Should political affiliation be a protected class?

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Veteran status and citizenship have made their way onto the big board. Why not political affiliation. Should a business owner be allowed to hang up sign saying "No Democrats"?

There should be no protected classes

 

[Silhouette]

So you want human sacrifice to be protected by religious freedom?

Do you want public parades of deviant sex acts where children are invited to watch to be protected behavior? Or not?

(see what a mess the false LGBT premise is making. What a friggin' rats nest USSC Fascist-5. Have fun teasing it all out! )

 

[dblack]

No, since political beliefs are a choice.

Political beliefs are no more a choice than religious beliefs. Voter registration is a choice, attending church is a choice, but beliefs are not.

Of course beliefs are a choice. When presented with conflicting evidence against your belief, you can choose to ignore the evidence or to change your belief.

Exactly like religion.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

“Should political affiliation be a protected class?”

Of course not – this is a truly ignorant, ridiculous notion and false comparison fallacy.

 

[Silhouette]

Veteran status and citizenship have made their way onto the big board. Why not political affiliation. Should a business owner be allowed to hang up sign saying "No Democrats"?

There should be no protected classes

Based on behaviors? Even when the behaviors are illegal and repugnant to the majority (gay pride parades in front of kids)? Agree with you there.

Which behaviors at that point would you arbitrarily exclude if being repugnant to the majority isn't a disqualifier?

 

[Dana7360]

No, since political beliefs are a choice. Huckabee Sanders was not born as Aunt Lydia, she chose to be that way. There were people working at the restaurant that Huckabee Sanders is actively working to strip rights from. She chose to be that way.

Do you have scientific evidence that being gay is not a choice?

Political affiliation should not be protected, if the business is ignorant and bigoted and doesn’t want to serve a segment of the population, then it is on them and Americans have a right to voice their opinions and boycott the ignorant bigoted business owner.

Or to give them more patronage, as will be the case with the Red Hen.

That is fine too, I just know whether they discriminate because of politics, it doesn’t matter if it is Democrat or Republican, I will boycott them because what they are doing isn’t right. If you want to associate with intolerant bigots that is your choice, my choice is to stay away from narrowminded, intolerant nuts.

Yes there is evidence that it's not a choice.

There are two hormone washes that go over the brain of a fetus during gestation. If the fetus is female it's supposed to get estrogen. If it's male it's supposed to get testosterone.

Scientific research is now showing that some fetus get the wrong wash or don't get enough of the right wash. It also shows that the brain is changed with that wash.

Scientific research using MRI images of the brains of homosexual males show that they have the exact same brains as women.

Here, I did a search on the subject for you. Just click the link below then choose your article.

gestation hormone wash homosexuality


As for the second thing you said, I agree. I don't like to associate with narrow-minded and intolerant people. I would never expect a business person to kick someone out of their establishment just because of their political beliefs.

Just as I would expect no business to kick out or refuse to serve a homosexual person.

What I find very hypocritical is the people who spent years saying a business has the right to not serve anyone they choose are now saying it's not ok to not serve anyone they choose.

The people who said that if you serve the public you must serve all the public warned that this won't stop with homosexual people.

They were right.

 

[Silhouette]

Yes there is evidence that it's not a choice.

There are two hormone washes that go over the brain of a fetus during gestation. If the fetus is female it's supposed to get estrogen. If it's male it's supposed to get testosterone.

Scientific research is now showing that some fetus get the wrong wash or don't get enough of the right wash. It also shows that the brain is changed with that wash.

If sexual abuse and resulting hypersexual compulsive behaviors aren't a choice, then yeah. But it's not innate.... Good luck with your "fetal brain wash" argument. They were brainwashed, just quite a bit after they were born...


Mayo Clinic 2007 Special Article On Pedophilia

One of the most obvious examples of an environmental
factor that increases the chances of an individual becoming
an offender is if he or she were sexually abused as a child.
This relationship is known as the “victim-to-abuser cycle”
or “abused-abusers phenomena.”
5,23,24,46...

...
why the “abused abusers phenomena” occurs: identification with the aggressor,
in which the abused child is trying to gain a new
identity by becoming the abuser; an imprinted sexual
arousal pattern established by early abuse; early abuse
leading to hypersexual behavior; or a form of social learning took place

Clinical Psychiatry News 2005

ATLANTA [2005 Clinical Psychiatry News] -- Substance abuse is pervasive among gay men and is so intricately intertwined with epidemics of depression, partner abuse, and childhood sexual abuse that adequately addressing one issue requires attention to the others as well, said Ronald Stall, Ph.D., chief of prevention research for the division of HIV/AIDS prevention at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta...

