How many special interest groups need protection?

[Texashiker]

How many laws do we need? And couldn't most of this be fixed through civil rights laws protecting the whole, rather than targeting a small minority?

http://www.advocate.com/politics/2013/11/07/breaking-senate-approves-enda-initial-vote

For the first time in U.S. history, the Senate approved the Employment Non-Discrimination Act by a bipartisan vote of 64-32, sending the legislation to the House of Representatives.

I can see protecting a group from discrimination. But how many groups deserve their own laws?

Rather than passing a special law to protect gay/bi/transsexual, couldn't the civil rights laws of the 1960s be edited to add gay/bi/transsexual?

Do the irish need their own laws?
Do the scottish need their own laws?
Do redheads need their own laws?
Do jews, muslims, hindus,,,, need their own laws?

Of course not, because laws should serve the community as a whole, rather than a small segment.

 

[IronWing]

Auto dealers got their own laws. Chicken ranchers could have their own laws. Just ask.

 

[xBiffx]

How many laws do we need?
.
.
.
Of course not, because laws should serve the community as a whole, rather than a small segment.

Wish there were laws requiring certain labels on food. :whiste:

 

[DominionSeraph]

Do the irish need their own laws?
Do the scottish need their own laws?
Do redheads need their own laws?
Do jews, muslims, hindus,,,, need their own laws?

Of course not,

The idiot doesn't know we have laws against discrimination based on ethnicity, national origin, and religion.

 

[Incorruptible]

This is just idiotic. The government has no right to get involved with this and it's not even a real problem. Government once again getting involved where it's not necessary.

 

[Texashiker]

The idiot doesn't know we have laws against discrimination based on ethnicity, national origin, and religion.

Those laws protect a wide range of people.

Do jews have their own laws? No they do not. The law that protects them is covered by religion.

Rather than passing a new law to cover gay/bi/transexual, why not edit the civil rights act of 1968 (or any other civil rights act) and add gay/bi/transexual to the list?

 

[BurnItDwn]

Probably easier to get something to pass a vote if it's a new law rather than editing an old/existing law ?

 

[Paratus]

From P&N I believe the answer is only one: white males.

 

[ElMonoDelMar]

Why does it matter if they write a completely new law vs. passing a law to amend an older one?

 

[IronWing]

Rather than passing a new law to cover gay/bi/transexual, why not edit the civil rights act of 1968 (or any other civil rights act) and add gay/bi/transexual to the list?

That is essentially what the bill does. To amend an old law, they have to pass a new law.

Text of bill as of Sept 12th.

Edit: The protections for gay/bi/transexual folks are actually weaker than that afforded to the groups listed in the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Yes, bald men need special protections........hats or sun screen.

 

[DominionSeraph]

Those laws protect a wide range of people.

And sexual orientation does not? That covers, you know, everyone.