' may discourage men and people over 40 from applying and may violate the law." So a strip club looking to hire women would violate the anti-discrimination laws, a company aiming to assist college graduates would be guilty of discrimination, and a health club that sought male janitors for the men's locker room could be in deep trouble. But let's not go there. There is an earlier problem here.
Now, consider. What we're talking about is protected classes. In order to be in a protected class, you have to be classified. There are categories, groups, collections that share something in common and are, therefore, defined. So, in order to be in a protected class of "race", you must be part of a "race". That would be testable, verifiable, demonstrable. If "Asian" is a protected class, you could demonstrate that you were of "Asian" descent and be in that class, and if you couldn't, you would be outside that protection. Easy.
At least, one would think so. And in most cases it would be. But now we have this protected class that is based on "sexual orientation". In order to be in this protected class, you have to be classified in some sort of "sexual orientation" or another. Here's the problem -- no one is quite sure how to do that.
We used to be told that sexual orientation was either "heterosexual" or "homosexual". Then they threw in "bisexual" and we lost binary points. No longer were you "either/or". From there it changed to a spread of notions like "mostly heterosexual" or "somewhat homosexual" (no one used these terms, but they suggested the ideas) and we ended up with a line. It became a continuum. Everyone fell somewhere on this line, where you could be completely attracted sexually to the opposite sex on one end of the line, completely attracted sexually to the same sex on the other end of the line, equally attracted sexually to both sexes in the middle, and whole shades of variations between. "No one," they assured us (when they weren't arguing over the whole "born with it" thing or contending for rights they felt they deserved), "falls on a single point. We're all variables." Worse, we're all changeable variables. So we have the guy who decided late in life that he was actually a woman and made that change, only to discover a few months later that he was not, and changed back. We have notable folk who came out as lesbians (for instance) in same-sex relationships only to break up and go back to heterosexual relationships. Or the actress who decided to be homosexual because she thought it would be easier.
But wait! From there it only gets worse! Now they've assured us that it isn't a line. No, it's more of a circle, perhaps. There are more categories. You might be a heterosexual and asexual -- attracted only to the opposite gender but not actually attracted to any. Or you might be an avid homosexual -- attracted only to the same sex without any letting up. And shades in between. And varying with the moment. What a mess!
This, they tell us, is included in the category of "protected class". Your sexual orientation is undefinable, irregular, malleable, and mutable, and it will be regarded as a "class" even though it can't be pinned down.
Age discrimination is defined -- people who are age 40 or older. Disablities are defined by the Americans with Disabilities Act. Race or ethnicity are easy to figure out in terms of classification (such as hair texture, skin color, or certain facial features). You can define "pregnancy". You are either in or not in a particular religion. But sexual orientation doesn't enjoy this kind of simplified definition. It is varied, variable, multifaceted, and undetermined. And this group falls under "protected classes". I suppose it's indicative of the culture in which we live. Common sense is no longer common. Words are no longer defined. Reality is defined by how we feel. And none of this is making any sense at all.
2 comments:
The more muddied they make the line (or circle), the less able to determine who is a victim of discrimination. There really can be no victim as the one victimizing may only be acting within the parameters of his protected class and for the "victim" to deny him makes changes the roles of who is truly the victim. This might actually work to eliminate this whole nonsense about protected classes, at least as regards "orientation". I'm beginning to like it. Ah, progressives! Count on them to shoot themselves in the foot every time. (Just don't go near them when they're shooting!)
You would think they'd be less able to determine who is a victim, but it seems they're pretty certain they are ... whoever they might be.
Post a Comment