this post was submitted on 16 Sep 2023
785 points (95.5% liked)

World News

32523 readers
846 users here now

News from around the world!

Rules:

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

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
[–] KevonLooney@lemm.ee 19 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Saying that black people exist and should remain alive is not a political statement. Do you want to ban hats that say "veteran" too? Or maybe charity and cancer awareness logos?

Being a live black person is not a political act. Think about that when ordering some seitan and being "liberal AF", whatever that means.

[–] Lowbird@beehaw.org 2 points 1 year ago

This feels very similar to me to businesses freaking out and trying to prevent their employees from wearing rainbow flag or pronoun pins. Or rainbow masks, for that matter.

I think employee uniform requirements should be just enough to make employees identifiable so they can do their jobs (e.g. answer customer questions about where the lettuce is or whatever). Just a mandatory hat or shirt is enough to do that. Beyond that, they're humans. Let them be fucking humans.

[–] Nahvi@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Political - adj - Of, relating to, or dealing with the structure or affairs of government, politics, or the state.

I don't know if you really don't know the difference between being black and supporting the BLM movement, but there is a definite difference. A good quick measure is would a politician hold an opinion on it? For a specific example do you think Tim Scott (one of the black Republican Presidential Candidates) would wear a BLM face mask?

I will assume that you are arguing and good faith and genuinely don't see the difference, so here are a few contrasting examples:

Wearing a hat that says Veteran is a statement of fact, like wearing a hat with your college's logo. It is not inherently political or supporting any particular political ideal.

Wearing a VFW hat on the other hand, would be political. The VFW seeks to educated and change the opinions of legislators regarding veterans.

If a black person was wearing a hat that said I am Black. That would be a statement of fact and not inherently political or supporting any particular political ideal.

Wearing a BLM hat on the other hand would be political. The BLM organization and supporters of the BLM ideals seek to educate and change the opinions of legislators and the public regarding black people.

Without typing out the same comparisons again, cancer awareness and most charities would fall under political ideals also. They almost always seek to influence government legislation or funding.

[–] freeindv@monyet.cc -2 points 1 year ago

Saying that black people exist and should remain alive is not a political statement

It's absolutely political because it sits on the false premise that others argue otherwise. Nobody does, it's a false premise used to create racial divide and lower the moral of the black community