Getting canned over racist language

[mefordis]

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.

They were in some sort of cultural sensitivity training and he repeated what Coloniel Sanders used to say, which was the N word, but he said the actual word. He was making a point at how racist things used to be way back when. He should have just said "N word" and nothing would have happened.

 

[luvsJack]

They were in some sort of cultural sensitivity training and he repeated what Coloniel Sanders used to say, which was the N word, but he said the actual word. He was making a point at how racist things used to be way back when. He should have just said "N word" and nothing would have happened.

So he didn’t say or mean to say what we are discussing here? I am so very confused.

Wasn’t this a phone call? Is there a recording of the entire conversation to prove what he is saying?

 

[mefordis]

So he didn’t say or mean to say what we are discussing here? I am so very confused.

Wasn’t this a phone call? Is there a recording of the entire conversation to prove what he is saying?

This is all I know, what I wrote above. It's on a political website though so I'm not going to post the link. It was a conference call. He did say the actual N word, but in the context of explaining what Colonel Sanders used to say all the time. IMO he should not have said it.

 

[bcla]

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

I can't specifically speak to any particular situation, but at least in the United States, allowing a business to discriminate against same-sex couples is still illegal according to several state and/or local laws. However, it's a patchwork since there's no overriding federal law. The specific protections may differ.

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

If you're referring to the Masterpiece Cakeshop decision - it was extremely convoluted. There was a majority opinion, 3 concurring opinions, and a dissenting opinion. The majority opinion ruled that the commission that referred the case was openly hostile to the business's religious concerns. It was also an official government entity, so religious neutrality is an absolute requirement.

A business doesn't necessarily have to be religiously neutral. There are obviously businesses based on religion such as religious supplies. Heck - a legal business can be openly racist such as a white nationalist bookstore. However, anywhere in the United States such a business would legally be required to serve anyone equally. Businesses aren't required to be religiously neutral, but even now it can't be legally used to justify what would otherwise be illegal discrimination.

The strange thing about that decision is that it hasn't really created any precedent. Other decisions (such as United States v. Windsor) have immediately nullified/modified the enforcement of certain laws. I heard about a similar bakery case that still stands in favor of the SS couple. There's less controversy over that one because there was no hostility towards the defendant's religion. There was one case - a florist who refused to provide services for a same-sex wedding. The US Supreme Court didn't rule specifically, but ordered the courts in Washington state to rehear the case, while ordering that the Masterpiece Cakeshop ruling needed to be considered in their rehearing. I suspect that the Washington state Supreme Court will come to the same conclusion, and the defendant will probably take it back to the US Supreme Court.

https://www.seattletimes.com/seattl...gay-wedding-case-back-to-washington-courts-2/

 

[luvsJack]

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.

The point she was making was that the pp was lying. Sadly we have posters that do a whole lot of assuming they know who they are talking to when they do not. I don’t know the pp from Adam but I would never assume he was lying about his life.

Everyone here seems to have a good grasp of the English language. But it does take reading an entire post to understand. That is a skill some seem to be lacking.

 

[luvsJack]

This is all I know, what I wrote above. It's on a political website though so I'm not going to post the link. It was a conference call. He did say the actual N word, but in the context of explaining what Colonel Sanders used to say all the time. IMO he should not have said it.

Oh I agree. He said it either way and he should have at least made an attempt to go at his point a different way. But I do think if one part of his conversation was recorded then the whole thing should have been.

If we are going to judge the man’s words (and I am not defending them in the least) I do think we should hear them in context.

 

[Cannot_Wait_4Disney]

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.

Yeah, he pretty much said he used it because he's not a racist and that the real racists are those that called him out for using it.

 

[mefordis]

Oh I agree. He said it either way and he should have at least made an attempt to go at his point a different way. But I do think if one part of his conversation was recorded then the whole thing should have been.

If we are going to judge the man’s words (and I am not defending them in the least) I do think we should hear them in context.

I agree they should be judged in context. That word is still in our vocabulary partly due to a lot of rap music put out there that unfortunately includes that word. Many white kids like to listen to it. They sing along, say that word and it is a dangerous word to say.

 

[luvsJack]

I agree they should be judged in context. That word is still in our vocabulary partly due to a lot of rap music put out there and many white kids like to listen to it. They sing along, say that word and it is a dangerous word to say.

I went and found an article about it and yeah, it does explain in the way you described. I am impressed with the fact that he admits that regardless of the reason, he should not have said it and that the word has no place in anyone’s vocabulary. And he says that stepping down as CEO is the right thing for the company. I feel like he is stating reasons not excuses.

And I agree. If we want the word gone from our vocabulary then we have to conpletly obliterate it. Not make it ok for some uses by some people.

