Should political beliefs/identity be protected from discrimination like religion/race/gender

[Monk]

https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/26/us/maga- ... index.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So this story is making the rounds on social media, where a guy was refused service for wearing a MAGA hat and eventually kicked out for being an asshole and refusing to take it off. My friend posted the story and some of her conservative/libertarian friends started complaining about discrimination. When I pointed out that political beliefs or identity are not protected classes, and that yes people can be kicked out of bars for expressing shitty opinions, I was accused of being "in favor of discrimination." Or as one person phrased it, "you're either against discrimination or you're not, not just when it suits you."

I'm kind of curious as to what other people here think. Personally, I think it's a bit ridiculous. Race, gender, and sexuality are all parts of people's identity that cannot be controlled, so they should absolutely be guaranteed protection. Opinions are not, though they seem to be arguing that religious beliefs would also fall under the same category as "political beliefs." I'm not quite sure the best argument against that, other than to say that religious beliefs are much more tied to a person's identity than a political belief, but even religious beliefs are malleable. I went with the idea that you are guaranteed the right from persecution based on your religion, but that does not give you the right to proselytize in a private establishment. As such, you cannot expect the right to express your political beliefs in a bar/business/etc without any repercussions. But for that argument to work, you would have to conceded that political identity (e.g. political party affiliation) itself is protected, but not expression of those beliefs.

[Raxivace]

"You're either against discrimination or you're not, not just when it suits you" smells like a false dichotomy to me. There can be forms of discrimination that are acceptable- bars, to my understanding at least, don't allow patrons under the legal age of alcohol consumption to be present for example. Other forms of discrimination don't have any basis and are without merit- there's no real reason to disallow people because of race or gender or whatever.

I don't see why disallowing inflammatory political views to be expressed in a private establishment should be of much concern. A bar can be perfectly within its right to not want to be known as encouraging racist Trump voters to gather ther if they don't want that to be a part of their reputation.

IMO political beliefs should only be protected in the sense that you shouldn't be put in jail for your own private thoughts, or for voting for shitty candidates or whatever. That doesn't mean private establishments have to let you advertise hateful MAGA garbage.

[phe_de]

According to the CNN story, the man was not kicked out because of his hat, but because he was rude to the employees. If that is true, then he deserved to be thrown out.
Slogans you promote should only be valid reasons to be refused service if they are hate speech in the legal sense. But if they aren't, then the bar should not be allowed to discriminate. After all, the bar is a public service; just like a bakery.

"Make America Great Again" is not hate speech AFAIK. It wasn't even invented by Trump.
A slogan for a wedding cake that expresses love is not hate speech either.
Wearing the logo of a particular football club is not hate speech either; and I'd resent if football fans were refused service just because the landlord supports the other team.

So in this case I'd say: If the MAGA guy was rude to the staff, he was kicked out rightfully. If he wasn't, then he was being unfairly discriminated again IMO.

[Gendo]

I think I agree with phe.

Certainly political views don't belong in the same category as race or gender. However, it seems probalamatic for the idea of free speech and the political system as a whole if holding political views can stop you from participating in public commerce. We can't say “just go to a different store"; we have to consider a situation where, for example, being a democrat in a particular town literally means you can't buy groceries.

Now, there's another consideration which is that being a democrat and wearing clothing that promotes democrats are 2 different things. I think I could be ok with idea that a store can enforce any dress code they want, including allowing certain slogans on clothing while not allowing others, even if that means only allowing slogans from one political party. But I would not be ok with saying that a store can choose whom to provide service to based on that person's political views.

[Raxivace]

After all, the bar is a public service; just like a bakery.

What? No they aren't. Bars are private property. They only would be a public service, in America at least, if they were run by the government AFAIK.

[Raxivace]

We can't say “just go to a different store"; we have to consider a situation where, for example, being a democrat in a particular town literally means you can't buy groceries.

Tbh this seems like a fairly contrived hypothetical to me. Which towns are Democrats starving in because they voted for Hillary?

[phe_de]

After all, the bar is a public service; just like a bakery.

What? No they aren't. Bars are private property. They only would be a public service, in America at least, if they were run by the government AFAIK.

"Public service" was a poor choice of words. I meant it in the sense of a public place.

This excerpt from a Guardian article explains it.

Instead, the law says that if you open a shop on Main Street or anywhere else, you can't pick and choose to whom you sell your products, just like you can't pick and choose which tax laws or safety laws you'll comply with.

As Justice Sonia Sotomayor said at the argument's end: “It's not denigrating to say ... you can choose to sell cakes or not. You can choose to sell cupcakes or not." Instead, the point is: “Whatever it is you choose to sell, you have to sell it to everyone who knocks on your door, if you open your door to everyone."

https://www.google.de/amp/s/amp.theguar ... reme-court" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[BruceSmith78]

What about those clubs we always see in the movies where the bouncer only lets certain people in? Like you have to be dressed a certain way or be attractive or cool or bribe the guy at the door. Is that a thing?

[phe_de]

What about those clubs we always see in the movies where the bouncer only lets certain people in? Like you have to be dressed a certain way or be attractive or cool or bribe the guy at the door. Is that a thing?

If anti-discrimination laws exist, the club can be fined.

https://www.discorecht.de/hausrecht-hau ... ek-urteil/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Link in German, about a case where a person was not allowed to get in a disco.

[Boomer]

Philosophically speaking I believe businesses should be allowed to discriminate based on political beliefs, and any other criteria they choose, and deal with the consequences and fallout that would arise from such choices.

[Anakin McFly]

Ideally yes, but that won't go well in a society that largely agrees with that discrimination, Jim Crow being one example.

[Gendo]

We can't say “just go to a different store"; we have to consider a situation where, for example, being a democrat in a particular town literally means you can't buy groceries.

Tbh this seems like a fairly contrived hypothetical to me. Which towns are Democrats starving in because they voted for Hillary?

It is a contrived hypothetical. I specifically contrived it to make the point more relevant to the audience of this forum, who is more likely to lean democrat than republican.

[Gendo]

Philosophically speaking I believe businesses should be allowed to discriminate based on political beliefs, and any other criteria they choose, and deal with the consequences and fallout that would arise from such choices.

Philosophically speaking, I agree; but practically speaking, I agree with Anakin.