Should political affiliation be a protected class?

[dblack]

I was reading that California has declared political affiliation to be a protected class with regards to anti-discrimination legislation. Seems kind of crazy to me. What do you all think?

 

[JGalt]

For what it's worth, public employees can't claim political affiliation discrimination under the New Jersey constitution, based on the political affiliation of a relative..

Public Employees Cannot Claim Political Affiliation Discrimination Under the NJ Constitution, Based on the Political Affiliation of a Relative

The The Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 also protects governmental employees from being discriminated against, on the basis of their political affiliation..

Discrimination Based on Sexual Orientation, Status as a Parent, Marital Status and Political Affiliation

 

[usmbguest5318]

I was reading that California has declared political affiliation to be a protected class with regards to anti-discrimination legislation. Seems kind of crazy to me. What do you all think?

No. Political affiliation should not, IMO, be a protected class. It should not be so because all it takes to have a political affiliation is ticking a box on a form. That's about as durable as a hairstyle.

 

[dblack]

I was reading that California has declared political affiliation to be a protected class with regards to anti-discrimination legislation. Seems kind of crazy to me. What do you all think?

No. Political affiliation should not, IMO, be a protected class. It should not be so because all it takes to have a political affiliation is ticking a box on a form. That's about as durable as a hairstyle.

What does durability have to do with anything?

 

[usmbguest5318]

I was reading that California has declared political affiliation to be a protected class with regards to anti-discrimination legislation. Seems kind of crazy to me. What do you all think?

No. Political affiliation should not, IMO, be a protected class. It should not be so because all it takes to have a political affiliation is ticking a box on a form. That's about as durable as a hairstyle.

What does durability have to do with anything?

Inasmuch as you've asked that question -- and I'm not chiding you for asking it; I respect that you don't understand what I meant and want to understand -- and inasmuch as I don't right now care to be didactic enough to explain it, we're done conversing on the matter.

 

[usmbguest5318]

I was reading that California has declared political affiliation to be a protected class with regards to anti-discrimination legislation. Seems kind of crazy to me. What do you all think?

No. Political affiliation should not, IMO, be a protected class. It should not be so because all it takes to have a political affiliation is ticking a box on a form. That's about as durable as a hairstyle.

What does durability have to do with anything?

Inasmuch as you've asked that question -- and I'm not chiding you for asking it; I respect that you don't understand what I meant and want to understand -- and inasmuch as I don't right now care to be didactic enough to explain it, we're done conversing on the matter.

FWIW, you may find one or more of the following documents helpful in obtaining an understanding of what durability has to do with it.

1. The Importance of Immutability in Employment Discrimination Law
2. The Naked Truth: Appearance Discrimination, Employment, and the Law
3. Unifying Antidiscrimination Law Through Stereotype Theory
4. Clustered Bias
5. Discrimination by Comparison

Of the listed papers, I suggest you read numbers one and four first. Regardless of which you read, please be very cognizant of the rhetorical purpose of the papers; that context is critical to understanding what is being discussed in each of them. None of the papers is the sort wherefrom one can strip out and cite a sentence or two and think it's going to fit any situation; context, as always, is "everything."

 

[dblack]

Apparently several states have done this. And it does seem like a really bad idea to me. I realize socialists have an agenda that celebrates any government encroachment on business, but this is worse than I thought.

 

[AsianTrumpSupporter]

Sure, as long as I'm on the committee that decides which political affiliations get protected. jk lol.

 

[dblack]

Sure, as long as I'm on the committee that decides which political affiliations get protected. jk lol.

Ayup. That's exactly the problem.

 

[TNHarley]

"protected class" is one of the most discriminatory terms that have ever came from our govt.

 

[dblack]

"protected class" is one of the most discriminatory terms that have ever came from our govt.

And it becomes more obvious as the practice is expanded.

 

[dblack]

The one positive side effect of making political affiliation a protected class is that it highlights what the laws are all really about. The issue is usually framed as an equal rights issue - with liberals claiming the laws are protecting equal rights, and conservatives claiming the opposite. But I think it's more accurately characterized as a freedom of speech issue.

