Zone1 Discrimination Based on Political Affiliation in Washington State

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

So while I've been watching with a certain amount of horror the reactions as they have unfolded in the wake of the shooting of Charlie Kirk, I can't say that I'm surprised. But what has surprised me though is how much forethought was put into the crimes carried out by these roving mobs of vigilantes who have made it their purpose in life to extract retribution from anyone whom they deem didn't show the proper reverence for Kirk's death.

I don't have the time or the energy to psychoanalyze all of the various manifestations these reactions reveal but just like on January 6th when the mob at the U.S. Capitol were courteous enough to confess to their crimes online with accompanying photo and video montages, there is almost what could be a sense of gratitude when criminals help make one's job easier by supplying the needed evidence for you, instead of making it necessary to have to issue subpoenas.

So for those who haven't figured it out yet, firing someone due to their political affiliation in Washington State is prohibited. But this mob behavior and doxxing that is being reported by the media also falls under several other statutes such as online harassment, stalking & cyberstalking, tortious interference with a business contract, etc.

The state of Washington also has a blacklisting statute which is really interesting because it's a criminal code which means that if you can get the police to take a report and actually follow up on the complaint, you could possibly get an arrest, have your stalker/internet harasser/defamer charged and convicted. But even if that's too much of a stretch, the same criminal code allows the victim to file a claim for civil damages, meaning you don't have to rely on the police determining if you or your case is worth pursuing for you, you can pursue it yourself in civil court.

The irony of this whole fiasco is no one seems to remember when Kyle Rittenhouse, who was not even old enough to be in possession of the gun he used and who traveled across state lines in order to insert himself into a protest, shot and killed 2 Black Lives Matter protestors and injured a third. Not only was he celebrated nationwide for having shot the 3 protestors, he was given kid glove treatment by the judge in the case, and was celebrated and cheered on when he was acquitted. I don't recall anyone losing their job for supporting and celebrating Rittenhouse's who actually killed people, yet you all want people to lose their jobs for not caring sufficiently about the death of someone who has caused them to be targeted in society with numerous violations of their rights.

Let's not forget that Historically Black Colleges and Universities were immediately targeted with bomb and other threats after Kirk's death, along with Democrats, Liberals, "the Left", Black people, LGBTQ+ people, women, etc. yet when they finally took the shooter into custody, he was NONE of these things.

The doxxing website appears to now be defunct:

Anonymously-Run Website Publishes Names of People Accused of Mocking Charlie Kirk's Death: Report​

This is what the State of Washington has legislated on the matter.

1. How does Washington define political affiliation in relation to employment discrimination laws?​

​

Washington defines political affiliation as the identification with a particular political party, organization, ideology or position on a specific political issue. In relation to employment discrimination laws, an individual’s political affiliation cannot be used as a basis for discriminatory practices, such as hiring, firing, promotions, or any other aspect of employment.​

2. Can an employer in Washington discriminate against employees based on their political beliefs or affiliations?​

​

No, it is illegal for an employer in Washington to discriminate against employees based on their political beliefs or affiliations. State law prohibits discrimination in the workplace based on factors such as political ideology, party membership, or campaign contributions. Employees have the right to engage in political activities and express their political beliefs outside of work without fear of discrimination or retaliation from their employer.​

3. Are there any specific protections for employees who are discriminated against for their political affiliation in Washington?​

Yes, Washington state has several laws in place to protect employees from discrimination based on their political affiliation.​

​

Firstly, the Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD) prohibits discrimination in employment based on an individual’s political ideology. This includes any actions taken by employers that negatively affect an employee or job applicant because of their political beliefs or activities. Employers are also prohibited from retaliating against employees who engage in political activities protected by law.​

​

Additionally, under the federal National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), both union and non-union employees have the right to engage in protected concerted activities related to workplace conditions, wages, and other terms and conditions of employment. This can include discussing political matters with coworkers or engaging in collective action protesting workplace practices.​

​

Finally, certain municipalities within Washington state have passed local ordinances providing additional protections for employees’ political beliefs or affiliations. For example, Seattle’s Fair Employment Practices Ordinance prohibits employers from discriminating against employees based on their political ideology or actual or perceived citizenship status.​

​

Overall, Washington state has strong protections in place to prevent discrimination against employees based on their political affiliations. If you believe you have experienced such discrimination at work, it is important to contact a local employment attorney to discuss your rights and potential legal options.

