Having a political view or religious belief is almost synonymous with acting on that - participating in the political process or your religious community. (Though you shouldn't be doing these at work).
To be uncharitable, you are taking an unreasonably narrow view because you disagree with Eich (I do too), but like with freedom of speech it's all about the case when you do disagree.
I'm not sure what you're getting at, but I'm talking about the difference between ascribed and achieved statuses. An ascribed status is something you can't control: your race, gender, sexual orientation, and so on. An achieved status is something you can: one's profession, for example.
In this context, someone was implying that discriminating against someone based on their age is the same as discriminating against them based on their political or religious views. It's a false equivalence, because you choose your political and religious beliefs, you don't choose your age.
I'm not arguing for or against discrimination; it's a complicated topic. I just felt like in this context, parent was using a false equivalence to discredit identity politics, and I took the opportunity to try and speak out about the difference between ascribed and achieved statuses. I do disagree with Eich, but I think that's immaterial.
To be uncharitable, you are taking an unreasonably narrow view because you disagree with Eich (I do too), but like with freedom of speech it's all about the case when you do disagree.