Should political affiliation be a protected class?

[sealybobo]

Were you just as shocked when Trump wanted to put your name on a list?

I'm sure like a good NAZI you don't care because it's the NAZI's who are creating the lists. You'll be ok so you don't mind. But imagine if Obama tried to get that same list. Boy would you see things differently then. Why? Because you put party before country.

Are you rich or stupid?

Speaking of which, do you think an employer should be able to fire someone if she finds out they are a Nazi? Or should the Nazi be protected from discrimination?

Great question. I think being a known nazi could be cause to lose your job. So I guess an employer at a right to work company could fire you for being a democrat/republican. This is why you don't talk politics at work..

But I don't think it would be legal for me to fire someone and say the reason is I don't agree with their politics.

Good question on the Nazi thing. Why can't someone be a nazi? How about a communist or socialist?

Well, that's the question. In the states that have added political affiliation to the protected classes list, how do they decide which political affiliations get protection and which don't? Doesn't it seem like an obvious conflict of interest, not to mention an abuse of power, for government to decide which political parties get the preferential treatment?

Well look at how conservatives went after communists during the Red Scare. Was it legal

Lessons From the Red Scare

You don't seem to have any conception of what I'm talking about here. What are you going on about?

Do you think political affiliation should be a protected class?

Did you agree with McCarthy going after Americans who were supposed communists? Was it legal to go after communists? It should not have been. We should be free to be whatever political party we want. If capitalism isn't working we should be free to vote for any other ism we want.

So yes, even Nazi's should be protected.

 

[dblack]

Speaking of which, do you think an employer should be able to fire someone if she finds out they are a Nazi? Or should the Nazi be protected from discrimination?

Great question. I think being a known nazi could be cause to lose your job. So I guess an employer at a right to work company could fire you for being a democrat/republican. This is why you don't talk politics at work..

But I don't think it would be legal for me to fire someone and say the reason is I don't agree with their politics.

Good question on the Nazi thing. Why can't someone be a nazi? How about a communist or socialist?

Well, that's the question. In the states that have added political affiliation to the protected classes list, how do they decide which political affiliations get protection and which don't? Doesn't it seem like an obvious conflict of interest, not to mention an abuse of power, for government to decide which political parties get the preferential treatment?

Well look at how conservatives went after communists during the Red Scare. Was it legal

Lessons From the Red Scare

You don't seem to have any conception of what I'm talking about here. What are you going on about?

Do you think political affiliation should be a protected class?

Did you agree with McCarthy going after Americans who were supposed communists? Was it legal to go after communists? It should not have been. We should be free to be whatever political party we want. If capitalism isn't working we should be free to vote for any other ism we want.

So yes, even Nazi's should be protected.

Well, we're talking about businesses, not government. But thank you for answering my question. Let know the next time you knowingly hire a Nazi.

 

[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.

Can I assume you feel the same way about religion as a protected class?

No, you cannot assume that, but you didn't; you asked, so I'll respect than and answer what I suspect is your implied question.

I don't construe religion and politics to be verisimilar enough to accord to politics the same protected status that I accord to religion. I don't because of the religions I studied in school -- Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, and a smattering animism -- at their sociological core they all embrace the same notion that drives temporal interactions among men: charity.

Charity is at the core of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. It is expected that people share their wealth with those who are disadvantaged. In addition to contributing financially, all three faiths call upon their followers to be socially responsible to one another. Stewardship and care of the earth is also highly valued by all three faiths. To display charity is more than an act of good will; it is an attitude, or way of life, that embodies compassion and a love for humanity. These concepts are deeply rooted in all three religions.

Judaism, Christianity and Islam have charitable mechanisms to collect donations from their followers and to redistribute that money for those in need. In Islam, zakat is the name of one of the obligatory duties that Muslims must follow. It refers to the mandatory giving of one’s wealth to the poor. Interpretations about the amount that must be given varies; some believe it should be 2.5% of a person’s annual wealth, while others believe it is 10% of an individual’s income. In Judaism, tzedakah is the Hebrew word for the obligatory act of charity. Generally, Jews must give one-tenth of their income to the poor. In Christianity there is a similar concept known as the tithe. This is when followers give one-tenth of their gross income to support the Church and its beneficiaries, which include the disadvantaged and needy.

To keep this short, I'll merely point you to a few links on the role of charity in Buddhism and Hinduism:

• Real Charity
• What does Buddhism say about Charity?
  
• Charity in Buddhism
• Charity in Hinduism (1)
• Charity in Hinduism (2)
• Hindus and Charity

I think one can readily see notions of charity in how Native Americans at least attempted to welcome Europeans upon first meeting them.

