Using an arbitrary and subjective "pointlessness" exception, you can derive any conclusions you like. Just apply the general principle consistently as long as you like the conclusions, and otherwise proclaim that the "pointlessness" exception applies. And voila, you can bask in the glow of your high principles, which just happen to imply conclusions to your complete liking. (Of course, the general principle would produce absurd and impractical results if really applied consistently, so someone who subscribes to it has to operate with some such unprincipled exceptions.)

The distinction between "protected" and "non-protected" characteristics is of course similarly arbitrary and ultimately serves a similar purpose, though you don't have personal control over that one, as the power of defining it is a prerogative of the state.

That said, I don't mean to point a finger specifically at you by pointing this out. This mode of thinking is all-pervasive in modern society, and nobody is immune to it completely. But on a forum dedicated to exposing biases and fallacies, it should be pointed out.