Getting canned over racist language

[Cannot_Wait_4Disney]

You really shouldn't judge other people by your own standards.
The thought of fabricating a story about my Family diversity is a totally alien concept and something that I would never even contemplate.
My reputation for honesty in our community is unquestioned, whether on the street, or in the Court Rooms.
I'll just have to make allowances for your rude behavior and crude attempt at insulting me and ignore you in the future.
Bye onion dude.

I said "whether true or not"

I was simply commentating on the old I have friends/family, etc that are.......... defense whether true, or not. That you used it indicates exactly what I said. That you felt you needed it because your posts weren't standing on their merit. And the same thing now goes for your allegation of rudeness which is completely without any merit whatsoever.

 

[bcla]

And just for clarity, I agree that word should never be used.
My point is only the hypocrisy that a Baker has support to refuse to bake a cake because they are homophobic because they have a right to their beliefs, but a Baker csnt refuse to bake a cake because they are racist-even though that is their belief.
If people feel that their beliefs entitle them to discriminate, why is one ok and the other not, the law should protect everyone from discrimination no matter what their beliefs are.

If a business opts to be in business it can be required to serve all comers equally. The customer obvious isn’t required to patronize any business.

I’m not sure how to protect a business from losing customers for the expression of something unpopular or perhaps vile. But it’s easy enough to have a law that a customer choosing to patronize a business must be treated fairly under the law. Also, the case that you’re thinking of had a lot of wrinkles. There was no ruling that said his conduct was legal - only that his hearing before the state was biased and thus the decision was tainted.

 

[sjrec]

I agree that racism is never ok, I also think that homophobia is never ok.
I do not agree however that someone should be able to be fired for things said, if not at work, not wearing a work uniform or in a marked car, really no matter how vile they are, if they aren't at work it's not works business (obviously OT for Papa John)
I find it hypocritical that people feel that they have the right to their own views being respected as long as they are religious, yet in many cases this is accepted. Kim Davies wasn't fired for refusing to do her job.
So overall I suggest the KKK as the test on any matter that you want your beliefs respected. while you think you should not have to bake a cake because of your beliefs, do you also then agree that a KKK member can refuse service because of theirs? (and the answer in both cases is o you cant)

But who wants to work with racists? Or have their children taught by one? Treated by one in a hospital if you’re not white?

 

[Colleen27]

And just for clarity, I agree that word should never be used.
My point is only the hypocrisy that a Baker has support to refuse to bake a cake because they are homophobic because they have a right to their beliefs, but a Baker csnt refuse to bake a cake because they are racist-even though that is their belief.
If people feel that their beliefs entitle them to discriminate, why is one ok and the other not, the law should protect everyone from discrimination no matter what their beliefs are.

That decision was a little odd, and split more than a few hairs IMO. The argument, which the court didn't really address head-on, was that baker can refuse to make a custom cake that he claims violates his beliefs, even though he can't refuse service to the individuals involved if they chose a standard/"unoffensive" (to the baker) product. So to extend the comparison to race, a baker wouldn't be able to deny service to a black person but could refuse to make a Black Lives Matter or MLK Jr. themed cake for that black customer. But the ruling didn't really weigh in on that argument in any serious/precedent-setting way; it simply held that there was evidence that the lower court was biased and didn't give the matter an impartial hearing. And it is, of course, further complicated by the fact that religious beliefs are protected in a way that other beliefs aren't in our legal system and society.

 

[L&Lfan]

But who wants to work with racists? Or have their children taught by one? Treated by one in a hospital if you’re not white?

Racists can be of any race/religion/ ethnicity or color.

 

[larissawbb]

But who wants to work with racists? Or have their children taught by one? Treated by one in a hospital if you’re not white?

Unfortunately anyone can experience racism. It’s not limited to any one group of people.

 

[bcla]

That decision was a little odd, and split more than a few hairs IMO. The argument, which the court didn't really address head-on, was that baker can refuse to make a custom cake that he claims violates his beliefs, even though he can't refuse service to the individuals involved if they chose a standard/"unoffensive" (to the baker) product. So to extend the comparison to race, a baker wouldn't be able to deny service to a black person but could refuse to make a Black Lives Matter or MLK Jr. themed cake for that black customer. But the ruling didn't really weigh in on that argument in any serious/precedent-setting way; it simply held that there was evidence that the lower court was biased and didn't give the matter an impartial hearing. And it is, of course, further complicated by the fact that religious beliefs are protected in a way that other beliefs aren't in our legal system and society.

It was a master example of splitting hairs. It also wasn't necessarily a case of asking for a standard product. As far as I know, the customer only wanted a product chosen out of an album of examples. The owner's objection was to how the product would be used - for a same-sex wedding reception. HEre's the beginning of the official SCOTUS syllabus:

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/584/16-111/
Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd., is a Colorado bakery owned and operated by Jack Phillips, an expert baker and devout Christian. In 2012 he told a same-sex couple that he would not create a cake for their wedding celebration because of his religious opposition to same-sex marriages—marriages that Colorado did not then recognize—but that he would sell them other baked goods, e.g., birthday cakes.​

This part of the syllabus rather encapsulates why the ruling was overturned:

The State’s interest could have been weighed against Phillips’ sincere religious objections in a way consistent with the requisite religious neutrality that must be strictly observed. But the official expressions of hostility to religion in some of the commissioners’ comments were inconsistent with that requirement, and the Commission’s disparate consideration of Phillips’ case compared to the cases of the other bakers suggests the same.​

 

[KingCrusher]

It isn’t that SJW can be used in a political manner. It is a political insult.