Because of the sociological universality of religions' core tenets, there's nothing that need be protected; all of them profess the same basic notion about how humans should interact. I need not be protected from you when at some core we agree. So on that level, politics and religion are much the same. At their core, most political doctrines profess to want the same things.

The big thing that distinguishes religion from politics is that religion has indivisible temporal and spiritual dimensions, whereas politics is wholly temporal. Because of its spiritual, theistic, dogmatic dimension, and unproven (perhaps unprovable) nature of that dimension, to be fair, at least on an intellectual level, one must accord religion protected status. It's sort of like this:

If I believe in a deity that I can't prove unequivocally exists, and you believe in a different one -- or maybe the same one, but neither of us is aware that it's the same one -- that is no more unequivocally provable, it stands to reason that one of us is wrong, or both of us are wrong, or both of us are right. Since the abstract and absolute accuracy of neither of positions is testable/provable, both our positions should be protected so that in the interest of charity toward one another, we look beyond our differences on the matter. Protected status, then, is nothing other than a codification requiring us to do so because there's simply no way to discern which of our propositions is correct, or at least more or less accurate, which understanding is better.​

With public policy propositions, it's possible to determine which one is indeed more or less accurate, which one is better. A society can try one set of propositions and then try another. Doing exactly that is how, for example, we've figured out that for all democracy's ills, it's still, at least for reasonably well educated and informed polities, better than the alternatives, at least if economic growth be the bar by which such a thing is measured. It's also how we've figured out that in a poorly educated and poorly informed society, democracy is not at all the best system. One need only compare and contrast India and China's advancement since about 1950 to see as much. Within six months of one another, India became a democracy and Mao instituted central control of China. Using the economic bar, which is today ahead? One doesn't even need a lab so vast and complex as two nation states. Who having a house full of kids lets their kids' "voting superiority" drive the direction of the household? Nobody. It's because democracy doesn't at all produce better outcomes when the people having a vote in matters haven't a clue of what's what as goes the matters on which they are called to vote.

Just as we have "petri dishes" whereby we can evaluate the adequacy of political systems, we can create "petri dishes" whereby we test and analyze the sufficiency of public policies, policy dogma, if you will. And, lo and behold, we have done so. Pick a given political goal, the means implemented to achieve it and the ends it aims(-ed) to achieve, and one'll be able to find some place where it's been tried. It's rare that the sought ends are perfectly achieved; however, perfection isn't often the goal, so perfect outcomes not being achieved isn't a rational basis for assessing the means. That said, if one's comprehensive in one's analysis, one'll find that either the preponderance of the ends were achieved or they weren't.

Can one do that with regard to theistic ends, say, determining whether one's eternal soul has been by one's faith saved? Or whether one's soul is in heaven, hell, purgatory, paradise, or wherever? Or whether one's soul formed the stuff of a star in the sky? Or whether dead "Fido" has come back as some other creature? Regardless of how preposterous any of those things may seem, I don't think so, but neither can I eliminate them as ends that may have been achieved.


Now as goes the notion of religion as a protected status and on a practical level considering an employees' expression of his/her religious views, I am of the same mind as I am re: their expressing their political positions. If one's expression/practice of one's religious beliefs results in one's being a source of discord, disunity, diminished profitability, or some other detriment to the firm at which one works, one needs to work elsewhere. I don't much care that one adheres to the religion or political stances one does; I care that one doesn't express them in a way that compromises my business operations. For example,

• If one is going to tell me, one's employer/manager, that one cannot/won't perform a lawful task I ask one to perform as part of one's job, it's possible I'd consider letting one go. Not because one holds/embraces the belief one does, but because one cannot/won't perform the work I am paying one to perform. Why one won't do the work really doesn't matter to me. I need the work done, and if one won't do it, well, one just won't, but I need an employee who will. In such a situation, it can be "you" or it can be someone else.
• If one's religious or political stance requires one to get on one's "soapbox" about it and one's doing so compromises the productivity, profitability, etc. of my firm, I might first tell one that one needs to cease and desist with that expression or take it to a different employer. If one persists, yes, I'm going to fire the person. I'm not going to fire them for having whatever be their stance; I'm going to fire them for disrupting my workplace.

Lastly, as goes politics and religion and "durability," yes, I see them as the same. Hopefully, however, the above explains how I differentiate, and where I don't do so, the two.

 

[Montrovant]

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.

Can I assume you feel the same way about religion as a protected class?

No, you cannot assume that, but you didn't; you asked, so I'll respect than and answer what I suspect is your implied question.

I don't construe religion and politics to be verisimilar enough to accord to politics the same protected status that I accord to religion. I don't because of the religions I studied in school -- Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, and a smattering animism -- at their sociological core they all embrace the same notion that drives temporal interactions among men: charity.

Charity is at the core of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. It is expected that people share their wealth with those who are disadvantaged. In addition to contributing financially, all three faiths call upon their followers to be socially responsible to one another. Stewardship and care of the earth is also highly valued by all three faiths. To display charity is more than an act of good will; it is an attitude, or way of life, that embodies compassion and a love for humanity. These concepts are deeply rooted in all three religions.

Judaism, Christianity and Islam have charitable mechanisms to collect donations from their followers and to redistribute that money for those in need. In Islam, zakat is the name of one of the obligatory duties that Muslims must follow. It refers to the mandatory giving of one’s wealth to the poor. Interpretations about the amount that must be given varies; some believe it should be 2.5% of a person’s annual wealth, while others believe it is 10% of an individual’s income. In Judaism, tzedakah is the Hebrew word for the obligatory act of charity. Generally, Jews must give one-tenth of their income to the poor. In Christianity there is a similar concept known as the tithe. This is when followers give one-tenth of their gross income to support the Church and its beneficiaries, which include the disadvantaged and needy.

To keep this short, I'll merely point you to a few links on the role of charity in Buddhism and Hinduism:

• Real Charity
• What does Buddhism say about Charity?
  
• Charity in Buddhism
• Charity in Hinduism (1)
• Charity in Hinduism (2)
• Hindus and Charity

I think one can readily see notions of charity in how Native Americans at least attempted to welcome Europeans upon first meeting them.

Because of the sociological universality of religions' core tenets, there's nothing that need be protected; all of them profess the same basic notion about how humans should interact. I need not be protected from you when at some core we agree. So on that level, politics and religion are much the same. At their core, most political doctrines profess to want the same things.

The big thing that distinguishes religion from politics is that religion has indivisible temporal and spiritual dimensions, whereas politics is wholly temporal. Because of its spiritual, theistic, dogmatic dimension, and unproven (perhaps unprovable) nature of that dimension, to be fair, at least on an intellectual level, one must accord religion protected status. It's sort of like this:

If I believe in a deity that I can't prove unequivocally exists, and you believe in a different one -- or maybe the same one, but neither of us is aware that it's the same one -- that is no more unequivocally provable, it stands to reason that one of us is wrong, or both of us are wrong, or both of us are right. Since the abstract and absolute accuracy of neither of positions is testable/provable, both our positions should be protected so that in the interest of charity toward one another, we look beyond our differences on the matter. Protected status, then, is nothing other than a codification requiring us to do so because there's simply no way to discern which of our propositions is correct, or at least more or less accurate, which understanding is better.​

With public policy propositions, it's possible to determine which one is indeed more or less accurate, which one is better. A society can try one set of propositions and then try another. Doing exactly that is how, for example, we've figured out that for all democracy's ills, it's still, at least for reasonably well educated and informed polities, better than the alternatives, at least if economic growth be the bar by which such a thing is measured. It's also how we've figured out that in a poorly educated and poorly informed society, democracy is not at all the best system. One need only compare and contrast India and China's advancement since about 1950 to see as much. Within six months of one another, India became a democracy and Mao instituted central control of China. Using the economic bar, which is today ahead? One doesn't even need a lab so vast and complex as two nation states. Who having a house full of kids lets their kids' "voting superiority" drive the direction of the household? Nobody. It's because democracy doesn't at all produce better outcomes when the people having a vote in matters haven't a clue of what's what as goes the matters on which they are called to vote.

Just as we have "petri dishes" whereby we can evaluate the adequacy of political systems, we can create "petri dishes" whereby we test and analyze the sufficiency of public policies, policy dogma, if you will. And, lo and behold, we have done so. Pick a given political goal, the means implemented to achieve it and the ends it aims(-ed) to achieve, and one'll be able to find some place where it's been tried. It's rare that the sought ends are perfectly achieved; however, perfection isn't often the goal, so perfect outcomes not being achieved isn't a rational basis for assessing the means. That said, if one's comprehensive in one's analysis, one'll find that either the preponderance of the ends were achieved or they weren't.

Can one do that with regard to theistic ends, say, determining whether one's eternal soul has been by one's faith saved? Or whether one's soul is in heaven, hell, purgatory, paradise, or wherever? Or whether one's soul formed the stuff of a star in the sky? Or whether dead "Fido" has come back as some other creature? Regardless of how preposterous any of those things may seem, I don't think so, but neither can I eliminate them as ends that may have been achieved.


Now as goes the notion of religion as a protected status and on a practical level considering an employees' expression of his/her religious views, I am of the same mind as I am re: their expressing their political positions. If one's expression/practice of one's religious beliefs results in one's being a source of discord, disunity, diminished profitability, or some other detriment to the firm at which one works, one needs to work elsewhere. I don't much care that one adheres to the religion or political stances one does; I care that one doesn't express them in a way that compromises my business operations. For example,

• If one is going to tell me, one's employer/manager, that one cannot/won't perform a lawful task I ask one to perform as part of one's job, it's possible I'd consider letting one go. Not because one holds/embraces the belief one does, but because one cannot/won't perform the work I am paying one to perform. Why one won't do the work really doesn't matter to me. I need the work done, and if one won't do it, well, one just won't, but I need an employee who will. In such a situation, it can be "you" or it can be someone else.
• If one's religious or political stance requires one to get on one's "soapbox" about it and one's doing so compromises the productivity, profitability, etc. of my firm, I might first tell one that one needs to cease and desist with that expression or take it to a different employer. If one persists, yes, I'm going to fire the person. I'm not going to fire them for having whatever be their stance; I'm going to fire them for disrupting my workplace.

Lastly, as goes politics and religion and "durability," yes, I see them as the same. Hopefully, however, the above explains how I differentiate, and where I don't do so, the two.

I disagree, but thank you for the thorough response.

I disagree because not all religions mandate charity.
I disagree because whatever any person might say a religion mandates, whether another person who follows that religion agrees with their interpretation, and whether another person actually follows that particular mandate, may differ from individual to individual.
I disagree because I don't think that religious belief mandating charity should make it get special protection from discrimination; tax-exempt status for religious charity organizations I am fine with, but just being charitable? May as well make Save the Whales members a protected class, or members of PetSmart Charities, or members of any of the numerous secular charitable organizations.
I disagree because on many, perhaps most, policy issues, there is not an objective correct or superior policy. If there were, there probably would be a lot less acrimony between political parties.
And lastly, and perhaps most importantly, I disagree because, like politics, religion is something that can simply be a check put in a box. There is no clear way to determine a person's religious beliefs, so even if the idea of religions being charitable is a valid reason to give them special protected status, it is pretty simply for someone to claim to be a member of a religion whether they truly are or not. Of course there are limitations to that, but the same is true of political affiliations.

Having said all of that, I still find this a difficult issue, as the idea of people discriminating based on religion or political affiliation is one I don't agree with. How and where the law should be involved with that is something I am not certain about; I have mixed feelings about the line between practicality and ideology on this issue.

 

[usmbguest5318]

thank you for the thorough response.

You're welcome.

TY for your response as well. I think we understand where one another stands. I suspect that's about all that's going to come of it. I think we could each go "round and round" but I doubt we'd get anywhere.

I also appreciate that you took the time to read the post before responding. So often I find folks just respond, yet it's clear they didn't bother to read and understand the post to which they respond.

 

[eagle1462010]

There are laws on the books to go to court on issues of wrongful firing in all States and the Federal Gov't. Violations of these laws allows those that have wronged a legal avenue to sue a company for wrongful firing.

That is a check and balance under the Constitution and laws across this country.

That is a reason for Labor Boards..

I vote NO.

 

[Montrovant]

thank you for the thorough response.

You're welcome.

TY for your response as well. I think we understand where one another stands. I suspect that's about all that's going to come of it. I think we could each go "round and round" but I doubt we'd get anywhere.

I also appreciate that you took the time to read the post before responding. So often I find folks just respond, yet it's clear they didn't bother to read and understand the post to which they respond.

You are probably correct about not swaying each other about this. However, let me add that while I disagree with you, I do see the reasoning behind your position and can, to some degree, sympathize with it.

 

[usmbguest5318]

not all religions mandate charity.

Off-Topic:

Is that really so?

I don't by "charity" mean merely giving money and other tangible resources. I mean too the charity of the form some might call "goodwill," or putting others ahead of oneself, or the giving of oneself, particularly giving respect as described in the Golden Rule. Tangible charity is certainly important, but not nearly so as the intangible form of that virtue.

You and I likely first encountered "Golden Rule" charity via Christianity, but the notion is not at all unique to Christianity. AFAIK, every faith-based belief system espouses the Golden Rule.

• Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics
• Fom Ancient Egypt was found the proverb:
  • "Now this is the command: Do to the doer to make him do." (from The Eloquent Peasant)
• From the Mahabharata:
  
  • All worlds are balanced on dharma, dharma encompasses ways to prosperity as well. O King, dharma is the best quality to have, wealth the medium and desire (kāma) the lowest. Hence, (keeping these in mind), by self-control and by making dharma (right conduct) your main focus, treat others as you treat yourself.
    