Discrimination Based on Political Affiliation in Washington – State Regs Today​

 

[JGalt]

So while I've been watching with a certain amount of horror the reactions as they have unfolded in the wake of the shooting of Charlie Kirk, I can't say that I'm surprised. But what has surprised me though is how much forethought was put into the crimes carried out by these roving mobs of vigilantes who have made it their purpose in life to extract retribution from anyone whom they deem didn't show the proper reverence for Kirk's death.

I don't have the time or the energy to psychoanalyze all of the various manifestations these reactions reveal but just like on January 6th when the mob at the U.S. Capitol were courteous enough to confess to their crimes online with accompanying photo and video montages, there is almost what could be a sense of gratitude when criminals help make one's job easier by supplying the needed evidence for you, instead of making it necessary to have to issue subpoenas.

So for those who haven't figured it out yet, firing someone due to their political affiliation in Washington State is prohibited. But this mob behavior and doxxing that is being reported by the media also falls under several other statutes such as online harassment, stalking & cyberstalking, tortious interference with a business contract, etc.

The state of Washington also has a blacklisting statute which is really interesting because it's a criminal code which means that if you can get the police to take a report and actually follow up on the complaint, you could possibly get an arrest, have your stalker/internet harasser/defamer charged and convicted. But even if that's too much of a stretch, the same criminal code allows the victim to file a claim for civil damages, meaning you don't have to rely on the police determining if you or your case is worth pursuing for you, you can pursue it yourself in civil court.

The irony of this whole fiasco is no one seems to remember when Kyle Rittenhouse, who was not even old enough to be in possession of the gun he used and who traveled across state lines in order to insert himself into a protest, shot and killed 2 Black Lives Matter protestors and injured a third. Not only was he celebrated nationwide for having shot the 3 protestors, he was given kid glove treatment by the judge in the case, and was celebrated and cheered on when he was acquitted. I don't recall anyone losing their job for supporting and celebrating Rittenhouse's who actually killed people, yet you all want people to lose their jobs for not caring sufficiently about the death of someone who has caused them to be targeted in society with numerous violations of their rights.

Let's not forget that Historically Black Colleges and Universities were immediately targeted with bomb and other threats after Kirk's death, along with Democrats, Liberals, "the Left", Black people, LGBTQ+ people, women, etc. yet when they finally took the shooter into custody, he was NONE of these things.

The doxxing website appears to now be defunct:

Anonymously-Run Website Publishes Names of People Accused of Mocking Charlie Kirk's Death: Report​

This is what the State of Washington has legislated on the matter.

1. How does Washington define political affiliation in relation to employment discrimination laws?​

​

Washington defines political affiliation as the identification with a particular political party, organization, ideology or position on a specific political issue. In relation to employment discrimination laws, an individual’s political affiliation cannot be used as a basis for discriminatory practices, such as hiring, firing, promotions, or any other aspect of employment.​

2. Can an employer in Washington discriminate against employees based on their political beliefs or affiliations?​

​

No, it is illegal for an employer in Washington to discriminate against employees based on their political beliefs or affiliations. State law prohibits discrimination in the workplace based on factors such as political ideology, party membership, or campaign contributions. Employees have the right to engage in political activities and express their political beliefs outside of work without fear of discrimination or retaliation from their employer.​

3. Are there any specific protections for employees who are discriminated against for their political affiliation in Washington?​

Yes, Washington state has several laws in place to protect employees from discrimination based on their political affiliation.​

​

Firstly, the Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD) prohibits discrimination in employment based on an individual’s political ideology. This includes any actions taken by employers that negatively affect an employee or job applicant because of their political beliefs or activities. Employers are also prohibited from retaliating against employees who engage in political activities protected by law.​

​

Additionally, under the federal National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), both union and non-union employees have the right to engage in protected concerted activities related to workplace conditions, wages, and other terms and conditions of employment. This can include discussing political matters with coworkers or engaging in collective action protesting workplace practices.​

​

Finally, certain municipalities within Washington state have passed local ordinances providing additional protections for employees’ political beliefs or affiliations. For example, Seattle’s Fair Employment Practices Ordinance prohibits employers from discriminating against employees based on their political ideology or actual or perceived citizenship status.​

​

Overall, Washington state has strong protections in place to prevent discrimination against employees based on their political affiliations. If you believe you have experienced such discrimination at work, it is important to contact a local employment attorney to discuss your rights and potential legal options.​

​

Discrimination Based on Political Affiliation in Washington – State Regs Today​

Unless you're a government employee, there's no such thing as "discrimination based on political affiliation." States can make their own laws, but the federal government says otherwise.

