Should political affiliation be a protected class?

[Papageorgio]

No, since political beliefs are a choice. Huckabee Sanders was not born as Aunt Lydia, she chose to be that way. There were people working at the restaurant that Huckabee Sanders is actively working to strip rights from. She chose to be that way.

Do you have scientific evidence that being gay is not a choice?

Political affiliation should not be protected, if the business is ignorant and bigoted and doesn’t want to serve a segment of the population, then it is on them and Americans have a right to voice their opinions and boycott the ignorant bigoted business owner.

Or to give them more patronage, as will be the case with the Red Hen.

That is fine too, I just know whether they discriminate because of politics, it doesn’t matter if it is Democrat or Republican, I will boycott them because what they are doing isn’t right. If you want to associate with intolerant bigots that is your choice, my choice is to stay away from narrowminded, intolerant nuts.

Yes there is evidence that it's not a choice.

There are two hormone washes that go over the brain of a fetus during gestation. If the fetus is female it's supposed to get estrogen. If it's male it's supposed to get testosterone.

Scientific research is now showing that some fetus get the wrong wash or don't get enough of the right wash. It also shows that the brain is changed with that wash.

Scientific research using MRI images of the brains of homosexual males show that they have the exact same brains as women.

Here, I did a search on the subject for you. Just click the link below then choose your article.

gestation hormone wash homosexuality


As for the second thing you said, I agree. I don't like to associate with narrow-minded and intolerant people. I would never expect a business person to kick someone out of their establishment just because of their political beliefs.

Just as I would expect no business to kick out or refuse to serve a homosexual person.

What I find very hypocritical is the people who spent years saying a business has the right to not serve anyone they choose are now saying it's not ok to not serve anyone they choose.

The people who said that if you serve the public you must serve all the public warned that this won't stop with homosexual people.

They were right.

It is a theory, not a a scientific fact, they are not sure if that is a cause or not. I am not sure I’m comfortable claiming it is birth defect anyway.

You said evidence. Not fact.

Hormone washes are evidence. But it is fact that there is a hormone wash that goes over the brain of a fetus twice in gestation. It's fact that some pregnancies don't get the right wash or enough of the right wash.

MIR scans of brains are evidence. It's fact that the brains of gay men are exactly the same as a female brain. The MRI scans prove it.

I can give you the information but it's obvious you didn't want it in the first place.

You asked the question because you believe there wasn't any. I proved you wrong now you're changing what you asked for.

I gave you both scientific evidence and fact. Yet you continue to argue there is none and you use dishonesty about what you asked for to continue to argue.

Here are your exact words:

Do you have scientific evidence that being gay is not a choice?

However it is a theory, so it is inconclusive whether this is evidence or not.

Thank you.

 

[Silhouette]

Can anyone cite an example of a "protected class"? Anybody who thinks that people of color are a "protected class" because they won the same rights as anyone else is an ignorant bigot.

Protected classes aren't classes of people. They are traits that are prohibited as a justification for discrimination. There's actually quite a lot of equivocation on this. Even some of the legal resources online don't seem to get the distinction.

Traits like embracing public acts of deviant sex "in pride, on parade" where they invite children to watch?

I personally think we should discriminate against that. Well, actually I'm required by law in all 50 states to discriminate against that.

^^Can groups that espouse as the core of their identity "in pride" crimes against children be "a protected lifestyle" from majority regulation? Quite the loophole on child endangerment there!

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Lol, the " the fetal brain wash". What a farce.

You state that all fertilized eggs are life and are proud that you would force over 65 thousand American women each year who face an ectopic pregnancy to die. Even though science has proven that there is no life in an ectopic pregnancy. Which science has proven not all fertilized eggs are life.

I'm sure you don't look at it that way when you eat your fried eggs in the morning do you? Oh those are chickens so that doesn't matter. You're only pro human life right?

Now you don't believe science has proven that there's a hormone wash that goes over the brain of a fetus twice in gestation and you don't believe the MRI scans of homosexual men showing their brains are exactly the same as women's brains.

Do you believe that the female and male brains are different? If you do, what do you believe makes those differences?

I can present you honest scientific facts. I can't make you open your mind up to accept and absorb it. I'm sure you didn't even click the link to learn about it. I gave you your choice of information sources. It's just a link to a search not an article.