    — Mahābhārata Shānti-Parva 167:9
• One will find many other examples from the likes of Buddhism, Jainism, Taoism, Confucianism, Wicca and Scientology and more.

I realize you identified multiple bases for not concurring with my argument/position, but I dare say that thinking that not all religions cotton to charity isn't a legitimate one. I'm willing to grant that there may be some faith-based belief system that does not embrace charity, but I'm hard pressed to identify it and there are so many, even obscure religions, that do that to stand on your point above one'd, I suspect, almost have to invent one's own religion that expressly rejects and decries charity to find the one that gives the basis for the "all" in your assertion.​

 

[usmbguest5318]

thank you for the thorough response.

You're welcome.

TY for your response as well. I think we understand where one another stands. I suspect that's about all that's going to come of it. I think we could each go "round and round" but I doubt we'd get anywhere.

I also appreciate that you took the time to read the post before responding. So often I find folks just respond, yet it's clear they didn't bother to read and understand the post to which they respond.

You are probably correct about not swaying each other about this. However, let me add that while I disagree with you, I do see the reasoning behind your position and can, to some degree, sympathize with it.

I can echo that sentiment with regard to some of your points of disagreement too. There's no two ways about it...the "durability" aspect is not the strongest line or component of a position I've advanced. Indeed, the first linked paper in one of my earlier posts makes that much clear.

 

[Montrovant]

not all religions mandate charity.

Off-Topic:

Is that really so?

I don't by "charity" mean merely giving money and other tangible resources. I mean too the charity of the form some might call "goodwill," or putting others ahead of oneself, or the giving of oneself, particularly giving respect as described in the Golden Rule. Tangible charity is certainly important, but not nearly so as the intangible form of that virtue.

You and I likely first encountered "Golden Rule" charity via Christianity, but the notion is not at all unique to Christianity. AFAIK, every faith-based belief system espouses the Golden Rule.

• Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics
• Fom Ancient Egypt was found the proverb:
  • "Now this is the command: Do to the doer to make him do." (from The Eloquent Peasant)
• From the Mahabharata:
  • All worlds are balanced on dharma, dharma encompasses ways to prosperity as well. O King, dharma is the best quality to have, wealth the medium and desire (kāma) the lowest. Hence, (keeping these in mind), by self-control and by making dharma (right conduct) your main focus, treat others as you treat yourself.
    
    — Mahābhārata Shānti-Parva 167:9
• One will find many other examples from the likes of Buddhism, Jainism, Taoism, Confucianism, Wicca and Scientology and more.

I realize you identified multiple bases for not concurring with my argument/position, but I dare say that thinking that not all religions cotton to charity isn't a legitimate one. I'm willing to grant that there may be some faith-based belief system that does not embrace charity, but I'm hard pressed to identify it and there are so many, even obscure religions, that do that to stand on your point above one'd, I suspect, almost have to invent one's own religion that expressly rejects and decries charity to find the one that gives the basis for the "all" in your assertion.​

There are so many different religions. Taoism, Wiccan, Satanism, various Native religions, Rastafarianism, Scientology, etc.....not all are going to mandate charity. Certainly LaVey Satanism does not. I would also argue that tithing and charity are not the same, even if one would expect a church to be involved in charitable work; it seems possible to me that a church might not be able to do charity work if the income it receives through tithes is only enough to pay for the expenses to keep that church running, for example.

I'm certainly not arguing that charity is not an important aspect of most religions, just that it isn't mandated by or even part of all.

 

[usmbguest5318]

thank you for the thorough response.

You're welcome.

TY for your response as well. I think we understand where one another stands. I suspect that's about all that's going to come of it. I think we could each go "round and round" but I doubt we'd get anywhere.

I also appreciate that you took the time to read the post before responding. So often I find folks just respond, yet it's clear they didn't bother to read and understand the post to which they respond.

You are probably correct about not swaying each other about this. However, let me add that while I disagree with you, I do see the reasoning behind your position and can, to some degree, sympathize with it.

I can echo that sentiment with regard to some of your points of disagreement too. There's no two ways about it...the "durability" aspect is not the strongest line or component of a position I've advanced. Indeed, the first linked paper in one of my earlier posts makes that much clear.

There's no two ways about it...the "durability" aspect is not the strongest line or component of a position I've advanced. Indeed, the first linked paper in one of my earlier posts makes that much clear.

Off-Topic:

I chose to provide that paper as reference, but in doing so, I knew that I was essentially "spoon feeding" the other member with the counterargument to my "durability" remark. From a forensic debate perspective, that's a strategically stupid thing to do -- yes, I can rebut the counterargument presented in that paper; I'm not so stupid or "charitable," as it were, as to "give away the farm"...LOL -- but insofar as it seemed to me the other member just plain didn't understand what "durability" meant in this context, I went ahead and proffered a "jump start." I don't think s/he read the paper....which takes me back to my earlier remark about folks not actually reading the stuff I post.​

 

[usmbguest5318]

not all religions mandate charity.

