Protected classes of people are always discrimination

Protected Class

Affirmative Action

Reverse Discrimination

The act of giving some people rights that other people don't have.

The term "protected class", as far as I can tell, first came into legal existence in some legislation that was passed by Congress and signed by President Johnson.

Lyndon Baines Johnson was President Kennedy's Vice-President, and when President Kennedy was assassinated in 1963, Vice-President Johnson automatically became the new President.

Link to his biography on the website of the Biography Channel.

This photo shows him being sworn-in as President aboard the same airplane that carried John Kennedy's body from Dallas to Washington.  John Kennedy's widow, Jacqueline Kennedy, stood next to him in this photo.

Link to this law, called The Civil Rights Act of 1964, on the website of a U.S. Government agency called The National Archives.

Link to part of this law, Title 7, on the website of a U.S. Government agency called the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, formerly called the Commission on Civil Rights.

This law, especially this part of the law, created a special legal status for a few groups of people.  They were given some rights that other people do not have, including a special legal status if any members of these groups file lawsuits against schools, businesses, private clubs, and other organizations.

Anyone can file a lawsuit against a business.  This happens every week in some part of the country, but if someone who files a lawsuit, called a plaintiff, is a member of any of these protected classes of people, and if any of these plaintiffs are:

• not hired,
• not promoted,
• fired, or
• segregated in a way that would limit their employment opportunities

... then they receive special treatment in their lawsuit.

These words were copied verbatim from the part of the web page of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission that discusses "unlawful employer practices".  The link to this web page has already been provided.

It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer -

1. to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin; or


2. to limit, segregate, or classify his employees or applicants for employment in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.

There are similar "unlawful practices" for employment agencies, labor organizations, training programs, and "Businesses or enterprises with personnel qualified on basis of religion, sex, or national origin; educational institutions with personnel of particular religion", according to their web page.

This is the list of the protected classes of people who have been given special protection by this 1964 law.

• race
• color
• religion
• sex
• national origin

In other words, if you can show the judge who is deciding the merits of your lawsuit against a school, a business, a labor union, etc. that you are a member of any of these protected classes of people, then you will receive a special status that is not shared by anyone who is not a member of any of those protected classes.

In other words, these classes of people are legally allowed to discriminate against other classes of people because the protected classes have rights and the non-protected classes don't.

This is wrong, for many reasons.

One reason is because race is a concept that contradicts itself no matter how the word is defined.  Any person who defines the word will see his definition become useless as soon as people of two different races begin marrying each other and having children.

Link to my June 2012 essay The End of Racism, which proves that every definition of the word "race" contradicts itself.

Another reason is because the nationalities of a person's ancestors is often difficult or impossible to determine with enough authenticity to withstand a legal challenge in an American court.

It doesn't really matter how you define the groups of people who have been given that special status by the 1964 law.  What matters is the simple fact that it creates two classes of people.  Those who have this special status and those who don't.

This is wrong.

I started writing an essay yesterday about a law, passed in different forms by different states, called the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.  Today is Easter, and I will not spoil my good mood by working on that essay today, but I will write some more tomorrow, and I hope to publish that essay later this week.