Should political ideology be added to the list of protected classes?

This is a question that's been floating around my mind for awhile now. I haven't gone too deep into considering the pros and cons, or unforseen consequences, but impulsively, I want to say that your political ideology should be something which cannot be used against you.

Whether you agree or disagree with the idea of protected classes, isn't relevant in my opinion (concerning this specific question)... because protected classes have become an actual thing, and the practice isn't going anywhere. Again, love it or hate it, I'm not approaching this question from that angle. I'm sure there's folks here who could put forth coherent arguments for and against, but since protected classes "exist", the question is whether or not it should be applied to political ideology, affilation, etc.

A couple problems I see immediately; 1) this is murky water 2) tons of legal activity that wouldn't have existed before.

Finally, an ancedotal situation which prompted me to consider the question; the realization that Antifa isn't considered a hate group, despite the fact that they hate their opposition, which in turn justifies (in their minds), the violence they commit.

What are your thoughts?

 

Can you imagine the future?

We will all walk around emotionally labile, all the time, looking for slight or insult. At least when the Victorians did it, there was a counterbalance of brutal pragmatism.

 

I think it's a good question.

K, since protected classes are usually groups that have characteristics that they cannot control (race, sex, disability, national origin, etc.), it is unfair to discriminate against them. Political ideology can be changed/controlled at any time and can also be disguised or hidden. Because of this, it does not need the same league of protection as the protected classes.

 

So why is religious affiliation protected?

 

True, but then there is religion. Distinctions can be made between the two, but like ideology religious status can be changed.

 

To be honest I'm not sure and I don't believe religion should be a protected class.

 

True, and I'm not sure why religion is protected. I too view it as an ideology and people can change this at any time.

 

We have such a law already - "creed" - it just has never been tested, or at least not that much.

 

Jews would disagree.

 

It's good for the Jews.

 

Nice, I assumed that creed was simply to bolster religion alone, but it looks like it can translate to something like "closely held belief". So there's a seperate question... I guess I wonder why we can't chisel that down a bit to be more specific.

 

If we can find and maintain sufficient social or economic disincentives against widespread discrimination in employment, housing and public accommodation based on political ideology or affiliation, I far prefer we do not. In other words if we stay a angry when someone is fired because they were part of a protest march, or rally behind someone who is refused service because they wore a Pro-life pin into a restaurant, or told they must move their car from in front of their own apartment because of a legalize pot bumper sticker, I think we will be fine. But we cannot allow this to become routine and normal.

I know that I personally, feel uncomfortable eating at Cook Out restaurant, which refused to serve Trump supporters, because when we treat this kind of discrimination casually, we may actually force the very discussion the OP hypothesizes. https://www.businessinsider.com/cook-out-refused-to-serve-trump-fans-2016-6
We need to stay a little startled, a little shocked that a business might want to punish an employee, or a patron or a renter for communicating their political beliefs. Bending a knee is not un-American, but this crap really is! Its a whole lot more dangerous.

 

Yeah, and you know it's also the polarization we see today, it's just nuts... you literally have people being assaulted and property damaged by simply signaling their support of something. Also, and even though it doesn't carry over in to the realm of private social media companies, it's pretty disconcerting how easy it is for people to turn a blind eye when someone on the other side of the fence is being discriminated against. A nightmare scenario would be a presidential administration, social media/tradional media, and academia all basically working against one element of the political spectrum, using whatever tactics they can get away with.

 

There should be no protected classes. Our nation and society should be about the individual not "tribes".

 

As noted in the OP, I was trying to sidestep this for the simple fact there are protected classes. The question is that since we're protecting certaining things, and this practice isn't going anywhere, should we also protect political ideology?

 

Well, let's protect everything.....then we will be down to the individual. Then we could write something called a Constitution.

 

We need a society that can make the expression of unpopular or offensive ideas uncomfortable and stigmatized. but not one that can so punish that speech as to crush it, eviscerate it, or smother it to death. The First Amendment takes care of governmental plans for eradication, but the idea that a group of businesses can not only punish you for such speech, but your entire family, dependent on you for a paycheck and a roof, or simple dignity can be just as effective to destroy ideas and their promoters.

