Getting canned over racist language

[Klayfish]

Very well stated with my addition of "seemingly intelligent" preceding "elected"

Please don't start the veiled political comments.

 

[jalapeno_pretzel]

Maybe he's gearing up for a run for office.

 

[msjprincess]

Having the "right" to say something under the first amendment should never be confused with having absolutely no consequences for what you say. Too many people hide behind the 1st thinking it should protect them from judgement when they say horrible things. That's never what free speech has been about and never should be what it's about. Every society has a right to decide what behavior is acceptable and an obligation hold people to those standards.

Exactly. I'm so tired of people screaming about Free Speech! and First Amendment rights in these situations.

 

[Planogirl]

I don't get the guy's thinking. Why does he care what Colonel Sanders said or didn't say back in the day? It's a word that isn't supposed to be used now and the past is the past.

 

[sunshinehighway]

Exactly. I'm so tired of people screaming about Free Speech! and First Amendment rights in these situations.

Yes. It's just a way to excuse the behavior without defending it. There's so much information available at our fingers but there's also ( unfortunately) a huge lack of understanding of what that information actually means.
If you're a well known spokesperson for a companion and you say racist things, expect it to not be well received by the public. It has nothing to do with free speech or the first amendment.

 

[Hikergirl]

He is the spokesman for Papa Johns and he made his comment during "work" so not sure there should be a question about him being canned, or asked to step down or whatever the process was. He may be the founder but many people rely on the success of that company in order to have a job so the company needs to do whatever it has to do to make that happen. Having a spokesman make racist comments doesn't do much for the success of a company.

 

[L&Lfan]

What bothers me is that the punishment isn't universally applied for the same or similar offenses.

 

[UncleMike101]

I hear a lot of things I don't agree with, but under the First Amendment people have a right to say them. But yes, there can be consequences afterwards, especially if you are an elected official.
https://www.abc10.com/article/news/...hobic-op-ed-by-dixon-vice-mayor/103-572639219

Having the "right" to say something under the first amendment should never be confused with having absolutely no consequences for what you say. Too many people hide behind the 1st thinking it should protect them from judgement when they say horrible things. That's never what free speech has been about and never should be what it's about. Every society has a right to decide what behavior is acceptable and an obligation hold people to those standards.

Both statements ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ are true.
The Bill Of Rights gives all Citizens certain protections under the Law.
But nowhere does the Bill Of Rights, or the Constitution in toto, give an exemption for improper or unlawful behavior, actions, or speech, resulting from the exercise of those Rights.
A particularly bothersome trend today is for some people to believe that they, and they alone, can say whatever they please about others without consequences while believing that those with opposing views have no right to do the same and can be censored, shouted down, and threatened for espousing their beliefs.
Intolerance of those with differing opinions and beliefs, so long as they do not violate the Law or cause harm to others, cannot be tolerated in a functioning Society without undermining the rights of everyone as a result.

 

[chicagodisneyfan]

Please don't start the veiled political comments.

I am confused as to how that was a veiled political comment?

I support the right for anyone to say whatever they want with few restrictions (fire in a movie theater), but actions have consequences -

Heck in this day and age we still have people who want BOOKS to be banned - Because of language used.

 

[Gumbo4x4]

What bothers me is that the punishment isn't universally applied for the same or similar offenses.

It’s hard to feel sorry for a CEO who says something like this in a meeting.

Some gal who says something in the heat of the moment in traffic, off the clock? Not sure the punishment fits the crime.

 

[RedAngie]

I don't get the guy's thinking. Why does he care what Colonel Sanders said or didn't say back in the day? It's a word that isn't supposed to be used now and the past is the past.

He's wishing it was still the 1950s where he could get away with saying what Colonel Sanders said.