AI Overview

Political discrimination is illegal for government employees due to First Amendment protections, but the legality for private sector employees depends on location and specific laws, as there is no federal law prohibiting private employers from discriminating based on political affiliation. Many states, like California, offer broad protections against political discrimination in both hiring and firing, while other states do not have these protections.


For Government Employees

• First Amendment Protection: Government employers cannot make employment decisions based on a person's political affiliation or beliefs because it violates their First Amendment right to freedom of speech and association.

For Private Employees

• • No Federal Protection:
    The federal government does not have a blanket law prohibiting private employers from discriminating based on political affiliation

 

[1srelluc]

They need a "bad person" law then because what they have won't cover firings for being an asshole.

 

[Mack The Finger]

 

[Hafar1014]

So while I've been watching with a certain amount of horror the reactions as they have unfolded in the wake of the shooting of Charlie Kirk, I can't say that I'm surprised. But what has surprised me though is how much forethought was put into the crimes carried out by these roving mobs of vigilantes who have made it their purpose in life to extract retribution from anyone whom they deem didn't show the proper reverence for Kirk's death.

I don't have the time or the energy to psychoanalyze all of the various manifestations these reactions reveal but just like on January 6th when the mob at the U.S. Capitol were courteous enough to confess to their crimes online with accompanying photo and video montages, there is almost what could be a sense of gratitude when criminals help make one's job easier by supplying the needed evidence for you, instead of making it necessary to have to issue subpoenas.

So for those who haven't figured it out yet, firing someone due to their political affiliation in Washington State is prohibited. But this mob behavior and doxxing that is being reported by the media also falls under several other statutes such as online harassment, stalking & cyberstalking, tortious interference with a business contract, etc.

The state of Washington also has a blacklisting statute which is really interesting because it's a criminal code which means that if you can get the police to take a report and actually follow up on the complaint, you could possibly get an arrest, have your stalker/internet harasser/defamer charged and convicted. But even if that's too much of a stretch, the same criminal code allows the victim to file a claim for civil damages, meaning you don't have to rely on the police determining if you or your case is worth pursuing for you, you can pursue it yourself in civil court.

The irony of this whole fiasco is no one seems to remember when Kyle Rittenhouse, who was not even old enough to be in possession of the gun he used and who traveled across state lines in order to insert himself into a protest, shot and killed 2 Black Lives Matter protestors and injured a third. Not only was he celebrated nationwide for having shot the 3 protestors, he was given kid glove treatment by the judge in the case, and was celebrated and cheered on when he was acquitted. I don't recall anyone losing their job for supporting and celebrating Rittenhouse's who actually killed people, yet you all want people to lose their jobs for not caring sufficiently about the death of someone who has caused them to be targeted in society with numerous violations of their rights.

Let's not forget that Historically Black Colleges and Universities were immediately targeted with bomb and other threats after Kirk's death, along with Democrats, Liberals, "the Left", Black people, LGBTQ+ people, women, etc. yet when they finally took the shooter into custody, he was NONE of these things.

The doxxing website appears to now be defunct:

Anonymously-Run Website Publishes Names of People Accused of Mocking Charlie Kirk's Death: Report​

This is what the State of Washington has legislated on the matter.

