So what you are advocating then is to create a new "protected class" under U.S. law that includes opinions. You just don't understand the ramifications of doing that.
This actually harkens back to what we discussed in a different comment section. If you recall, I mentioned that, since the Civil Rights era, the U.S. government has asserted itself to prevent discrimination in "public accommodations" which generally refers to any publicly accessible business. This is why you can't put up a "Whites Only" or "Blacks Only" sign in your shop. In making these laws, the government created (and the courts have enforced) a collection of terms that is referred to as "protected classes." There are a number of these classes dealing with highly specific issues, but the major ones that are mostly referred to are:
race
gender
"color"
religion
national origin
Among the protected classes, all except one are tied to qualities that are to some extent immutable or inherent to a person's being. The only one that isn't is religion, and that is likely considered a protected class due to the Constitution's general devotion to religious freedom. Although religion is not technically inherent to one's being, our leaders have more or less accepted the idea that it is extremely close to that, so it is considered as a protected class.
You are advocating that "opinion" be added to those classes. This would impact employment and so many other areas in ways that you are not imagining. One of the big problems is that "opinion" is not something that is easily identified. Thus any case dealing with that as a protected class would involve intense ambiguities which would make every judge's job a nightmare. Also, because opinion is something that is extremely fleeting, it would be virtually impossible to have any kind of consistency. Countless loopholes would be created. One day someone is a Nazi. The next day they have committed themselves to the teachings of Ghandi. The next day they are a Nazi again. There is no way to control or anticipate this. Like I said, dealing with this when it is government action is plausible because the government is generally a singular body with specific rules by which it operates and generally speaks with one voice (depending on the department). This is not plausible with hundreds of millions of individuals and businesses, all of which have different ideas and ways of operating.
Also, anti-discrimination laws impact numerous areas outside of employment. Like I said before, it would also affect how businesses could interact with their customers. Under current law, a business owner can restrict speech within their store. A restaurant owner could, for example, declare that there will be no weekly Nazi meetings in his restaurant. However, if Nazi beliefs suddenly become part of a protected class, Nazis can sue a restaurant for not allowing them to gather there. Suddenly, Nazis and every other hate group are legitimized throughout society under threat of law.
You think things are much more simple than they actually are. You are advocating for societal changes without considering the legalities and the ripple effects. That is a recipe for disaster.
So what you are advocating then is to create a new "protected class" under U.S. law that includes opinions. You just don't understand the ramifications of doing that.
This actually harkens back to what we discussed in a different comment section. If you recall, I mentioned that, since the Civil Rights era, the U.S. government has asserted itself to prevent discrimination in "public accommodations" which generally refers to any publicly accessible business. This is why you can't put up a "Whites Only" or "Blacks Only" sign in your shop. In making these laws, the government created (and the courts have enforced) a collection of terms that is referred to as "protected classes." There are a number of these classes dealing with highly specific issues, but the major ones that are mostly referred to are:
race
gender
"color"
religion
national origin
Among the protected classes, all except one are tied to qualities that are to some extent immutable or inherent to a person's being. The only one that isn't is religion, and that is likely considered a protected class due to the Constitution's general devotion to religious freedom. Although religion is not technically inherent to one's being, our leaders have more or less accepted the idea that it is extremely close to that, so it is considered as a protected class.
You are advocating that "opinion" be added to those classes. This would impact employment and so many other areas in ways that you are not imagining. One of the big problems is that "opinion" is not something that is easily identified. Thus any case dealing with that as a protected class would involve intense ambiguities which would make every judge's job a nightmare. Also, because opinion is something that is extremely fleeting, it would be virtually impossible to have any kind of consistency. Countless loopholes would be created. One day someone is a Nazi. The next day they have committed themselves to the teachings of Ghandi. The next day they are a Nazi again. There is no way to control or anticipate this. Like I said, dealing with this when it is government action is plausible because the government is generally a singular body with specific rules by which it operates and generally speaks with one voice (depending on the department). This is not plausible with hundreds of millions of individuals and businesses, all of which have different ideas and ways of operating.
Also, anti-discrimination laws impact numerous areas outside of employment. Like I said before, it would also affect how businesses could interact with their customers. Under current law, a business owner can restrict speech within their store. A restaurant owner could, for example, declare that there will be no weekly Nazi meetings in his restaurant. However, if Nazi beliefs suddenly become part of a protected class, Nazis can sue a restaurant for not allowing them to gather there. Suddenly, Nazis and every other hate group are legitimized throughout society under threat of law.
You think things are much more simple than they actually are. You are advocating for societal changes without considering the legalities and the ripple effects. That is a recipe for disaster.