Whole Foods argues it can ban BLM masks because the Supreme Court let a Christian business owner refuse same-sex couples - eviltoast

Amazon.com’s Whole Foods Market doesn’t want to be forced to let workers wear “Black Lives Matter” masks and is pointing to the recent US Supreme Court ruling permitting a business owner to refuse services to same-sex couples to get federal regulators to back off.

National Labor Relations Board prosecutors have accused the grocer of stifling worker rights by banning staff from wearing BLM masks or pins on the job. The company countered in a filing that its own rights are being violated if it’s forced to allow BLM slogans to be worn with Whole Foods uniforms.

Amazon is the most prominent company to use the high court’s June ruling that a Christian web designer was free to refuse to design sites for gay weddings, saying the case “provides a clear roadmap” to throw out the NLRB’s complaint.

The dispute is one of several in which labor board officials are considering what counts as legally-protected, work-related communication and activism on the job.

  • chatokun@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    22
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    1 year ago

    So, we can ban crosses? I’m obviously going a bit far, but both somewhat touch on the way people believe rights should be secured, and both involve human rights (one to free expression of religion, another to life and fr33dom from unfair treatment in general). Both make statements to others that others may find uncomfortable, depending on their beliefs.

    • serial_crusher@lemmy.basedcount.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      21
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      …yes? Why shouldn’t a business have the right to ban their employees from wearing a cross? Go work somewhere else if wearing a cross is that important to you…

      • can@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        The point is the the USA the complaint would never have been made about the cross.

      • chatokun@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I mean, I agree, to an extent. As someone else pointed out, the cross banning would never work out in the US, and that shows the difference in how both things are treated here.

      • LordPassionFruit@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I just want to say that restricting someone’s right to wear a cross to work is hella illegal in Canada.

    • HorseWithNoName@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      so we can ban crosses

      When there’s comments here bringing up the first amendment and apparently forgetting that it includes that whole thing about not having a national religion, which is exactly what’s happened/continuing to happen with christianity. It’s just a little bit different than “black lives matter,” which is just…a fact?