I got into an impromptu debate on Facebook:
"I say to my friends who are minorities, women, immigrants, Muslims, LGBTQ and to the unborn who are frightened right now, know that many, many followers of Christ, including me, will be there to keep Trump accountable, to fight for justice and equal protection under the law for EVERYONE."
Since Trump is pro-LGBT to begin with, it's not as if his election imperils them. I'd add that the threat isn't to Muslim-Americans (or Muslim foreign nationals) or LGBT representatives, but from them.
"So all Muslims living here are the danger? I see you wrote "to Muslim-Americans". This seems a patently unbiblical approach. Christians are not the majority so tightening or eliminating religious freedom now seems a poor choice also."
Not what I said, but since you asked, most Muslims aren't terrorists, but most terrorists are Muslims. Consider how many jihadist attacks we've had on the home soil under Obama's watch.
"You actually said the threat wasn't to but was from Muslim-Americans, right? And what threat can I expect specifically from 'lgbt representatives'?"
The threat coming from lgbt representatives in terms of laws and policies that fine Christian businesses, that punish students who don't use transgender pronouns, that require battered women's shelters to admit biological men who self-identify as women, that require unisex restrooms and locker rooms, that authorize termination of employment if an employee dissents from the lgbt agenda, &c.
"To decide an entire section of society should be treated as a threat based on their race (you say Muslim but I wonder if this doesn't also apply to immigrants from Muslim countries?"
What race do you think Muslims belong to?
I'd add that although people are normally entitled to equal protection under the law, when the law itself is discriminatory (e.g. "hate crimes," protected classes), then you don't have equal protection under the law.
"In what way are you not protected, specifically? I'm curious about this because I do have some knowledge of the law. Also, if you disagree with protected classes (race- including your race, gender- including your gender, age- like yours) do you think there has ever been a point in history when they were a justifiable solution?"
There's an elementary difference between striking down discriminatory laws (e.g. Jim Crow) and simply replacing them with a different kind of discriminatory laws. How about just plain equal protection under the law?
"I am not seeing how spelling out protections takes them away from anyone (sexual orientation aside)."
Tell that to Asian applicants to Ivy League colleges who are refused admission, even when they are academically superior to applicants belonging to protected classes.
"Affirmative action and protected classes are not the same thing."
Try explaining the relevance and justice of that hairsplitting distinction to Asian college applicants.
I'm struck by your selective concern for some groups at the expense of others.
These categories create in-groups and out-groups. The "race" category is pitted against other categories. You end up with competing categories.
Why this pressing need to classify people in the first place? Why create a political taxonomy? Other than criminals, why indulge in all these categories and subcategories?
You fail to draw a distinction between racially discriminatory laws and anti-discrimination laws. There's a third alternative: freedom in the private sector. If I Jewish deli owner refuses to serve a skinhead, he ought to have the legal freedom to do so.
There's a difference between what people ought to do and what people ought to be free to do.
Keep in mind that many "private colleges" receive various forms of gov't assistance. So in that respect, it's intolerable when, say, Harvard discriminates against Asian applicants.
"I strongly disagree. This is how we end up with colored and white drinking fountains- because people were told to treat everyone as equal but were free not to do so."
You blew right past the fundamental distinction between mandatory discrimination and voluntary discrimination. There are tradeoffs for living in a free and open society.
You persistently ignore the distinction between gov't mandated discrimination and voluntary discrimination. For instance, most black churches employ black pastors. Most Asian churches employ Asian pastors. Should that be illegal?
Do you think public school students should be disciplined if they refuse to use transgender nouns and pronouns?
Do you think shelters for battered women should be required to admit biological men who self-identify as women?
Do you think CPS should revoke the custody of parents who raise biological boys as boys and biological girls as girls?
What's your position on the well-documented fact that Muslims in Europe have imported a rape culture into the host countries? Should immigration policy be revised to screen that out?
"It's telling to me that you refuse to answer anything about race, preferring to deflect with emotionally compelling unrelated stories."
i) To the contrary, i've been directly responding to your questions about race.
ii) You weren't just asking about race as a protected class. You also asked about Muslims and LGBT representatives. You asked me about the threat posed by LGBT representatives. Forcing women's shelters to open their doors to "transgender women" is a case in point. And you think it's just "emotional" to express concern about putting battered women at additional risk of physical harm from abusive men?
You asked me about the threat posed by Muslims. Importing a rape-culture into host countries is a case in point. And you think it's just "emotional" to express concern about putting women at heightened risk of sexual assault from a misogynistic culture? That's just a "wall of feels"?
Likewise, the logic of transgenderism is that it's transphobic to raise biological boys as boys and biological girls as girls. That prejudges their gender; parental imposition of gender rather than letting the kids self-identify and transition (if need be). If that logic becomes public policy, children will be removed from the custody of parents who raised them according to their biological sex.
iii) You compartmentalized race and affirmative action as if these occupy separate airtight containers, but they overlap. The fact that "race" is a protected class doesn't mean whites or Asians are protected from racial discrimination. That was originally about nondiscrimination against blacks, not whites.
iiv) There's a pecking order in identity politics. Some races are more equal than others. Some protected classes are more equal than others. Take the black Atlanta fire chief who was canned because he wrote a book with one paragraph extolling heterosexual marriage. Blacks are lower in the hierarchy of protected classes than LGBT people.
"Our immigration policy is tighter."
In reference to what?