Originally Posted by Sini
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.


I fundamentally disagree. Holding political ideology can't be separated from action : advocacy. It is the nature of political ideology, you believe the system should change (or stay the same) to reflect your beliefs. To invoke protection under holding an ideology, I believe you are also invoking advocacy for that ideology. This is why I made a point to put a notch in favor of religious protection, because it doesn't require advocacy. None of the other protected classes require advocacy.

I feel the need to restate my conclusion, because you didn't seem to address it, unless you just agree with it.

1) Political ideology won't become a protected class because it requires broad support and I have no evidence that broad support exists or will exist
2) If it did, I think it would be reasonable across that spectrum to come with the caveat that it should instead be political affiliation, and as a requirement to maintain protection, that affiliation can't be interpreted as advocacy for discrimination against another protected class
3) In either case, the validity of your examples as demonstration of a type of censorship which could be remedied by your proposals is in question

Since I'm not convinced your stance here is totally wrong, I'm prepared to move on and debate your last contingency, but you need to at least attempt to counter these arguments first.

[Linked Image]