Is political affiliation a protected class?

[frigidweirdo]

You can simply value freedom and how others choose to live theirs.

Well yes. You have the theory of rights which says you can do anything you like as long as it doesn't harm others.

I have the right to say anything, as long as it doesn't hurt or harm others. So we have libel laws because if I say something that loses you money, it harms you. We have treason laws which could end up with people getting killed, or the country being damaged.

If I call a black person the N word, does this cause harm? It's debatable. If I'm in a room with one other person who isn't black and I say it and it's not recorded, then no. If I'm a black person and I say it, then no. If I go to a black pride event and shout "fucking N...." out loud, then yes.

However, in the context of this debate, it's similar to accommodation laws, laws made to force people who run businesses to deal with all people.

This exists because in the past businesses would refuse to serve people because of the way they were born. Black people being the main one. Why should a black person feel like a second class citizen in their own country? They shouldn't.

Hate speech, for example, says you can't say something publicly that will cause problems for people because of the way they were born. However if you're a Republican or Democrat, or Communist or Fascist, then it's different. It's a choice.

Should black people, gay people, women, minorities etc etc be attacked verbally by people simply because of the way they were born?

Should a person of political belief be attacked verbally by people simply because they've decided to follow those politics?

I'm going for no for the first and yes for the second. Why?

Because with the latter there's a freedom of political speech. If you're pro-abortion or anti-abortion you should be able to express this. You should also be able to express why you don't like a person who is the opposite of you.

This is bad debating and arguing, but it's still protected speech. Whereas attacking someone for being black is not protected because your speech is harming people.

It's a balance. And rights aren't always that simple.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Well yes. You have the theory of rights which says you can do anything you like as long as it doesn't harm others.

I have the right to say anything, as long as it doesn't hurt or harm others. So we have libel laws because if I say something that loses you money, it harms you. We have treason laws which could end up with people getting killed, or the country being damaged.

If I call a black person the N word, does this cause harm? It's debatable. If I'm in a room with one other person who isn't black and I say it and it's not recorded, then no. If I'm a black person and I say it, then no. If I go to a black pride event and shout "fucking N...." out loud, then yes.

However, in the context of this debate, it's similar to accommodation laws, laws made to force people who run businesses to deal with all people.

This exists because in the past businesses would refuse to serve people because of the way they were born. Black people being the main one. Why should a black person feel like a second class citizen in their own country? They shouldn't.

Hate speech, for example, says you can't say something publicly that will cause problems for people because of the way they were born. However if you're a Republican or Democrat, or Communist or Fascist, then it's different. It's a choice.

Should black people, gay people, women, minorities etc etc be attacked verbally by people simply because of the way they were born?

Should a person of political belief be attacked verbally by people simply because they've decided to follow those politics?

I'm going for no for the first and yes for the second. Why?

Because with the latter there's a freedom of political speech. If you're pro-abortion or anti-abortion you should be able to express this. You should also be able to express why you don't like a person who is the opposite of you.

This is bad debating and arguing, but it's still protected speech. Whereas attacking someone for being black is not protected because your speech is harming people.

It's a balance. And rights aren't always that simple.

Freedom is that simple. Stay in your lane, weirdo.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Freedom is that simple. Stay in your lane, weirdo.

Fucking hell, if you can't participate in a discussion, don't even start talking. Bye.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Fucking hell, if you can't participate in a discussion, don't even start talking. Bye.

That is the discussion, dope.

 

[frigidweirdo]

That is the discussion, dope.

welcome to the ignore list.

 

[ThisIsMe]

And how is that right being violated?

You can still vote for whoever you want can't you?

Well, I was more talking about the harassment and unfair treatment people receive because of their political affiliation. From what I'm getting from these responses is that, your ideology is fair game for ridicule, harassment, even unfair treatment at your job, being banned and excluded from things, all based on who you vote for.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Having a shaved head is also part of who I am. Should bald people be a protected class?

Ok, then why have any protected classes?

 

[ThisIsMe]

Your political beliefs are your own. Unless you are arguing politics at work, there is no issue.

If someone throws harsh words at you, do you just fold up? If you cannot defend your political beliefs, they are not worth much.

Again, then why do we have any protected classes? People can defend themselves, correct?

 

[ThisIsMe]

Why should someone have to change their values?

Then we go to the next question which is: Why should someone have to change their gender, their race, their sexuality?

And the answer to this question is, generally, they can't.

Values can be changed. Other things can't.

My point is that, for some people, their values are at the core of who they are, why should someone be required to change their values to avoid harassment and even improper treatment?

Religion is protected, but you could just as easily change your religion,.or not be religious at all. The point is, they are protected, so they don't have to. How is political ideology protection any different?

 

[ThisIsMe]

Well yes. You have the theory of rights which says you can do anything you like as long as it doesn't harm others.

I have the right to say anything, as long as it doesn't hurt or harm others. So we have libel laws because if I say something that loses you money, it harms you. We have treason laws which could end up with people getting killed, or the country being damaged.

If I call a black person the N word, does this cause harm? It's debatable. If I'm in a room with one other person who isn't black and I say it and it's not recorded, then no. If I'm a black person and I say it, then no. If I go to a black pride event and shout "fucking N...." out loud, then yes.

However, in the context of this debate, it's similar to accommodation laws, laws made to force people who run businesses to deal with all people.

This exists because in the past businesses would refuse to serve people because of the way they were born. Black people being the main one. Why should a black person feel like a second class citizen in their own country? They shouldn't.