You're just too afraid to know that your beliefs are ridiculous and that scientific fact proves your beliefs are ridiculous.

I can laugh my ass off at you and your ignorance. Which I do just about every time I read one of your ridiculous posts.

There is nothing scientific about fetal brain wash. That is pseudo science and nothing that I would want my name attached to.

 

[dblack]

Can anyone cite an example of a "protected class"? Anybody who thinks that people of color are a "protected class" because they won the same rights as anyone else is an ignorant bigot.

Protected classes aren't classes of people. They are traits that are prohibited as a justification for discrimination. There's actually quite a lot of equivocation on this. Even some of the legal resources online don't seem to get the distinction.

Traits like embracing public acts of deviant sex "in pride, on parade" where they invite children to watch?

I personally think we should discriminate against that. Well, actually I'm required by law in all 50 states to discriminate against that.

^^Can groups that espouse as the core of their identity "in pride" crimes against children be "a protected lifestyle" from majority regulation? Quite the loophole on child endangerment there!

You should just come out of the closet already.

 

[task0778]

I am not in a "protected class", and I'm not too thrilled about it. Why am I not protected against discrimination cuz I'm an old white guy? Should I be discriminated against cuz I voted for person X instead of Y? Or because I own a gun? Have a dog instead of a cat? Sleep with a woman instead of a man? Have a boatload of money with at least a 6 figure income? (0 for 2 there BTW.) Believe in Religion A, as long as I don't break any laws? Hell, I'm not even a Christian, but I'm kinda feeling a little persecuted here.

 

[dblack]

I am not in a "protected class", and I'm not too thrilled about it. Why am I not protected against discrimination cuz I'm an old white guy? Should I be discriminated against cuz I voted for person X instead of Y? Or because I own a gun? Have a dog instead of a cat? Sleep with a woman instead of a man? Have a boatload of money with at least a 6 figure income? (0 for 2 there BTW.) Believe in Religion A, as long as I don't break any laws? Hell, I'm not even a Christian, but I'm kinda feeling a little persecuted here.

Once again, protected classes aren't classes of people. They are classes of traits that can't be used to justify discrimination. Nominally, everyone is 'protected' by them equally. Race is a protected class, for example. The law says, in certain cases, business owners can't say they won't serve someone based on race. Doesn't matter whether you're black, white, asian or whatever.

The problem with protected classes isn't that they give some people special rights, it's that they violate free speech. Moreover, they co-opt a fundamental power of society to self-moderate, furthering the campaign to subject every single human interaction to government oversight.

 

[Stormy Daniels]

Once again, protected classes aren't classes of people. They are classes of traits that can't be used to justify discrimination.

That's not true. Court rulings and other relevant documents repeatedly use language such as "Ms Smith belongs to a protected class" or "Ms Smith is a member of a protected class." That demonstrates that the referenced classes are classes of people. If your suggestion where the case then the documents would use language along the lines of "Ms Smith's sexual orientation belongs to the protected class of traits."

 

[dblack]

Once again, protected classes aren't classes of people. They are classes of traits that can't be used to justify discrimination.

That's not true. Court rulings and other relevant documents repeatedly use language such as "Ms Smith belongs to a protected class" or "Ms Smith is a member of a protected class." That demonstrates that the referenced classes are classes of people. If your suggestion where the case then the documents would use language along the lines of "Ms Smith's sexual orientation belongs to the protected class of traits."

That's interesting, I've seen that a couple of times as well. It's NOT, however, the basis on which the original protected classes laws were formulated. If that is the current legal statute, the situation is even worse. But PA laws are still a violation of free speech first and foremost. They don't ensure equal treatment of all customers. They merely suppress the expression of unpopular biases.

 

[task0778]

I am not in a "protected class", and I'm not too thrilled about it. Why am I not protected against discrimination cuz I'm an old white guy? Should I be discriminated against cuz I voted for person X instead of Y? Or because I own a gun? Have a dog instead of a cat? Sleep with a woman instead of a man? Have a boatload of money with at least a 6 figure income? (0 for 2 there BTW.) Believe in Religion A, as long as I don't break any laws? Hell, I'm not even a Christian, but I'm kinda feeling a little persecuted here.