 

[sunshinehighway]

I agree they should be judged in context. That word is still in our vocabulary partly due to a lot of rap music put out there that unfortunately includes that word. Many white kids like to listen to it. They sing along, say that word and it is a dangerous word to say.

The original context makes much more sense than his explanation. He was doing training to avoid any other public missteps like the nfl thing. In response to asking how he distance himself from racist groups, his response was that Colonel Sanders used the n word and never faced backlash and then the stuff about growing up where black people were dragged behind trucks.
It's pretty clear his statements were a frustrated response to his having to do training to avoid creating controversies.

 

[sunshinehighway]

Yeah, he pretty much said he used it because he's not a racist and that the real racists are those that called him out for using it.

The classic racist mantra , "You seeing my racism means you're the real racist!"

 

[luvsJack]

The original context makes much more sense than his explanation. He was doing training to avoid any other public missteps like the nfl thing. In response to asking how he distance himself from racist groups, his response was that Colonel Sanders used the n word and never faced backlash and then the stuff about growing up where black people were dragged behind trucks.
It's pretty clear his statements were a frustrated response to his having to do training to avoid creating controversies.

So you have read or heard the entire conversation? I didn’t realize it was all out there. I will have to search for it.

 

[sunshinehighway]

So you have read or heard the entire conversation? I didn’t realize it was all out there. I will have to search for it.

He didn't dispute the context described in the original story about it, he said it was true and apologized.

 

[mefordis]

The fact that he could have blurted out that word so easily makes me think he uses it in his daily life. People who don't would not be able to even say it in any context.

 

[UncleMike101]

The point she was making was that the pp was lying. Sadly we have posters that do a whole lot of assuming they know who they are talking to when they do not. I don’t know the pp from Adam but I would never assume he was lying about his life.

Everyone here seems to have a good grasp of the English language. But it does take reading an entire post to understand. That is a skill some seem to be lacking.

Thank you.
I suppose that in order to placate some of the people here I could have posted copies of my Wife's, Children's. and Grandchildren's Tribal Membership documents.
They are members of the Miami Nation of Indians.
Then I could have posted a copy of my Son In Law's Puerto Rican birth certificate and those of his, and my Daughter's, children.
But I won't
As for my Foster Daughter she will proudly declare her sexual orientation to anyone who will listen.
I've learned over the years that some people simply can't accept the fact that their viewpoint isn't necessarily the correct one so they resort to insults and accusations of disingenuousness.
In order to maintain an even strain I simply ignore such people.

 

[luvsJack]

He didn't dispute the context described in the original story about it, he said it was true and apologized.

But where did he say that the people that “forced” him to say it are the “real” racists?

Again, I believe the entire conversation needs to be heard. I believe he was wrong and he admits he was wrong. And the result still should be him being removed. It’s what is best for the company.

 

[sunshinehighway]

But where did he say that the people that “forced” him to say it are the “real” racists?

Again, I believe the entire conversation needs to be heard. I believe he was wrong and he admits he was wrong. And the result still should be him being removed. It’s what is best for the company.

My post you quoted didn't say anything about that. It was about the original story making more sense than his current story.

 

[robinb]

Again, I believe the entire conversation needs to be heard. I believe he was wrong and he admits he was wrong. And the result still should be him being removed. It’s what is best for the company.

I'm confused. If (1) you believe he was wrong, (2) you acknowledge that he admits he was wrong, (3) you're OK with him being removed and (4) you think that removal is best for the company then why do we need to hear the entire conversation? It does not matter. He's still wrong, he still admits he was wrong, he's still removed from the company and it's still the best move for Papa John's.

 

[okeydokey]

It’s amazing how people will bend over backwards to “explain and justify” racist behavior. Very predictable thread.

 

[Cannot_Wait_4Disney]

The point she was making was that the pp was lying. Sadly we have posters that do a whole lot of assuming they know who they are talking to when they do not. I don’t know the pp from Adam but I would never assume he was lying about his life.

Everyone here seems to have a good grasp of the English language. But it does take reading an entire post to understand. That is a skill some seem to be lacking.

If you need me to explain the meaning of the phrase, "whether true or not" just let me know. You completely missed the point I was making. The point I was making, was that who your relatives are or what you do for a living etc doesn't matter. Your posts have to stand or fall on their own. And if someone is trying to boost their cred by who their relatives are, it's easy to understand what they themselves think of their own posts. That they needed some boosting. Don't need to know anything about who I am talking to to know that. Show me anywhere where I said anyone was lying.

And for that matter, I'm still waiting on this one.

Show me where in this thread I called for a shut down of any and all Papa Johns no matter who owns them.