Amazon.com’s Whole Foods Market doesn’t want to be forced to let workers wear “Black Lives Matter” masks and is pointing to the recent US Supreme Court ruling permitting a business owner to refuse services to same-sex couples to get federal regulators to back off.
National Labor Relations Board prosecutors have accused the grocer of stifling worker rights by banning staff from wearing BLM masks or pins on the job. The company countered in a filing that its own rights are being violated if it’s forced to allow BLM slogans to be worn with Whole Foods uniforms.
Amazon is the most prominent company to use the high court’s June ruling that a Christian web designer was free to refuse to design sites for gay weddings, saying the case “provides a clear roadmap” to throw out the NLRB’s complaint.
The dispute is one of several in which labor board officials are considering what counts as legally-protected, work-related communication and activism on the job.
The statement Black Lives Matter is not political, you absolute ham sandwich…
Then neither is “Make America Great Again”
That’s multiple candidates campaign slogans. It’s was a Republican presidential slogan in 64 and 80, very famously part of Reagan’s campaign.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Make_America_Great_Again
The statement itself is as political as the statement “black lives matter”.
incorrect
Edit: https://chantillynews.org/5886/opinions/human-rights-vs-political-views/
Let me make it a little more clear: how about “All lives matter”?
That’s just a “thought terminating cliche”, like “it is what it is”. Its intention is to end a conversation that the speaker doesn’t want to have.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought-terminating_cliché
Created as a response to “Black Lives Matter”, it means “I don’t care about black lives because I am not black. Stop talking about them.”
To prove this, just ask anyone who utters or displays that phrase the following question:
“What do you think about black people?”
deleted by creator
Neither is political. One is a statement of identity and the other is against that identity.
“I exist” and “you should not exist” are not political opinions. They are existential ones.
And you think if this goes through, Amazon wouldn’t also ban masks with that slogan on them?
So you deny that BLM is a political org?
They sure seem to be calling for political action.
https://blacklivesmatter.com/
Having a just cause does not make a movement apolitical. Agreeing with that cause does not make the statement apolitical.
You seem to have your emotions mixed up with facts. And here I thought that was a conservative trait.
While I would agree that it is political, it’s because it is a movement and has become political. The organization was created after the movement and does not necessarily reflect the will or intentions of the actual movement. It’s like if back in the day there was an org called Women’s Suffrage. It doesn’t mean the focus of all people who want women’s suffrage are part of an organization named that after the movement started.
Women’s suffrage is probably the worst example you could have chosen – in what way is fighting for the right to vote not inherently political?
I was saying that BLM is a political movement. It’s not necessarily an organization.
I refer you to Skunk Anansie, though.
https://youtu.be/mcaUer4fuU8?si=b8g5NIuCk3-1w2AT
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
https://youtu.be/mcaUer4fuU8?si=b8g5NIuCk3-1w2AT
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source, check me out at GitHub.
Removed by mod
On its own it’s not, but it definitely is in the current political and cultural context. There’s no getting away from that. It’s going to provoke a political reaction in any conservative and there’s no point in pretending otherwise.
deleted by creator
That’s an indictment of Conservatism. What are they trying to Conserve and when was America great? Cause it was not great for folks of color or queer folk back then, and we wont go back.
I can and do agree with everything you argue while also maintaining the objectively obvious fact that context matters in politics.
The statement itself shouldn’t be political in its sentiment, but obviously the organization exists and it has its own policy positions, events, advocacy, and I can go to their website to donate. I think it’s fairly obvious which one Whole Foods would be concerned with.
Ah, so if I wear a hat at work that says “save babies” and then an organization pops up called “Save babies” and they start donating to politicians, should I no longer be allowed to wear my “Save Babies” hat?
If the company you’re representing would prefer you didn’t, then sure.
Let’s use another example, if someone was a big supporter of fascism and was wearing a hat or mask that said, “save fascists”, would you prefer the store couldn’t prevent them from wearing that?
How bad would the phrase have to get to change your mind?
I’d say the difference comes down to choice. You choose to be a fascist. You choose to be a trump supporter. You don’t choose to be black. You don’t chose to be an infant.
Examples. If you wore a SPLC clothing article, I think the employer would be allowed to object, but if you wore clothing showing support for women, or indigenous people, then they should abide it.
Yup