Off-Topic:

Is that really so?

I don't by "charity" mean merely giving money and other tangible resources. I mean too the charity of the form some might call "goodwill," or putting others ahead of oneself, or the giving of oneself, particularly giving respect as described in the Golden Rule. Tangible charity is certainly important, but not nearly so as the intangible form of that virtue.

You and I likely first encountered "Golden Rule" charity via Christianity, but the notion is not at all unique to Christianity. AFAIK, every faith-based belief system espouses the Golden Rule.

• Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics
• Fom Ancient Egypt was found the proverb:
  • "Now this is the command: Do to the doer to make him do." (from The Eloquent Peasant)
• From the Mahabharata:
  • All worlds are balanced on dharma, dharma encompasses ways to prosperity as well. O King, dharma is the best quality to have, wealth the medium and desire (kāma) the lowest. Hence, (keeping these in mind), by self-control and by making dharma (right conduct) your main focus, treat others as you treat yourself.
    
    — Mahābhārata Shānti-Parva 167:9
• One will find many other examples from the likes of Buddhism, Jainism, Taoism, Confucianism, Wicca and Scientology and more.

I realize you identified multiple bases for not concurring with my argument/position, but I dare say that thinking that not all religions cotton to charity isn't a legitimate one. I'm willing to grant that there may be some faith-based belief system that does not embrace charity, but I'm hard pressed to identify it and there are so many, even obscure religions, that do that to stand on your point above one'd, I suspect, almost have to invent one's own religion that expressly rejects and decries charity to find the one that gives the basis for the "all" in your assertion.​

There are so many different religions. Taoism, Wiccan, Satanism, various Native religions, Rastafarianism, Scientology, etc.....not all are going to mandate charity. Certainly LaVey Satanism does not. I would also argue that tithing and charity are not the same, even if one would expect a church to be involved in charitable work; it seems possible to me that a church might not be able to do charity work if the income it receives through tithes is only enough to pay for the expenses to keep that church running, for example.

I'm certainly not arguing that charity is not an important aspect of most religions, just that it isn't mandated by or even part of all.

One need not have any money to be charitable or to exhibit charity.

I agree that tithing and charity aren't the same. All forms of tithing are charity, but not all forms of charity entail or militate for tithing.

 

[Montrovant]

not all religions mandate charity.

Off-Topic:

Is that really so?

I don't by "charity" mean merely giving money and other tangible resources. I mean too the charity of the form some might call "goodwill," or putting others ahead of oneself, or the giving of oneself, particularly giving respect as described in the Golden Rule. Tangible charity is certainly important, but not nearly so as the intangible form of that virtue.

You and I likely first encountered "Golden Rule" charity via Christianity, but the notion is not at all unique to Christianity. AFAIK, every faith-based belief system espouses the Golden Rule.

• Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics
• Fom Ancient Egypt was found the proverb:
  • "Now this is the command: Do to the doer to make him do." (from The Eloquent Peasant)
• From the Mahabharata:
  • All worlds are balanced on dharma, dharma encompasses ways to prosperity as well. O King, dharma is the best quality to have, wealth the medium and desire (kāma) the lowest. Hence, (keeping these in mind), by self-control and by making dharma (right conduct) your main focus, treat others as you treat yourself.
    
    — Mahābhārata Shānti-Parva 167:9
• One will find many other examples from the likes of Buddhism, Jainism, Taoism, Confucianism, Wicca and Scientology and more.

I realize you identified multiple bases for not concurring with my argument/position, but I dare say that thinking that not all religions cotton to charity isn't a legitimate one. I'm willing to grant that there may be some faith-based belief system that does not embrace charity, but I'm hard pressed to identify it and there are so many, even obscure religions, that do that to stand on your point above one'd, I suspect, almost have to invent one's own religion that expressly rejects and decries charity to find the one that gives the basis for the "all" in your assertion.​

There are so many different religions. Taoism, Wiccan, Satanism, various Native religions, Rastafarianism, Scientology, etc.....not all are going to mandate charity. Certainly LaVey Satanism does not. I would also argue that tithing and charity are not the same, even if one would expect a church to be involved in charitable work; it seems possible to me that a church might not be able to do charity work if the income it receives through tithes is only enough to pay for the expenses to keep that church running, for example.

I'm certainly not arguing that charity is not an important aspect of most religions, just that it isn't mandated by or even part of all.

One need not have any money to be charitable or to exhibit charity.