 

[dblack]

“Should political affiliation be a protected class?”

Of course not – this is a truly ignorant, ridiculous notion and false comparison fallacy.

ie - harumph

 

[Bob Blaylock]

So you want human sacrifice to be protected by religious freedom?

 

[Stormy Daniels]

No, since political beliefs are a choice.

Political beliefs are no more a choice than religious beliefs. Voter registration is a choice, attending church is a choice, but beliefs are not.

Of course beliefs are a choice. When presented with conflicting evidence against your belief, you can choose to ignore the evidence or to change your belief.

If they made the choice to "believe" something, then it's not really a belief.

It is possible to breath on command despite the fact that breathing is an involuntary function of the autonomous nervous system. An individual can choose to alter their breathing to a certain extent, despite their brain being hardwired to breath involuntarily. And a person can "choose" to alter their beliefs to a certain indirect extent, inasmuch as a person can choose to be receptive to relevant information, choose to seek out information, can choose to ignore relevant information, can choose to give credence to faulty logic, etc. It's even possible that a person can make these choices subsequent to a conscious aversion to having their beliefs challenged. However none of this changes the fact that beliefs are inherently ideas and conclusions that arise involuntarily.

In other words just because you choose to be a close minded moron doesn't mean that everyone else is holding their breath.

 

[2aguy]

Veteran status and citizenship have made their way onto the big board. Why not political affiliation. Should a business owner be allowed to hang up sign saying "No Democrats"?

I don't think a privately owned business should be forced to serve anyone for any reason.....and I don't think the government should be able to force businesses to not serve anyone for any reason....

The democrats didn't want Black Americans to have the same Rights as White Americans...so they enacted jim crow laws..... They used the government to do this by making it law....

The government can't be allowed to tell a private property owner what they can and can't do with their own property...

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Lol, the " the fetal brain wash". What a farce.

 

[Stormy Daniels]

So you want human sacrifice to be protected by religious freedom?

View attachment 200714

It's not a straw man at all. You said that actions that express religious beliefs should be protected on par with beliefs themselves. If that is your position, then you must include human sacrifice among those actions that would be protected by religious freedom. If you are not willing to concede that, then you need a new argument to defend your position.

 

[Mac1958]

Should a business owner be allowed to hang up sign saying "No Democrats"?

Well, that's where we're headed.

The last thing we want to have to do is exist near someone who might disagree with us.

That might lead to communication, and we no longer know how to communicate.

Holy shit, let's get that done before people start dying in donut shops.
.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Given the bigotry and hate directed at gay Americans in this thread, public accommodations laws with provisions for sexual orientation are clearly appropriate and warranted.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

It's not a straw man at all. You said that actions that express religious beliefs should be protected on par with beliefs themselves. If that is your position, then you must include human sacrifice among those actions that would be protected by religious freedom. If you are not willing to concede that, then you need a new argument to defend your position.

 

[hadit]

No, since political beliefs are a choice. Huckabee Sanders was not born as Aunt Lydia, she chose to be that way. There were people working at the restaurant that Huckabee Sanders is actively working to strip rights from. She chose to be that way.

So if a man chooses to wear a dress, you think businesses should have a right to kick him out?

Or to make it more similar, could a business kick out someone who once worked for Hillary Clinton?

 

[whitehall]

Can anyone cite an example of a "protected class"? Anybody who thinks that people of color are a "protected class" because they won the same rights as anyone else is an ignorant bigot.

 

[Silhouette]

Given the bigotry and hate directed at gay Americans in this thread, public accommodations laws with provisions for sexual orientation are clearly appropriate and warranted.

Oh my yes. We need those protections from majority regulation for a cultural group that as a whole embraces "in pride" public acts of deviant sex where they invite kids to watch "on parade"!

What groups would be excluded from immunity from the majority if that's the level we've set the bar? No, really. I'm asking that as a serious legal question. (Cite the 14th in your answer)

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Given the bigotry and hate directed at gay Americans in this thread, public accommodations laws with provisions for sexual orientation are clearly appropriate and warranted.

Except there is no bigotry or hate directed at gays in this thread. Only in your tinker bell mind.