Nazi sympathizer profiled in New York Times loses job

[whichphilosophy]

Hypothetical: You own a home and have a big family. Some of the family lives with you, some of which are minorities. One day, a Nazi and two collaborators try to move into your home with you. Do you (a) kick them off your property because they are evil Nazis who regularly irrationally create risk of harm to others, (b) let them move in because free speech, or (c) let them move in and then kick them out later when you get threatening phone calls from Antifa?

In this instance (a) is better than (b) and (c).

Restaurants are also private property.

(a) is still better than (b) and (c).

 

[laughing dog]

No, it is not. It is fascinating to see someone who literally soils his/her underwear at the notion of "communists" or "Antifas" equate "politics" with those who actively advocate genocide.

Re babble I referred initially to your post 302

No need for you to provide another example of babble.

There are different types of politics but flipping burgers is not advocating genocide.

No one said it was. You are responding to delusions of your own making.

 

[whichphilosophy]

There are different types of politics but flipping burgers is not advocating genocide.

No one said it was. You are responding to delusions of your own making.

Who next? ANTIFA terms anything to the right of it's loose ideology as Nazi.

 

[laughing dog]

There are different types of politics but flipping burgers is not advocating genocide.

No one said it was. You are responding to delusions of your own making.

Who next? ANTIFA terms anything to the right of it's loose ideology as Nazi.

More babble.

 

[Hermit]

The threats alone would have been sufficient reason for the employer to let him go, since his business and his other employees were made potential targets for terrorists.

Would you say the same if the employee were black, the restaurant served whites only during the apartheid era and the threats came from members of the KKK?

And it is fair to ask the same question of you. You are that owner of the restaurant that served whites only. Hey, wait. Hermit, why are you only serving food to white people? Shouldn't you be serving colored folks as well? What's wrong with you?

Sorry. Got sidetracked a little. Anyway, there you are, an innocent victim of circumstances. Your underpaid black employee gets outed as a secret civil rights activist, and the KKK is now threatening to firebomb your restaurant, target you and your family, and possibly kill innocent patrons of your business. What do you do? Well, naturally, Hermit, you would keep that employee on the payroll forever and defy the Klan. Coward that I am, I would consider letting him go in order to preserve my business and keep my family and clients safe.

But I'm still wondering about your heroic effort to keep that black employee on the payroll. If you were going to defend this employee, then why run a racially segregated business in the first place? And why is a civil rights activist working in a business that refuses to serve people of color?

And while we're at it, why was this white supremacist in our real life story working in a business that served people of color? What's up with that? How well is that going to sit with people of color who come to sit in the restaurant?

All of these moral dilemmas are giving me a headache, Hermit, but I'm counting on you to tell me what the right thing to do here is. Fire the employee or keep him on and to hell with the consequences? Enlighten me.

Hey, Cop, you made an assertion: "The threats alone would have been sufficient reason for the employer to let him go, since his business and his other employees were made potential targets for terrorists." I asked if you'd stand by it under the circumstances I described. Would you? I think it is a question that can be answered with a yes or no, followed by an explanation why yes or no.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

If you are running in a forest and encounter a tribe of cannibals do you (a) stop and have dinner with them because everyone is entitled to a political opinion or (b) run for your life?

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Kick them out because the only people allowed on my private property are those who I decide can be on my private property.

I bet the Girl Scouts just love running past your house.

Of course you would think I automatically retaliate against anyone who steps an inch over the property line instead of saying "please leave" and giving them a chance first.

 

[laughing dog]

Kick them out because the only people allowed on my private property are those who I decide can be on my private property.

I bet the Girl Scouts just love running past your house.

Of course you would think I automatically retaliate against anyone who steps an inch over the property line instead of saying "please leave" and giving them a chance first.

As usual, you missed his point and then jumped to a ridiculous conclusions. Don's point was your response made you seem like a grumpy grouch.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Of course you would think I automatically retaliate against anyone who steps an inch over the property line instead of saying "please leave" and giving them a chance first.

As usual, you missed his point and then jumped to a ridiculous conclusions. Don's point was your response made you seem like a grumpy grouch.