Once again, protected classes aren't classes of people. They are classes of traits that can't be used to justify discrimination. Nominally, everyone is 'protected' by them equally. Race is a protected class, for example. The law says, in certain cases, business owners can't say they won't serve someone based on race. Doesn't matter whether you're black, white, asian or whatever.

The problem with protected classes isn't that they give some people special rights, it's that they violate free speech. Moreover, they co-opt a fundamental power of society to self-moderate, furthering the campaign to subject every single human interaction to government oversight.

Yeah, sure. Classes of traits. Of people. We are talking about a group(s) of people who share a trait, right? Well, I don't have one of those traits, which means anybody can discriminate against me all they want and that sucks. You can play word games all you want, but the end result is that I'm fucked. What's so fair about that? Why should we allow someone to be discriminated against for ANY reason? No protected classes, no discrimination, period. Leaving out the health and safety reasons. And no, I don't want an effing tissue.

Bake the effing cake dude. Plain ol' cake, no decorations and no delivery, payment in advance. Serve the Republican lady and her family in your restaurant, you don't get to determine who you can serve and who you can't based on your ideology. You don't like it, tough shit. Do it or get fined big time, or lose your license to operate your business. Move to Cuba, it ain't that far. Or put a sign up in your window that says "I only serve people I like, I am not a public accommodation business". Let's see how long you stay in business.

 

[dblack]

I am not in a "protected class", and I'm not too thrilled about it. Why am I not protected against discrimination cuz I'm an old white guy? Should I be discriminated against cuz I voted for person X instead of Y? Or because I own a gun? Have a dog instead of a cat? Sleep with a woman instead of a man? Have a boatload of money with at least a 6 figure income? (0 for 2 there BTW.) Believe in Religion A, as long as I don't break any laws? Hell, I'm not even a Christian, but I'm kinda feeling a little persecuted here.

Once again, protected classes aren't classes of people. They are classes of traits that can't be used to justify discrimination. Nominally, everyone is 'protected' by them equally. Race is a protected class, for example. The law says, in certain cases, business owners can't say they won't serve someone based on race. Doesn't matter whether you're black, white, asian or whatever.

The problem with protected classes isn't that they give some people special rights, it's that they violate free speech. Moreover, they co-opt a fundamental power of society to self-moderate, furthering the campaign to subject every single human interaction to government oversight.

Yeah, sure. Classes of traits. Of people. We are talking about a group(s) of people who share a trait, right? Well, I don't have one of those traits, which means anybody can discriminate against me all they want and that sucks.

You do though. You have a race. According to the letter of the law, it's just as illegal for a business owner to discriminate against you because you're white (or whatever your race is) as it would be to discriminate against blacks.

Now, it's fair to say, that in practical application, protected classes are added because there's a problem with a single group, or a handful of groups, being discriminated against. But the legal theory used to steer clear of equal protection violation is the idea that these laws ban discrimination based on certain traits that each of us have.

That weird thing is, as Stormy pointed out, certain legal authorities are beginning to dispense with this rationalization, and simply claiming that the laws are about given special rights to certain groups - just as you've suggested. Clearly, the dust hasn't settled.

 

[task0778]

The DC Office of Human Rights enforces the DC Human Rights Act, which makes discrimination illegal based on 20 protected traits for people that live, visit or work in the District of Columbia. The DC Human Rights Act prohibits discrimination in housing, employment, public accommodations and educational institutions.

Protected Traits for Housing, Employment, Public Accommodations and Educational Institutions include:

1. Race: classification or association based on a person’s ancestry or ethnicity
2. Color: skin pigmentation or complexion
3. Religion: a belief system which may or may not include spirituality
4. National origin: the country or area where one’s ancestor’s are from
5. Sex: a person’s gender; sex discrimination includes sex harassment, and discrimination based on pregnancy, childbirth, related medical conditions, breastfeeding, and reproductive health decisions.
6. Age: 18 years or older
7. Marital status: married, single, in a domestic partnership, divorced, separated, and widowed
8. Personal appearance: outward appearance, but is subject to business requirements or standards
9. Sexual orientation: homosexuality, heterosexuality, and bisexuality
10. Gender identity or expression: your gender-related identity, behavior, appearance, expression or behavior which is different from what you are assigned at birth
11. Family responsibilities: supporting a person in a dependent relationship, which includes, but is not limited to, your children, grandchildren and parents.
12. Political affiliation: belonging to or supporting a political party
13. Disability: a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities; includes those with HIV/AIDS.

