Is political affiliation a protected class?

[Rigby5]

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

I specifically gave the examples of illegally depriving people of their means of survival, by denying them food and shelter.
Which obvious IS an attempt to kill them.

 

[dblack]

Wrong.
Denying them access to food stores, bank mortgages, etc., is essentially murder.

Really? So if a grocery store owner refuses to give their food away - thus "denying access" to life's necessities - they're to be treated as a murderer? The banker who turned down my loan application murdered me!

You should proof read this shit.

 

[Rigby5]

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.

Anyone open to the public most certainly must NEVER be allowed to discriminate in any way.
It is NOT EVER ok to shun anyone when open to the public.

 

[Rigby5]

Really? So if a grocery store owner refuses to give their food away - thus "denying access" to life's necessities - they're to be treated as a murderer? The banker who turned down my loan application murdered me!

You should proof read this shit.

No one ever suggest charging is discriminating, because obviously stores charge everyone equally.
But if the store tried to jack up the price they charge to Jews for example, that clearly is and must remain illegal.

 

[dblack]

Anyone open to the public most certainly must NEVER be allowed to discriminate in any way.

Well, they are allowed. The common delusion of authoritarians is that all discrimination is banned, when in reality it's only banned in a handful of situations, and then only regarding "protected classes". Every other kind of discrimination is allowed.

It is NOT EVER ok to shun anyone when open to the public.

Cause you say so. Got it. Nazi walks into a Jewish deli, dressed like Hitler, and they've got to kiss his ass like every other customer? That's bonkers.

 

[dblack]

No one ever suggest charging is discriminating, because obviously stores charge everyone equally.

You said that denying access is harm - equated it to murder in fact. That was a really dumb claim. Not doing what someone else wants you to do, is not the same as harming them. Period.

 

[dblack]

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.

Horse. Shit. Cite it, or stop making shit up.

 

[Soupnazi630]

Anyone open to the public most certainly must NEVER be allowed to discriminate in any way.
It is NOT EVER ok to shun anyone when open to the public.

It is immoral to ban private discrimination.

No one is open to the public

 

[FA_Q2]

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?

Clearly he does not.

These are concepts my 6 year old understands but this posters seems not to.

 

[ThisIsMe]

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

Oo, so what is your solution to the problem then? If you are harassed I'm public, or fired from your job because of who you support, your only course of action is to sit there and take it? Keeping in mind, we have protections for other classes who get special help in these cases. Political affiliation should be subject to adverse treatment?

 

[dblack]

Oo, so what is your solution to the problem then? If you are harassed I'm public, or fired from your job because of who you support, your only course of action is to sit there and take it?

Listen, if you're going to continue to stubbornly lie, we're done. Protected classes aren't about harassment. They're about discrimination. Learn the fucking difference.

Keeping in mind, we have protections for other classes who get special help in these cases. Political affiliation should be subject to adverse treatment?

"Adverse treatment" means "they don't like me!!"

Too bad.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Listen, if you're going to continue to stubbornly lie, we're done. Protected classes aren't about harassment. They're about discrimination. Learn the fucking difference.

"Adverse treatment" means "they don't like me!!"

Too bad.

Protected classes aren't about harassment. They're about discrimination. Learn the fucking difference.

And I asked you a question that, if someone fires you for your political affiliation, is that not discrimination?

If you are harassed because of your political affiliation, is that not discrimination?

If you attack someone who is gay or black, you not only face assault charges, you also face hate crime charges.

And yes, if you harass someone of a protected class, you will be accused of discrimination....so, its all related.

And this leads back to my original question, if you are treated unfairly or differently due to your political affiliation, is that not discrimination, and therefore worthy of at least looking at political affiliation as a protected class.

Those are questions I've asked, all along I understand your point of view. You are apparently not accepting of protected classes, you think they are wrong, or at least in the case of political affiliation, you think so.

The whole point of this thread was just a question of whether or not it should be considered, as there is a LOT of rhetoric, hate, unfair treatment, and even violence all due to your fundamental beliefs.

I get it, your answer is no....

 

[ThisIsMe]

Listen, if you're going to continue to stubbornly lie, we're done. Protected classes aren't about harassment. They're about discrimination. Learn the fucking difference.

"Adverse treatment" means "they don't like me!!"

Too bad.

"Adverse treatment" means "they don't like me!!"