Interestingly, his explanation of telling Girl Scouts on his doorstep, "please leave," neither makes it sound much better nor refutes the underlying rights of private property. I therefore wonder what point he's adding to the thread.

 

[RavenSky]

In any case, the restaurateur claims that the employee suggested he be laid off because of the threats. The threats alone would have been sufficient reason for the employer to let him go, since his business and his other employees were made potential targets for terrorists. If the man had quit, he would not have been eligible for unemployment insurance, so it makes sense that he might have realized his job was untenable and that being laid off was preferable to voluntarily leaving.

Well if that information is now public, it may be difficult for Mr. Nazi to collect those unemployment benefits

P.S. Do we get to call the white supremacist a "freeloader" now?

 

[Copernicus]

In any case, the restaurateur claims that the employee suggested he be laid off because of the threats. The threats alone would have been sufficient reason for the employer to let him go, since his business and his other employees were made potential targets for terrorists. If the man had quit, he would not have been eligible for unemployment insurance, so it makes sense that he might have realized his job was untenable and that being laid off was preferable to voluntarily leaving.

Well if that information is now public, it may be difficult for Mr. Nazi to collect those unemployment benefits

P.S. Do we get to call the white supremacist a "freeloader" now?

Why would it make it difficult for him to collect unemployment benefits? Just as he is entitled to free speech, he is entitled to collect those payments, as long as he qualifies under the law. He is not entitled to keep a job that he can no longer be effective in.

And it is fair to ask the same question of you. You are that owner of the restaurant that served whites only. Hey, wait. Hermit, why are you only serving food to white people? Shouldn't you be serving colored folks as well? What's wrong with you?

Sorry. Got sidetracked a little. Anyway, there you are, an innocent victim of circumstances. Your underpaid black employee gets outed as a secret civil rights activist, and the KKK is now threatening to firebomb your restaurant, target you and your family, and possibly kill innocent patrons of your business. What do you do? Well, naturally, Hermit, you would keep that employee on the payroll forever and defy the Klan. Coward that I am, I would consider letting him go in order to preserve my business and keep my family and clients safe.

But I'm still wondering about your heroic effort to keep that black employee on the payroll. If you were going to defend this employee, then why run a racially segregated business in the first place? And why is a civil rights activist working in a business that refuses to serve people of color?

And while we're at it, why was this white supremacist in our real life story working in a business that served people of color? What's up with that? How well is that going to sit with people of color who come to sit in the restaurant?

All of these moral dilemmas are giving me a headache, Hermit, but I'm counting on you to tell me what the right thing to do here is. Fire the employee or keep him on and to hell with the consequences? Enlighten me.

Hey, Cop, you made an assertion: "The threats alone would have been sufficient reason for the employer to let him go, since his business and his other employees were made potential targets for terrorists." I asked if you'd stand by it under the circumstances I described. Would you? I think it is a question that can be answered with a yes or no, followed by an explanation why yes or no.

Indeed you do think that, yet my answer is that I stand by my response under the circumstances of the real situation under discussion, not your weird attempt at an analogy, which I do not recognize as relevant. I don't for a second recognize "apartheid world" as equivalent to the real world in which restaurants are required to serve meals to people regardless of race, gender, or religion. If we actually lived in apartheid world, then, yes, a business owner would have to take into account the safety of his patrons and his ability to conduct business, odious as the morality of that world would be. He would have a right to fire his employee, but he would also have a right to refuse service to people of color. Do I approve of that? No. But your demand for a simple "yes" or "no" answer begs the question of all those details.

So, in summary, it isn't fair of you to demand that I legitimize your hypothetical scenario with such a simple answer. And it is certainly fair for me to ask you to put yourself in the shoes of your imaginary racist restaurateur and answer your own question. How would you respond to it? "Yes" or "no"?

In the case we were discussing, we have a business that by law has to serve meals to people of all races. It is reasonable for that business to require that its servers be able to carry out that function without making clients feel uncomfortable or in danger of a terrorist attack from some deranged goofball intent on making a political statement about businesses that employ white supremacists. That is not to say that the man who was outed should be fired for his political beliefs. He should be fired for being unable to fulfill the reasonable requirements of his job. And, according to the restaurateur, the employee actually suggested that he be let go. Perhaps he understood that his cirucmstances had changed in such a way to render his employment no longer tenable.

