What’s your alternative? Should an employer issue a questionnaire asking potential employees’ political opinions? Which opinions should merit firing? Which bumper stickers?
I’m not sure what the point of the link is. In that story, the employer explicitly gave his employee a choice of whether to remove the bumper sticker or be fired.
Again, however, you’re missing the point.
There is an obvious distinction to be made between someone who has (say) a Bachmann sticker on her truck versus someone who has a sticker on her truck which essentially refers to the president as a nigger.
If MsWhatsit doesn’t want Republican voters making her sandwiches, that’s one thing. If she doesn’t want open racists doing it, that’s clearly another.
Now, I do think she has an obligation to tell the business owner/management why she is boycotting, so they can take steps to correct the problem (ie., tell the employee to remover the sticker or stop parking in their lot).
That was one case discussed in the article. How about the candidate for the Socialist Workers’ party in Miami? Is that okay?
What you’re saying is that a sufficiently offensive political opinion should be grounds for termination. And you would place this decision in the hands of a fast-food franchise owner.
No, it is not a construct that should exist. I have said this repeatedly.
There are things which are wrong. There is no acceptable minimal amount of child abuse or rape or murder - or racism. These acts should be viewed like smallpox and the ideal is extinction.
My alternative is getting my sandwich from a different sandwich shop. What the employer chooses to do as a result of this is up to him.
And yes, if I were going to boycott a business based on the publicly-displayed views of one of his employees, I’d let him know why.
Good. Be sure to tell him, “I’m boycotting your sandwich shop because of something you have no legitimate control over.”
What an odd thing for me to say. No, I’d stick with, “I noticed that one of your employees has a highly offensive racist bumper sticker on his vehicle, and since I find that objectionable, I am no longer patronizing your establishment and am informing you as a courtesy.”
You, of course, would certainly be welcome to say anything you liked to a business owner whose business you were no longer patronizing for whatever reason. It’s a free country.
You are conflating thoughts and acts. People should be able to hold whatever belief they chose. Even repugnant ones. If they act on them, that is another matter entirely. There are no thought police, much as you might want there to be. That is a belief that I find repugnant, but you keep it in your head all you want.
Posting a bumper sticker is an act.
Okay. But should we ban all bumper stickers that you find highly offensive? Then can we add to that list the ones I find highly offensive? I’m sure others would like to add to that list, as well. Where do you draw the line?
Nits make lice, eh?
I don’t think anyone has proposed banning any bumper stickers. The lines on the issues actually draw themselves, no need for any one person to be drawing them. The offensiveness of the bumper sticker directly relates to the number of people willing to voice their objection to it.
If the OP had decided to organize a boycott based on said employee having a McCain sticker I doubt they would have drawn a significant enough crowd to effect them, but since the issue is a racist political sticker enough people may have had concern to be meaningful.
If you would like to organize a boycott based on things you find highly offensive, go for it more power to you, it’s just gets kinda awkward and ineffectual when you’re the only one joining your own boycotts.
We shouldn’t ban anything. At no point have I suggested making anything illegal.
jamiemcgary? Is that you?
No, you just think it’s a good idea to stalk them to their place of work and try to deny them a livelihood. Not everything bad is the product of government action.
Also, I think that racists should spend as much time as possible making sandwiches. How would you prefer he spend his time?
It helps if you close your eyes and whisper ‘Pleasepleaseplease don’t be racist, guuuys.’
So, you want to punish someone and have him lose his job for not doing anything illegal, or not doing anything wrong on the job. Great. For all you know he was a guy who you thought gave you great service last week.
The problem is that you think your morals must be adopted by everyone. Sure, people will have their own ideas, but if they deviate too far for your liking, you think they need to be punished. Even if the law doesn’t. Sounds like you wouldn’t have been on the side of the ACLU when they supported the right of people with Nazi beliefs to march in Skokie, IL. As ugly and detestable as I find Nazism, the ACLU was on the right side of the issue on that one. Similarly, I would never, ever burn the American flag, but I support someone else to make that statement if they think they must.
Oh, so as long as you can rally enough people with pitchforks it’s okay. Never mind that the guy hasn’t broken any laws. You don’t like it, so he must be punished. Hmmm, I seem to recall when groups of people in the South held similar views. There’s a whiff of irony in the air, I’d say.
Ah, the old “people who are intolerant of intolerance are just as bad” hail mary, well played sir. Game, set match.
Yes, you guys are finally grasping the point. If somebody wants to harass and intimidate black people in public then he can expect to be harassed and intimidated in public.
Cook County and the state of Illinois was trying to make it illegal for the Nazis to march. As I’ve said numerous times, I’m not trying to make anything illegal. But I’d have been happy to join in a boycott of any business that was owned by or knowingly employed Nazis.