We are a group based on our shared moral and ethical beliefs.
We are a being targeted and persecuted for our political affiliation.
Be very clear here.
This is about *who* we are, not any specific action or speech.
What do LGBT groups do?
They organize with a unified message.
They lobby their local and state representatives directly.
They continuously file lawsuits to address perceived concerns.
This is what we must do.
The @Heritage must organize this effort in all Republican controlled states Monday.
Begin with a clear problem statement: Political Affiliation is being used to discriminate against American citizens in employment, commerce, communication and online access.
Step one: Organize direct contact with each Republican representative from mayors to state senators to discuss current legal options to address this discrimination and any gaps in the law.
Layout these gaps and prepare legislation to address them.
Use any legal means needed.
Step two: organize all remaining GOP groups online to immediately begin sharing the results of these efforts and an action plan with a timeline.
'This is what we are doing. This is what we need you to do.'
We just need a few small steps to begin laying the foundation.
The priority must be to protect citizens from discrimination due to political affiliation.
That is the primary goal.
The secondary goal is rebuilding GOP representation in Congress in 2022.
Solid candidates.
No nonsense.
No extremes.
Clear, actionable platforms.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Here is my argument for why access to digital services should be considered a civil right equal to access to physical services.
As a Jewish person and as a gay person I am protected under anti-discrimination law (varied for being gay).
A store cannot ban me for either.
A store could not, for example, have a policy that bans 'immoral behavior' on their property and then selectively enforce this only on gay couples who happen to either simply walk in or who hold hands or show affection of any kind.
No liberal perspective would agree.
If this happened to me I would be able to argue that my civil rights had been violated.
Even without official legal protections, this would be enough to file a lawsuit, launch legislation and create public outcry until it was officially illegal to do so.
The left believes bad ideas reproduce in the open.
You let someone share a bad idea and it multiplies with the validation of an official platform.
That makes it 'dangerous' as exposure is like a virus.
They think if you suppress the people with the bad idea, it will suffocate.
It seems simple to them.
Trump incited his followers to commit violence through his rhetoric, ban Trump and you remove the rhetoric.
No one else gets infected.
But then you must remove all those already infected...
Then you must stop the rhetoric from repeating.
Its a simple issue of threat reduction, not speech suppression.
But they refuse to recognize that in doing so they validate the rhetoric, turn it into dogma and it becomes mythology with more and more loyal adherents.
It goes underground.
It grows in power and legitimacy.
If you are not a journalist or writer or if you are not trying to build a public profile right now, please:
- Use a generic AVI and take out your name and location from your profile.
- Turn your privacy settings on facebook off for searches and only let your friends see you.
Your facebook doesn't need to have your employer on it or your town or your phone number. Your friends and family already know who you are.
Same for any other social media you use.
If you use LinkedIn set your profile to private so only your connections can see you.
Basically you do not want to be easily found with a google search of your name.
Its easier than you think and its best to lock down. You don't need an open profile.
The only exception is if you are job hunting. Again, disguise your twitter and its less of an issue.
I believe that a business should be able to conduct itself legally as it pleases. This includes deciding how it associates itself.
But the law is clear on discrimination.
The issue I have is two fold:
1) The laws are not being enforced equally or fairly.
2) The issue of discrimination has become too overwhelming to simply rely on market forces to correct it. We are witnessing multiple massive corporations in charge of huge swaths of the market act together to target individuals belonging to one group.
That is a problem.
I passionately defending the Masterpiece Cakeshop case because I passionately believe a person should not be forced to act against their morality.
I objected to Kim Davis because she denied an eligible citizen access to their legal rights.