But I understand your reluctance to put yourself in the shoes of the restaurateur in apartheid world. I suspect you only created that imaginary scenario in order to pose the moral dilemma to me. Let's just talk about the real world. What do you think the restaurateur in the OP should have done regarding his employee after his notoriety brought threats down on the owner and his business? Continue on as if it didn't matter? Suddenly, his business--his family's livelihood--was located in the center of a political firestorm. Was he obligated to retain that employee just because the First Amendment guarantees freedom of speech? Do you think he was trampling on his employee's rights by letting him go? Or do you believe that a business should be required to retain employees that can no longer be effective in their jobs just because they haven't broken any laws? That could lead to some pretty strange situations in the real world.

 

[Hermit]

Yeah, I must admit the analogy is piss-poor. Apartheid and whites only customers are two details that are unnecessary and muddy the waters. Let me try again. So you asserted "The threats alone would have been sufficient reason for the employer to let him go, since his business and his other employees were made potential targets for terrorists." The cook is black. Threats are made anonymously that the business will not survive unless the cook is sacked. We don't know who made the threats, but since the cook is the only non-Caucasian employee the guess that they are made by racists is not entirely unreasonable. Are the threats sufficient reason to let the cook go?

ETA:

I suspect you only created that imaginary scenario in order to pose the moral dilemma to me.

Not really. I was wondering if you'd reconsider a threat to your business being sufficient reason to let go one of your employees if the scenario was somewhat different.

As for me, the threats alone would not have been sufficient reason for me to sack anybody - not from a moral point of view anyway. In the Hovater scenario I would not need a threat to give him his marching orders the moment I found out he was a neo-Nazi. In the black cook scenario I'd sack the cook if I could find no way of avoiding it without endangering my business, and in doing so I would regard myself as having done something immoral.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Who next? ANTIFA terms anything to the right of it's loose ideology as Nazi.

More babble.

I suggest you some of them speak. Did you define what babble means?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Restaurants are also private property.

(a) is still better than (b) and (c).

The best response to that is your own:

Who next? ANTIFA terms anything to the right of it's loose ideology as Nazi.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Kick them out because the only people allowed on my private property are those who I decide can be on my private property.

I bet the Girl Scouts just love running past your house.

Of course you would think I automatically retaliate against anyone who steps an inch over the property line instead of saying "please leave" and giving them a chance first.

Naw, you just kick the Nazi off your property, make them someone else's problem, go online and then gloat about your wonderful infallible Libertarianism standards of where you steadfastly believe that people can believe anything as long as it just doesn't affect you. (note to spell checker... Libertarianism isn't a misspelling of Libertarian ism)

 

[laughing dog]

Who next? ANTIFA terms anything to the right of it's loose ideology as Nazi.

More babble.

I suggest you some of them speak. Did you define what babble means?

This "sentence" is yet another example of babble - "I suggest you some of them speak". More importantly, your entire response in the previous post was babble since it had nothing to do with the discussion. Objects of obsession (in your case, Antifas and communists) are not automatically relevant to any discussion.

 

[whichphilosophy]

I suggest you some of them speak. Did you define what babble means?

This "sentence" is yet another example of babble - "I suggest you some of them speak". More importantly, your entire response in the previous post was babble since it had nothing to do with the discussion. Objects of obsession (in your case, Antifas and communists) are not automatically relevant to any discussion.

Now you defined babble correctly re the first sentence. Not all communists are like Antifa

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I suggest you some of them speak.

 

[laughing dog]

I suggest you some of them speak. Did you define what babble means?

This "sentence" is yet another example of babble - "I suggest you some of them speak". More importantly, your entire response in the previous post was babble since it had nothing to do with the discussion. Objects of obsession (in your case, Antifas and communists) are not automatically relevant to any discussion.

Now you defined babble correctly re the first sentence. Not all communists are like Antifa

No one said they were. But thanks for pointing out the obvious, even though it is irrelevant.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Now you defined babble correctly re the first sentence. Not all communists are like Antifa

No one said they were. But thanks for pointing out the obvious, even though it is irrelevant.

Previously you claimed a definition of etymology was babble.