795
Whole Foods argues it can ban BLM masks because the Supreme Court let a Christian business owner refuse same-sex couples (fortune.com)
submitted 3 years ago by to c/worldnews@lemmy.ml
476 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 1 point 3 years ago (3 children)

I’ll try and simplify it a bit for you since you seem to be struggling.

And I'll repeat it for you.

Free speech is literally a reference to the first amendment. There is no “right” to free speech outside of the first amendment.

There is no RIGHT to free speech... outside of the first amendment. Which only pertains to government influence. There is no RIGHT to it in any other case. At what point where is what I said wrong? Implying that Whole Foods is doing something wrong here for enforcing a fair dress policy, while turning around and talking about Amazon lobbying the government is disingenuous as fuck. You yourself could lobby the government as well. If there's no innate right to free speech otherwise. Your "free speech" (which doesn't exist anyway) doesn't outweigh someones right to their owned property (in this case the Whole Foods).

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 3 years ago (2 children)

    Will you answer the question?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago (1 child)

    Sure, I never said that concept doesn't exist outside of government. Just that there is no right to it anywhere except given through government mandate and on governments behalf.

    The original statement was

    Free speech for me but not for thee.

    Which implies that the worker has a right to "free speech" at work but is abused by some other class of person making up bullshit rules... which they don't. Instead it's a right that granted by the Government for public (actually public) functions. Further it's not a bullshit rule since it's a rule that was agreed upon when the worker joined the company... And I would be willing to bet that the management (or other class that is under the "thee" reference) themselves adhere to as well. Especially since it went to court and was found to be applied equally across the board.

    There is a reason I quoted "right" in that post you know... Or did you skip that to make a pedantic argument?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago

    No, the original basis of my first point was that you falsely equated the concept of free speech to only ever be about the first amendment when that clearly is not the case and you even admit it yourself. And you’ve just been fighting a strawman ever since.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent