Why the Anti-Discrimination Law is Not as Ideal as You Think

These days, anti-discrimination laws or non-discrimination laws have become a very hot issue. In the US, including California, some states are already putting these laws into action. These laws have received not only applause but also criticism from many people. For instance, even though some central US states have passed the new law, many parents of students oppose it, which has limited its impact on society. 

So, what is the anti-discrimination law? Anti-discrimination refers to the act of opposing or preventing unfair treatment of people based on their race, gender, sexuality, disability, or other factors. These ideals are considered progressive, as the law reinforces people’s rights to protect them from discrimination based on personal traits that deviate from societal norms. This includes sexual identity, which refers to how individuals label themselves as sexual beings, and sexual orientation, which describes their sexual preference—whether for the same sex, the opposite sex, or both. LGBTQ, which stands for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (or questioning), is the term used to describe various sexual orientations and gender identities. 

A recent conversation between Khiara Bridges (a law professor from UC Berkeley) and Josh Hawley (a United States Senator from Missouri) became a hot topic. Khiara Bridges asked Josh Hawley if men can be pregnant, and Josh Hawley responded that he believes pregnancy is a capability exclusive to women. Hearing this, Khiara Bridges emphasized that pregnancy is not only for females, explaining that transgender men can also have the capacity for pregnancy. Additionally, Khiara Bridges called Josh Hawley “transphobic” due to his allegedly biased line of questioning.

Isn’t this law a great way to care for minorities compared to the majority? Well, it is not without flaws. In fact, there are some concerns. 

To begin with, giving too much power or respect to minorities can challenge the principles of democracy, where decision-making is based on majority votes. Majority rule prioritizes the option with the most votes, which is generally perceived as one of the most sensible and reasonable methods of decision-making in real life. The rationale is that the more people agree, the more likely the conclusion will be fair. 

Most crucially, the biggest problem with anti-discrimination laws is that many people do not fully understand them. These “good-looking” laws attract people because the idea of treating everyone equally seems flawless and progressive. This leads people to focus solely on the positive aspects of anti-discrimination laws. However, it is important to highlight that behind the idealistic and abstract phrases like “banning discrimination,” significant social problems may be hidden. Approving a law without thoroughly considering its detailed impacts could pose risks to society as a whole. 

For these reasons, some people are against anti-discrimination laws, and their concerns should be taken into consideration. 

Even though South Korea has not yet passed the rising anti-discrimination law, the Democratic Party is trying to enact it. Many people are concerned that South Korea may eventually ratify the anti-discrimination law, despite these ongoing debates.

An image from https://www.kaltmanlaw.com/post/what-is-federal-anti-discrimination-law

Work Cited 

Law professor Khiara Bridges calls Sen. Josh Hawley’s questions about pregnancy ‘transphobic’ https://www.nbcnews.com/nbc-out/out-politics-and-policy/law-professor-khiara-bridges-calls -sen-josh-hawleys-questions-pregnanc-rcna38015

By. Jeonghwa Oh