Is political affiliation a protected class?

[ThisIsMe]

And keeping their feelings private effects them in a bad way. Should gays not hold hands with their spouse to avoid violence?

Should someone not be able to show political support without violence or harrassment?

 

[WinterBorn]

Based on ideology, since the "rules" they set up are basically a way to suppress only republicans. Notice how you don't see any dems being banned? It's because nothing they could say would ever be considered a violation of the ruled. It's only one party being silenced because the left leaning social media platforms have made their own determinations as to what "misinformation" is, which is simply questioning or speaking against the democrats.

I have not seen anything resembling what you claim. I spent a fair amount of time on social media.

But a privately owned media platform does not owe you anything.

 

[WinterBorn]

No, I don't want to force my views on anyone, but I also want for people to be able to support their politics without harassment. People shouldn't have to take off a hat, other people should have enough respect to ignore the person wearing their political garb and leave them alone. Those who oppose it should do so in silence, as it is a person's right to support whom they will.

And yes, you should be able to support your politics without fear of consequence. That's why I'm asking the question if political beliefs should be protected.

Again, I think your tone would change if it were dems being attacked for wearing Biden clothing. If that happened, you'd be calling for action.

I am not a fan of either Biden or Trump. And no, my tone would not change.

But creating an entire protected class simply because someone dislikes your hat is ridiculous.

 

[WinterBorn]

Why do you think someone's beliefs are a personal choice? What people believe in are a part of who they are at the core of their being.

If you think that political beliefs are the same as being born gay or black, I have no idea how to help you.

 

[WinterBorn]

Should someone not be able to show political support without violence or harrassment?

It depends on how they show their political support. There have been people on these forums talking about taking down "liberal" political signs that were posted in people's yards.

 

[ThisIsMe]

And one of the reasons you face such harassment is your leader saying things like "I'm sure some of them are fine people".

A quote you dems grossly misrepresented. He said in that very speech that those white supremacists groups should be condemned totally.

You bringing this up is actually a good example of why political leanings should be protected. You see, you dems take things like that, and then twist the context and omit things to change the meanings, then that causes the narrative to be portrayed one way, and since dems control most of the media and nearly all of social media, they can push that narrative across the country, and that permeates into society and causes dissent between people, and then that causes people to get into fights over someone wearing a hat.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Again, because if someone is born with something, it's different that if they've decided this is their thing.

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?

 

[WinterBorn]

A quote you dems grossly misrepresented. He said in that very speech that those white supremacists groups should be condemned totally.

You bringing this up is actually a good example of why political leanings should be protected. You see, you dems take things like that, and then twist the context and omit things to change the meanings, then that causes the narrative to be portrayed one way, and since dems control most of the media and nearly all of social media, they can push that narrative across the country, and that permeates into society and causes dissent between people, and then that causes people to get into fights over someone wearing a hat.

First of all, I am not a democrat.

Second of all, if you call some of them very nice people, the condemnation is worthless.


And finally, no, political affiliation will not be a protected class. But looking at your reply shows why you get harassed. Your automatic insistence that I belong to a certain political party, without knowing anything more than the fact that I disagree with you and dislike the former president, can annoy some people. I find it amusing. But some people don't.

 

[WinterBorn]

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?

They deserve, and receive, the same protection that every citizen gets. The question is, why you think they deserve special protections?

 

[ThisIsMe]

And herein lies the core problem. As couch already stated there are too many protected classes, not too few. If you are going to base this on harm then there is no limiting factor here on your principal. At what point does this 'harassment' become something that is no longer sufficient to drive special protected status? Drawing that line is nigh impossible as there will ALWAYS be another set of people that feel as though they should have these special protections extended to them and they will always be able to show some sort of harm from not having them. Contention and division is just a fact of life.

Even if you could draw that line, and I maintain you cannot, government can always be counted on rolling that line back adding to an ever growing list of protected classes. We have far to much of a victim mentality in this nation now, we do not need to add to it.

It is also worth noting that political activity is the very last thing you really want to be protected as it stifles real engagement. The very nature of being a protected class means that others cannot challenge you on that particular aspect of your beliefs. That is what having them protected means. Sometimes that challenge goes to far however that is the price that society must pay in order to maintain the free exchange of ideas. That principal is far more important than anything relating to protected classes.

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

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....


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.

 

[WinterBorn]

The overwhelming majority of the population over 18 years of age are registered voters. Will you make them all a protected class?

