Originally Posted by patteeu
People are born with red hair, but hair color is not a protected class. People are born with unattractive features, but ugly isn't a protected class. I'm not sure I understand why you think being born in a particular way is the most important aspect for suspect class status. Religious freedom is a bedrock ideal upon which our country was founded.
Furthermore, I would argue that much like homosexuality, people who are true believers don't feel like they have a choice about their religion even if it isn't actually determined at birth.
You gonna set up straw men for me to knock down? Awful nice of you!
If we are to have protected statuses at all (and that ship has sailed) than I think we need a logical and CONSISTENT basis for it.
It seems that the easiest way to do this is separate out what is a CHOICE and what is an inherent trait as your FIRST criteria. Then you need to look at historical bias based on that trait. If soulless gingers showed a history of oppression then I would argue that they qualify just as much as race or skin color does. Same for any other inherent trait. Gays certainly qualify on both counts.
Religion has an historic basis for being protected but that is IT. It has no logical foundation other than the LABEL of religion that separates it from neo-nazism or klan membership.
Explain to me (other than some weak "historical" nonsense) why if I walk into a dry cleaner wearing Klan regalia asking for them to clean my sheets they can refuse me service but if I walk in wearing a yarmulke they can not? (and for the sake of this argument let's pretend Judaism is only a religion and not also an ethnic group)
I'm by no means a supporter of the Klan but there are plenty of "religions" that can be damn near offensive in their CHOSEN views.