🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <4jtkbl$j0k@nyx10.cs.du.edu>, pciszek@nyx10.cs.du.edu (Paul Ciszek) writes:
>>In article <mj3XxQ9ytxPH089yn@csn.net>, Thad Smith <ThadSmith@acm.org> wrote:
>>>Let's put this in perspective.  Amendment 2 prohibits passage of laws
>>>which establishes sexual preference as a protected class with regard
>>>to discrimination for employment, and probably other social
>>>interactions such as housing (I can't remember the details now).  That
>>>means simply that cities, such as Boulder, cannot give special
>>>consideration to sexual orientation in terms of enforcement.
>
>Is being a member of a protected class a constitutional right?
>
>Should constitutional rights be contingent on race, gender, sexual
>orientation, etc.?
>
>I ask this because I am denied membership in any protected class
>because of my race, gender, and so forth.  (I am male, caucasian,
>and hetero.)
>
>SO:  Either being a member of a protected class is NOT a constitutional
>     right, or I am being denied a constitutional right because of my
>     race, gender and sexual orientation.
>
>Which is it, folks?

So, as a male, you can't be protected because of your gender? That would
be news to the eight *men* who sued Jenny Craig for discrimination,
because they were denied the chance for advancement on the grounds of
*gender*. 

Being white is not a barrier to claims of discrimination on the basis
of race. It just doesn't happen very often that someone who would be
in a position to discriminate is anti-white.

And in jurisdictions which provide protection on the basis of sexual
orientation, heterosexuals are also protected. There's even been the
odd case on those grounds, involving straight employees at gay bars.
But once again, it isn't that common for anti-straight discrimination
to occur.