Additional Traits Applicable to Some Areas include:

14. Matriculation (applies to housing, employment and public accommodations): being enrolled in a college, university or some type of secondary school.
15. Familial Status (applies to housing, public accommodations and educational institutions): a parent or guardian with children under 18
16. Genetic information (applies to employment and public accommodations): Your DNA or family history which may provide information as to a person’s predisposition or likely to come down with a disease or illness.
17. Source of Income (applies to housing, public accommodations and educational institutions): origination of a person’s finances
18. Place of Residence or Business (applies to housing and public accommodations): geographical location of home or work
19. Status as a Victim of an Intrafamily Offense (applies to housing): a person who was subjected to domestic violence, sexual assault and stalking
Please note that these definitions are not exhaustive.
20. *NEW* Credit Information (applies to employment): any written, verbal or other communication of information bearing on an employee's creditworthiness, credit standing, credit capacity or credit history.

Protected Traits in DC | ohr


I wonder what's left. What could you discriminate against somebody for that's not on this list? We should start a movement: The Golden Rule movement. Put a sign in the window of your business that says we do not discriminate against anybody except for safety or health reasons. We treat everyone as they would want to be treated.

 

[dblack]

The DC Office of Human Rights enforces the DC Human Rights Act, which makes discrimination illegal based on 20 protected traits for people that live, visit or work in the District of Columbia. The DC Human Rights Act prohibits discrimination in housing, employment, public accommodations and educational institutions.

Protected Traits for Housing, Employment, Public Accommodations and Educational Institutions include:

1. Race: classification or association based on a person’s ancestry or ethnicity
2. Color: skin pigmentation or complexion
3. Religion: a belief system which may or may not include spirituality
4. National origin: the country or area where one’s ancestor’s are from
5. Sex: a person’s gender; sex discrimination includes sex harassment, and discrimination based on pregnancy, childbirth, related medical conditions, breastfeeding, and reproductive health decisions.
6. Age: 18 years or older
7. Marital status: married, single, in a domestic partnership, divorced, separated, and widowed
8. Personal appearance: outward appearance, but is subject to business requirements or standards
9. Sexual orientation: homosexuality, heterosexuality, and bisexuality
10. Gender identity or expression: your gender-related identity, behavior, appearance, expression or behavior which is different from what you are assigned at birth
11. Family responsibilities: supporting a person in a dependent relationship, which includes, but is not limited to, your children, grandchildren and parents.
12. Political affiliation: belonging to or supporting a political party
13. Disability: a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities; includes those with HIV/AIDS.

Additional Traits Applicable to Some Areas include:

14. Matriculation (applies to housing, employment and public accommodations): being enrolled in a college, university or some type of secondary school.
15. Familial Status (applies to housing, public accommodations and educational institutions): a parent or guardian with children under 18
16. Genetic information (applies to employment and public accommodations): Your DNA or family history which may provide information as to a person’s predisposition or likely to come down with a disease or illness.
17. Source of Income (applies to housing, public accommodations and educational institutions): origination of a person’s finances
18. Place of Residence or Business (applies to housing and public accommodations): geographical location of home or work
19. Status as a Victim of an Intrafamily Offense (applies to housing): a person who was subjected to domestic violence, sexual assault and stalking
Please note that these definitions are not exhaustive.
20. *NEW* Credit Information (applies to employment): any written, verbal or other communication of information bearing on an employee's creditworthiness, credit standing, credit capacity or credit history.

Protected Traits in DC | ohr


I wonder what's left. What could you discriminate against somebody for that's not on this list?

Almost anything? You can discriminate based on looks, wealth, odor, accent, skin-color, height, intelligence, etc, etc... this list is literally endless.

And, in point of fact, you can discriminate based on anything already on the list as long as you don't reveal why.

 

[hadit]

Do you have scientific evidence that being gay is not a choice?
That is fine too, I just know whether they discriminate because of politics, it doesn’t matter if it is Democrat or Republican, I will boycott them because what they are doing isn’t right. If you want to associate with intolerant bigots that is your choice, my choice is to stay away from narrowminded, intolerant nuts.

