Is political affiliation a protected class?

[dblack]

The real question regarding protected classes, or broader attempts to ban discrimination, is whether we have a right to shun people we don't want to associate with. It's the same issue as the baker being forced to bake cakes for gay weddings. It's the same issue when Twitter bans Trump.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Because you have no idea what protected astatus means. It has everything to do with the 'cake' and absolutely nothing to do with violence or harassment whatsoever. This has been pointed out over and over again.

As far as 'unfair' goes, that is a term so vacuous as to be meaningless in this context.

And not things that have to do with protected status and, therefore, irrelevant to your own topic.

And you have been shown why that is monumentally fallacious.

Ok, I disagree. No point in continuing to go round and round about this. Just a difference of opinion.

 

[ThisIsMe]

The real question regarding protected classes, or broader attempts to ban discrimination, is whether we have a right to shun people we don't want to associate with. It's the same issue as the baker being forced to bake cakes for gay weddings. It's the same issue when Twitter bans Trump.

I don't care if someone wants to "shun", you point was the very real unfair treatment that can happen because of your political stance.

I get it now, nobody agrees with me, that's fine.

 

[dblack]

I don't care if someone wants to "shun", you point was the very real unfair treatment that can happen because of your political stance.

Shunning can be quite unfair, depending on your point of view. Do you think it should be allowed?

 

[FA_Q2]

Ok, I disagree. No point in continuing to go round and round about this. Just a difference of opinion.

disagree, lol.

You do not disagree, you flatly do not understand what protected status means. You disagree with the definition of the thing you are trying to ask for.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Shunning can be quite unfair, depending on your point of view. Do you think it should be allowed?

Sure, when shunning means that you simply don't want to have anything to do with someone. What I'm referring to is real detrimental treatment, such as affecting employment, or affecting business, or causing someone to attack you etc..

 

[dblack]

Sure, when shunning means that you simply don't want to have anything to do with someone. What I'm referring to is real detrimental treatment, such as affecting employment, or affecting business ...

Shunning would definitely affect employment or business - "not have anything to do with someone" kinda covers that.

or causing someone to attack you etc..

What? Causing someone to attack you? What does that even mean?

 

[ThisIsMe]

disagree, lol.

You do not disagree, you flatly do not understand what protected status means. You disagree with the definition of the thing you are trying to ask for.

I disagree with YOU. I understand what it means, we just disagree with how and who it should apply to. I think that someone's political affiliation is, to some people, a very deep part of who they are, and yet, that aspect of who you are can be attacked by people who don't like that about you. My point is, how is that excluded from protected status. Thats all I was asking.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Shunning would definitely affect employment or business - "not have anything to do with someone" kinda covers that.

What? Causing someone to attack you? What does that even mean?

Ok, then, if "shunning" means your employer treats you unfairly because of your political beliefs, then yeah, I'd say that's wrong.

Attack....as in the instances we've seen on video where people have been attacked because of their political attire.

 

[dblack]

I disagree with YOU. I understand what it means, we just disagree with how and who it should apply to. I think that someone's political affiliation is, to some people, a very deep part of who they are, and yet, that aspect of who you are can be attacked by people who don't like that about you

It's been explained, several times in this thread, that protected classes aren't about being attacked. That's already illegal. Protected classes pertain to discrimination. Do you know that means?

 

[dblack]

Ok, then, if "shunning" means your employer treats you unfairly because of your political beliefs, then yeah, I'd say that's wrong.

And others may think it's perfectly just. The question is whether it should be legal. Should government have the power to force you to associate with others against your will?

Attack....as in the instances we've seen on video where people have been attacked because of their political attire.

Ok - again (fourth time? fifth time?) protected classes have nothing to do with that. At all. You really simply don't understand the concept. Please rectify that.

 

[ThisIsMe]

It's been explained, several times in this thread, that protected classes aren't about being attacked. That's already illegal. Protected classes pertain to discrimination. Do you know that means?

If you treat someone differently because of their political affiliation, is that not discrimination?

 

[ThisIsMe]

And others may think it's perfectly just. The question is whether it should be legal. Should government have the power to force you to associate with others against your will?

Ok - again (fourth time? fifth time?) protected classes have nothing to do with that. At all. You really simply don't understand the concept. Please rectify that.

