Is political affiliation a protected class?

[ThisIsMe]

There are yard signs in my extended neighborhood supporting both democrats and republicans. There is not been one example of vandalism or violence because of them.

But it does happen, along with the other persecutions I listed...those are also a part of what I said.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Because you can live your life freely without making a public spectacle of your political beliefs.

You are welcome to express your opinions. But you want to be able to express those opinions without giving others the same benefit.

Because you can live your life freely without making a public spectacle of your political beliefs.

Ok, the same goes for someone's sexual orientation. By your logic, they can easily keep that to themselves....but should they have to? No, they should not, so why tell someone they have to keep their support to themselves?

You are welcome to express your opinions. But you want to be able to express those opinions without giving others the same benefit

No, I want all people to be able to show their support for their politics, without fear of reprise. If a dem or a repub wants to express their support, then feel free, but when ones support includes trying to harass and attack someone physically for their support then I think that crosses a line, and that's when I question the need for protections.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Why does that matter? Are you suggesting that only things people are born with are sacred, and only those are worthy of protection?

People grow up and their lives are influenced in certain ways, and those influences become ideas, and those ideas shape who they are as a person, and what they believe, and those beliefs become a core part of who they are. They can't turn that off no more than can someone being gay, so, why do they deserve any less protection?

Why does it matter?
Because you can't CHANGE who you are, you can't change being female or male, or black or white, or gay or straight.

Yes, people have things that can shape them, they get views on things. Their freedom of speech is protected, even though it has its limitations, they have the Bill of Rights, why do they need extra freedoms?

Black people have been pounded on for a LONG TIME. Slavery, segregation and the like have existed under the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

Gay people have been pounded on for a long time.

Women have been pounded on for a long time.

People who think that the Earth is flat have not. People who think Republicans are great have not.

What we see is that in the US, people get around equality based on how people are born. It's a problem. It's not a problem people not getting treated badly because of their views, other than a company says they're banning them for using Twitter, which doesn't infringe on their freedom of speech in the slightest.

 

[ThisIsMe]

The vandalism and violence you talk about is already illegal. The only thing left is verbal arguments against your political views. And that should be allowed. It qualifies as free speech.

So, should then not all criticism be allowed, regardless of protected status?

Also, you've seen the videos of people getting their hat ripped off their head at restaurants, if that had erupted into a fight, who do you think would have been arrested? The dem probably would have been let go and the maga guy would have been arrested for "starting a fight", yet it was the dem who actually started it.

So then what is the answer? The maga guy has to sit there and be humiliated, he can't react because he would be punished for doing so, so the dem guy gets a pass and the maga guy has to just take it? How is that ok?

 

[Blues Man]

Ok, then people can keep their life choices private too then, right? It works both ways.

Why is it you care what other people do so much?

Do what you want and stop worrying about what pother people do

 

[ThisIsMe]

Why does it matter?
Because you can't CHANGE who you are, you can't change being female or male, or black or white, or gay or straight.

Yes, people have things that can shape them, they get views on things. Their freedom of speech is protected, even though it has its limitations, they have the Bill of Rights, why do they need extra freedoms?

Black people have been pounded on for a LONG TIME. Slavery, segregation and the like have existed under the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

Gay people have been pounded on for a long time.

Women have been pounded on for a long time.

People who think that the Earth is flat have not. People who think Republicans are great have not.

What we see is that in the US, people get around equality based on how people are born. It's a problem. It's not a problem people not getting treated badly because of their views, other than a company says they're banning them for using Twitter, which doesn't infringe on their freedom of speech in the slightest.

Because you can't CHANGE who you are, you can't change being female or male, or black or white, or gay or straight

And people can't change their core beliefs either, and they shouldnt have to, but your asking them to keep it silent, so then should we say that you can be gay, or religious, but you must do so in silence?

why do they need extra freedoms?

I'm not asking for extra freedoms, I'm asking for protections FOR existing freedoms.

Yes, all of those things are, and have been a problem, you know what else is a problem? Getting treated badly for whom you support. Sure, it's not been as bad as the other things you mention, but it's always been there, and as of late, it's getting worse. Our political divide is growing every year, every day, and people are being harmed by it, so why not just step in and provide protections?