Yes there is evidence that it's not a choice.

There are two hormone washes that go over the brain of a fetus during gestation. If the fetus is female it's supposed to get estrogen. If it's male it's supposed to get testosterone.

Scientific research is now showing that some fetus get the wrong wash or don't get enough of the right wash. It also shows that the brain is changed with that wash.

Scientific research using MRI images of the brains of homosexual males show that they have the exact same brains as women.

Here, I did a search on the subject for you. Just click the link below then choose your article.

gestation hormone wash homosexuality


As for the second thing you said, I agree. I don't like to associate with narrow-minded and intolerant people. I would never expect a business person to kick someone out of their establishment just because of their political beliefs.

Just as I would expect no business to kick out or refuse to serve a homosexual person.

What I find very hypocritical is the people who spent years saying a business has the right to not serve anyone they choose are now saying it's not ok to not serve anyone they choose.

The people who said that if you serve the public you must serve all the public warned that this won't stop with homosexual people.

They were right.

Interesting. Do you think that most gay men would say they are really women? I thought they resisted that stereotype.

I can't speak for gay men.

What I did do was present honest facts.

Science is tearing apart the lie that a person chooses to be gay.

It's no more of a choice than being heterosexual is a choice.

And if they not only identified the cause of homosexuality, but developed a treatment that prevented it, would you embrace such a treatment?

I don't believe that I have the right to tell anyone what they can or can't do with their own body.

If some sort of treatment was developed to prevent it, If it was proven to not do any harm to the person and was effective, I would leave it up to the people involved to decide that.

If a consenting adult agrees to take that treatment I would defend their choice just as I would defend a consenting adult to have the choice to not take that treatment.

That's what pro choice means.

I was taking about a pre-natal test and treatment.

Actually, the interesting conflict would be if a pre-natal test could alert new parents that their child would be gay. Then two large democrat constituent groups would be at each other's throats, with the homosexual lobby demanding that the homosexual test not lead to mass abortions of gay babies and the abortion lobby demanding no limits on abortion for any reason.

 

[Silhouette]

Actually, the interesting conflict would be if a pre-natal test could alert new parents that their child would be gay. Then two large democrat constituent groups would be at each other's throats, with the homosexual lobby demanding that the homosexual test not lead to mass abortions of gay babies and the abortion lobby demanding no limits on abortion for any reason.

I get your funny paradox.

Except that LGBT is behavioral and adopted after birth. Like a heroin addiction or OCD disorders. People don't have to condone other people's repugnant behaviors. And this will be the final litmus test handed down by SCOTUS. It's just a matter of time.

 

[task0778]

Actually, the interesting conflict would be if a pre-natal test could alert new parents that their child would be gay. Then two large democrat constituent groups would be at each other's throats, with the homosexual lobby demanding that the homosexual test not lead to mass abortions of gay babies and the abortion lobby demanding no limits on abortion for any reason.

I get your funny paradox.

Except that LGBT is behavioral and adopted after birth. Like a heroin addiction or OCD disorders. People don't have to condone other people's repugnant behaviors. And this will be the final litmus test handed down by SCOTUS. It's just a matter of time.

Except that we do not know for certain that LGBT is adopted after birth or whether it was genetically predetermined.

 

[task0778]

The DC Office of Human Rights enforces the DC Human Rights Act, which makes discrimination illegal based on 20 protected traits for people that live, visit or work in the District of Columbia. The DC Human Rights Act prohibits discrimination in housing, employment, public accommodations and educational institutions.

Protected Traits for Housing, Employment, Public Accommodations and Educational Institutions include:

1. Race: classification or association based on a person’s ancestry or ethnicity
2. Color: skin pigmentation or complexion
3. Religion: a belief system which may or may not include spirituality
4. National origin: the country or area where one’s ancestor’s are from
5. Sex: a person’s gender; sex discrimination includes sex harassment, and discrimination based on pregnancy, childbirth, related medical conditions, breastfeeding, and reproductive health decisions.
6. Age: 18 years or older
7. Marital status: married, single, in a domestic partnership, divorced, separated, and widowed
8. Personal appearance: outward appearance, but is subject to business requirements or standards
9. Sexual orientation: homosexuality, heterosexuality, and bisexuality
10. Gender identity or expression: your gender-related identity, behavior, appearance, expression or behavior which is different from what you are assigned at birth
11. Family responsibilities: supporting a person in a dependent relationship, which includes, but is not limited to, your children, grandchildren and parents.
12. Political affiliation: belonging to or supporting a political party
13. Disability: a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities; includes those with HIV/AIDS.