 

[WinterBorn]

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

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....


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.

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.

 

[ThisIsMe]

If you think that political beliefs are the same as being born gay or black, I have no idea how to help you.

I didn't say they were the same as being gay or black, I was merely saying that, like being gay or black, people's beliefs are also a core part of who they are, that people can't just change on a whim, so, why should they not also be afforded the protections to be patriotic about their support for a potical candidate, without fear of being attacked.

You wouldn't agree that it's OK to attack someone because they are gay, a core part of who they are, so why is it OK for being a repub or a dem, which is also a core part of who they are?

 

[WinterBorn]

I didn't say they were the same as being gay or black, I was merely saying that, like being gay or black, people's beliefs are also a core part of who they are, that people can't just change on a whim, so, why should they not also be afforded the protections to be patriotic about their support for a potical candidate, without fear of being attacked.

You wouldn't agree that it's OK to attack someone because they are gay, a core part of who they are, so why is it OK for being a repub or a dem, which is also a core part of who they are?

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.

 

[ThisIsMe]

It depends on how they show their political support. There have been people on these forums talking about taking down "liberal" political signs that were posted in people's yards.

Yeah, so if someone did that, you'd say it's wrong, right? So, why not protect their right to show support, and have a yard sign?

There should be no "it depends on how...", as long as you are not harming someone else, or being physically intrusive to another person, there should be no limits on your ability to show your support, and other people should not be allowed to interfere with that support.

 

[WinterBorn]

Yeah, so if someone did that, you'd say it's wrong, right? So, why not protect their right to show support, and have a yard sign?

There should be no "it depends on how...", as long as you are not harming someone else, or being physically intrusive to another person, there should be no limits on your ability to show your support, and other people should not be allowed to interfere with that support.

I asked you a question earlier. Will you make every registered voter part of the protected class?

 

[WinterBorn]

Yeah, so if someone did that, you'd say it's wrong, right? So, why not protect their right to show support, and have a yard sign?

There should be no "it depends on how...", as long as you are not harming someone else, or being physically intrusive to another person, there should be no limits on your ability to show your support, and other people should not be allowed to interfere with that support.

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.

 

[ThisIsMe]

First of all, I am not a democrat.

Second of all, if you call some of them very nice people, the condemnation is worthless.


And finally, no, political affiliation will not be a protected class. But looking at your reply shows why you get harassed. Your automatic insistence that I belong to a certain political party, without knowing anything more than the fact that I disagree with you and dislike the former president, can annoy some people. I find it amusing. But some people don't.

Second of all, if you call some of them very nice people, the condemnation is worthless.

Again, a misrepresentation of what he said. He said there were nice people on both sides of that protest, but he specifically said not the white supremacist groups, those should be condemned. When he said "there were fine people on both sides", he wasn't talking about the white supremacist groups that he condemned, but that didn't stop the dem media from running with that narrative, and thus causing a LOT of unwarranted hate from dems to repubs.

And finally, no, political affiliation will not be a protected class. But looking at your reply shows why you get harassed. Your automatic insistence that I belong to a certain political party, without knowing anything more than the fact that I disagree with you and dislike the former president, can annoy some people. I find it amusing. But some people don't.

I'm not being harassed by anyone. It's not me I'm talking about, I'm not the type of person to display political slogans and such on me or anywhere around me. I'm talking about people in general, and THEIR rights.

I apologize, didn't mean to label you as a dem, again, I only recall remembering some of your past posts being fairly anti republican. Plus, the fact that you are parroting the same Democrat talking points about trumps quote at Charlottesville, which they intentionally twist to be divisive. He said there were bad people in that group, and the white supremacist were to be condemned.

Perhaps it's just that you don't like Trump, but when you take up and support the dem talking point, forgive me for thinking you might be a dem.

 

[ThisIsMe]

They deserve, and receive, the same protection that every citizen gets. The question is, why you think they deserve special protections?

For the same reason anyone else deserved protection? Why do you think any of the other protected classes deserve protections?

 

[ThisIsMe]

The overwhelming majority of the population over 18 years of age are registered voters. Will you make them all a protected class?

Sure. Just extend the protection laws to:

"You can't discriminate on the basis of color, race, sex, religion, gender, sexual orientation, or political affiliation"

Wouldn't be hard, and all it would do is make sure someone can't target you for political beliefs.