I agree that tithing and charity aren't the same. All forms of tithing are charity, but not all forms of charity entail or militate for tithing.

Why are all forms of tithing charity? If tithing is mandated per someone's religion, that certainly does not seem like any form of charity.

 

[usmbguest5318]

not all religions mandate charity.

Off-Topic:

Is that really so?

I don't by "charity" mean merely giving money and other tangible resources. I mean too the charity of the form some might call "goodwill," or putting others ahead of oneself, or the giving of oneself, particularly giving respect as described in the Golden Rule. Tangible charity is certainly important, but not nearly so as the intangible form of that virtue.

You and I likely first encountered "Golden Rule" charity via Christianity, but the notion is not at all unique to Christianity. AFAIK, every faith-based belief system espouses the Golden Rule.

• Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics
• Fom Ancient Egypt was found the proverb:
  • "Now this is the command: Do to the doer to make him do." (from The Eloquent Peasant)
• From the Mahabharata:
  • All worlds are balanced on dharma, dharma encompasses ways to prosperity as well. O King, dharma is the best quality to have, wealth the medium and desire (kāma) the lowest. Hence, (keeping these in mind), by self-control and by making dharma (right conduct) your main focus, treat others as you treat yourself.
    
    — Mahābhārata Shānti-Parva 167:9
• One will find many other examples from the likes of Buddhism, Jainism, Taoism, Confucianism, Wicca and Scientology and more.

I realize you identified multiple bases for not concurring with my argument/position, but I dare say that thinking that not all religions cotton to charity isn't a legitimate one. I'm willing to grant that there may be some faith-based belief system that does not embrace charity, but I'm hard pressed to identify it and there are so many, even obscure religions, that do that to stand on your point above one'd, I suspect, almost have to invent one's own religion that expressly rejects and decries charity to find the one that gives the basis for the "all" in your assertion.​

There are so many different religions. Taoism, Wiccan, Satanism, various Native religions, Rastafarianism, Scientology, etc.....not all are going to mandate charity. Certainly LaVey Satanism does not. I would also argue that tithing and charity are not the same, even if one would expect a church to be involved in charitable work; it seems possible to me that a church might not be able to do charity work if the income it receives through tithes is only enough to pay for the expenses to keep that church running, for example.

I'm certainly not arguing that charity is not an important aspect of most religions, just that it isn't mandated by or even part of all.

One need not have any money to be charitable or to exhibit charity.

I agree that tithing and charity aren't the same. All forms of tithing are charity, but not all forms of charity entail or militate for tithing.

Why are all forms of tithing charity? If tithing is mandated per someone's religion, that certainly does not seem like any form of charity.

Mandated or not, begrudgingly performed or not, one may always choose not to bestow charity.

 

[Montrovant]

not all religions mandate charity.

Off-Topic:

Is that really so?

I don't by "charity" mean merely giving money and other tangible resources. I mean too the charity of the form some might call "goodwill," or putting others ahead of oneself, or the giving of oneself, particularly giving respect as described in the Golden Rule. Tangible charity is certainly important, but not nearly so as the intangible form of that virtue.

You and I likely first encountered "Golden Rule" charity via Christianity, but the notion is not at all unique to Christianity. AFAIK, every faith-based belief system espouses the Golden Rule.

• Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics
• Fom Ancient Egypt was found the proverb:
  • "Now this is the command: Do to the doer to make him do." (from The Eloquent Peasant)
• From the Mahabharata:
  • All worlds are balanced on dharma, dharma encompasses ways to prosperity as well. O King, dharma is the best quality to have, wealth the medium and desire (kāma) the lowest. Hence, (keeping these in mind), by self-control and by making dharma (right conduct) your main focus, treat others as you treat yourself.
    
    — Mahābhārata Shānti-Parva 167:9
• One will find many other examples from the likes of Buddhism, Jainism, Taoism, Confucianism, Wicca and Scientology and more.

I realize you identified multiple bases for not concurring with my argument/position, but I dare say that thinking that not all religions cotton to charity isn't a legitimate one. I'm willing to grant that there may be some faith-based belief system that does not embrace charity, but I'm hard pressed to identify it and there are so many, even obscure religions, that do that to stand on your point above one'd, I suspect, almost have to invent one's own religion that expressly rejects and decries charity to find the one that gives the basis for the "all" in your assertion.​

There are so many different religions. Taoism, Wiccan, Satanism, various Native religions, Rastafarianism, Scientology, etc.....not all are going to mandate charity. Certainly LaVey Satanism does not. I would also argue that tithing and charity are not the same, even if one would expect a church to be involved in charitable work; it seems possible to me that a church might not be able to do charity work if the income it receives through tithes is only enough to pay for the expenses to keep that church running, for example.

