Political Discrimination: The Elephant in the Room?

[emilynghiem]

Political Discrimination: The Elephant in the Room? | Diversity Insight

I was searching online for any lawsuit defending political beliefs from discrimination.
I found this case involving a school and hiring that appeared to discriminate against a more qualified candidate due to political affiliation.

I was really looking for something more neutral.

As a Constitutionalist I am dismayed to find that people with political beliefs on both sides of
* the health care divide over federal govt vs. states and free market
* the marriage laws either including, excluding gay marriage or being neutral/removed from govt altogether
* the LGBT policies pushing either too far in one direction or the other (instead of remaining neutral)
are too willing to violate the beliefs of others in defense of their own.

So I find it harder to defend religious and political beliefs of people who abuse that to bully or impose so far against opposing beliefs then end up violating the equal rights of others while demanding "equal protection" of their own beliefs.

Where are the other Libertarians, Constitutionalists or inclusive Progressives
willing to protect the religious and political beliefs of both sides equally from
infringing on each other?

All I find is one side defending itself by attacking the other.
Is there any group, movement or campaign for equal inclusion and protection of separate programs? instead defending one side's beliefs at the expense of the other?

Am I the only one arguing that both need to stop imposing their beliefs on the other party?

 

[Siete]

Political Discrimination: The Elephant in the Room? | Diversity Insight

I was searching online for any lawsuit defending political beliefs from discrimination.
I found this case involving a school and hiring that appeared to discriminate against a more qualified candidate due to political affiliation.

I was really looking for something more neutral.

As a Constitutionalist I am dismayed to find that people with political beliefs on both sides of
* the health care divide over federal govt vs. states and free market
* the marriage laws either including, excluding gay marriage or being neutral/removed from govt altogether
* the LGBT policies pushing either too far in one direction or the other (instead of remaining neutral)
are too willing to violate the beliefs of others in defense of their own.

So I find it harder to defend religious and political beliefs of people who abuse that to bully or impose so far against opposing beliefs then end up violating the equal rights of others while demanding "equal protection" of their own beliefs.

Where are the other Libertarians, Constitutionalists or inclusive Progressives
willing to protect the religious and political beliefs of both sides equally from
infringing on each other?

All I find is one side defending itself by attacking the other.
Is there any group, movement or campaign for equal inclusion and protection of separate programs? instead defending one side's beliefs at the expense of the other?

Am I the only one arguing that both need to stop imposing their beliefs on the other party?

we pay those asshats $172K a year to do exactly that and nothing else.

you want that to change, take their asses off a salary and put them on STRAIGHT commission ... X$ for every bill passed that the POTUS signs and benefits the country.

END OF PROBLEM

 

[emilynghiem]

Political Discrimination: The Elephant in the Room? | Diversity Insight

I was searching online for any lawsuit defending political beliefs from discrimination.
I found this case involving a school and hiring that appeared to discriminate against a more qualified candidate due to political affiliation.

I was really looking for something more neutral.

As a Constitutionalist I am dismayed to find that people with political beliefs on both sides of
* the health care divide over federal govt vs. states and free market
* the marriage laws either including, excluding gay marriage or being neutral/removed from govt altogether
* the LGBT policies pushing either too far in one direction or the other (instead of remaining neutral)
are too willing to violate the beliefs of others in defense of their own.

So I find it harder to defend religious and political beliefs of people who abuse that to bully or impose so far against opposing beliefs then end up violating the equal rights of others while demanding "equal protection" of their own beliefs.

Where are the other Libertarians, Constitutionalists or inclusive Progressives
willing to protect the religious and political beliefs of both sides equally from
infringing on each other?

All I find is one side defending itself by attacking the other.
Is there any group, movement or campaign for equal inclusion and protection of separate programs? instead defending one side's beliefs at the expense of the other?

Am I the only one arguing that both need to stop imposing their beliefs on the other party?

we pay those asshats $172K a year to do exactly that and nothing else.

you want that to change, take their asses off a salary and put them on STRAIGHT commission ... X$ for every bill passed that the POTUS signs and benefits the country.

END OF PROBLEM

Sure Siete And why not create mirror govt administration where each party can elect their own leaders and pay them under the system THEY choose? If Dems wants Singlepayer, what would they agree to pay the administrators? If GOP want working business people, their leaders could be required to work a part or full time job to support themselves, while volunteering to do the admin work instead of charging that back.

But hey, if the members choose to pay their management on commission, great.

Shift as much of the social programming and agenda back to the people, parties and states. And let taxpayers choose how they want to structure the funding, including the salaries, commission or other pay and benefits.

No more complaining about paying for abortion, Planned Parenthood, executions, transgender operations, gay marriage or benefits, etc etc.

Like the Vet Party states as their mission: All Social Legislation is Unconstitutional. So let each party pay for its own policies, and quit forcing the funding on anyone else outside their members and donors who support those.

 

[Siete]

oh yeah,

commission AND term limits,

 

[emilynghiem]

oh yeah,

commission AND term limits,

Sure, Siete, if people would agree to run their own social programs through their own party networks as an LLC, they can set whatever terms of employment they want for their mgmt. They don't have to fight so hard to regulate what other groups do, only manage their own programs, policies and elected representatives. And let others do the same for theirs.