1. How does Washington define political affiliation in relation to employment discrimination laws?​

​

Washington defines political affiliation as the identification with a particular political party, organization, ideology or position on a specific political issue. In relation to employment discrimination laws, an individual’s political affiliation cannot be used as a basis for discriminatory practices, such as hiring, firing, promotions, or any other aspect of employment.​

2. Can an employer in Washington discriminate against employees based on their political beliefs or affiliations?​

​

No, it is illegal for an employer in Washington to discriminate against employees based on their political beliefs or affiliations. State law prohibits discrimination in the workplace based on factors such as political ideology, party membership, or campaign contributions. Employees have the right to engage in political activities and express their political beliefs outside of work without fear of discrimination or retaliation from their employer.​

3. Are there any specific protections for employees who are discriminated against for their political affiliation in Washington?​

Yes, Washington state has several laws in place to protect employees from discrimination based on their political affiliation.​

​

Firstly, the Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD) prohibits discrimination in employment based on an individual’s political ideology. This includes any actions taken by employers that negatively affect an employee or job applicant because of their political beliefs or activities. Employers are also prohibited from retaliating against employees who engage in political activities protected by law.​

​

Additionally, under the federal National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), both union and non-union employees have the right to engage in protected concerted activities related to workplace conditions, wages, and other terms and conditions of employment. This can include discussing political matters with coworkers or engaging in collective action protesting workplace practices.​

​

Finally, certain municipalities within Washington state have passed local ordinances providing additional protections for employees’ political beliefs or affiliations. For example, Seattle’s Fair Employment Practices Ordinance prohibits employers from discriminating against employees based on their political ideology or actual or perceived citizenship status.​

​

Overall, Washington state has strong protections in place to prevent discrimination against employees based on their political affiliations. If you believe you have experienced such discrimination at work, it is important to contact a local employment attorney to discuss your rights and potential legal options.​

​

Discrimination Based on Political Affiliation in Washington – State Regs Today​

This is perfect example of the moral retardation of the left. Its the support and refusal to condemn a politically motivated murder by a woke gay progressive with a cross dressing trans boyfriend. There have been 7 trans mass killers 2 attempts on Trumps life and Kirk killed. All politically motivated.

Hate speech isnt protected under the first amendment in the private sector. Its a good sign that hundreds are being fired expelled and suspended for applauding Kirks murder. Thats not a political belief thats a depraved amoral progressive supporting murder. Your ass is fired

 

[Lisa558]

They weren’t fired for their political affiliation. They were fired for being hateful people who were celebrating the cold-blooded murder of a conservative for expressing differing views.

 

[Stryder50]

So while I've been watching with a certain amount of horror the reactions as they have unfolded in the wake of the shooting of Charlie Kirk, I can't say that I'm surprised. But what has surprised me though is how much forethought was put into the crimes carried out by these roving mobs of vigilantes who have made it their purpose in life to extract retribution from anyone whom they deem didn't show the proper reverence for Kirk's death.

I don't have the time or the energy to psychoanalyze all of the various manifestations these reactions reveal but just like on January 6th when the mob at the U.S. Capitol were courteous enough to confess to their crimes online with accompanying photo and video montages, there is almost what could be a sense of gratitude when criminals help make one's job easier by supplying the needed evidence for you, instead of making it necessary to have to issue subpoenas.

So for those who haven't figured it out yet, firing someone due to their political affiliation in Washington State is prohibited. But this mob behavior and doxxing that is being reported by the media also falls under several other statutes such as online harassment, stalking & cyberstalking, tortious interference with a business contract, etc.

The state of Washington also has a blacklisting statute which is really interesting because it's a criminal code which means that if you can get the police to take a report and actually follow up on the complaint, you could possibly get an arrest, have your stalker/internet harasser/defamer charged and convicted. But even if that's too much of a stretch, the same criminal code allows the victim to file a claim for civil damages, meaning you don't have to rely on the police determining if you or your case is worth pursuing for you, you can pursue it yourself in civil court.

The irony of this whole fiasco is no one seems to remember when Kyle Rittenhouse, who was not even old enough to be in possession of the gun he used and who traveled across state lines in order to insert himself into a protest, shot and killed 2 Black Lives Matter protestors and injured a third. Not only was he celebrated nationwide for having shot the 3 protestors, he was given kid glove treatment by the judge in the case, and was celebrated and cheered on when he was acquitted. I don't recall anyone losing their job for supporting and celebrating Rittenhouse's who actually killed people, yet you all want people to lose their jobs for not caring sufficiently about the death of someone who has caused them to be targeted in society with numerous violations of their rights.

Let's not forget that Historically Black Colleges and Universities were immediately targeted with bomb and other threats after Kirk's death, along with Democrats, Liberals, "the Left", Black people, LGBTQ+ people, women, etc. yet when they finally took the shooter into custody, he was NONE of these things.

