In today's world, there is no reason for the use of identity politics. There is not a law that currently discriminates against people of any gender, skin color, sexual orientation, or religion. As there is no laws working against any of those factors, I find it pointless to use identity politics. The only purpose anybody would have in using them today would be to gain a "moral one-up" on somebody who doesn't play identity politics. It's a shame that masses still don't realize that identity politics do not apply anymore.
Identity politics basically means that all whites vote one way, all Hispanics vote one way etc. Every person of all races is different. Like DrunkHoboSniper said it's a bullying tactic. It gets old seeing people labeled as an Uncle Tom if they happen to be a conservative African American. We need to stop thinking that our race and gender define who we should and should not vote for.
It is used as a bully tactic to move debates and discussions away from facts. It is used to push ones political agenda while painting the opposition as a distasteful person. This is a blatant bully tactic and is extremely immoral. This can been demonstrated by the town hall aired by CNN.
Your telling a person that they should think or vote a certain way based of who they are or are not. For example, telling men they can't have an opinion on women's rights, or telling gun owners they need to vote conservative, or blacks should vote democratic. You are telling a person that something is best for them, how could you possibly know what i best for someone else? Telling someone how to vote or think is called fascism plain and simple.
While i'll disagree with actively using their identity to silence people because they claim they are oppressed but provide no evidence, I still wouldn't use the term "immoral" but I would call it a failure to stand for something you believe in. Now depending on the extent of their oppositions opinion becomes, I would say that being completely outraged isn't effective. Provide facts and evidence that discrimination against some one is true.
Often Christians will play the victim card by trying to enforce their religious dogma by saying they are oppressed without evidence of discrimination (and often reversed discrimination where they are playing victims but are the oppressors.)
Identity politics, also called identitarian politics, refers to political positions based on the interests and perspectives of social groups with which people identify.
So if there are issues that effect certain groups of people (i.E. Gay marriage and anti-discrimination laws for gay people) identity politics makes sense.
I'm not saying that everything that falls under identity politics is good. You could say white supremacism is a form of identity politics, and it's very premises are wrong, so it's bad.
And even when identity politics corresponds to a group of people who have a real need for identity politics that doesn't mean that every action taken by or thing said by an activist organization/movement/spokesperson is good or that every policy proposal is good.
But identity politics shouldn't be written off entirely. Identity politics was instrumental in the civil rights movement of the 1960s. Granted there were some extreme elements, but there were also good moderate elements of the movement, which helped to bring an end to segregation and challenged racial discrimination.