I was not alive during that but from what I know of that Era I can see why the law was created. However in this Era that law has outlived it's usefulness but instead of repealing it. The left wants it expanded to designated special protections to more people.
The expansion the left advocates is to protect sexual orientation, LGBT. I support that. If you don't agree, fine.
And I don't agree the law has outlived its usefulness. It in many ways just allows disfavored minorities to participate in the economy on equal terms as the majority - get and keep a job, be served at restaurants, clinics, banks, etc. The law in large part made such discrimination disappear, and businesses that tried it today would pay a heavy price, most of the time. But why is it good policy to repeal a law that works? What's the harm in a black person knowing a restaurant won't refuse to seat him, only because he's black? Or that a Muslim knows a realtor cannot redline a nice neighborhood and prevent Muslims from buying houses there?
Yesterday is not today. Your arguing the past. The law is antiquated.
Protecting the rights of disfavored minorities isn't antiquated - that never goes out of style.
It's illegal to fire someone for those things. By allowing a company to fire someone for wearing something outside of work that they find offensive is opening up a can of worms. Maybe your employer sees a picture of you at a political rally that he does not support. According to your position that's grounds for dismissal
Nope. Wearing a shirt that celebrates domestic terrorism, torturing, murdering, blacks as "Justice" is grounds. You're arguing EVERYTHING BUT this case, and that's probably for a good reason. Yes, slippery slope! But the bottom line here is Tennessee in its wisdom made the state an "at will" state, which means an employer can fire you or me or this guy for any reason, good reason, or no reason at all. Firing someone based on race, religion, etc. is protected by the CRA. So could a staunch Republican fire a Democrat because he supported Hillary, or Bernie? Yes! Democrats aren't a protected class by the CRA or law in Tennessee.
What we're arguing is the merits of doing so and it seems obvious to me that these are fundamentally different reasons to fire someone:
1) Employee in a heavily black city, in a hospital headed by a black CEO, with tons of black clients, celebrates a century of Mississippi lynching blacks as "Justice." So he's nodding favorably to centuries long campaign of domestic terrorism against blacks, because they were black.
2) Employee is a democrat.
And given the facts are completely different in every meaningful way, I come to different conclusions!