The doxxing website appears to now be defunct:

Anonymously-Run Website Publishes Names of People Accused of Mocking Charlie Kirk's Death: Report​

This is what the State of Washington has legislated on the matter.

1. How does Washington define political affiliation in relation to employment discrimination laws?​

​

Washington defines political affiliation as the identification with a particular political party, organization, ideology or position on a specific political issue. In relation to employment discrimination laws, an individual’s political affiliation cannot be used as a basis for discriminatory practices, such as hiring, firing, promotions, or any other aspect of employment.​

2. Can an employer in Washington discriminate against employees based on their political beliefs or affiliations?​

​

No, it is illegal for an employer in Washington to discriminate against employees based on their political beliefs or affiliations. State law prohibits discrimination in the workplace based on factors such as political ideology, party membership, or campaign contributions. Employees have the right to engage in political activities and express their political beliefs outside of work without fear of discrimination or retaliation from their employer.​

3. Are there any specific protections for employees who are discriminated against for their political affiliation in Washington?​

Yes, Washington state has several laws in place to protect employees from discrimination based on their political affiliation.​

​

Firstly, the Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD) prohibits discrimination in employment based on an individual’s political ideology. This includes any actions taken by employers that negatively affect an employee or job applicant because of their political beliefs or activities. Employers are also prohibited from retaliating against employees who engage in political activities protected by law.​

​

Additionally, under the federal National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), both union and non-union employees have the right to engage in protected concerted activities related to workplace conditions, wages, and other terms and conditions of employment. This can include discussing political matters with coworkers or engaging in collective action protesting workplace practices.​

​

Finally, certain municipalities within Washington state have passed local ordinances providing additional protections for employees’ political beliefs or affiliations. For example, Seattle’s Fair Employment Practices Ordinance prohibits employers from discriminating against employees based on their political ideology or actual or perceived citizenship status.​

​

Overall, Washington state has strong protections in place to prevent discrimination against employees based on their political affiliations. If you believe you have experienced such discrimination at work, it is important to contact a local employment attorney to discuss your rights and potential legal options.​

​

Discrimination Based on Political Affiliation in Washington – State Regs Today​

This rambling thread OP of yours is a rambling pile of undocumented angst and misinformation.
The only link you provide to support your pile of bogus claims has nothing to do with the State of Washington.
For that matter, you provide nothing in form of links or citings to support what you assert to be facts; no clear specific examples of firings based upon a political affiliation.

As for doxxing by private citizens of those with opposing political positions, I don't recall you ever objecting to such when done by your friends in Antifa and/or BLM, etc., such as during their insurrections of Summer 2020.

As for the Rittenhouse episode, again it would help if you got your 'facts' straight. Some excerpts;
.....
Joseph D. Rosenbaum, a 36-year-old unarmed Kenosha man, ran at Rittenhouse and grabbed the barrel of his rifle after throwing a plastic shopping bag of clothing at him. Rittenhouse shot Rosenbaum four times at close range, killing him. A crowd formed and Rittenhouse quickly fled the scene. Anthony Huber, a 26-year-old-resident of Silver Lake, struck Rittenhouse in the head with a skateboard and attempted to wrest his rifle away; Rittenhouse shot him once, fatally. Gaige Paul Grosskreutz, a 26-year-old West Allis man who pointed a handgun at Rittenhouse, was shot by Rittenhouse once in the right arm and survived.
...

Rosenbaum​

In the hours leading up to the shooting, prosecution witnesses described Rosenbaum as "hyperaggressive and acting out in a violent manner"

Witnesses described Rosenbaum carrying around a chain, and trying to provoke fights with people by "false stepping" at them. One witness described Rosenbaum "very bluntly asking people to shoot him" saying "shoot me, nigga", to which other protesters displayed negative reactions.

Another witness described how, accompanied by Rittenhouse, he tried to calm a disagreement between Rosenbaum and another man when Rosenbaum made threats to kill both of them, saying "if I catch any of you guys alone tonight, I'm going to ******* kill you!". The witness stated that he believed the threat was directed at both himself and Rittenhouse and that Rittenhouse had heard the threat.
....

