IтАЩve heard this posited a couple of times as a suggestion. I think this suggestion runs contrary to an important freedom - the freedom of association, specifically. A natural part of this freedom is the freedom NOT to associate with someone because of their views. The government rightly prevents organizations from discriminating against individuals based on immutable characteristics; race, national origin, sex, and the like.
Extending this to political viewpoints is entirely different matter. Immutable characteristics have no moral or legal relevance. Political stances often do.
Here are some fun political affiliations weтАЩd all have to overlook in employment decisions and other publicly protected areas of life:
1) Islamic radicalism, including those who promote the expansion of a global caliphate.
2) Nazism and other forms of ethnic national socialism (fascism, syndicalism)
3) Conspiracy theorists, of all stripes: Jews control the world, subterranean reptilian aliens control the world, pizza loving pedophiles control the world, 9/11 was an inside job, Paul McCartney died in тАШ67 and was replaced by MI5 with a Scottish look-alike named Billy Shears
4) People who think Taylor Swift writes good music.
5) Communists, even those who advocate for the violent co-opting of all private property.
6) The View contributors
IтАЩm happy weтАЩre allowed to disassociate and marginalize people based on their views.
I get your point but you missed a protected category: religion. That is not an immutable characteristic of birth and there are some pretty out-there whacko religions and religious beliefs. Try to fire someone in your category 1 because of their Islamic beliefs (you won't denounce female genital mutilation?!) and see how that works. Also, this "the freedom not to associate" is not a civil liberty. You have no civil right to not associate with someone you don't like.
The answer, of course, is to revert to what we all used to do: work is for work, school is for school and what you do on your own private time is up to you. That was before the leftist cancer of "everyone must be an activist all the time for all our causes, and all other causes are dangerous and hate-filled and must be eradicated."
Not to pile on, but outside of certain types of public accommodations (hotels, housing, access to parks and public property, theaters, and employment opportunities) most private organizations are free to discriminate against whomever the may wish for whatever reason they choose.
Last I checked, the тАЬRed Hat SocietyтАЭ does not allow men to join. This is not illegal in the US.
I believe that the Knights of Columbus does not allow women to join.
тАЬYou have no civil right not to associate with someone you donтАЩt like.тАЭ
Yes, of course, you do. If this were not true, the landscaper who just told me he is too busy to mow my yard while IтАЩm out of town would be breaking the law. HeтАЩs free to decline business that he canтАЩt handle. If I call him names and give him a lousy yelp review, he could refuse my business too.
But religious discrimination is tolerated in many instances, unlike the other forms of protected classes. Need a Baptist church consider a Jewish Rabbi in their hiring decisions? Should ideological discrimination be illegal, the Republican Party would be required, by law, to allow Democrats to participate in the party, as an example.
The freedom to do something, like associate, always involves the freedom not to do so. The government canтАЩt make me attend a PTA meeting, for instance. They canтАЩt make me show up to the polls and vote.
The freedom of speech, for instance, means not only that you can speak as you will, but also that the government cannot compel you to speak when you otherwise wouldnтАЩt. The same is true of association. I donтАЩt have to associate with anyone that I donтАЩt want to, so long as it cannot be shown I have discriminated against someone based on their protected status.
Making political views a protected category against discrimination would help a lot.
IтАЩve heard this posited a couple of times as a suggestion. I think this suggestion runs contrary to an important freedom - the freedom of association, specifically. A natural part of this freedom is the freedom NOT to associate with someone because of their views. The government rightly prevents organizations from discriminating against individuals based on immutable characteristics; race, national origin, sex, and the like.
Extending this to political viewpoints is entirely different matter. Immutable characteristics have no moral or legal relevance. Political stances often do.
Here are some fun political affiliations weтАЩd all have to overlook in employment decisions and other publicly protected areas of life:
1) Islamic radicalism, including those who promote the expansion of a global caliphate.
2) Nazism and other forms of ethnic national socialism (fascism, syndicalism)
3) Conspiracy theorists, of all stripes: Jews control the world, subterranean reptilian aliens control the world, pizza loving pedophiles control the world, 9/11 was an inside job, Paul McCartney died in тАШ67 and was replaced by MI5 with a Scottish look-alike named Billy Shears
4) People who think Taylor Swift writes good music.
5) Communists, even those who advocate for the violent co-opting of all private property.
6) The View contributors
IтАЩm happy weтАЩre allowed to disassociate and marginalize people based on their views.
I get your point but you missed a protected category: religion. That is not an immutable characteristic of birth and there are some pretty out-there whacko religions and religious beliefs. Try to fire someone in your category 1 because of their Islamic beliefs (you won't denounce female genital mutilation?!) and see how that works. Also, this "the freedom not to associate" is not a civil liberty. You have no civil right to not associate with someone you don't like.
The answer, of course, is to revert to what we all used to do: work is for work, school is for school and what you do on your own private time is up to you. That was before the leftist cancer of "everyone must be an activist all the time for all our causes, and all other causes are dangerous and hate-filled and must be eradicated."
The Coinbase example above was great.
Not to pile on, but outside of certain types of public accommodations (hotels, housing, access to parks and public property, theaters, and employment opportunities) most private organizations are free to discriminate against whomever the may wish for whatever reason they choose.
Last I checked, the тАЬRed Hat SocietyтАЭ does not allow men to join. This is not illegal in the US.
I believe that the Knights of Columbus does not allow women to join.
тАЬYou have no civil right not to associate with someone you donтАЩt like.тАЭ
Yes, of course, you do. If this were not true, the landscaper who just told me he is too busy to mow my yard while IтАЩm out of town would be breaking the law. HeтАЩs free to decline business that he canтАЩt handle. If I call him names and give him a lousy yelp review, he could refuse my business too.
But religious discrimination is tolerated in many instances, unlike the other forms of protected classes. Need a Baptist church consider a Jewish Rabbi in their hiring decisions? Should ideological discrimination be illegal, the Republican Party would be required, by law, to allow Democrats to participate in the party, as an example.
The freedom to do something, like associate, always involves the freedom not to do so. The government canтАЩt make me attend a PTA meeting, for instance. They canтАЩt make me show up to the polls and vote.
The freedom of speech, for instance, means not only that you can speak as you will, but also that the government cannot compel you to speak when you otherwise wouldnтАЩt. The same is true of association. I donтАЩt have to associate with anyone that I donтАЩt want to, so long as it cannot be shown I have discriminated against someone based on their protected status.