Drunkard's Walk Forums

Full Version: Whole Foods bans symbol of support for veterans
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Details here

Apparently, their precious "dress code" is more important than showing respect for people who fought for freedom.
Ugh, fucking Amazon and their fucking Whole Foods. I have no idea why they hate veterans so much.
They've backed down.

The fact that Ontario is now looking at making it illegal for employers to ban wearing the poppy as a direct response to this matter might have something to do with it.
(11-06-2020, 03:35 PM)robkelk Wrote: [ -> ]The fact that Ontario is now looking at making it illegal for employers to ban wearing the poppy as a direct response to this matter might have something to do with it.

Now I'm curious... South of the border, the first amendment to your constitution says in part "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech ..." Does that mean that Congress is also prohibited from making a law guaranteeing the freedom of speech?

Because that's what this is.
I knew this'd be about the Poppy. Is it just me, or as time goes by, people are getting more and more aggressive about it?

James McLean - a footballer from Derry - gets dogs abuse from British fans for not wearing it, despite being from a specific area of a city where the British Army conducted a well known massacre.
I don't know whether people are getting more aggressive about it or we're just noticing the aggressiveness more.

I do know that it's Veterans' Week in Canada right now, so it's high visibility here at the moment. And it's something that's understandable and not related to the pandemic.
In regards to guaranteeing freedom of speech, Amazon and Whole Foods doesn't have a leg to stand on in this case.  Being in support of veterans does not (in most usual cases, anyhow) incite violence or unrest.

An example of government in the US curtailing "free speech" in a fashion that is deemed necessary and legal would be stopping a KKK rally where they are calling for open acts of violence - e.g.: lynchings and beatings - upon non-Caucasians.  (This is why KKK leaders are very careful about how they frame their rallying cries these days - they know that if they say what they REALLY want to say in a public setting, then their group will be shut down faster than you can say "You have the right to remain silent".)  Ditto for diatribes distributed on the Internet.  This is the main reason why many platforms that have user generated content and commentary have it first and foremost in their terms of service agreements: that you do not call for harm to be done to people of a specific group.  This way, these online platforms can wash their hands of you once the FBI and Homeland Security come a-knocking.

Another case is political messages within the US Armed Forces.  Specifically, it's not generally allowed.  Our military is already a politically charged beast as is.  Having uniformed individuals campaign for one side or the other is a distraction from the job they should be doing - one that can potentially be lethal.  That said, it's all fine and good for them to sit down among their own and discuss their thoughts, provided they don't let their passions get the better of them.  There's really no rules against that, and trying to curtail that kind of thing is going a step too far.  Although they are told to be cautious about what they say, for obvious reasons.  But campaigning is a huge no-no.

The key thing to remember is that there is a point at which a person needs be held accountable for the things they say.  If the things you say somehow lead to property being damaged and people being hurt and/or killed, then a debt to society is certainly owed.  And thus, that's where the government in the US will intercede: where the things being said will have a certain chance of dire consequences.

Otherwise, freedom of speech will be upheld, as in the case with Whole Foods.
Actually, Amazon/Whole Foods does have a leg to stand on.

They are not the government. Constitutional free speech protections protect you from the government restricting your free speech. Non-government organizations can have whatever rules they want within the confines of the law, including regarding the open support towards a cause by their workforce.

It's unlikely a law restricting a uniform policy from banning support for any (specific) cause would pass constitutional muster in many places. It would be vastly different if it's a restriction while not working for the company though. A consumer and/or producer boycott of the company in response would be entirely legal in any case, as usual.
Congress can make a few laws guaranteeing freedom of speech. Honestly the first thing that came to mind are laws protecting worker's rights to form and communicate about unions, the National Labor Relations Act of 1935. And Section 230 is a big deal in ensuring that people have free speech online, essentially allowing online services to act as common carriers rather than publishers, thus avoiding legal liability for what their users say.