 

[martybegan]

I was reading that California has declared political affiliation to be a protected class with regards to anti-discrimination legislation. Seems kind of crazy to me. What do you all think?

if we are going to have protected classes at all, I say extend them as far as you can. Maybe it will bring the whole thing crashing down sooner rather than later.

 

[dblack]

I was reading that California has declared political affiliation to be a protected class with regards to anti-discrimination legislation. Seems kind of crazy to me. What do you all think?

if we are going to have protected classes at all, I say extend them as far as you can. Maybe it will bring the whole thing crashing down sooner rather than later.

It might crash eventually, but it's creating a totalitarian state in the process. Not anything I want my kids to live through.

 

[martybegan]

I was reading that California has declared political affiliation to be a protected class with regards to anti-discrimination legislation. Seems kind of crazy to me. What do you all think?

if we are going to have protected classes at all, I say extend them as far as you can. Maybe it will bring the whole thing crashing down sooner rather than later.

It might crash eventually, but it's creating a totalitarian state in the process. Not anything I want my kids to live through.

We are already on our way, extending protected classes is the least of our concerns.

 

[dblack]

I was reading that California has declared political affiliation to be a protected class with regards to anti-discrimination legislation. Seems kind of crazy to me. What do you all think?

if we are going to have protected classes at all, I say extend them as far as you can. Maybe it will bring the whole thing crashing down sooner rather than later.

It might crash eventually, but it's creating a totalitarian state in the process. Not anything I want my kids to live through.

We are already on our way, extending protected classes is the least of our concerns.

I disagree. It's these wedge issues that inflict the most damage. They set precedent and undermine free society.

 

[martybegan]

I was reading that California has declared political affiliation to be a protected class with regards to anti-discrimination legislation. Seems kind of crazy to me. What do you all think?

if we are going to have protected classes at all, I say extend them as far as you can. Maybe it will bring the whole thing crashing down sooner rather than later.

It might crash eventually, but it's creating a totalitarian state in the process. Not anything I want my kids to live through.

We are already on our way, extending protected classes is the least of our concerns.

I disagree. It's these wedge issues that inflict the most damage. They set precedent and undermine free society.

The problem is that once you go the whole protected class thing, you have to go all in or it gets used as a bludgeon to suppress people and things you don't like, as long as they are not protected.

In for a penny, in for a pound.

 

[dblack]

I was reading that California has declared political affiliation to be a protected class with regards to anti-discrimination legislation. Seems kind of crazy to me. What do you all think?

if we are going to have protected classes at all, I say extend them as far as you can. Maybe it will bring the whole thing crashing down sooner rather than later.

It might crash eventually, but it's creating a totalitarian state in the process. Not anything I want my kids to live through.

We are already on our way, extending protected classes is the least of our concerns.

I disagree. It's these wedge issues that inflict the most damage. They set precedent and undermine free society.

The problem is that once you go the whole protected class thing, you have to go all in or it gets used as a bludgeon to suppress people and things you don't like, as long as they are not protected.

In for a penny, in for a pound.

It'll be a good deal heavier than that.

I've been down this bunny hole before (figuratively), with liberals who want to claim that all discrimination should be outlawed. They seriously don't see a problem with it.

 

[martybegan]

if we are going to have protected classes at all, I say extend them as far as you can. Maybe it will bring the whole thing crashing down sooner rather than later.

It might crash eventually, but it's creating a totalitarian state in the process. Not anything I want my kids to live through.

We are already on our way, extending protected classes is the least of our concerns.

I disagree. It's these wedge issues that inflict the most damage. They set precedent and undermine free society.

The problem is that once you go the whole protected class thing, you have to go all in or it gets used as a bludgeon to suppress people and things you don't like, as long as they are not protected.

In for a penny, in for a pound.

It'll be a good deal heavier than that.

I've been down this bunny hole before (figuratively), with liberals who want to claim that all discrimination should be outlawed. They seriously don't see a problem with it.

I think we are heading there anyway, i.e. worse before better, and getting some good old protected class protections for political views would definitely lead to some "WTF" moments from progressives when their own cherished laws are used against them.

 

[dblack]

I'm surprised we haven't seen more of them standing up for it here. But I guess the way things are going lately, liberals are pretty OK with treating people unequally based on political affiliation.