I may not refuse to march for gay marriage, or climate change or gun rights, because of how I will be treated by my neighbors, or by the Kiwanis club membership , but I sure would if my children would lose medical care, a roof over their heads, and school supplies and that is why we should stay nervous when a business claims that its 'values' are so threatened by an employee's private off the clock political conduct that a loss of family income or home must result.

 

I agree with a lot of this, but...

Say for example, and I don't know that this exact thing has happened, a teacher expresses support for the border wall in a post on facebook. Maybe not in his own words, maybe a shared video from a conservative group that makes the case in pretty benign fashion. This is certainly a conservative view. Say that a student of Mexican origin sees the post, complains, and then as a result the teacher is reprimanded, suspended, fired whatever. I already see the the problem of murkiness, as noted in the OP, but I'm just trying to see if you get the gist of why I think some protection may be in order.

 

Dang! Now I always provide myself a couple of 'loopholes' in my general policy, which of course I forgot to include today and two professions have a magnified impact on society for serious breaches of social standards. You just mentioned one but it is way to diluted in your hypothetical. I think the school district should have zero interest in this teachers posting on Trump or the wall, or broadly stated immigration views, or gay marriage or affirmative action, but I do think that if that teacher is expressing support for white supremacy, or making anti gay or misogynistic statements or otherwise actively marginalizing or belittling groups which may include his own students, that seriously undermines his and the districts credibility and ability to serve.

We just cannot allow a public school teacher to be posting about how blacks are less intelligent, or gay kids are mentally ill, or migrants are dirty or unsanitary. Same problem for cops or other members in law enforcement. Entire institutions on which we depend, are compromised in ways that undercut our whole social order. And employment contracts should contain language to protect the public interest and credibility. That is not so with private employees, almost any speech and most public employees

 

There should be no protected groups in America or in the world.

Murder is murder.
Robbery is robbery.
Verbal assaults are assaults.
Batter is battery.
Assault and battery is assault and battery.
Rape is rape.
Buggery is buggery.
Theft is theft.
Vandalism is vandalism.

It doesn't matter or should it come into play what the motive of the criminal was be it financial gain, hate, revenge, political or just being a sociopath.

All criminal acts and criminals should be treated equally under the law.

Antifa is a leftist fascist hate group no different from Al Qaeda, the Taliban in Afghanistan or the American Taliban who toppled statues in America or MS-13, the La Cosa Nostra, pedophiles, the Mongols mc, illegal aliens or the "resistance."

None should have any special protections under the law.
All are low life 1% criminals.

 

I always thought 'verbal assault' was BS.

It shouldn't be illegal to say nasty stuff to ppl, nor should it be equated in any way to a physical attack or an 'assault.'

How much you can hurt someone with words is entirely up to them.

 

See, I think that where speech is concerned, regardless of where it falls along the political spectrum, it shouldn't result in tangible consequences provided that it's not incitement, slander, libel, and... I'll even include speech which is objectively hateful (again, murky territory). And as much as I hate to say it as a conservative, with the way things are going, I'd like to see these standards applied to private companies, employers, and institutions.

I'd agree that there may be some special considerations for public sector workers. For example, a police force shouldn't have to put up with a cop who posts or openly comments things which clearly demonstrate racial bias.

Really, all I want is the greatest insurance possible that people can express political opinions without fear of repercussion.

 

The set of all humans should be added to the list of protected classes.

Now, consider every combination of people possible. A set of 1 population all the way up to 7 billion with all possible combinations of humans. An unimaginable amount of sets.

Add them all to the list of protected classes.

Steve, Scooter and Ronny from the bowls club? They're one of those sets. Everyone in a US state which starts with the letter A except Roy Moore. That's another set.

Literally every combination of humans.

 

I'm with you in spirit, but protected groups exist under law. In a sense this is a "can't beat them, join them" scenario.

 

Pretty sure all states penal codes classify threatening to kick someone in the balls or threatening to kill them is classified as an assault.

Carrying through the threat becomes a battery.

In the Socialist Hermit Kingdom of California just pointing a firearm at someone is an assault.

In California it's legally hard to exercise your rights under "Natural Law" ( Law of Nature.)
California no longer recognized the U.S. Constitution or the President of the United States.