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 (1 child)

You've got some is/ought fallacy going on here. And it's unfortunate. But I'm not sure if comparing something as culturally ubiquitous as a wedding ring compares to something as divisive as BLM. Yes, it's unfortunate that BLM is divisive. It ought not be. Yes, you could even say wedding rings are symbols of power and oppression, and ought be considered in the same way as BLM. But that is not the case.

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

    Wedding rings are symbols of power and oppression.

    I just said that. If you disagree then that means wedding rings are a divisive issue. Since it's a divisive issue it should be banned.

    You're using tautological logic here. Anything that's divisive is political, anyone declaring they disagree with anything makes something divisive, therefore anything people disagree over is political. Anything political should be banned. All power is given to those who decide what is political and what isn't because anything can be declared political.

    Given we're in a culture where people will feign disagreement and argue in bad faith, the logical result is employers have absolute control over employees. Starting to feel really dystopian if we follow this kind of logic.

    Honestly do you really think there is no intent behind the culture war strategy of declaring anything associated with minority groups to be "divisive" in an effort to have it banned? Who actually believes black lives don't matter? Should anyone try to appease that sort of person?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent