Taken literally, its a referential term - "protected class" means a class protected by something (in usa typically a statute).
If they don't define the term, then surely they mean the american context - if not, who is protecting the class?
> If it said 'murder' or 'jaywalking' we wouldn't pick a country that uses those terms to interpret them in its legal sense, we'd just understand the broad sense of what they are anywhere
The difference is that these terms have widely agreed upon meanings. I know what jaywalking means regardless of country.
If i use the term protected class generically, who is included? Are we including the following groups:
- vetrens of us armed forces
- vetrens of non-usa armed forces
- political beliefs
- sexual orientation
- criminal conviction
If used generically, its impossible to know - some juridsictions say yes, some say no, in different contexts.
If the CoC was just using the term in an abstract way - to represent the abstract idea of a protected class, that would be fine. However they are not. They are using the term concretely. To understand the CoC you have to know the exact list of protected classes (or at least be able to identify if a specific trait creates membership or not).
Although i think this term is needlessly american, ultimately i'd be fine with it if they defined it. Not defining a term used almost exclusively in the usa kind of implies they mean it in its american sense.
> Again, that's not what it is. The legal protection is against discrimination based on your <something> such as race or ethnicity. No matter whether the particular value in your case is held by the majority or a minority of people.
I should of said marginalized instead of minority perhaps. Although it varries depending on context, and region, affirmative action is often not considered to be in violation of these policies. So its more complex than that.
If they don't define the term, then surely they mean the american context - if not, who is protecting the class?
> If it said 'murder' or 'jaywalking' we wouldn't pick a country that uses those terms to interpret them in its legal sense, we'd just understand the broad sense of what they are anywhere
The difference is that these terms have widely agreed upon meanings. I know what jaywalking means regardless of country.
If i use the term protected class generically, who is included? Are we including the following groups:
- vetrens of us armed forces
- vetrens of non-usa armed forces
- political beliefs
- sexual orientation
- criminal conviction
If used generically, its impossible to know - some juridsictions say yes, some say no, in different contexts.
If the CoC was just using the term in an abstract way - to represent the abstract idea of a protected class, that would be fine. However they are not. They are using the term concretely. To understand the CoC you have to know the exact list of protected classes (or at least be able to identify if a specific trait creates membership or not).
Although i think this term is needlessly american, ultimately i'd be fine with it if they defined it. Not defining a term used almost exclusively in the usa kind of implies they mean it in its american sense.
> Again, that's not what it is. The legal protection is against discrimination based on your <something> such as race or ethnicity. No matter whether the particular value in your case is held by the majority or a minority of people.
I should of said marginalized instead of minority perhaps. Although it varries depending on context, and region, affirmative action is often not considered to be in violation of these policies. So its more complex than that.