I'm not suggesting that political disagreement be banned, of course that is natural, and good, but I'm talking about specifically being targeted, harassed, attacked, vandalized, and treated poorly because of whom you support.

they're banning them for using Twitter, which doesn't infringe on their freedom of speech in the slightest.

No, but it does show how the left enjoys the ability to treat people unfairly because of their politics....

 

[ThisIsMe]

Why is it you care what other people do so much?

Do what you want and stop worrying about what pother people do

I don't care what people do, my example is that of how someone is suggesting you can be who you want to be, but must do so in silence, so, if that's your argument, then I argue that should be the case for everyone, regardless of what it is.

 

[Blues Man]

I don't care what people do, my example is that of how someone is suggesting you can be who you want to be, but must do so in silence, so, if that's your argument, then I argue that should be the case for everyone, regardless of what it is.

You obviously do care as this thread illustrates.

And my opinion is that yes people should keep their lives private because unlike most of you I know that no one really cares about your private life or your feelings and don't want to hear about them

 

[ThisIsMe]

You obviously do care as this thread illustrates.

And my opinion is that yes people should keep their lives private because unlike most of you I know that no one really cares about your private life or your feelings and don't want to hear about them

But that doesn't change the fact that you shouldn't HAVE to keep your life silent. But I'm only pointing out that your right to be patriotic about your support of a particular party is, apparently, open for retaliation and persecution. As long as you are not up in someone's face about it, and forcing it on them, I say "you be you".

 

[ThisIsMe]

You obviously do care as this thread illustrates.

And my opinion is that yes people should keep their lives private because unlike most of you I know that no one really cares about your private life or your feelings and don't want to hear about them

You obviously do care as this thread illustrates.

I don't care how a person chooses to live their life, I'm only trying to express that a person's fundamental belief system should be protected as are many other things.

 

[frigidweirdo]

And people can't change their core beliefs either, and they shouldnt have to, but your asking them to keep it silent, so then should we say that you can be gay, or religious, but you must do so in silence?



I'm not asking for extra freedoms, I'm asking for protections FOR existing freedoms.

Yes, all of those things are, and have been a problem, you know what else is a problem? Getting treated badly for whom you support. Sure, it's not been as bad as the other things you mention, but it's always been there, and as of late, it's getting worse. Our political divide is growing every year, every day, and people are being harmed by it, so why not just step in and provide protections?

I'm not suggesting that political disagreement be banned, of course that is natural, and good, but I'm talking about specifically being targeted, harassed, attacked, vandalized, and treated poorly because of whom you support.




No, but it does show how the left enjoys the ability to treat people unfairly because of their politics....

How many people have "core beliefs" that are actually based deep thought? Based on this forum, not many. Most just want to get their own way.

I'm reading a biography about Lenin. It's interesting. Lenin was a Marxist, but he didn't like the working class, he had no principles, he just wanted to win. He thought he was the smartest Marxist, but all he did was create friction, used people, tried to turn people against each other, and at one point his only support, apart from his family members, was from some dude who was in the pay of the secret police.

My point here is that even people who are famous for their thoughts and thinking and have "core beliefs", they're often not based on reality, people create their fantasy world and make things fit around it.

People who have beliefs can say whatever they want. Their speech is protected to a certain extent the same as everyone else. If they go out of their way to hurt or harm people, then their free speech is NOT protected.

A person lives in society and they deserve to be treated as a first class citizen. Black people were not. Black people were discriminated against because of their race. Nothing more.

Some dude who has a belief gets discriminated against how?

 

[ThisIsMe]

How many people have "core beliefs" that are actually based deep thought? Based on this forum, not many. Most just want to get their own way.

I'm reading a biography about Lenin. It's interesting. Lenin was a Marxist, but he didn't like the working class, he had no principles, he just wanted to win. He thought he was the smartest Marxist, but all he did was create friction, used people, tried to turn people against each other, and at one point his only support, apart from his family members, was from some dude who was in the pay of the secret police.

My point here is that even people who are famous for their thoughts and thinking and have "core beliefs", they're often not based on reality, people create their fantasy world and make things fit around it.

People who have beliefs can say whatever they want. Their speech is protected to a certain extent the same as everyone else. If they go out of their way to hurt or harm people, then their free speech is NOT protected.

A person lives in society and they deserve to be treated as a first class citizen. Black people were not. Black people were discriminated against because of their race. Nothing more.

Some dude who has a belief gets discriminated against how?

