Just because something isn't a legally protect group, doesn't mean discriminating against that group is acceptable.
But law is only about power. It has little relation to morality.
In law, for private parties, that is expressly the case. Absent protected classes people could, and with them they still can outside of them, differentiate treatment on any basis they choose.
For government action under US Constitutional law, it's expressly not the case, but discrimination on other bases has a lower threshold for Constitutional acceptability (rational basis vs. strict/intermediate scrutiny.)
(Essentially every non-random decision affecting treatment of people discriminates on some basis.)
I must say, I'm surprised to see you defending prejudice. From what I've read of your posts here over the years, I thought you were against such things.
Kind of an odd example to use to defend that “protected classes make people think other discrimination is acceptable” argument, since protected classes didn't exist then and people thought that discrimination was perfectly acceptable.
> I must say, I'm surprised to see you defending prejudice.
I must say, I’m surprised you think I am defending prejudice.
You are literally arguing in favor of the idea that "it's ok to discriminate against anyone who isn't protected".
Prejudice is still prejudice even if the particular characteristic on which that prejudice is based isn't protected (yet...).
> Kind of an odd example to use to defend ...
I'm not using that example to defend my statement, I'm using it to discredit the idea that the law can be used as a basis or guide for morality.
Edit to add: Feel free to have the last word. I can't respond at the moment because I'm "posting too fast", even though I'm posting less often than some others here...
I will say simply that the point is to oppose discrimination against a marginalized group. I don't understand your confusion about that.
I'm curious about your proposal for curbing discrimination.
No, I’m literally not.
In fact, I’m pointing out that even in law (in the US Constitutional system) it is expressly not unconditionally the case for government, as all government discrimination must pass the rational basis test.
For private parties, discrimination is presumptively legal (aside from protected classes applicable to certain private activities), because (at least, this is one way of looking at it) there is no limited set of “proper purposes” private individuals may pursue, therefore the private equivalent of the rational basis test would be a nullity. It can’t all be improper, because pretty much all substantive decision-making involves some form of discrimination. Choosing to buy Coke vs. Pepsi is private discrimination on some basis. As to when particular legal private discrimination is proper, people will have all sorts of opinions. When there is sufficient consensus that a particular kind of discrimination is sufficiently bad in a particular domain to warrant public intervention (ideally, in democratic principal, though of course real government doesn’t necessarily quite follow the ideal), it will become a protected class.
Is “lookism”, but for when attractiveness is a bona fide job qualification, something that should be treated as a basis protected against discrimination in hiring? Maybe, maybe not.
Should we go farther, and establish that in private industry, as is the case in much government employment, we go beyond the concept of protected classes (without also protecting those) and create a legal requirement that hiring and promotion, etc., is done strictly on bases grounded in documented job requirements and duties, with a legal right to challenge and overturn any such decision for failing that even if no protected class discrimination is involved?
Or, perhaps, falling short of a legal mandate, should we expect private employers to adopt that as their own rule, with a private (but suitably independent of management) appeal forum?
Or is the point just to grouse about “discrimination”?
Alan Turing was chemically castrated for being gay. Society finding you conventionally unattractive and thus passing you over for a promotion at work isn't exactly the same thing. People are discriminated against for lots of reasons, many subconscious, but protected categories didn't emerge from a vacuum. The reason being queer is protected whereas being short or ugly isn't has nothing to do with queer people having more power in government (lol) but because there was a history of actual violence, much of which was state-sanctioned, against queer people.
Then again being in a protected category has never really helped me avoid discrimination; having enough money to afford competent legal representation did. I wonder how many Americans can afford that when the majority can't make a $500 emergency expense. I'd argue the poor are the most clearly discriminated against group in our society and clearly there's a history of direct and indirect violence against them on that basis alone, but capitalism requires their existence and so they're invisible to our judicial system.
As for the first part of your comment, I'd just like to ask: what is up with disadvantaged groups fighting one another about who's more disadvantaged?
I do agree about poverty; that's a big disadvantage and is often itself the foundation of another prejudice. That's another group that the law fails to protect.
If I’m hiring for a programming opening, the entire (and proper) purpose of interviewing is to discriminate against people who can’t or won’t be effective programmers.
Being “not an effective programmer” is not a protected class and discriminating against them is fine when hiring programmers.
“But, but, but that’s not discrimination!” Yes, it most certainly is in the “recognition and understanding of the difference between one thing and another” sense, and is very likely what GP meant when they wrote:
> Essentially every non-random decision affecting treatment of people discriminates on some basis.
I think that's a strawman, but a useful one. It helps to establish the bounds of reasonable judgement in hiring. I think most people will agree that "can't or won't do the job" is reasonable.
Why add such an example here? No one has claimed that discriminating among multiple candidates is never okay.
I'm simply challenging the idea that the law is a useful guide as to whether discrimination is ok.
I like a phrase you used. Decisions should be based on "judgment (not pre-judgment)".
Good luck suing a potential employer because you were discriminated against outside of some protected class.
It definitely is okay to discriminate over personal attributes, character and previous experiences, and employ the person who you want to work for you - which is not necessarily the same as the person 'most deserving of a job'. Freedom of association is an important right, people should be free to choose whom to deal with, and imposing restrictions on it (like the protected groups) is morally justified as an exception only if required by important reasons, for example, preventing the social harm done by racial discrimination in employment; in the default condition people should be free to refuse to associate with anyone simply because they don't want to.
That reason is the same for any marginalized group: "preventing the social harm done by X discrimination".
Why not simplify the statement and say "preventing the social harm done by discrimination"?
Accepting discrimination against some people is inherently a hateful position.
If nobody in the village wants to work with Bob because he's an asshole, they should be able to discriminate against Bob (and other assholes) as the social harm of Bob being unemployed and unemployable does not justify the social harm caused by the state coercing people to work with Bob, violating their freedom to choose. It would be harmful (and IMHO immoral) to prohibit discrimination against assholes. Freedom of association - and the freedom of not-associating it implies - is not inherently hateful, it is one of fundamental human rights that should be curtailed only if other alternatives aren't feasible - merely having some reason or some harm prevented is not necessarily enough.
But I see your point.
And I'm not arguing that no one should ever be allowed to discriminate for any reason. I'm simply flipping the script: instead of the default position being that discrimination is acceptable, discrimination should require justification.
Someone might be willing to publicly say "we don't hire assholes" and defend it. Go for it. It would be much harder to say "we don't hire short people" or "we don't hire dalits" and defend that.
For private action, it literally does mean that it is legally acceptable.
What people find acceptable other than legally is subjective and will have infinite differences of opinion.
I don't believe the parent poster was implying it wasn't legally acceptable. They were making a value statement.