Additional Traits Applicable to Some Areas include:

14. Matriculation (applies to housing, employment and public accommodations): being enrolled in a college, university or some type of secondary school.
15. Familial Status (applies to housing, public accommodations and educational institutions): a parent or guardian with children under 18
16. Genetic information (applies to employment and public accommodations): Your DNA or family history which may provide information as to a person’s predisposition or likely to come down with a disease or illness.
17. Source of Income (applies to housing, public accommodations and educational institutions): origination of a person’s finances
18. Place of Residence or Business (applies to housing and public accommodations): geographical location of home or work
19. Status as a Victim of an Intrafamily Offense (applies to housing): a person who was subjected to domestic violence, sexual assault and stalking
Please note that these definitions are not exhaustive.
20. *NEW* Credit Information (applies to employment): any written, verbal or other communication of information bearing on an employee's creditworthiness, credit standing, credit capacity or credit history.

Protected Traits in DC | ohr


I wonder what's left. What could you discriminate against somebody for that's not on this list?

Almost anything? You can discriminate based on looks, wealth, odor, accent, skin-color, height, intelligence, etc, etc... this list is literally endless.

And, in point of fact, you can discriminate based on anything already on the list as long as you don't reveal why.

Which is why I don't see the need to list protected classes in the 1st place. Make it cut and dried, no discrimination against anybody for any reason for basic goods and services. You could list other services for which some discretion might be permitted that wouldn't be mandated for every customer, including delivery. I can't see mandating a business owner to attend an event he/she finds repugnant. However, I could also see in some cases requiring the business to be registered as private or maybe semi-private if they want to exercise that discretion. I'd leave that up to the states to work out, as long as they do so in a fair and impartial manner, respecting the rights and concerns of all parties.

 

[dblack]

... I don't see the need to list protected classes in the 1st place. Make it cut and dried, no discrimination against anybody for any reason for basic goods and services. ...

Sure, that's the only consistent way to legislate it. It would be a nightmare to implement, but in the process we'd see just how flawed the concept really is.

 

[Silhouette]

Except that we do not know for certain that LGBT is adopted after birth or whether it was genetically predetermined.

We'll ask Anne Heche about that and the 3,000 gay men the CDC surveyed & found an "epidemic" of them having been molested as boys...and the gay men using another guy's asshole as an artificial vagina (bottoms usually sought for feminine traits) and the macho lesbians using dildos to please their "lesbian" partners with....

 

[task0778]

... I don't see the need to list protected classes in the 1st place. Make it cut and dried, no discrimination against anybody for any reason for basic goods and services. ...

Sure, that's the only consistent way to legislate it. It would be a nightmare to implement, but in the process we'd see just how flawed the concept really is.

Did I misunderstand? I'd have to ask why the concept of no discrimination against anybody for any reason for basic goods and services would be hard to legislate. You could have every PA business in your state identify what their basic goods and services are, and list them prominently in their place of business. Everything else is at the discretion of the business, and if the customers or employees or suppliers, or whoever else has a problem with that then they can take their business elsewhere, protest to the various agencies involved, write reviews to whatever and whoever accepts such reviews, and generally raise a stink about the issue. Or sue if they have the grounds to do so.

As much as possible I think we've got to get this kind of problem out of the courts and the gov't and let the customers decide who they want to patronize and who they don't. Given sufficient data, people can decide for themselves what they want to do about it. But I cannot see how the gov't at any level can look at every possible case of discrimination and judge this person's rights against a business owner's.

 

[task0778]

Except that we do not know for certain that LGBT is adopted after birth or whether it was genetically predetermined.

We'll ask Anne Heche about that and the 3,000 gay men the CDC surveyed & found an "epidemic" of them having been molested as boys...and the gay men using another guy's asshole as an artificial vagina (bottoms usually sought for feminine traits) and the macho lesbians using dildos to please their "lesbian" partners with....

Knock yourself out, but none of that proves a damn thing about whether sexual orientation is learned or genetically inherited.