Whole Foods argues it can ban BLM masks because the Supreme Court let a Christian business owner refuse same-sex couples
Whole Foods argues it can ban BLM masks because the Supreme Court let a Christian business owner refuse same-sex couples
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.
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.
You're viewing a single thread.
That Bill of Rights isn't for humans. It's for corporations.
Don't forget, Corporations are Peopleᵀᴹ
Corporations are people the same way Soylent Green is people, in that it is made of them. That's it.
True if Soylent Green was immortal and sought money and power at any cost.
The GOP and right wing justices' blithering about the Founding Fathers, Originalism, and "historical tradition" is absolute, self-serving BS and regularly the opposite of historical reality. If you have a few minutes this history of U.S. corporations is fascinating. An excerpt:
Initially, the privilege of incorporation was granted selectively to enable activities that benefited the public, such as construction of roads or canals. Enabling shareholders to profit was seen as a means to that end. The states also imposed conditions (some of which remain on the books, though unused) like these:
-
Corporate charters (licenses to exist) were granted for a limited time and could be revoked promptly for violating laws.
-
Corporations could engage only in activities necessary to fulfill their chartered purpose.
-
Corporations could not own stock in other corporations nor own any property that was not essential to fulfilling their chartered purpose.
-
Corporations were often terminated if they exceeded their authority or caused public harm.
-
Owners and managers were responsible for criminal acts committed on the job.
-
Corporations could not make any political or charitable contributions nor spend money to influence law-making.
For 100 years after the American Revolution, legislators maintained tight control of the corporate chartering process. Because of widespread public opposition, early legislators granted very few corporate charters, and only after debate. Citizens governed corporations by detailing operating conditions not just in charters but also in state constitutions and state laws. Incorporated businesses were prohibited from taking any action that legislators did not specifically allow.
-
Corporations also tend to grind people up.
In the legal sense, "personhood" just means an entity can appear in court and defend themselves, not that it's made of people. It doesn't even give the corporation any human rights, it mostly just means that you can sue them
I don't know why anyone would be mad about than