Is political affiliation a protected class?

[ThisIsMe]

So, after 10 pages, I think I have my answer. The overwhelming consensus is that your political affiliation should not be protected, and that there should be no repercussions for the exclusion or harassment (non physical) of someone based on who they support.

If you wear a campaign slogan, you open yourself up for attack, and if you want to avoid being attacked, or having negative repercussions at work, you should have to hide your political affiliation, and hope it doesn't get out, even if you make posts on social media, which could be used against you at work.

So, to be secure from these things, you need to hide your political support. Does this sum up what has been said here?

 

[BluesLegend]

Dimm's are protected.
They have Big Tech censoring the opposition and most of MSM in their corner.
And then, there is the FBI, .......

Even with Democrat leaders allowed to blatantly LIE without consequence. Even with the MSM 100% in the tank for Democrats supporting those lies and broadcasting Dem lies 24/7. Even with the so called press abandoning all professional standards with 100% BIAS in favor of Dems. Even with all those advantages half the country still hates Democrats, that's incredible.

 

[Skylar]

If it isn't, should it be? I think it should. With race, gender, sexual orientation, and others being among those listed as protected classes, why not one of the most fundamental things in this country? Your affiliation to a political party?

Why shouldn't you be protected on the basis of your ideology and whom you vote for?

Granted, USMB, and many talk shows would vanish overnight, but, would it not be worth it to be able to freely believe, and vote, without the fear of persecution, ridicule, and exclusion?

No.

 

[Blues Man]

No, it's not, but, it's an example if how people are being treated differently because of their political affiliation.

Grow a set already

 

[Billiejeens]

If it isn't, should it be? I think it should. With race, gender, sexual orientation, and others being among those listed as protected classes, why not one of the most fundamental things in this country? Your affiliation to a political party?

Why shouldn't you be protected on the basis of your ideology and whom you vote for?

Granted, USMB, and many talk shows would vanish overnight, but, would it not be worth it to be able to freely believe, and vote, without the fear of persecution, ridicule, and exclusion?

Democrat affiliation is a protected class.

 

[dblack]

So, you skipped over my question. I'll try again: Why shouldn't every kind of bias be a protected class? Unless you are suggesting that some discrimination is ok?

Clearly not a question "protected class" advocates want to answer. So I'll answer on their behalf.

Yes, according to the law, some discrimination is ok. Most of it, in fact. Just a few kinds of discrimination are prohibited: the protected classes. Only those biases that the majority wants to suppress make the list. Anything else goes.

This kind of legislation sets a really bad precedent. While we may agree that a given protected class exists "for a good cause" (if not a good reason), the law is still suppressing ideas and forcing people to associate against their will. Sure, I'd like to live in a world without racist bigotry. But not at the expense of fundamental liberty. People have a right to have, and to act on, their biases, no matter how irrational or unpopular those biases may be.

 

[FA_Q2]

Clearly not a question "protected class" advocates want to answer. So I'll answer on their behalf.

Yes, according to the law, some discrimination is ok. Most of it, in fact. Just a few kinds of discrimination are prohibited: the protected classes. Only those biases that the majority wants to suppress make the list. Anything else goes.

This kind of legislation sets a really bad precedent. While we may agree that a given protected class exists "for a good cause" (if not a good reason), the law is still suppressing ideas and forcing people to associate against their will. Sure, I'd like to live in a world without racist bigotry. But not at the expense of fundamental liberty. People have a right to have, and to act on, their biases, no matter how irrational or unpopular those biases may be.

well said

 

[ThisIsMe]

Grow a set already

Lol. Shall we say that to everyone under civil rights protection?

 

[ThisIsMe]

Democrat affiliation is a protected class.

You're not wrong...

 

[Blues Man]

Lol. Shall we say that to everyone under civil rights protection?

Your civil rights aren't being violated

 

[ThisIsMe]

Your civil rights aren't being violated

That's wasn't my question.

 

[Blues Man]

That's wasn't my question.

Yet it is relevant to the discussion.

Your civil rights haven't been violated so you cannot compare yourself to those who have had or are having their civil rights violated

 

[ThisIsMe]

Yet it is relevant to the discussion.

Your civil rights haven't been violated so you cannot compare yourself to those who have had or are having their civil rights violated

However, there have been people who have had people be aggressive toward them based on their attire. That certainly is a violation of their rights, and we can see the rhetoric increasing very quickly.

But, as I said, I have my answer. Political views should not be protected, and should be open for harassment, and even intimidation. You should not expect to be secure in your support of your candidate of choice. Sound about right?

 

[dblack]

However, there have been people who have had people be aggressive toward them based on their attire. That certainly is a violation of their rights, and we can see the rhetoric increasing very quickly.

But, as I said, I have my answer. Political views should not be protected, and should be open for harassment, and even intimidation.

Who has said that? They should be no more "open to harassment" than anyone else.

You should not expect to be secure in your support of your candidate of choice. Sound about right?

WTF does "secure in your support" supposed to mean?

 

[Rigby5]

I agree with the founding fathers, that there should not be political parties.

You do not need to have explicit political parties in order to have protection of political speech and association.
You do need protection of political speech and association or else you prevent campaigning and free elections.

 

[Rigby5]

However, there have been people who have had people be aggressive toward them based on their attire. That certainly is a violation of their rights, and we can see the rhetoric increasing very quickly.

But, as I said, I have my answer. Political views should not be protected, and should be open for harassment, and even intimidation. You should not expect to be secure in your support of your candidate of choice. Sound about right?

Wrong.
If you allow political discrimination, then who rules will be determined by violence alone, and not by merit.
You are endorsing deliberate harm, which can then only be replied to with violence.

 

[Rigby5]

Since I wholeheartedly disagree with the very existence of political parties, and wish to see them outlawed, I would say No.

Even if there were no political parties, you still need to protect the ability to have people feel safe to express their political beliefs.

 

[dblack]

Even if there were no political parties, you still need to protect the ability to have people feel safe to express their political beliefs.

No. You really don't.

 

[Rigby5]

No. You really don't.

If you allow actual harm to be done to those who hold political beliefs, such as denying them access to stores, jobs, housing, etc., then they will have no choice but to kill you, and it will be self defense and legal.

 

[Rigby5]

Political discrimination is absolutely the single worst crime anyone can possibly commit, in a democratic republic.