[pessimizer]

That's a very common rubric, but also a very offensive one. The reason we should consider those protected classes (under particular circumstances) is because we have judged discrimination against them in areas of employment and housing to be both irrational and damaging (because limits on employment and housing are damaging.)

It's not because it's morally wrong to punish someone for being bad if they can't help being bad. That's why we allow people to plead not guilty for reason of insanity. People in protected classes aren't bad.

edit: this is the kind of thinking that leads people to desperately look for gay genes - because otherwise, they wouldn't be able to justify laws barring discrimination against gay people.

I relate it to modern child-worship: the belief that babies are born purely. without stain, and are thereby most deserving of life and happiness; but from the first moment of life the decisions that they make cover their souls with filth, gradually making them less deserving of life and happiness. Therefore, by applying this extreme Protestant reasoning to modern science, the things in your genes can't be judged because they were placed there by God. If you die because your sin literally turns your lungs black and diseased, the most important thing to do is condemn your corpse so no babies will follow your example.

[otterley]

As a society we've largely dealt with the latter problem by deeming children less capable of making rational decisions, and therefore holding them to a different, lower level of responsibility for them. This can be observed particularly in how we punish them differently than we do adults for their misdeeds.