And no, it's not just "they don't like me" that's simplifying it. Adverse treatment means being banned from social media because you hold certain views, Adverse treatment is having your political affiliation used against you when it comes to employment, Adverse treatment means being attacked for wearing a hat, Adverse treatment means feeling like you have to hide your political affiliation or risk some sort of retaliation.

It's more complex than "they just don't like me". If that's all there was to it, I wouldnt care and I wouldn't have made this post.

 

[dblack]

And no, it's not just "they don't like me" that's simplifying it. Adverse treatment means being banned from social media because you hold certain views, Adverse treatment is having your political affiliation used against you when it comes to employment, Adverse treatment means being attacked for wearing a hat, Adverse treatment means feeling like you have to hide your political affiliation or risk some sort of retaliation.

It's more complex than "they just don't like me".

Agreed. It's "they won't do what I want them to".

 

[Rigby5]

Well, they are allowed. The common delusion of authoritarians is that all discrimination is banned, when in reality it's only banned in a handful of situations, and then only regarding "protected classes". Every other kind of discrimination is allowed.

Cause you say so. Got it. Nazi walks into a Jewish deli, dressed like Hitler, and they've got to kiss his ass like every other customer? That's bonkers.

Wrong.
That is not at all how law works.
Law starts with basic principles, which essentially are that you are not supposed to harm the inherent rights of other individuals.
Doing so is inherently illegal and you can be punished in order to get you to stop.
That does NOT require legislation, as long as the act was deliberate and known to be harmful.

So then the1964 Civil Rights Act that specifically lists some additional classes that is explicitly protected, is NOT at all the only protected classes.
There have always been and will be other obvious protected classes, like political affiliation, that are not mentioned in the 1964 Civil Rights Act, because they did not need to be.
They were always obvious and always previously protected.

And YES, a person dressed like Hitler MUST be served by any Jewish shop owner open to the public.
If you do not enforce anti-discrimination, then you are allowing those with lots of power to dictate that no Jews are allowed to buy any food or housing.
Shunning is illegal and evil.
Anyone who believes in any religion should know better than to try to make judgements that belong to God instead of any single person.

 

[Rigby5]

You said that denying access is harm - equated it to murder in fact. That was a really dumb claim. Not doing what someone else wants you to do, is not the same as harming them. Period.

WRONG.
We are talking about denying people the means of survival, like jobs, food, housing.
That is attempted murder, obviously.

 

[dblack]

Wrong.
That is not at all how law works.
Law starts with basic principles, which essentially are that you are not supposed to harm the inherent rights of other individuals.
Doing so is inherently illegal and you can be punished in order to get you to stop.
That does NOT require legislation, as long as the act was deliberate and known to be harmful.

So then the1964 Civil Rights Act that specifically lists some additional classes that is explicitly protected, is NOT at all the only protected classes.
There have always been and will be other obvious protected classes, like political affiliation, that are not mentioned in the 1964 Civil Rights Act, because they did not need to be.
They were always obvious and always previously protected.

And YES, a person dressed like Hitler MUST be served by any Jewish shop owner open to the public.
If you do not enforce anti-discrimination, then you are allowing those with lots of power to dictate that no Jews are allowed to buy any food or housing.
Shunning is illegal and evil.
Anyone who believes in any religion should know better than to try to make judgements that belong to God instead of any single person.

Wrong.

 

[Rigby5]

It is immoral to ban private discrimination.

No one is open to the public

Wrong.
When you get a permit to open a business, it clearly says you can not discriminate against customers.

 

[dblack]

WRONG.
We are talking about denying people the means of survival, like jobs, food, housing.
That is attempted murder, obviously.

You're bonkers. Refusing to give someone a loan (or a job, or food, or housing) is not attempted murder.

 

[Rigby5]

Listen, if you're going to continue to stubbornly lie, we're done. Protected classes aren't about harassment. They're about discrimination. Learn the fucking difference.

"Adverse treatment" means "they don't like me!!"

Too bad.

Discrimination is EXTREMELY harmful, and therefore illegal.
Protected classes extend way beyond the 1964 explicitly added classes.
These are just the ones so often abused that they need to be specifically listed.
They are NOT the only protected classes.
Political affiliation has ALWAYS been a protected class, for centuries.
It is only recently anyone has been ignorant and blatant enough to even try to discriminate based on political affiliation.