Have to respectfully disagree. There is nothing wrong with social justice warrior. If someone is offended by that, they really need to grow some thicker skin.

 

[mummabear]

If a business opts to be in business it can be required to serve all comers equally.

And yet they aren't. The most obvious example is allowing business to discriminate against same sex couples.

But who wants to work with racists? Or have their children taught by one? Treated by one in a hospital if you’re not white?

And who wants to work with homophobes? Have their children taught by one? Treated in the hospital if you are not straight?

To be clear I am not defending racists, I loathe them. I just find the double standard infuriating.

And it is, of course, further complicated by the fact that religious beliefs are protected in a way that other beliefs aren't in our legal system and society

And therein lies the problem. I like the saying "If you don't want to have an ice cream because of your beliefs, I will fight for your right to not eat ice cream, but if you tell me I can't eat ice cream because of your beliefs I will fight you on that"

requisite religious neutrality that must be strictly observe

Sorry, who needs to be religiously neutral? The Baker or the judge? And shouldn't we expect it from both?

 

[Disney Doll]

I think you misunderstood my point.

Every time someone in the public eye gets fired, loses a tv show...over something they said, some people will get up in arms claiming it's their 1st Amendment right and they can't be fired, "what about free speech, yada, yada, yada?" They don't understand what free speech and the 1st Amendment actually mean.

Well then they are idiots who will soon learn that with free speech comes the consequences of the same.

I still don’t want the government or anyone else telling us what we can and cannot say, beyond the extent already covered in the amendment.

 

[Disney Doll]

I said "whether true or not"

I was simply commentating on the old I have friends/family, etc that are.......... defense whether true, or not. That you used it indicates exactly what I said. That you felt you needed it because your posts weren't standing on their merit. And the same thing now goes for your allegation of rudeness which is completely without any merit whatsoever.

Actually, no it’s not. You were kinda rude and presuming that your opinion was the right one and the only one that should be held by everyone.

 

[maxiesmom]

Good Morning America is soon going to have a story on this. In the teaser he claims to have been pushed into saying what he did. Can't wait to hear what excuse he has come up with.

 

[dish rag]

Good Morning America is soon going to have a story on this. In the teaser he claims to have been pushed into saying what he did. Can't wait to hear what excuse he has come up with.

So you've made up your mind before hearing his side of the story?

 

[maxiesmom]

So you've made up your mind before hearing his side of the story?

I don't see how he could have been forced to say what he did. He should be a smart man, to have the company he does. He shouldn't easily be tricked or forced to say anything. I will listen, but yes, it sounds like he thought of an excuse to try and deflect.

 

[sjrec]

Racists can be of any race/religion/ ethnicity or color.

You’re absolutely right-my point being if you’re a racist or a homophone and expressing those beliefs publicly it’s going to get you fired-hopefully-because decent people don’t want you in their workplace. And decent people don’t want to patronize those businesses.
You can still say whatever you want-but be prepared for the consequences.

 

[Cannot_Wait_4Disney]

Actually, no it’s not. You were kinda rude and presuming that your opinion was the right one and the only one that should be held by everyone.

If someone can't handle their posts being scrutinized, that isn't my fault.

 

[sunshinehighway]

Good Morning America is soon going to have a story on this. In the teaser he claims to have been pushed into saying what he did. Can't wait to hear what excuse he has come up with.

He gave a radio interview and he debuted his defense/excuse. He's claiming the marketing company tricked him into saying it. It was a role playing exercise or something and he was upset they wanted him to use it so he used it to tell them he'd never use it but it's ok because he was role playing as The Colonel, or something. It doesn't really make sense.

 

[kdonnel]

So you've made up your mind before hearing his side of the story?

How exactly does someone force you to speak a certain way?

Was there a loaded gun held to his or a family members head?

Now if he said he was manipulated into displaying his true nature I could believe that.

 

[Cannot_Wait_4Disney]

So you've made up your mind before hearing his side of the story?

What is there to make up one's mind about? Do you think someone held a gun to his head or something? He said it. Businesses cut ties with him.

 

[sunshinehighway]

I said "whether true or not"

I was simply commentating on the old I have friends/family, etc that are.......... defense whether true, or not. That you used it indicates exactly what I said. That you felt you needed it because your posts weren't standing on their merit. And the same thing now goes for your allegation of rudeness which is completely without any merit whatsoever.

You were clear in your post and no it wasn't rude. Unfortunately you have posters who don't understand what words and concepts like tolerate and boycott mean so it's reasonable to expect they won't understand the point you were making.