So, you believe that your employer is justified in firing you, or passing you for promotion because you support a particular candidate?

 

[dblack]

So, you believe that your employer is justified in firing you, or passing you for promotion because you support a particular candidate?

No justification is needed. Unless there's a contract involved, I can be fired for any reason at all - including my political affiliation. Or at least that's how it ought to be. To me, it's honestly kind of bizarre that we've set up a situation where an employer can't fire someone unless the government approves of their reasons.

I wonder - should that policy be reciprocal? Should employees also be prevented from quitting if it's for reasons covered by the protected classes?

 

[ThisIsMe]

No justification is needed. Unless there's a contract involved, I can be fired for any reason at all - including my political affiliation. Or at least that's how it ought to be. To me, it's honestly kind of bizarre that we've set up a situation where an employer can't fire someone unless the government approves of their reasons.

I wonder - should that policy be reciprocal? Should employees also be prevented from quitting if it's for reasons covered by the protected classes?

But you can't be fired if you belong to one of the protected classes...and that's my point, if your boss says "I'm firing you because you're fat"...they can be sued. If he says "I'm firing you because you have a disability that prevents you from fully doing your job", they'd be sued and told they have to make accomodations, but, if a boss says "I'm firing you because you are a republican"....that's acceptable? Voting, and support for your party are a fundamental part of this country and some people identify their political beliefs as a part of who they are and major reason they love the country. You are suggesting that that facet of someone's life should be subject to discrimination?

 

[ThisIsMe]

No justification is needed. Unless there's a contract involved, I can be fired for any reason at all - including my political affiliation. Or at least that's how it ought to be. To me, it's honestly kind of bizarre that we've set up a situation where an employer can't fire someone unless the government approves of their reasons.

I wonder - should that policy be reciprocal? Should employees also be prevented from quitting if it's for reasons covered by the protected classes?

I wonder - should that policy be reciprocal? Should employees also be prevented from quitting if it's for reasons covered by the protected classes?

No, because the person quitting would only be harming themselves, and the other people who were the reasons they quit would be glad they're gone.

 

[dblack]

But you can't be fired if you belong to one of the protected classes...and that's my point, if your boss says "I'm firing you because you're fat"...they can be sued. If he says "I'm firing you because you have a disability that prevents you from fully doing your job", they'd be sued and told they have to make accomodations, but, if a boss says "I'm firing you because you are a republican"....that's acceptable?

Voting, and support for your party are a fundamental part of this country and some people identify their political beliefs as a part of who they are and major reason they love the country. You are suggesting that that facet of someone's life should be subject to discrimination?

Yes. I think all of those laws are equally stupid. I've always opposed them, and the reason is right here. This thread.

 

[Rigby5]

Uh huh - and if you're going to tell me that discrimination is "actual harm", we need to stop right there. Not helping someone isn't the same as hurting them.

This phrase is such a silly euphemism. "Denying access" means not doing something that someone else wants you to do. If you won't hire someone, you're denying them access to a job, if you won't provide someone with healthcare unless they pay, you're denying them access to healthcare. If you won't bake them a cake, you're denying them access to desert.

In any case, this isn't "actual harm".

Wrong.
Denying them access to food stores, bank mortgages, etc., is essentially murder.
That most definitely IS harm.
You have a right to not hire someone is not qualified, but if you are part of a large conspiracy to not hire those who are qualified but not the political beliefs you want, then your attempt to murder them is the worst crime imaginable.
It most certainly IS "actual harm" and you should then be arrested.

 

[dblack]

Wrong.
Denying them access to food stores, bank mortgages, etc., is essentially murder.
That most definitely IS harm.
You have a right to not hire someone is not qualified, but if you are part of a large conspiracy to not hire those who are qualified but not the political beliefs you want, then your attempt to murder them is the worst crime imaginable.
It most certainly IS "actual harm" and you should then be arrested.

So now discrimination - someone not doing what you want them to do - is the equivalent of murder? That's pretty fucked up.

 

[Rigby5]

Well, if you're calling it a "protected class" it means a good deal more. It means that people can't discriminate against you because of your political beliefs. That's what we're talking about.

Political beliefs have always been a protected class, but it just was not put into 1964 Civil Rights Act because it was not considered necessary, since everyone back then was ethical enough to not discriminate based on party affiliation.