Hate speech, for example, says you can't say something publicly that will cause problems for people because of the way they were born. However if you're a Republican or Democrat, or Communist or Fascist, then it's different. It's a choice.

Should black people, gay people, women, minorities etc etc be attacked verbally by people simply because of the way they were born?

Should a person of political belief be attacked verbally by people simply because they've decided to follow those politics?

I'm going for no for the first and yes for the second. Why?

Because with the latter there's a freedom of political speech. If you're pro-abortion or anti-abortion you should be able to express this. You should also be able to express why you don't like a person who is the opposite of you.

This is bad debating and arguing, but it's still protected speech. Whereas attacking someone for being black is not protected because your speech is harming people.

It's a balance. And rights aren't always that simple.

But where does it say those things are protected because they were born that way? Sure, black people were born that way, but that is not why they are protected, it's because it's who they are, same with gay people, same with Republicans and democrats.

The argument you're making would suggest that the only people who could enjoy civil rights protections are people who are born a certain way. But that's not what these protections are for.

 

[WinterBorn]

Ok, then why have any protected classes?

Because many have been seriously wrong for a long time, based on attributes they could not control.

 

[WinterBorn]

Again, then why do we have any protected classes? People can defend themselves, correct?

You can defend yourself from harsh words. Emmitt Till could not defend himself.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Because many have been seriously wrong for a long time, based on attributes they could not control.

I agree, I just don't agree that protections only apply to people who have circumstances beyond their control.
I don't think one should have to alter their ideology to be free from persecution.

Again, I point to religion. Completely a choice within your control, but still is protected.

 

[frigidweirdo]

My point is that, for some people, their values are at the core of who they are, why should someone be required to change their values to avoid harassment and even improper treatment?

Religion is protected, but you could just as easily change your religion,.or not be religious at all. The point is, they are protected, so they don't have to. How is political ideology protection any different?

Because no matter how much of a core someone thinks their opinions are, they're still something that is fluid. People aren't born with those opinions. People can still change their opinions if they want to.

Religion shouldn't be protected. The reason why religion is protected is because some religious people are fanatics and want their religion to be everything in their own country, like Iran for example, and they compromise with religious groups to protect their religious bigotry.

 

[frigidweirdo]

But where does it say those things are protected because they were born that way? Sure, black people were born that way, but that is not why they are protected, it's because it's who they are, same with gay people, same with Republicans and democrats.

The argument you're making would suggest that the only people who could enjoy civil rights protections are people who are born a certain way. But that's not what these protections are for.

It says it in the laws that are made.

No, your last sentence is wrong. There are already rights. There are just extra protections based on how you're born.
Everyone was born a color. That gives EVERYONE protection. Everyone was born a gender, a sexuality etc.... too.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Because no matter how much of a core someone thinks their opinions are, they're still something that is fluid. People aren't born with those opinions. People can still change their opinions if they want to.

Religion shouldn't be protected. The reason why religion is protected is because some religious people are fanatics and want their religion to be everything in their own country, like Iran for example, and they compromise with religious groups to protect their religious bigotry.

Because no matter how much of a core someone thinks their opinions are, they're still something that is fluid. People aren't born with those opinions. People can still change their opinions if they want to.

My point is, why should they have to? Why should someone be force to evacuate their ideology to avoid political persecution. You even saying that is a perfect reason why it should be protected. This not like the choice of chocolate or vanilla, this is your right to support your political party.

I disagree with religious bigotry. The founders, many of them, were deeply religious people. There are billions of people who believe in a God in one form or another. They wanted people to be able to worship as they choose.

Besides, it's not about whether or not it should be protected, it's about the fact that it is, but just like political ideology, religious views can also change, yet they are protected.

 

[ThisIsMe]

It says it in the laws that are made.

No, your last sentence is wrong. There are already rights. There are just extra protections based on how you're born.
Everyone was born a color. That gives EVERYONE protection. Everyone was born a gender, a sexuality etc.... too.

Ok, so then you are saying the only protected rights are those of which you were born with? In other words, being gay or black are off limits for persecution, but everything else is fair game?

Again, I just don't agree with the "born with it" argument. It's about the fundamental right to be who you choose to be, and the right to support political parties without reprisal.

 

[WinterBorn]

I agree, I just don't agree that protections only apply to people who have circumstances beyond their control.
I don't think one should have to alter their ideology to be free from persecution.

Again, I point to religion. Completely a choice within your control, but still is protected.

What persecution are you talking about? You keep using that word, but not defining the persecution.

 

[frigidweirdo]

My point is, why should they have to? Why should someone be force to evacuate their ideology to avoid political persecution. You even saying that is a perfect reason why it should be protected. This not like the choice of chocolate or vanilla, this is your right to support your political party.

I disagree with religious bigotry. The founders, many of them, were deeply religious people. There are billions of people who believe in a God in one form or another. They wanted people to be able to worship as they choose.

Besides, it's not about whether or not it should be protected, it's about the fact that it is, but just like political ideology, religious views can also change, yet they are protected.

Okay, let's run with your idea that anyone's political belief should be respected.
Johnny thinks we should keep black people in a ghetto, that we should make them work for free. We feed them scraps, don't educated them, don't let them into white people shops, don't let them be a part of white people society.

And we need to protect this?

 

[Blues Man]

Well, I was more talking about the harassment and unfair treatment people receive because of their political affiliation. From what I'm getting from these responses is that, your ideology is fair game for ridicule, harassment, even unfair treatment at your job, being banned and excluded from things, all based on who you vote for.

why do you tell people who you voted for ?