Hacker News Reader

Comment by minsc__and__boo | Hacker News Reader

Political party is a personal choice and thus not a protected class.

Freedom of association permits us to choose who we do and do not associate with based on that individual's own choices.

In many jurisdictions, political affiliation/activity is protected. [1] It looks like PA has had a couple cases on the matter, one offering protection and a more recent one limiting the first case to its facts (i.e., saying it is not precedential anymore). Details on page 319.

1: https://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/empspeech.pdf

PA courts determined that the previous 1983 ruling (protecting political party from employer termination) is not good law, and will not use it as precedence again.

There are laws in place to prevent employers from coercing employees into political action - i.e. you won't get your annual bonus unless you donate to this political candidate - but these are protections from extortion, and not exceptions to the general rule that political party is not a protected class.

Somewhat ironically California considers political affiliations a protected class.

California protects employees from the threat of employers trying to force them into taking political action - i.e. you need to donate to a political candidate or attend a political event or be fired. It doesn't interfere with freedom of association for political actions taken by the employee independent of threat, such as being fired after making islamophobic comments.

I am not talking about protected classes (a concept which only exists in the US, and therefore isn't useful generally). The point is about discrimination, which will occur irregardless of what laws you pass.

Discrimination is a broad term that can apply to the type of bread you eat in a sandwich.

When it comes to discrimination of employees by employers, then the protected classes, personal choice, and freedom of association are highly relevant irrespective of country.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com