That way, they can democratically decide what benefits they want to pay into and pay out for members! Without imposition from competing groups that have their own beliefs and priorities. Wat a concept!!!

So if people do or do not want to recognize "gay marriage"
they would have equal choice to support their beliefs.
If people do not want to fund executions but rather spend that money on universal health care for more people, they no longer have to fight other groups to enforce the policies they believe in.

This would not infringe on but protect other people or group's equal rights to fund their own beliefs without conflict. Everyone would win.

Even politicians who want to keep full time jobs, could still work the rest of their lives solving these problems, by separating the funding and creating jobs in each district to govern their own communities on a sustainable basis through localized job training an education, and never be without shortage of work.

www.rightsfortheworkers.org
www.campusplan.org
www.earnedamnesty.org

 

[Siete]

oh yeah,

commission AND term limits,

Sure, Siete, if people would agree to run their own social programs through their own party networks as an LLC, they can set whatever terms of employment they want for their mgmt. They don't have to fight so hard to regulate what other groups do, only manage their own programs, policies and elected representatives. And let others do the same for theirs.

That way, they can democratically decide what benefits they want to pay into and pay out for members! Without imposition from competing groups that have their own beliefs and priorities. Wat a concept!!!

So if people do or do not want to recognize "gay marriage"
they would have equal choice to support their beliefs.
If people do not want to fund executions but rather spend that money on universal health care for more people, they no longer have to fight other groups to enforce the policies they believe in.

This would not infringe on but protect other people or group's equal rights to fund their own beliefs without conflict. Everyone would win.

Even politicians who want to keep full time jobs, could still work the rest of their lives solving these problems, by separating the funding and creating jobs in each district to govern their own communities on a sustainable basis through localized job training an education, and never be without shortage of work.

www.rightsfortheworkers.org
www.campusplan.org
www.earnedamnesty.org

Congressional Reserve ..

1 weekend a month, two weeks every summer for 4 years.

THE END.

 

[emilynghiem]

oh yeah,

commission AND term limits,

Sure, Siete, if people would agree to run their own social programs through their own party networks as an LLC, they can set whatever terms of employment they want for their mgmt. They don't have to fight so hard to regulate what other groups do, only manage their own programs, policies and elected representatives. And let others do the same for theirs.

That way, they can democratically decide what benefits they want to pay into and pay out for members! Without imposition from competing groups that have their own beliefs and priorities. Wat a concept!!!

So if people do or do not want to recognize "gay marriage"
they would have equal choice to support their beliefs.
If people do not want to fund executions but rather spend that money on universal health care for more people, they no longer have to fight other groups to enforce the policies they believe in.

This would not infringe on but protect other people or group's equal rights to fund their own beliefs without conflict. Everyone would win.

Even politicians who want to keep full time jobs, could still work the rest of their lives solving these problems, by separating the funding and creating jobs in each district to govern their own communities on a sustainable basis through localized job training an education, and never be without shortage of work.

www.rightsfortheworkers.org
www.campusplan.org
www.earnedamnesty.org

Congressional Reserve ..

1 weekend a month, two weeks every summer for 4 years.

THE END.

How about every elected official in govt split their job and salary to pay for the top two candidates to share that position, and each work a full or part time job supporting themselves while doing the work to REPRESENT MORE OF THE PEOPLE.

Whoever gets the most votes is elected to the official position, while the runner up gets a secondary position assisting in the same capacity; so that MORE PEOPLE ARE REPRESENTED -- not just one party dominating and taking turns.

Why not invest campaign funds into CREATING MORE JOBS so each party can train, hire, elect and appoint their leaders to work on reforms each party supports.

 

[BluesLegend]

Political Discrimination: The Elephant in the Room? | Diversity Insight

I was searching online for any lawsuit defending political beliefs from discrimination.
I found this case involving a school and hiring that appeared to discriminate against a more qualified candidate due to political affiliation.

I was really looking for something more neutral.

As a Constitutionalist I am dismayed to find that people with political beliefs on both sides of
* the health care divide over federal govt vs. states and free market
* the marriage laws either including, excluding gay marriage or being neutral/removed from govt altogether
* the LGBT policies pushing either too far in one direction or the other (instead of remaining neutral)
are too willing to violate the beliefs of others in defense of their own.

So I find it harder to defend religious and political beliefs of people who abuse that to bully or impose so far against opposing beliefs then end up violating the equal rights of others while demanding "equal protection" of their own beliefs.

Where are the other Libertarians, Constitutionalists or inclusive Progressives
willing to protect the religious and political beliefs of both sides equally from
infringing on each other?

All I find is one side defending itself by attacking the other.
Is there any group, movement or campaign for equal inclusion and protection of separate programs? instead defending one side's beliefs at the expense of the other?

Am I the only one arguing that both need to stop imposing their beliefs on the other party?

we pay those asshats $172K a year to do exactly that and nothing else.

you want that to change, take their asses off a salary and put them on STRAIGHT commission ... X$ for every bill passed that the POTUS signs and benefits the country.

END OF PROBLEM

Why are you upset with Harry Reid and his blockade of anti Obama bills?