> The concept of "protected classes" illustrate the difference quite well between the European human right as an fundamental right which a person is inherently entitled to, and laws which prevents government from doing specific actions against specific group of people.
It’s meant to illustrate a difference between who you are and what ideas you have; jury is still out whether this works, but it seems reasonable to me. Ideas are protected from government by the first amendment separately. You are forbidden by the law, with limited exception, to treat someone differently because of their age, race or gender, but not the fact that they have insulted you. It seems absurd to extend the full force of legal protections to the latter to me.
At the end of the day, you need to enforce a positive human right, the law needs to change someone’s behavior. I don’t think that most Europeans or Americans agree that they have a right to offend their neighbor without their neighbor treating them differently, I think the rub is mostly in what specific ways they are to be prevented in treating them differently.
> In the US a demographic group is either on or not on the list of protected classes. In the EU the only group that exist is human and we are all on it.
It is not a protection of certain demographics in the US, it is a protection of certain attributes that you might use to define a demographic that are generally considered accidents of birth, plus religion.
> On a personal note, I find the very concept of people being born into a religion to be at odds with modern thinking.
It’s basically how it has always worked, people’s parents and culture is the main reason they stay in a religion, and it’s the reason it has been grandfathered in as a protected class in the US [conjecture on my part, I’m not a historian]. While this is changing, it’s changing very slowly and mostly in the direction of people becoming irreligious, definitely not converting to religions different from their birth in greater numbers, at least in the US. I could not find global numbers for this.
https://www.pewforum.org/2016/10/26/links-between-childhood-...
> It would be like people being born into a political side
It certainly seems likely to me that family upbringing for your first 18 years passes on political beliefs and culture for the many Americans.. but like you said we generally expect people to be able to change this, unlike the ability to change their race or gender. Somewhat less drastically, but equally seen as important to a person’s core at the time these laws were written, American laws don’t expect people to change their religion.
It may look absurd but lets take a couple of example. A person is on the street and talking about killing unbelievers. Should it matter if the speaker believes are from a system that the government has on a list of protected class, or is the single critical fact from a legal perspective that the speaker is encouraging violence?
Let take a second example. A store employee is insulting a customer by calling them a penniless rat. Should such insult be treated different from the employer then if they used a racial insult? From an employment law perspective, is the fact that the customer belong to a specific demographic that the government has listed as protected mean more than the simple fact that a customer was insulted by the employee and the store was negatively impacted?
I think the practical result in EU has been mostly similar to those in the US, except for corner cases. Dress code rules are enforced equally for those who want to wear a religious symbol or a political one. Taking a break during work hours for religious purpose is treated the same as taking a break for coffee.
Can you think of an example where in a religious context some action should be legal but in a political context should not?
> A person is on the street and talking about killing unbelievers. Should it matter if the speaker believes are from a system that the government has on a list of protected class, or is the single critical fact from a legal perspective that the speaker is encouraging violence?
No of course not, and both American and European law handle this case in my understanding. Inciting violence isn’t “cancel culture”.
> Let take a second example. A store employee is insulting a customer by calling them a penniless rat. Should such insult be treated different from the employer then if they used a racial insult?
Yes, absolutely. Again, it isn’t the demographic that makes the difference, it’s the attribute used to define the demographic. There are a few attributes that the American government has decided are worth intervening by force to stop.
In this case, The shop keep can condescend to the potential customer, and that customer is free to tell everyone not to shop at their store as a result, which causes the damages and gives you a right to fire them. Sure. I mean, maybe as an American used to almost no labor protections I don’t understand the question :D
But in the case where the employee denied service on the base of race, a protected class, then you have a criminal issue in addition to the civil issue.
> Can you think of an example where in a religious context some action should be legal but in a political context should not?
It’s meant to illustrate a difference between who you are and what ideas you have; jury is still out whether this works, but it seems reasonable to me. Ideas are protected from government by the first amendment separately. You are forbidden by the law, with limited exception, to treat someone differently because of their age, race or gender, but not the fact that they have insulted you. It seems absurd to extend the full force of legal protections to the latter to me.
At the end of the day, you need to enforce a positive human right, the law needs to change someone’s behavior. I don’t think that most Europeans or Americans agree that they have a right to offend their neighbor without their neighbor treating them differently, I think the rub is mostly in what specific ways they are to be prevented in treating them differently.
> In the US a demographic group is either on or not on the list of protected classes. In the EU the only group that exist is human and we are all on it.
It is not a protection of certain demographics in the US, it is a protection of certain attributes that you might use to define a demographic that are generally considered accidents of birth, plus religion.
> On a personal note, I find the very concept of people being born into a religion to be at odds with modern thinking.
It’s basically how it has always worked, people’s parents and culture is the main reason they stay in a religion, and it’s the reason it has been grandfathered in as a protected class in the US [conjecture on my part, I’m not a historian]. While this is changing, it’s changing very slowly and mostly in the direction of people becoming irreligious, definitely not converting to religions different from their birth in greater numbers, at least in the US. I could not find global numbers for this. https://www.pewforum.org/2016/10/26/links-between-childhood-...
> It would be like people being born into a political side
I don’t believe it personally but I remember some studies that pointed to this from a genetic sense. https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/10/can-you...
It certainly seems likely to me that family upbringing for your first 18 years passes on political beliefs and culture for the many Americans.. but like you said we generally expect people to be able to change this, unlike the ability to change their race or gender. Somewhat less drastically, but equally seen as important to a person’s core at the time these laws were written, American laws don’t expect people to change their religion.