Minneapolis bar closes over owner's donation to David Duke campaign

TurtleDude said:

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

some are probably easy

You work for a Jewish business owner and you give money to Nazis

You work for a black owned business and you are a member of the KKK

you work for a gun maker and you donate money to the Brady Bunch or to Mothers against Gun ownership

but how far can it go?

Click to expand...

My ex-father in law (may he rest in peace) was once told by his boss that he would be fired if he didn't vote for Reagan. Which seems really idiotic because how would they know? Even dumber, he actually did because of this threat. And this was in Minnesota, the only state Mondale won.

I think the answer to your question resides in where the government should step in. While many here would be more than happy to say "fire all the liberals" most would be screaming to high heaven if the shoe was on the other foot. Once they got over the shock that liberals have jobs.

Club Jager's employees were under no obligation to stay there(there is no more slavery in this country thanks to Lincoln). I think there's a point at which it becomes acceptable. If your views so obviously clash with your employer's right to live (as in your examples) that would be fine. I don't expect that they should have to employ those people. Getting fired because you have a minor difference of opinion is something else entirely.

When I worked in the printing industry, my employer had a policy that you could refuse to work on any job that you found personally offensive. I exercised that privilege to refuse to print anti-union propaganda.My great-grandfather was blacklisted in the 30s for being a union organiser. That was everybody's right to do as they saw fit. (He ended up changing our family name as a result also).

JMaximus said:

You want votes to be public?

Click to expand...

Not at all. But the poster I replied to has a history of being on the side of the Nazis. Somewhere here there's a whole thread of him agreeing with a stormfronter.

JMaximus said:

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".

Much like, say, people outing homosexuals in highly conservative communities. It's despicable, low-down, and vile.

You and they are flipsides of the same authoritarian coin.

That people still think like this is just disgusting.

Click to expand...

???I'd love to know how you would fix this. I mean your super dramatics aside how would you stop the public from boycotting. And could you be specific, what part of what you qouted is disgusting?

rocket88 said:

My ex-father in law (may he rest in peace) was once told by his boss that he would be fired if he didn't vote for Reagan. Which seems really idiotic because how would they know? Even dumber, he actually did because of this threat. And this was in Minnesota, the only state Mondale won.

I think the answer to your question resides in where the government should step in. While many here would be more than happy to say "fire all the liberals" most would be screaming to high heaven if the shoe was on the other foot. Once they got over the shock that liberals have jobs.

Club Jager's employees were under no obligation to stay there(there is no more slavery in this country thanks to Lincoln). I think there's a point at which it becomes acceptable. If your views so obviously clash with your employer's right to live (as in your examples) that would be fine. I don't expect that they should have to employ those people. Getting fired because you have a minor difference of opinion is something else entirely.

When I worked in the printing industry, my employer had a policy that you could refuse to work on any job that you found personally offensive. I exercised that privilege to refuse to print anti-union propaganda.My great-grandfather was blacklisted in the 30s for being a union organiser. That was everybody's right to do as they saw fit. (He ended up changing our family name as a result also).

Click to expand...

good points but you really didn't answer my question

Is it ok for a boss to fire a worker because the worker

1) donated to a cause the boss or owners don't like

2) donated to a cause that works against the interests of the business (like donating to a gun banning group when your employer is a gun maker)

3) supporting a candidate (like having a Trump sticker on your car) that your boss opposes

4) being a member of a group that opposes the business you work in

TurtleDude said:

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

some are probably easy

You work for a Jewish business owner and you give money to Nazis

You work for a black owned business and you are a member of the KKK

you work for a gun maker and you donate money to the Brady Bunch or to Mothers against Gun ownership

but how far can it go?

Click to expand...

Depends on the state. In Ohio (right to work), I would assume you can fire them for whatever reason you want, including who they voted for (if you found out) or what brand of shoe they like to wear on Tuesdays, as long as you do not violate the sacred five protections: race, sex, age, disability or religion.

TurtleDude said:

good points but you really didn't answer my question

Is it ok for a boss to fire a worker because the worker

1) donated to a cause the boss or owners don't like

2) donated to a cause that works against the interests of the business (like donating to a gun banning group when your employer is a gun maker)

3) supporting a candidate (like having a Trump sticker on your car) that your boss opposes

4) being a member of a group that opposes the business you work in

Click to expand...

There's clearly reasonable limits. If you support with your work and money a cause that threatens their lives or livelihood, that's one thing. Something as minor as a bumper sticker or a different political party that's another thing entirely.

calamity said:

Depends on the state. In Ohio (right to work), I would assume you can fire them for whatever reason you want, including who they voted for (if you found out) or what brand of shoe they like to wear on Tuesdays, as long as you do not violate the sacred five protections: race, sex, age, disability or religion.

Click to expand...

What if your religion or race informed your vote? Many would say that you cannot be a Christian and vote Democrat (those people are idiots).

rocket88 said:

What if your religion or race informed your vote? Many would say that you cannot be a Christian and vote Democrat (those people are idiots).

Click to expand...

If I understand the law, it only matters if the race or religion is a minority race or religion. Fire a White Christian for voting Republican--no problem. Fire a Black Muslim for voting Obama? You probably will encounter a few legal problems. Same with the age thing. Fire a 30 year old for having an attitude--no problem. Fire a 60 year old for having the same attitude--you may want to consult with your legal team first.

JMaximus said:

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".

Much like, say, people outing homosexuals in highly conservative communities. It's despicable, low-down, and vile.

You and they are flipsides of the same authoritarian coin.

That people still think like this is just disgusting.

Click to expand...

That's nonsense. You're just asserting another version of "bigots and those who are intolerant of bigots are moral equivalents - both persons are bigots!" It's a crap argument in every form it takes.

It's certainly a good point that mob rule is a dangerous thing, and the mob you're cheering on today might turn on you tomorrow. I was a guest at a private dove hunt yesterday, and there's a chance that if I showed up with Bernie or Hillary stickers all over my car, maybe I'm not welcome next week or next year. That would be bad from my perspective - it's a well done event! 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.

LaylaWindu said:

???I'd love to know how you would fix this. I mean your super dramatics aside how would you stop the public from boycotting. And could you be specific, what part of what you qouted is disgusting?

Click to expand...

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.

Ruining someone by revealing 'unflattering' information about them and then snickering all the while you do it is certainly some kind of nastiness.

On a side note, it's exactly this kind of behavior that gave us President Trump.

rocket88 said:

Not at all. But the poster I replied to has a history of being on the side of the Nazis. Somewhere here there's a whole thread of him agreeing with a stormfronter.

Click to expand...

So your response had nothing to do with what you were quoting and everything to do with your petty desire to hate on people you disagree with.

Got it.

JasperL said:

You're just asserting another version of "bigots and those who are intolerant of bigots are moral equivalents - both persons are bigots!"

Click to expand...

No, I am not. Read what I've written very carefully and not what you think, or wish, were there.

Maybe some of the posts I've made since the one you replied to will help clarify things...

If not, I'll gladly answer any questions.

TurtleDude said:

good points but you really didn't answer my question

Is it ok for a boss to fire a worker because the worker

1) donated to a cause the boss or owners don't like

2) donated to a cause that works against the interests of the business (like donating to a gun banning group when your employer is a gun maker)

3) supporting a candidate (like having a Trump sticker on your car) that your boss opposes

4) being a member of a group that opposes the business you work in

Click to expand...

I'd put them into two boxes. For 1 and 3, I'd be personally opposed to firing an employee just because he or she didn't agree with the boss. There might be exceptions but we're talking generalities here, and if the boss is a Democrat, I certainly would NOT support firing someone because they're a republican, or member of NRA, or PETA in the reverse.

For 2 and 4, I certainly don't believe a boss has to employ people who actively support candidates who if they win will (arguably) harm the business. I'm sort of thinking here of a small business rather than GE or Walmart, where it both wouldn't work and where I think the expectations should also be different, although clearly in the management ranks or executive suite, those folks can't support candidates that will harm the bottom line, stock price. Many times I'd not like the result, but I'd have to concede that it doesn't offend my ethics.

This to me is similar to the Mozilla deal where the CEO was ultimately forced to resign over his opposition to gay marriage. If I'm a gay employee I don't want to work for a boss who contributes money to an effort to deny me the same right to marry that he enjoys. It's one thing to be personally opposed to something but to enshrine that opposition into law - different, and a boycott by gays of that is OK IMO. Similarly, although I might agree with them politically, a chemical company employing someone actively supporting efforts (or candidates) to impose costly regulations on that company (assuming that the company operates safely, obviously) is troublesome and potentially fireable, and especially so as you move up the ranks.

Angelus said:

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

Click to expand...

. 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.

Click to expand...

But that free speech may have consequences.

JMaximus said:

The public can and should do as it pleases.

Click to expand...

Not quite but I understand what you are saying

JMaximus said:

The despicable thing isn't people exercising their right to work or spend their money where they want.

Click to expand...

Agreed

JMaximus said:

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.

Click to expand...

What secret? Who did that? Also you are watering down the situation, watering this down as JUST a political preference is intellectually dishonest. Would you call rape just a sexual preference?

JMaximus said:

Ruining someone by revealing "unflattering information" about them and then snickering all the while you do it is certainly some kind of nastiness.

Click to expand...

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"

JMaximus said:

On a side note, it's exactly this kind of behavior that gave us President Trump.

Click to expand...

Yeah I don't think it is at all.

JMaximus said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

LaylaWindu said:

Just a friendly FYI and I didn't know either I learned it about a decade ago. Some people find oriental offensive because there's no such thing as oriental people, that's a culture. I have a decent amount of asian friends and they taught me that because I thought I was being all proper with oriental. They explained to me i's a culture and not a person. A rug can be oriental but people can't. Of course they weren't mad in anyway because they knew me they were just explaining that strangers might easily find it offensive. They explained it would be similar to you calling a stranger country or hiphop . . a person you know might be fine with it, a stranger not so much.

BTW . . I was shocked and dumbfounded . . its amazing what you don't know or assume about other people cultures until you do.

Click to expand...

The use of the remark oriental is purely based on the fact that most of of Chinese restaurants are also making and selling Indonesian food hence the reason why a good eal of chinese restaurants here are called oriental food and some even call themselves a oriental this or oriental that.

And I was not talking about the people there which are Asians but the food only.

JMaximus said:

No, I am not. Read what I've written very carefully and not what you think, or wish, were there.

Maybe some of the posts I've made since the one you replied to will help clarify things...

If not, I'll gladly answer any questions.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

Peter King said:

The use of the remark oriental is purely based on the fact that most of of Chinese restaurants are also making and selling Indonesian food hence the reason why a good eal of chinese restaurants here are called oriental food and some even call themselves a oriental this or oriental that.

And I was not talking about the people there which are Asians but the food only.

Click to expand...

Like I said it was a friendly FYI :shrug:

LaylaWindu said:

What secret? Who did that?

Click to expand...

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?

apdst said:

The next thing you know, peoples's votes will be made public. That'll be awesome!

Click to expand...

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.

JasperL said:

1) No, the 'state' has a good reason to make those donations public, so we know who and what industries are at least likely trying to buy influence. Nothing wrong with that. And free speech hasn't ever meant free AND anonymous speech. Besides, the people in the OP gave knowing their donations would be made public. They just figured no one would notice or care. They were wrong. So sad, too f'ing bad for the supporters of white supremacists.

Click to expand...

"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.

Besides, the first amendment has always (presumptively) protected all free speech, including that which is anonymous. For example:

"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.

2) Obviously false.

Click to expand...

Obviously an unsupported opinion.

Angelus said:

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.

Click to expand...

A legal response to a legal action that many found to be immoral. No violence?? No lawsuits?? No gov't fining him for his beliefs??

LaylaWindu said:

Like I said it was a friendly FYI :shrug:

Click to expand...

:thumbs: No problemo, I just wanted to explain why I called the food oriental.

Ahlevah said:

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?

Click to expand...

I stop reading as soon as I finished reading the sentence with the the word left in it just like I would if a poster grouped anybody else together. The left is not all the same just like I'm not the same as anybody else who leans right.