There is an important difference between civil rights and the criminalization of personal morality.
Race, color, gender, and disability are off limits (as indicators themselves, not in any correlative or derived senses...). National origin too (but not citizenship). This is the domain of civil rights.
Discrimination based upon ANY action should be fair game. That would include creed, marital status, sexual activities (not sexual orientation, there is a difference), physical ability, mental ability, criminal background, wearing a blue hat, etc. This includes traits that are derivatives of things protected as civil rights (correlated manifestations).
There is a logical disconnect involved in the extension of "civil rights" protections to the point where individuals are shielded from the consequences of their ACTIONS, where any expression of non-PC morality and personal values is criminalized. Freedom from responsibility is not liberty. Freedom from all judgment is not liberty. By endorsing contrary notions, liberty is extinguished.
While the government should play no role in supporting or repressing actions that involve no involuntary loss of negative liberties of any external party (nor should it obviously involve itself in the provision of positive liberties, also known as privileges, services, materials), it should likewise not involve itself in the extinguishing of negative liberties of individuals who do not wish to extend, at their own expense, positive liberties to another party, based upon the action (or inaction) of said party. Positive liberties and government should never intersect; the primary domain of government is to protect individuals from the involuntary arrogation of negative liberties. That this has been "confused" with the provision of positive liberties, even when necessitating the involuntary denial of negative liberties, is the source for much societal decline.
Race, color, gender, and disability are off limits (as indicators themselves, not in any correlative or derived senses...). National origin too (but not citizenship). This is the domain of civil rights.
Discrimination based upon ANY action should be fair game. That would include creed...
The problem with your proposal here is that much of the impetus for civil rights law--indeed a basis for the settling and founding of America itself, was freedom of religion. Longtime endemic persecution of Jews (banning ownership by Jews is in many, many deeds, for property titles over 60 years old), or banning Roman Catholic Irish, or Mormons, etc--all of this was a part of pre-civil-rights-law America.
I think it is a very good thing that secular businesses are not allowed to discriminate against religion. Allow "Discrimination based upon ANY action" including "creed", and a lot of evangelical Christians would get fired, as the anti-religious discrimination laws are the only ones that protect them now (if imperfectly) from the homosexual/and liberal atheistic lobby.
We definitely need to keep legal protections prohibiting discrimination based on creed, even though, the increasing number of members of a violent ideology/theocracy/quasi-religion (called ROP here in FReeperland) does make that a challenge. Keeping the current federal civil-rights standards will work--if we can, as conservatives hold back the forces wanting to add (who've already done so on local and state levels) "sexual orientation" to the list. Adding that, functionally nullifies freedom of religion.
If you believe strongly enough in "freedom of association" than logically there should be no discrimination laws at all, be it about non-behavioral or behavioral characteristics.
Most Excellent! Also the most logical post I have seen in a long time! Maybe you should hold inservices for Judges!