• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Nazi sympathizer profiled in New York Times loses job

Don2 (Don1 Revised) said:
whichphilosophy said:
I suggest you some of them speak.
Click to expand...

latest
Click to expand...

Some you reply may to.
 
Copernicus said:
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.

Hermit said:
Copernicus said:
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.

:goodevil:
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...

Once we start with Nazis, the definition soon widens.
 
laughing dog said:
Jason Harvestdancer said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...

Do you follow me from thread to thread just to be as irritating as possible?
 
Jason Harvestdancer said:
laughing dog said:
Jason Harvestdancer said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...

Do you follow me from thread to thread just to be as irritating as possible?
Click to expand...

Your statement here is correct:

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.

In the case of a dispute over an ejection from the property you would demonstrate that you acted reasonably to inform the trespasser first and they refused to desist. ANTIFA would disagree of course.
 
Both of you are skillfully oblivious that the private property owner is kicking people off the property with no slippery slope.
 
Don2 (Don1 Revised) said:
Both of you are skillfully oblivious that the private property owner is kicking people off the property with no slippery slope.
Click to expand...

The real skill in obliviousness is in thinking that property rights advocates believe massive armed retaliation is the appropriate response to innocent inadvertent temporary trespass.
 
Don2 (Don1 Revised) said:
Both of you are skillfully oblivious that the private property owner is kicking people off the property with no slippery slope.
Click to expand...

The first step is to advise it is private property and civilly ask them to leave. Using force in the first place could create a slippery slope.
 
Would you trust a Nazi to teach children about WW2, to treat and grade minorities fairly, and to be a good role model for impressionable children? Should private schools be banned from firing such Nazis?
 
Don2 (Don1 Revised) said:
Would you trust a Nazi to teach children about WW2, to treat and grade minorities fairly, and to be a good role model for impressionable children? Should private schools be banned from firing such Nazis?
Click to expand...

He taught hockey and track sports, so it's likely he was not a history teacher. :)
 
whichphilosophy said:
Don2 (Don1 Revised) said:
Would you trust a Nazi to teach children about WW2, to treat and grade minorities fairly, and to be a good role model for impressionable children? Should private schools be banned from firing such Nazis?
Click to expand...

He taught hockey and track sports, so it's likely he was not a history teacher. :)
Click to expand...

He was a coach of field hockey and a substitute teacher, which normally means he could teach any subject. You didnt really answer the questions though.
 
This guy would pose little risk to kids if he were a sports coach in an all-white community. He shouldnt be a history teacher though, even in an all-white community. The place he was working had 43% non-whites which makes it worse. Too many risks.

It's also interesting that his last name is Italian, Conte, but the alt-right pseudonym he chose is Ritter, German. Some Nazi sympathizers wouldnt want to read what an italian has to say in their policy papers he was writing for spencer.
 
Don2 (Don1 Revised) said:
This guy would pose little risk to kids if he were a sports coach in an all-white community. He shouldnt be a history teacher though, even in an all-white community. The place he was working had 43% non-whites which makes it worse. Too many risks.

It's also interesting that his last name is Italian, Conte, but the alt-right pseudonym he chose is Ritter, German. Some Nazi sympathizers wouldnt want to read what an italian has to say in their policy papers he was writing for spencer.
Click to expand...

He looks to be northern Italian, not southern

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom