Originally Posted by AustinChief
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.
I'm not sure why you need more than a historical reason. I get that you think choice matters, but I don't think that makes any sense.
"[The democrat party] has become a left wing party, that's anti-American, and thatís racist." - David Horowitz