I'm certainly not arguing that charity is not an important aspect of most religions, just that it isn't mandated by or even part of all.

One need not have any money to be charitable or to exhibit charity.

I agree that tithing and charity aren't the same. All forms of tithing are charity, but not all forms of charity entail or militate for tithing.

Why are all forms of tithing charity? If tithing is mandated per someone's religion, that certainly does not seem like any form of charity.

Mandated or not, begrudgingly performed or not, one may always choose not to bestow charity.

That doesn't making giving as an obligation into charity.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Off-Topic:

Is that really so?

I don't by "charity" mean merely giving money and other tangible resources. I mean too the charity of the form some might call "goodwill," or putting others ahead of oneself, or the giving of oneself, particularly giving respect as described in the Golden Rule. Tangible charity is certainly important, but not nearly so as the intangible form of that virtue.

You and I likely first encountered "Golden Rule" charity via Christianity, but the notion is not at all unique to Christianity. AFAIK, every faith-based belief system espouses the Golden Rule.

• Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics
• Fom Ancient Egypt was found the proverb:
  • "Now this is the command: Do to the doer to make him do." (from The Eloquent Peasant)
• From the Mahabharata:
  • All worlds are balanced on dharma, dharma encompasses ways to prosperity as well. O King, dharma is the best quality to have, wealth the medium and desire (kāma) the lowest. Hence, (keeping these in mind), by self-control and by making dharma (right conduct) your main focus, treat others as you treat yourself.
    
    — Mahābhārata Shānti-Parva 167:9
• One will find many other examples from the likes of Buddhism, Jainism, Taoism, Confucianism, Wicca and Scientology and more.

I realize you identified multiple bases for not concurring with my argument/position, but I dare say that thinking that not all religions cotton to charity isn't a legitimate one. I'm willing to grant that there may be some faith-based belief system that does not embrace charity, but I'm hard pressed to identify it and there are so many, even obscure religions, that do that to stand on your point above one'd, I suspect, almost have to invent one's own religion that expressly rejects and decries charity to find the one that gives the basis for the "all" in your assertion.​

There are so many different religions. Taoism, Wiccan, Satanism, various Native religions, Rastafarianism, Scientology, etc.....not all are going to mandate charity. Certainly LaVey Satanism does not. I would also argue that tithing and charity are not the same, even if one would expect a church to be involved in charitable work; it seems possible to me that a church might not be able to do charity work if the income it receives through tithes is only enough to pay for the expenses to keep that church running, for example.

I'm certainly not arguing that charity is not an important aspect of most religions, just that it isn't mandated by or even part of all.

One need not have any money to be charitable or to exhibit charity.

I agree that tithing and charity aren't the same. All forms of tithing are charity, but not all forms of charity entail or militate for tithing.

Why are all forms of tithing charity? If tithing is mandated per someone's religion, that certainly does not seem like any form of charity.

Mandated or not, begrudgingly performed or not, one may always choose not to bestow charity.

That doesn't making giving as an obligation into charity.

If one bestows charity, be it begrudgingly or not, one has yet bestowed charity, and done so willingly, albeit with the absolute minimum amount of will that one could muster, for with any less will, one would not have bestowed it.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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

It does kill the whole "equal protection" idea.

I actually see it more as a free speech issue, because that's what's being targeted by the law.

It’s not a ‘free speech’ issue because no government is seeking to preempt, limit, or regulate speech – only government has the authority to regulate speech, and the potential to violate the right to speak freely if regulatory measures do not comport with the First Amendment.

Private entities such as businesses open to the general public don’t have that regulatory authority, and consequently can’t ‘violate’ free speech.

 

[dblack]

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

It does kill the whole "equal protection" idea.

I actually see it more as a free speech issue, because that's what's being targeted by the law.

It’s not a ‘free speech’ issue because no government is seeking to preempt, limit, or regulate speech – only government has the authority to regulate speech, and the potential to violate the right to speak freely if regulatory measures do not comport with the First Amendment.

Private entities such as businesses open to the general public don’t have that regulatory authority, and consequently can’t ‘violate’ free speech.

Obvious and irrelevant. We're talking about government limiting the free speech of the employer. That's what the anti-discrimination laws target. They specifically target the expression of unpopular bias.

Let's take the cake baking silliness as an example. The law doesn't require the baker to bake a cake for a gay wedding. The baker can refuse for whatever reason they like, or offer no reason at all, as long as they avoid citing bias against gays as their reason. It's not the refusal to bake that is illegal. It's refusing to bake the cake as an act of political protest. THAT is what the laws target. We're trying to use laws to suppress opinions we don't like.