|
|
|
NOTE!
This is a real-time comments system. As such, it's also a
free speech zone within guidelines set forth on the Post
Comments page. Opinions expressed here may or may not
reflect those of KeepAndBearArms staff, members, or
any other living person besides the one who posted them.
Please keep that in mind. We ask that all who post
comments assure that they adhere to our Inclusion
Policy, but there's a bad apple in every
bunch, and we have no control over bigots and
other small-minded people. Thank you. --KeepAndBearArms.com
|
The
Below Comments Relate to this Newslink:
EEOC to Gadsden Flag Lovers: Shut Up or Face Costly Lawsuits
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Those who defend or minimize the EEOC’s decision say that it was not definitively declaring the cap’s wearer to be racist, citing the EEOC’s statement that “we are not prejudging the merits of Complainant’s complaint. Instead, we are precluding a procedural dismissal that would deprive us of evidence that would illuminate the meaning conveyed by C1’s display of the symbol.”
But that misses the point. Even if the cap’s wearing did have a veiled, racist meaning (which seems extremely unlikely), the EEOC still had no basis for demanding an investigation, as the Title VII statute only covers harassment that is “severe or pervasive,” not subtle or ambiguous. Defenders of the EEOC’s decision simply ignore the “severe or pervasive” requirement. |
| Comment by:
xqqme
(9/10/2016)
|
| Can we get "Black Lives Matter" banned from the workplace as racist also, then? |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing of concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise. But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the constitution. [Bliss vs. Commonwealth, 12 Ky. (2 Litt.) 90, at 92, and 93, 13 Am. Dec. 251 (1822) |
|
|
