Also you are watering down the situation, watering this down as JUST a political preference ...
Depends on the "unflattering information" as you called it :shrug: I certainly don't disagree but at the same time I certainly don't think that its a blanket statement and all "unflattering information" is equal. Again you are watering it down so I'll use the same example. If somebody was a serial rapist I'd have no problem warning others about that "unflattering information"
Yeah I don't think it is at all.
Voting is a private ballot and nobody can be told how a person voted, however in a country where there is that much money going though election cycles it is interesting to know the places donations for a political party/candidate come from.
But again you're just asserting that there aren't moral lines that we can or should draw. If the business owner contributed to a proud proponent of pedophilia, of course we should out that sorry piece of human debris and all of society should boycott his business. You're asserting in effect that promoting white supremacy is just another valid political preference, like being a liberal or a conservative. I don't agree with that premise, at all. White supremacy is a toxic, hateful ideology, and if given power will lead the country into a very dark place. We've BEEN THERE and getting out of it was hard work that took centuries. We don't want to go back.
Maybe your problem is the "delight" in doing so. I don't see the distinction you're drawing, frankly.
You can start by addressing a point you snipped from my first comment. I'll repeat it.
But I think we as society are justified in drawing some moral bright lines, and drawing a very bright line against white supremacists in positions of political power is one of those IMO.
so racism and the KKK is "just" a political preference? HAHAHA well I now know not to take you seriously.What else is it?
So is donatingRape is an act.
You are free to feel that way.It was a strong contributing factor. But that's neither here nor there for this thread.
The govt may not abridge free speech. Workers can quit. Performers can pull their acts. Customers can denounce and boycott. If you support racism be prepared for that fact to be published, and be prepared for those who disagree to act. These people have every right to decide that their money will not go to support the KKK, David Duke, neo-nazis and other white supremacists.
Minneapolis bar closes over owner's donation to David Duke campaign
A bar in Minneapolis, Minn., shut its doors Friday after it was revealed the owner had donated to former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke’s failed Senate campaign, The Star Tribune reported. Club Jäger closed down Friday, with staff protesting after local newspaper City Pages revealed that owner Julius De Roma had made a $500 donation to Duke’s Senate bid last year.
Entertainers at the bar and staffers quit after the story about De Roma’s campaign donation to the former KKK grand wizard emerged. Employees said the decision to close the business was made by those who ran the bar, not the owner, according to the Star Tribune. De Roma defended his donation to local television station WCCO this week as “free speech.”
Also Chinese restaurant in Santa Cruz, California, was forced to close after its owner was identified as a supporter of ex-KKK leader David Duke. Again several employees quit after news spread of his donation to Duke. Local customers publicly denounced Grigsby and vowed to never eat at his restaurant again.
The govt may not abridge free speech. Workers can quit. Performers can pull their acts. Customers can denounce and boycott. If you support racism be prepared for that fact to be published, and be prepared for those who disagree to act. These people have every right to decide that their money will not go to support the KKK, David Duke, neo-nazis and other white supremacists.
I completely agree. but lets turn that around-lets say a bar tender donated to David Duke-would it be OK for the bar owner to fire the donor? Lets take it further, is it ok for an employer to fire any employee who supports a political party, movement or candidate that the owner or managers find distasteful
Minneapolis bar closes over owner's donation to David Duke campaign
A bar in Minneapolis, Minn., shut its doors Friday after it was revealed the owner had donated to former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke’s failed Senate campaign, The Star Tribune reported. Club Jäger closed down Friday, with staff protesting after local newspaper City Pages revealed that owner Julius De Roma had made a $500 donation to Duke’s Senate bid last year.
Entertainers at the bar and staffers quit after the story about De Roma’s campaign donation to the former KKK grand wizard emerged. Employees said the decision to close the business was made by those who ran the bar, not the owner, according to the Star Tribune. De Roma defended his donation to local television station WCCO this week as “free speech.”
Also Chinese restaurant in Santa Cruz, California, was forced to close after its owner was identified as a supporter of ex-KKK leader David Duke. Again several employees quit after news spread of his donation to Duke. Local customers publicly denounced Grigsby and vowed to never eat at his restaurant again.
The govt may not abridge free speech. Workers can quit. Performers can pull their acts. Customers can denounce and boycott. If you support racism be prepared for that fact to be published, and be prepared for those who disagree to act. These people have every right to decide that their money will not go to support the KKK, David Duke, neo-nazis and other white supremacists.
I completely agree. but lets turn that around-lets say a bar tender donated to David Duke-would it be OK for the bar owner to fire the donor? Lets take it further, is it ok for an employer to fire any employee who supports a political party, movement or candidate that the owner or managers find distasteful
***
but how far can it go?
Your authoritarianism is showing... again.
In other words: "if you dare think a thought we don't like, we'll out you and ruin the **** out of your life, wreck your business, and make it impossible for you to even go outside your house like a normal person; but we're not the government so all you can do is sit there and take it, ****er, 'cause we hate you and ****ing you up like this is the least we can do to make you know it".
The public can and should do as it pleases.
The despicable thing isn't people exercising their right to work or spend their money where they want. The despicable, albeit legal, thing is the people who take their delight in ruining others' lives by revealing secrets about them and, to an equal extent, the society that decides things like political preferences shouldn't be regarded as personal secrets.
The Left is using disclosure as a means to intimidate and stifle dissent. I mean, if I have a concealed-carry permit, why should that be public? Maybe I don't want anyone to know I'm carrying, or that I own guns. Whose business is it but mine? Or what if I gave money to Trump, or David Duke? I don't mean A LOT of money, but, say, five hundred bucks? Will it be the end of the Republic if that's not revealed?
This is not a good road to go down, the herd punishing deviants with a closed fist.
Seems like we would have learned this by now with as much as our ancestors get reamed for doing it.
The person who quits, barring a non-disclosure agreement signed before hand, can say whatever he wants about the management. And there is nothing illegal or immoral in wanting to damaging the business economically with a bad review on the way out. This is one reason YELP does so well.I agree with you, workers can quit and potential customers can decide to spend their money somewhere else; if you donate to David Duke you'd better prepare for some backlash. My concern here is that there may have been a crime committed by the bar management and it's being glossed over as free speech.
If you want to quit your job then fine do it for whatever reason but if you go beyond that then I think a case can be made that you're trying to harm the business too on your way out the door and that's not free speech. I know he was going to lose business any way just because of the bad publicity but from reading the blog and the embedded articles in your OP it sounds to me like there was more going on here than just individuals exercising their free speech by quitting.
There's so much to like about this. A David Duke supporter loses his business and it was, basically, the free market doing it, no government intervention needed.
The person who quits, barring a non-disclosure agreement signed before hand, can say whatever he wants about the management. And there is nothing illegal or immoral in wanting to damaging the business economically with a bad review on the way out. This is one reason YELP does so well.
You have every right to donate to David Duke. I have every right to denounce you for it.
The Left is using disclosure as a means to intimidate and stifle dissent. I mean, if I have a concealed-carry permit, why should that be public? Maybe I don't want anyone to know I'm carrying, or that I own guns. Whose business is it but mine? Or what if I gave money to Trump, or David Duke? I don't mean A LOT of money, but, say, five hundred bucks? Will it be the end of the Republic if that's not revealed?
so racism and the KKK is "just" a political preference? HAHAHA well I now know not to take you seriously.
So is donating
You are free to feel that way.
Yes, we know your feelings are hurt by anything anti-Nazi.
"The STATE" always has "a good reason" to negate Constitutional liberties and we've heard them all before ("law and order", "the public good", "the needs of the many over the few"). Merely having what the government declares as "a good reason" to take away liberties is hardly a compelling argument, unless you don't believe in human rights.
And if the excuse publicize an individual's 500 dollar dinky donation so as to "expose" what "industries" are "trying to buy influence, that does not even pass the laugh test.
"The Supreme Court has ruled repeatedly that the right to anonymous free speech is protected by the First Amendment. ... The US Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized rights to speak anonymously derived from the First Amendment. The right to anonymous speech is also protected well beyond the printed page. https://www.eff.org/issues/anonymity
Or see: Legal Protections for Anonymous Speech | Digital Media Law Project
Finally, it does not matter if "the people in the OP" knew their donations would be made public, what matters is if THEY SHOULD HAVE BEEN MADE PUBLIC.
Voting is a private ballot and nobody can be told how a person voted, however in a country where there is that much money going though election cycles it is interesting to know the places donations for a political party/candidate come from.
The Left is using disclosure as a means to intimidate and stifle dissent. I mean, if I have a concealed-carry permit, why should that be public? Maybe I don't want anyone to know I'm carrying, or that I own guns. Whose business is it but mine? Or what if I gave money to Trump, or David Duke? I don't mean A LOT of money, but, say, five hundred bucks? Will it be the end of the Republic if that's not revealed?
It's no more anyone's business who I donate to than it is who I vote for.
Campaigns run on money. They have to avertise to get exposure to try an win votes. Using shame and intimidation to discourage people from donating is just as bad as doing so to effect how someone votes.
Anyone who doesn't see that doesn't give a rat's ass about true freedom.
So we have no right to know, for example, if a developer with a rezoning request in front of City Council donates $100,000 to four key council members? IMO, sunlight in politics isn't always a good thing but the balance is clearly in favor of sunlight versus secrecy, especially when it comes to money and who's buying what influence with whom.
If you're going to use that information to intimidate American citizens and suppress free speech, then no, you don't have that right.
Couldn't resist making a false accusation.
What's false? You've been running around here defending them. You also have a history of agreeing with stormfronters when they come here (though I partially wonder if you just ran to his side because I was on the other side).
What do you think should be done here? Should the employees be compelled to return or do they have the right to leave?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?