Should political affiliation be a protected class?

[martybegan]

Pretty simple question. Over the last couple of years there have been a number of incidents in the news of business owners refusing to serve people they disagree with politically. MAGA hat wearers are common "victims". Clearly this is discrimination. Is it time to add political affiliation to the protected classes list?

Either all classes should be protected, or no classes should be protected.

Exactly. And since it's patently insane to ban all discrimination, the concept should be retired.

The only practical options to get there are to convince people to end protected classes, or make everyone a protected class and watch the system choke on itself.

I'm trying. Wanna help?

As we have disagreed on before, I am not as absolute as you on this topic. My current goal would be just to limit the PA concept to actual PA's.

- oh well. So much for the only practical option.

Maybe I used the term practical poorly, to get what you want the only possibly viable solutions would have been a better term.

Both not very likely.

 

[Coyote]

Are you saying MAGA's are snowlakes?

Ironic that the first rhetorical, flaming post comes from a moderator.

Interesting that you deleted the rest of the quote.

 

[theHawk]

Pretty simple question. Over the last couple of years there have been a number of incidents in the news of business owners refusing to serve people they disagree with politically. MAGA hat wearers are common "victims". Clearly this is discrimination. Is it time to add political affiliation to the protected classes list?

No, every American has the right to refuse service to communists. And they should exercise that right as often as possible.

 

[dblack]

Pretty simple question. Over the last couple of years there have been a number of incidents in the news of business owners refusing to serve people they disagree with politically. MAGA hat wearers are common "victims". Clearly this is discrimination. Is it time to add political affiliation to the protected classes list?

No, every American has the right to refuse service to communists. And they should exercise that right as often as possible.

And MAGA hats? Do they have a right to refuse service to Trump supporters?

 

[theHawk]

Pretty simple question. Over the last couple of years there have been a number of incidents in the news of business owners refusing to serve people they disagree with politically. MAGA hat wearers are common "victims". Clearly this is discrimination. Is it time to add political affiliation to the protected classes list?

No, every American has the right to refuse service to communists. And they should exercise that right as often as possible.

And MAGA hats? Do they have a right to refuse service to Trump supporters?

That’s already been established. Would you want to eat at a place that wouldn’t serve people wearing a MAGA hat?

 

[dblack]

Pretty simple question. Over the last couple of years there have been a number of incidents in the news of business owners refusing to serve people they disagree with politically. MAGA hat wearers are common "victims". Clearly this is discrimination. Is it time to add political affiliation to the protected classes list?

No, every American has the right to refuse service to communists. And they should exercise that right as often as possible.

And MAGA hats? Do they have a right to refuse service to Trump supporters?

That’s already been established.

Ok. You mentioned refusing to serve communists. Just wondered whether you're speaking to the principle involved, or just advocating discrimination against communists.

 

[dblack]

Political ideas should not be protected. I am of the same opinion regarding to religion.

Agreed. I don't see why religious beliefs should be protected from discrimination, but not political beliefs.

 

[Pellinore]

Absolutely not. It would give legal cover to extremists tearing the place down with anti-democratic rhetoric. We're bisected enough as it is.

 

[dblack]

Absolutely not. It would give legal cover to extremists tearing the place down with anti-democratic rhetoric. We're bisected enough as it is.

Doesn't religion pose the same kind of risk?

 

[Pellinore]

Absolutely not. It would give legal cover to extremists tearing the place down with anti-democratic rhetoric. We're bisected enough as it is.

Doesn't religion pose the same kind of risk?

No, because we're not a theocracy. We don't guide our government and determine our laws according to religious affiliation, so if an unscrupulous, charismatic, religious manipulator were to take over their church, it wouldn't directly affect our government. If, however, an unscrupulous, charismatic, political manipulator were to seize a lot of power, it would. Giving the followers of a demagogue protection against social backlash would be suicidal.

There are other reasons, too. There is a history of religious persecution (here, abroad, and back in time) that doesn't exist for political parties. Political parties are fluid and their constituencies change at least once in most Americans' lives. Many states don't have party registration; mine assigns you a party based on who you voted for the most, and I *absolutely* don't want my state determining whether I'm a protected class or not. It's just a terrible idea all around.

 

[dblack]

Absolutely not. It would give legal cover to extremists tearing the place down with anti-democratic rhetoric. We're bisected enough as it is.

Doesn't religion pose the same kind of risk?

No, because we're not a theocracy. We don't guide our government and determine our laws according to religious affiliation, so if an unscrupulous, charismatic, religious manipulator were to take over their church, it wouldn't directly affect our government.

Nothing in our Constitution prevents and unscrupulous, charismatic, religious manipulator from being elected to government.

There are other reasons, too. ...

And all of them apply equally to political affiliation

... I *absolutely* don't want my state determining whether I'm a protected class or not. It's just a terrible idea all around.

On that we agree. That's pretty much my whole point.

 

[Gdjjr]

Group classification is used to divide and conquer- guess who gets divided and conquered-