 

[sunshinehighway]

Both statements ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ are true.
The Bill Of Rights gives all Citizens certain protections under the Law.
But nowhere does the Bill Of Rights, or the Constitution in toto, give an exemption for improper or unlawful behavior, actions, or speech, resulting from the exercise of those Rights.
A particularly bothersome trend today is for some people to believe that they, and they alone, can say whatever they please about others without consequences while believing that those with opposing views have no right to do the same and can be censored, shouted down, and threatened for espousing their beliefs.
Intolerance of those with differing opinions and beliefs, so long as they do not violate the Law or cause harm to others, cannot be tolerated in a functioning Society without undermining the rights of everyone as a result.

Oh, here we go with the "we must be tolerant of intolerance" nonsense.
No, saying racist things, especially at work is not a differing opinion and belief that anyone needs to tolerate.
It's so obvious when people there out "intolerance of differing opinions", it's a buzz word way of saying bigoted opinions and beliefs. It's funny to me that people hide behind veiled phrases. I mean if it's something someone believes and thinks it should be "tolerated", why not just be upfront about what exactly you are talking about?

 

[Hikergirl]

Oh, here we go with the "we must be tolerant of intolerance" nonsense.
No, saying racist things, especially at work is not a differing opinion and belief that anyone needs to tolerate.
It's so obvious when people there out "intolerance of differing opinions", it's a buzz word way of saying bigoted opinions and beliefs. It's funny to me that people hide behind veiled phrases. I mean if it's something someone believes and thinks it should be "tolerated", why not just be upfront about what exactly you are talking about?

I'll be up front, I'm not a SJW and I have no desire to be one. I don't care what you are, it isn't my business. Now if you are out there breaking the law that is one thing, but if you have views that are different then mine, then go about your life and I'll go about mine. I'm not going to try to get you fired from your job because I deem your views immoral, or disgusting or whatever.

Acting out your views in the workplace is a different matter, and one that should be handled at the discretion of the company you work for.

 

[Adelle Dazeem]

It bothers me, not only that they were stupid to get caught saying those words, but that in this day and age they're still part of anyone's vocabulary.

Have you ever listened to rap music?

 

[AlohaNow]

In the past I have withheld dollars from certain companies due to not agreeing with policy or individual actions. The older I get the more I realize that if one searches hard enough you would find fault with some aspect of just about every company you do business with, or their supply chains around the world. Withholding dollars would eventually leave you naked, hungry, and homeless. Papa John’s sales will dip for about the next month or so, then many people will forget all about it because it will not be top of mind. Or because that is the closest pizza place to their house and it’s inconvenient to pick up from the place two miles out of their way.

 

[UncleMike101]

Oh, here we go with the "we must be tolerant of intolerance" nonsense.
No, saying racist things, especially at work is not a differing opinion and belief that anyone needs to tolerate.
It's so obvious when people there out "intolerance of differing opinions", it's a buzz word way of saying bigoted opinions and beliefs. It's funny to me that people hide behind veiled phrases. I mean if it's something someone believes and thinks it should be "tolerated", why not just be upfront about what exactly you are talking about?

Perhaps you're having a bad day.......
I agreed, in principle, with your first statement and expounded on the legal background for allowing everyone to benefit from the Rights enumerated in the Constitution.
If you're upset over the fact that people can exercise those rights freely then you likely fall into the group that wishes to curtail the rights of others.

 

[Hrhpd]

I hear a lot of things I don't agree with, but under the First Amendment people have a right to say them. But yes, there can be consequences afterwards, especially if you are an elected official.
https://www.abc10.com/article/news/...hobic-op-ed-by-dixon-vice-mayor/103-572639219

Exactly, there are always consequences to one's actions. Many people misinterpret the 1st amendment. The first amendment does not guarantee free speech in every situation. It guarantees that the government cannot prosecute you for what you say. Nowhere does it guarantee your right to say what you want, where you want. In fact there is a pretty extensive list of the limitations of the 1st amendment:

Here is just a partial list:

• You have zero right to free speech in a forum owned by someone else. They're entitled to kick you out, delete what you've said, change it, anything. (for instance, we cannot claim freedom of speech and discuss politics here on the DIS. The owners have every right to limit our sppech.)
• You may not defame someone else. In the US the definition of defamation varies from state to state. This is also called slander or libel.
• You cannot publish obscene material. This includes line drawings or descriptions of child pornography even when no sexual abuse actually took place. This is governed by the Miller test.
• You may not claim military honors to which you are not entitled. This is governed by the Stolen Valor Act of 2013.
• You may not incite others to criminal acts or to riot. Brandenburg v. Ohio is the relevant Supreme Court ruling, which sets the standard for what is permissible.
• You may not participate in a criminal conspiracy even if your only action was speaking or writing. Making an agreement to commit a crime is itself a crime.
• You may not reveal any classified information in writing or speech.
• You may not urge people to dodge the draft in wartime.
• You may not urge support for organizations that the government has designated as sponsors of terrorism, even if you disagree with that designation and give no money yourself.
• You may not make false or fraudulent claims in the course of business.
• Your right to advertise is limited. No cigarette advertisements on TV.
• You are required to reveal certain information about food, drugs, and chemical products that you sell. The government can force you to speak.
• You have a limited right to free speech in the military.
• You have no right to say anything you have contractually promised not to, such as in a non-disclosure agreement.
• You have no right of free speech in the workplace, except union organization, which is protected by law. (Ie, the NFL)
• Children have only a limited right to free speech in school.
• You have no right to threaten anyone with violence.
• You have no right to speak any time you want to in a courtroom or other public proceeding, and you can be evicted or found in contempt and jailed for disrupting proceedings.
• You have no right to sexually, racially, or otherwise harass co-workers.
• You may not induce someone to break a contract they have with a third party. This is called tortious interference.
• You have no right to shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater.

https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-...re-the-limits-of-freedom-of-speech-in-the-U-S​

 

[sunshinehighway]

I'll be up front, I'm not a SJW and I have no desire to be one. I don't care what you are, it isn't my business. Now if you are out there breaking the law that is one thing, but if you have views that are different then mine, then go about your life and I'll go about mine. I'm not going to try to get you fired from your job because I deem your views immoral, or disgusting or whatever.

Acting out your views in the workplace is a different matter, and one that should be handled at the discretion of the company you work for.

I don't understand what being a SJW had to do with it, only SJWs care about bigotry. I really don't understand .
As for the rest, when people make their bigoted opinions known, there should be consequences at some level. The very definition of tolerating something is to accept something you disagree with, to "put up with" it. Nobody should just have to put up with bigotry.
While my cousin tends to say bigoted things at family functions, I'm not about to campaign to get her fired from her job. I'm not going to sit there and tolerate (by listening to it unchallenged) either.

 

[Hikergirl]

I don't understand what being a SJW had to do with it, only SJWs care about bigotry. I really don't understand .
As for the rest, when people make their bigoted opinions known, there should be consequences at some level. The very definition of tolerating something is to accept something you disagree with, to "put up with" it. Nobody should just have to put up with bigotry.
While my cousin tends to say bigoted things at family functions, I'm not about to campaign to get her fired from her job. I'm not going to sit there and tolerate (by listening to it unchallenged) either.

SJW- meaning I'm not out there fighting and protesting all the social wrongs of the world.

For me it just depends, I have a very dear friend who has some religious beliefs that are far different than mine. She has said things that make me cringe. However, she is a good person, she works hard for her family and would do anything for anyone, even those who do not share her religious views. Yes I "tolerate" her because she has never acted on her views. She doesn't treat anyone different because they don't share her religion.
OTOH, her ds (who is my ds's BFF) has been the target of bigotry. We have kids in our neighborhood that would come around to our house when he's over and call him the n-word. That is not something I tolerate, although me telling the kids that they are wrong and to go away just gets me laughed at. I'm not going to march to their house and confront their parents, who I'm sure are the same, or try to get them fired because they are raising little racists. So, in a sense I am tolerating their views, I'm just not tolerating their (kids') actions.

 

[sam_gordon]

What bothers me is that the punishment isn't universally applied for the same or similar offenses.

I don't understand this. The punishment wouldn't be universally applied, because each entity can decide it's own punishment.