Originally Posted by rhaikh
As I said before, I think ...


Surprisingly, I can agree with most of what you say as a possible workable solution. Protected class for political views and then establish case law that hopefully make it less ambiguous. However, some of reasoning in your argument doesn't sit well with me.

Originally Posted by rhaikh
For example, holding Nazi ideology clearly conflicts with the anti-discrimination rights of others.


You are trying to sneak-in "speech is violence" trope. Holding any ideology doesn't conflict with anything. Acting on some ideologies may conflict with rights of others.

Originally Posted by rhaikh
If I were making the rules today, I'd probably throw it out, along with religious protection. I think the necessity for anti-discrimination based on religion, in this century, is mostly covered under race/ethnicity.


This made me cringe, because I think you are trying to sneak in "Islam is a race" argument in here. Can you clarify why you think religion "is mostly covered under race/ethnicity"? Personally, I don't like religion as a protected class, but I absolutely understand why this is necessary evil. It is needed to stop people from trying to shit on each other's heads over who has authoritative version of bearded man in the sky.

[Linked Image]