???....dude, unless the law creates a protected class they have no rights.......The reason age, sex, race, and religion are expressly enumerated is because they are the ones given protection by the act......Texans are not enumerated.....you cannot sue someone for "discriminating" against Texans........hamburger flippers are not enumerated........you cannot sue someone for "discriminating" against hamburger flippers........and except for states where they HAVE been enumerated, demmycrats are not protected from discrimination.......
That is completely and absolutely ignorant of the law.
Rights always come first.
That is why the First Amendment exists.
The First Amendment is acknowledging the pre-existing right of freedom of political expression, and promising that the federal government will not infringe on this pre-existing right.
So you know that the right of free political expression has to already exist universally or else the Bill of Rights would not have mentioned it.
Rights have to already exist BEFORE any legislative body can enact specific legislation trying to protect it more expressly.
And you do NOT need to have specific legislation in order for rights to exist.
The general protections in the state constitution or public welfare laws are supposed to be used by judges in order to ensure protection.
Rights do NOT have to be enumerated.
The whole argument against the Bill of Rights was that it would fool ignorant people into assuming rights did have to be enumerated.
It is always illegal to discriminate against anyone, if you are an employer, retailer, government, open to the public, etc.
Texans included.
You can discriminate only as a private citizen, who is not bound by NLRB regulations, has not applied for a retailer's permit, is not a landlord, etc.
These otherwise are all covered by law.
And again, CA law is very specific that employers are NOT allowed to put in clauses into contracts that would stifle free political expression.
{...
California law has long prohibited employers from punishing employees for expressing their political views. For example, Labor Code sections 1101 and 1102 expressly prohibit employers from enforcing any policy that prevents employees from participating in politics, or compels them to toe any “particular course or line of political action or political activity.” And Labor Code 96(k) gives the California Division of Labor Standards Enforcement the power to adjudicate claims by an employee that he or she has been discharged “for lawful conduct occurring during nonworking hours away from the employer’s premises.” While there are limits to these “off duty conduct” protections when it comes to non-political speech or conduct, the Eich affair comes nowhere close to testing them. It’s pretty clear that an employer in California may not discipline or fire an employee for his or her decision to contribute to a political cause or candidate.
...}
https://www.rhdtlaw.com/brendan-eich-free-speech-california-labor-code/
