Understanding Discrimination: Where Cruel Choices End

Discrimination, a term that carries profound weight in our society, can be a complex and nuanced issue. It often involves distinguishing between two fundamental types: discrimination based on immutable traits and that based on actions. Let’s explore these concepts to better understand the moral and ethical dilemmas we face.

The Spectrum of Discrimination

One form of discrimination involves choosing someone or something based on characteristics that are inherent and unchangeable—traits like race, ethnicity, or sexual orientation. In many societies, such discrimination is not only unethical but also illegal, as it violates the principles of equality and fairness. For example, refusing service to a person based on their sexual orientation is a clear violation of their rights and an act of discrimination.

Another form of discrimination is based on actions or choices that a person can change. Decisions like whether to hide their sexual orientation or actions like forwarding an abusive tweet do not define core identity but reflect on individual choices. It is important to recognize that while choices can be corrected, the resulting discrimination based on those choices does not align with the same ethical standards.

Historical and Modern Context

Let’s look at a specific historical event that highlights this distinction. During Joe Biden’s tenure as Vice President, a bakery refused service. At first glance, this act might be seen as discriminatory based on a choice (homosexuality). However, it is crucial to remember that the entire issue of refusing service was initially championed by religious and conservative groups, ultimately supported by the Supreme Court. This background is important to understand the broader context of modern discrimination issues.

A Personal Perspective on Bias and Morality

As a gay individual, I understand firsthand how being discriminated against for something inherent to who you are can be deeply hurtful. Conversely, I can also see the rationality behind avoiding discrimination based on choices, such as independence or behavior. For instance, smiling at someone while secretly plotting harm is an example of a double standard.

Rudeness and cruelty, such as placing an unsuspecting woman in a marriage devoid of affection just to pressure someone into baking a cake, are unjust. Reflecting on the perspective of others can often clarify ethical boundaries. For example, if someone is forced into an unwanted marriage for the sake of obtaining a cake, that is a clear violation of consent and should be against the law.

Legal and Personal Implications

Legal frameworks often delineate certain categories as protected classes, such as race, gender, religion, and sexual orientation. Discrimination based on these characteristics is illegal in many places. For instance, refusing service to someone based on their sexual orientation would be illegal in most states in the US.

However, actions that are not immutable, such as being rude or disrespectful, also carry personal and professional repercussions. Sarah Sanders, a White House spokesman, was not terminated for gender or weight but for her behavior. This incident underscores the fact that integrity and ethics in behavior are crucial.

Self-pity and a heightened sense of persecution do not mitigate the consequences of one’s actions. Morality and ethical conduct must be upheld, regardless of whether the person believes they deserve to be treated specially.

Conclusion

Discrimination, whether based on immutable traits or actions, carries significant moral implications. While we should be vigilant and fight against discrimination based on inherent traits, we must also recognize the importance of behavior and choices in shaping our interactions with others.