The law should NEVER, EVER, EVER, provide protection over any data available behind public sector activity.
Even if that data might reveal information about private citizens? Have you considered the fact that the people this data is about might not want it made public?
What if someone voted for the candidate that their spouse is violently opposed to? Should we endanger that person because you want to know how everybody is voting? That's obviously an extreme case, but the scenario is a valid one. How many people would vote differently if they knew that information would be made public?
I'd agree with you if this was government data about government activities. But this is government data about private citizens private activities.
Did you read the part of the linked to article that says that a similar request was refused and the court agreed that these records are not releasable though a FOIA request back in 2013? Yea, didn't think so...
And that proves there's nothing to hide because...?
The same as there's nothing to hide by your refusal to hand over your phone's GPS data to a cop just because he asks. Oh, you don't like everybody & their dog knowing what you did or who you voted for? Neither do the people who live in Kansas.
I'd skip sending money to ISIS or the Taliban. It's probably not tax-deductible and may result in unpleasant imprisonment.
With the current administration, the same could be said for anything that they dislike. They've not only used the IRS to target groups that oppose them, but also put out a list of attributes that they are using to classify domestic terrorist which include things like having more than a month's worth of food & owning a gun.
Do you believe that business owner should have the legal ability to refuse service to a black/hispanic/asian person, or a woman?
If not, what is it about homosexuality (an immutable characteristic) that is different than race or gender?
If so, why are you an bigot?
The difference in racial bigotry & homosexual bigotry is the former is forbidden by a matter of law, something the later does not enjoy. Just as importantly, these laws are a knee jerk reaction to gay marriage proponents trying to force their beliefs on those who want no part of it. What did people think was going to happen when they sued a bunch of private businesses that refused to cater to gay weddings? And given the Hobby Lobby SCotUS win along similar grounds, I'd be willing to bet that these laws will stand judicial review for the same reasons.
Here's the thing, we do not have a right to not be discriminated against. We are all allowed to walk down the street & cross it if we encounter someone who outwardly portrays something we don't like, be it his/her race or the way he/she walks & dresses. When you walk into a store the salesman is allowed to treat you as courteously or as mean as he feels like, even if it's because you walked in with your same sex partner, to the point of refusing to sell something to you.
Businesses have the right to refuse service. Is it discrimination if the bank refuses to give a loan to someone who walks in wearing smelly rags pushing a shopping cart? Or what about clubs that only let "fit" men/women in? Can your John Candy & Chris Farley's sue for discrimination?
If I don't like you, then I should have the ability to no associate or do business with you, for any reason I see fit. The only exception to that is if I'm providing a service & my dislike for you is due to you belonging to a protected class(race, sex, religious beliefs, disabilities, or national origin). Notice what's missing? It's what I said at the beginning, sexual preference is not a protected class.
People are always available for work in the past tense.