Acquittal​

After the prosecution rested its case, the judge dismissed a charge of curfew violation against Rittenhouse, citing a lack of evidence offered by the prosecution; the charge of unlawful possession of a firearm was also dismissed, based on the defense argument that the Wisconsin law restricts minors from carrying rifles only if they are short-barreled. The barrel of Rittenhouse's rifle was longer than 16 inches, the shortest barrel length allowed for minors under state law.

The jury reached a unanimous verdict on all other charges after more than 25 hours of deliberations spanning four days, finding Rittenhouse not guilty on all counts.
....

Kenosha unrest shooting - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

.................
Basically Rittenhouse was acting in self-defense against those who had attacked him or threatened him with a firearm.

 

[Lisa558]

This rambling thread OP of yours is a rambling pile of undocumented angst and misinformation.
The only link you provide to support your pile of bogus claims has nothing to do with the State of Washington.
For that matter, you provide nothing in form of links or citings to support what you assert to be facts; no clear specific examples of firings based upon a political affiliation.

As for doxxing by private citizens of those with opposing political positions, I don't recall you ever objecting to such when done by your friends in Antifa and/or BLM, etc., such as during their insurrections of Summer 2020.

As for the Rittenhouse episode, again it would help if you got your 'facts' straight. Some excerpts;
.....
Joseph D. Rosenbaum, a 36-year-old unarmed Kenosha man, ran at Rittenhouse and grabbed the barrel of his rifle after throwing a plastic shopping bag of clothing at him. Rittenhouse shot Rosenbaum four times at close range, killing him. A crowd formed and Rittenhouse quickly fled the scene. Anthony Huber, a 26-year-old-resident of Silver Lake, struck Rittenhouse in the head with a skateboard and attempted to wrest his rifle away; Rittenhouse shot him once, fatally. Gaige Paul Grosskreutz, a 26-year-old West Allis man who pointed a handgun at Rittenhouse, was shot by Rittenhouse once in the right arm and survived.
...

Rosenbaum​

In the hours leading up to the shooting, prosecution witnesses described Rosenbaum as "hyperaggressive and acting out in a violent manner"

Witnesses described Rosenbaum carrying around a chain, and trying to provoke fights with people by "false stepping" at them. One witness described Rosenbaum "very bluntly asking people to shoot him" saying "shoot me, nigga", to which other protesters displayed negative reactions.

Another witness described how, accompanied by Rittenhouse, he tried to calm a disagreement between Rosenbaum and another man when Rosenbaum made threats to kill both of them, saying "if I catch any of you guys alone tonight, I'm going to ******* kill you!". The witness stated that he believed the threat was directed at both himself and Rittenhouse and that Rittenhouse had heard the threat.
....

Acquittal​

After the prosecution rested its case, the judge dismissed a charge of curfew violation against Rittenhouse, citing a lack of evidence offered by the prosecution; the charge of unlawful possession of a firearm was also dismissed, based on the defense argument that the Wisconsin law restricts minors from carrying rifles only if they are short-barreled. The barrel of Rittenhouse's rifle was longer than 16 inches, the shortest barrel length allowed for minors under state law.

The jury reached a unanimous verdict on all other charges after more than 25 hours of deliberations spanning four days, finding Rittenhouse not guilty on all counts.
....

Kenosha unrest shooting - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

.................
Basically Rittenhouse was acting in self-defense against those who had attacked him or threatened him with a firearm.

1) Also, what that OP said about Rittenhouse getting “kid gloves treatment” is hardly the case. This boy, who was in fact legally defending himself from two violent BLM rioters, was put in jail under $2 million bond for TWO months, and under horrible conditions. He wasn’t even allowed to shower that entire time.

Instead, look at the kids glove treatment that violent black man got as part of that black mob for beating a white man within an inch of his life: released on a very low bond.

2) Why is OP even bringing that old case up? The current case is the barbaric murder of an innocent white man, due in large measure to the hate speech spewed by leftists.

 

[Hafar1014]

Rittenhouse is the best case for use of deadly force in self defense I have ever seen

 

[OhPleaseJustQuit]

This rambling thread OP of yours is a rambling pile of undocumented angst and misinformation.
The only link you provide to support your pile of bogus claims has nothing to do with the State of Washington.
For that matter, you provide nothing in form of links or citings to support what you assert to be facts; no clear specific examples of firings based upon a political affiliation.

.

Amen.

.

 

[Hafar1014]

.

Amen.

.

Second that