I have no idea "how many" people have core beliefs based on deep thought. They doesn't matter. What is important is that there are people who have core beliefs that define a part of their lives.

Your book doesn't relate to this conversation. What Lenin believed or falsely believed it's relevant to Americans core values. Whether you agree with those values or not, people have beliefs that form who they are.

Yes, the treatment of blacks was bad, but that's not the only form of discrimination that exists.

a person can be discriminated against for various reasons. Race, religion, sexual orientation, because they are fat, because they look funny, because they are crippled..etc...and because of their political persuasion.

 

[Blues Man]

I don't care how a person chooses to live their life, I'm only trying to express that a person's fundamental belief system should be protected as are many other things.

You beliefs and you ability to express them are already protected by the first amendment.

 

[Blues Man]

But that doesn't change the fact that you shouldn't HAVE to keep your life silent. But I'm only pointing out that your right to be patriotic about your support of a particular party is, apparently, open for retaliation and persecution. As long as you are not up in someone's face about it, and forcing it on them, I say "you be you".

You don't HAVE to.

Why do you expect everyone to agree with your choices? And political parties have nothing to do with patriotism in fact the founding fathers thought the rise of political parties was bad for the country and they were right.

 

[FA_Q2]

But what it also means is that, you may not be allowed to display your beliefs.

No, 'allowed' implies laws. You are allowed to express whatever you want. What you are not is protected from reaction.

A shirt, or a hat may get you into a fight, a yard sign may get your house vandalized, a bumper sticker may get your car keyed, or working as a canvasser may get you attacked.

All of which are illegal already. How does a protected class change that?

You essentially have to choose between openly showing your support for someone, and risk retaliation, or keeping it hidden, and not being able to spread the word and try to help your party win.

As we can see, being forced to be silent about politics can affect reach, and thus can affect votes. If you are afraid to be able to wear campaign garb, or display a yard sign, you are forced to stop helping your candidate effectively advertise, or, get their name out there. When people see a downturn in things like that, it gets translated into polls, and news stories report it as low support for something. That can actually influence minds...and votes....

Sure.

And none of that changes what I stated earlier. The effect of that is FAR less than making it a protected class where engagement becomes unlawful. Making engagement illegal does not increase freedom.

Voting, and support for a political party is one of our most fundamental things in this country. Why should someone be forced to be silent about their political leanings?

What stifles engagement is being afraid of showing your support for someone for fear of some kind of harassment or being attacked.

You are asking people to be silenced, opposition to expressed ideas, by protecting ideology. All the things you listed as being a problem have nothing to do with protected classes.

 

[frigidweirdo]

I have no idea "how many" people have core beliefs based on deep thought. They doesn't matter. What is important is that there are people who have core beliefs that define a part of their lives.

Your book doesn't relate to this conversation. What Lenin believed or falsely believed it's relevant to Americans core values. Whether you agree with those values or not, people have beliefs that form who they are.

Yes, the treatment of blacks was bad, but that's not the only form of discrimination that exists.

a person can be discriminated against for various reasons. Race, religion, sexual orientation, because they are fat, because they look funny, because they are crippled..etc...and because of their political persuasion.

And yet the discrimination based on political persuasion is a strange one. Usually it only happens when someone's being obnoxious. I certainly don't think this is a problem in the US.

 

[FA_Q2]

And yet the discrimination based on political persuasion is a strange one. Usually it only happens when someone's being obnoxious. I certainly don't think this is a problem in the US.

Really?

It is obvious it is a problem. It is just not one that can be solved through legislation.

 

[WinterBorn]

Really?

It is obvious it is a problem. It is just not one that can be solved through legislation.

I find it funny that the OP claims to be a conservative, and yet wants the gov't to solve his personal problems.

 

[FA_Q2]

I find it funny that the OP claims to be a conservative, and yet wants the gov't to solve his personal problems.

Do you? Still?

The right has been very much a backer of larger ever increasing government since at least Bush Jr. I would find it rather shocking if I manage to find a republican that stands for small government. They basically no longer exist.

 

[dblack]

Do you? Still?

The right has been very much a backer of larger ever increasing government since at least Bush Jr. I would find it rather shocking if I manage to find a republican that stands for small government. They basically no longer exist.

It's like trying to find a Democrat who cares about equal rights. Now it's all about "social equity" (the opposite).