Over the past few years we've heard of various companies refusing service based on political ideology. IMO I think that this is wrong. Doesn't matter who you support. It causes division and has even cost people thier jobs. Now don't get me wrong. Personally I would prefer to get rid of all public accommodation laws except for ones based on actual need. EX: grocery stores, room & board etc etc. No one NEEDS a cake, but they do need basic foods and housing. However I do not see these types of laws going away any time in the near, or even extended, future. Because of this I think that we should further protect our political system to allow every voice to be heard instead of what we currently have where people are actually afraid to speak up publicly in support of thier candidate of choice. One thing that these last few Presidential elections have taught me is that there are many people that don't dare to speak up for thier preferred candidate. Or even against the candidate that they are against for fear of being "cancelled". You didn't see it as much with Obama, but it was still there. And with Trump it became outright blatant. So..... Should Political Ideology be added to the current public accommodation laws?
Seems to me what your asking for is impossible. You seem to be asking for consequence free speech. THat will never happen nor should it. The government shouldn't interfere. But you shouldn't be free from recriminations of the public because you ( not saying you personally ) have crappy political views.
I didn't suggest that one should be free from recrimination. I suggested that one shouldn't be fired or refused service. Political views should not enter into a for profit company. Only green should. You can use every single argument that one would use to support religious public accommodation laws for adding political ideology to the law. As for consequence free, there are many ways to give a consequence to someone for the views you disagree with, without resorting to getting them fired or refusing them service.
So someone shouldn’t be denied service because of their political affiliation but “No one NEEDS a cake” — I am assuming you are talking about religious bakers with wedding cakes for gay couples. Should political affiliation be protected but not orientation? I am generally against people being forced to promote messaging. People should not be fired, denied healthcare, education, housing etc but the vast majority of the cases I have seen where a trumper was let go was because the person was creating a distraction at work, harassing co-workers, refusing company policy... Do you have a case that does not fall into the above category?
You're taking parts of my post while ignoring the rest. I clearly stated that I would prefer to get rid of all accommodation laws except those based on need. But since they are not going away then political ideology should be made a part of them. And I'm pretty sure that even you can agree that cakes are not needed by anyone. Cakes are a want. Not a need. And I used "cake" simply as an example. I could have used millions of other examples. Its just the one that popped into mind when I made the post. I'm not going to get bogged down by specific examples which will just become the focus as we argue whether or not the person was rightfully or wrongfully fired. You cannot deny that people have posted some political view on twitter or facebook that outraged a few but loud people who doxed that person and then demanded that they be terminated or they would call for a boycott of the business. Providing a public accommodation law that prevents firing someone for their political view would give companies that don't actually care what their employees do or say on their off time but felt pressured by loudmouths that promote hate of anything that they disagree with an out. And I'm not just talking about "trumpers". Like I said, this was happening under Obama also. And the examples that you used "distraction at work, harassing co-workers, refusing company policy" are not things that would be covered. They're not even covered under existing accommodation laws. Many companies forbid talking religion at work and no one has a problem with that. Same can be done for political talk. (in fact both are forbidden where I work right now)
I agree public accommodation laws should largely be removed and moved to necessary services or goods. You still didn’t answer my question. Your point is now moving to another area, with that said, should companies be forced to keep employees on that are costing the employer money due to their speech off the clock? Should medical agencies be required to keep on anti-vaccers that claim Republican ideology? Where is the line for this new protected class? Which is why I asked for specific examples, I have not heard of anyone being fired because they said “I am a Republican” or “I am a Democrat” — it is always because of their actions or words causing an issue — usually on purpose.
This question? ? Since we're not going to be getting rid of accommodation laws any time soon, sure. No one should be fired or refused service based on their orientation. Frankly its stupid to boycott a company for what an employee said while off the job. And by adding this to public accommodation laws it will give an employer a way out. To tell the SJW's that they have no choice but to keep them on as the law requires them to. Once that is known then the SJW's will have to think of something else to do because continuing to boycott a business that is following the law would end up with them losing support. As for anti-vaxxers.... All public accommodation laws require that you make a reasonable attempt to make accommodation for the protected class. If an employer is unable to due to unreasonable expenses or danger then they are excused from hiring or keeping on a person. If that anti-vaxxer does pose a danger to patients then the employer can dismiss them on that basis provided that they can prove such in a court of law. A person that speaks on their own time away from the company does not cause an issue to that company. The ones that cause an issue are those that try and get that person fired. Not the employee. As I said, I'm not going to give a specific example. I want to keep the focus on what the thread is about. Not get bogged down in minutia.
First understand that the CRA public accommodations for private business only covers a very narrow set of business, those provide public transportation, temporary lodging, serving food on premise and theaters and other entertainment. Many people mistakenly believe federal law applies to ALL businesses, it does not.
The Nazis were big on German citizens of the Third Reich making a public commitment based on their 'political ideology'. I never, EVER want to see that kind of horseshit started in this country! It's an idea that gaining traction with the radical, 'woke' faction of the Democrat Party but it must never gain traction here or we'll end up being as senselessly dogmatic, corrupted, and blathering-ass stupid as the Nazis were....
Some do some don't and generally mimic federal law. As far as this I don't know how we could do it on a state or federal level. Public shaming takes care of most such bigotry but it should be up to the owner.
Absolutely yes. This is particularly true since the USA is no longer a democratic republic but instead a totalitarian corporate-fascist plutocracy. While an employer could prohibit politics at work, no one should be denied a job unless they prove they are a registered Democrat or Republican - which is now legal to do.
That's wrong. In fact, prohibition against certain discrimination applies to all businesses. No, an insurance company or auto repair shop could not advertise "white customers only."
Not the federal Civil Rights Act on public accommodation. 42 U.S.C. §2000a(b) Each of the following establishments is a place of public accommodation within this title if its operations affect commerce, or if discrimination or segregation by it is supported by State action: (1) any inn, hotel, motel, or other establishment which provides lodging to transient guests, other than an establishment located within a building which contains not more than five rooms for rent or hire and which is actually occupied by the proprietor of such establishment as his residence. (2) any restaurant, cafeteria, lunchroom, lunch counter, soda fountain, or other facility principally engaged in selling food for consumption on the premises, including, but not limited to, any such facility located on the premises of any retail establishment, or any gasoline station; (3) any motion picture house, theater, concert hall, sports arena, stadium or other place of exhibition or entertainment; and (4) any establishment (A)(i) which is physically located within the premises of any establishment otherwise covered by this subsection, or (ii) within the premises of which is physically located any such covered establishment and (B) which holds itself out as serving patrons of any such covered establishment. https://www.justice.gov/crt/title-ii-civil-rights-act-public-accommodations
I voted yes with the caveat that I would also prefer public accomodation laws to go away and let people voluntarily associate or not at their own choice. But if discrimination is to banned in the marketplace, it can't be done so discriminatorily.
Should monopolies in communication suppress political speech based on political affiliation? Exactly what is happening.
Yeah, I'm not sure that I could blame a black business owner for refusing to serve Richard Spencer. Are people actually being denied things like food and housing in the US in 2020? No. What do you think?