Woman doesn't want black delivery man in her home. Internet has some opinions.

[ripskater]

Damn you Obama !

Actually it's Bush's fault.

 

[j98]

Her house her right.

 

[Torrid]

When people say they have a freedom to do something, they're usually a bigot / racist.

 

[KaNesDeath]

You cant deny them. But if they request to be served by a person of specific race, you can tell them I cant guarantee you that and you will be served by one of my employees, take it or leave. They have the right to leave

You just denied their request in your own lines of thought, lol.

 

[method115]

That store manager should have had some balls and told the lady to accept the delivery as is or to get her furniture elsewhere. You can't kowtow to every retarded customer request, especially when said requests harm employee relations or open your company up to litigation.

I agree but I also don't think the store manager should have been fired. That's a difficult situation and I feel he handled it properly it ok.

 

[chardog]

If it were me I'd tell her to take her business else where.

it's really this simple.

dont like her request? dont service her.

 

[JadeOwl]

why protect the free speech that you don't agree with?
How is this the worst? She made a simple request. Not everyone in the world has to like X type of person.

 

[Winnie The Foo]

I think this is just a simple misunderstanding. She chose "white" as the color of the furniture, when in actuality she thought she was selecting the race of the delivery driver. Happens more often than you think.

 

[equus]

Was expecting a plot twist that the woman's name was Sarah Palin.

actually palin has been known to let black men into her home...

 

[Medusas Weave]

Ok, can you please tell me what this has to do with my post? Because it really appears to me that you are not capable of comprehending a simple point, and because you don't have a brain that really works worth a fuck, you see "free speech" in a post that is in a racial thread and just dump some stupid fucking image with nothing else there explaining your shit in any way that might make sense.

The poster i quoted said: "Why give voice to worst?" spin_

And I replied: "why protect the free speech that you don't agree with?"

Meaning, we all know that free speech is strong because it protects things we don't agree with, and if you cannot do this, then you do not have free speech

This, is the same reason we have to give voice to the worst. We can't just let the things we agree with have voice.

We have to let all things have voice.

Imagine if we acted in 1945 like we do now and persecute anyone who does not agree with us, thus freezing us in the morality/culture of 1945 forever

So, no gay marriage, no desegregation, etc

But, since people who came before us were not such a bunch of fascist ass persecuting assholes like the SJW / twitter witch burners are, we were able to change our views as a culture over time without getting twtter fired for making a joke or having an unpopular opinion and having some twitter douches bombard our employers until they fire us.

But keep on posting the dumb pics you posted. Probably better than your words anyway with your fucking Teddy Ruxpin answers every time you see a certain buzzword.

 

[brewski]

A lot of the suggestions in here result in the store being sued by the woman.

The only smart solution for the manager would have been to kick it up the chain of command. Canceling/refunding her order probably would have got them fired and a lawsuit against the store, too. Offering to drop the item off in her yard, lawsuit and fired.

BS some reason to switch deliverers might have worked, but might have unraveled.

This manager was pretty much fucked. Even kicking it up the chain of command might have resulted in them getting fired. Who knows how long it would have taken for the higher-ups to respond to the situation, during which the woman is not getting her delivery, and probably violating some kind of guarantee on how long it takes to get items delivered.

I doubt there would have been a lawsuit but she certainly could have made a big deal about it if she was refused service. The customer could have contacted corporate and led to the firing, especially since he had the means to accommodate the request. I dislike that he was fired. While the customer is not always right, they typically are even if they really aren't. It seems a lot of people here have never worked in customer service. Large corporations work differently than mom and pop operations. If this manager was the owner of his own business, the arguments of simply refusing service would be more realistic. I've seen much more absurd requests/demands be accommodated as well as a few similar issues regarding race. However, the roles were reversed so it wasn't a big deal.

 

[JosephDredd]

Imagine if we acted in 1945 like we do now and persecute anyone who does not agree with us, thus freezing us in the morality/culture of 1945 forever

McCarthyism wasn't just McCarthy, it was all of America. You need to think this through.

 

[panamaican]

The poster i quoted said: "Why give voice to worst?" spin_

And I replied: "why protect the free speech that you don't agree with?"

Meaning, we all know that free speech is strong because it protects things we don't agree with, and if you cannot do this, then you do not have free speech

This, is the same reason we have to give voice to the worst. We can't just let the things we agree with have voice.

We have to let all things have voice.

Actually, we don't have to let all things have a voice. There's no societal argument that everyone deserves a say or that everyone's pov is equal or deserves equal time on the soapbox.

We only say that we can't silence those voices through government, not that we can't silence them.

 

[kpt018]

The manager should have said "no problem bitch come pick it up then".

 

[Count Zero]

Is that true? Is a store legally required to do business with anyone who walks in their store? Kind of like "no shoes, no shirt, no pets -- no service" policy. I can't imagine it's illegal for a store to refuse to do business with a racist.

Maybe the manager gets fired for refunding a transaction without taking this up the food chain, but I don't see how the lady would have a lawsuit.

I'm pretty sure there are only very, very limited circumstances in which businesses can refuse service without at least the potential for trouble. Maybe I was a bit over-enthusiastic about the potential for lawsuits, tho

I doubt there would have been a lawsuit but she certainly could have made a big deal about it if she was refused service. The customer could have contacted corporate and led to the firing, especially since he had the means to accommodate the request. I dislike that he was fired. While the customer is not always right, they typically are even if they really aren't. It seems a lot of people here have never worked in customer service. Large corporations work differently than mom and pop operations. If this manager was the owner of his own business, the arguments of simply refusing service would be more realistic. I've seen much more absurd requests/demands be accommodated as well as a few similar issues regarding race. However, the roles were reversed so it wasn't a big deal.

Yeah I may have went a bit overboard with the lawsuit angle

 

[Medusas Weave]

McCarthyism wasn't just McCarthy, it was all of America. You need to think this through.

Was it? Or was it led by certain people in this country and funneled down. It was most felt in Hollywood and the black list there.

It was not the average person persecuting people. Just like today it is not the average person persecuting
Just mobs as always.

 

[Medusas Weave]

Actually, we don't have to let all things have a voice. There's no societal argument that everyone deserves a say or that everyone's pov is equal or deserves equal time on the soapbox.

We only say that we can't silence those voices through government, not that we can't silence them.

If that is how you want to live, then you would not find that too exciting when you encounter those who do not tolerate your view.

We don't HAVE to do shit. But we should be an enlightened society where people can say shit we think is crazy, and then we can argue with them why their point is wrong. This is how change happens.

Not saying all crazy shit gets accepted, but say crazy shit like letting a black person drink out of the same fountain as white people
or
women voting
or
men forming a government where the population votes for representation

ALL OF THESE were crazy ideas at some point in history, but hey, lets not give voice to these crazy things and silence those that do,
right?

*note I am not saying women voting is currently crazy, I am saying at one point it was to illustrate a point.

 

[JadeOwl]

Ok, can you please tell me what this has to do with my post? Because it really appears to me that you are not capable of comprehending a simple point, and because you don't have a brain that really works worth a fuck, you see "free speech" in a post that is in a racial thread and just dump some stupid fucking image with nothing else there explaining your shit in any way that might make sense.

The poster i quoted said: "Why give voice to worst?" spin_

And I replied: "why protect the free speech that you don't agree with?"

Meaning, we all know that free speech is strong because it protects things we don't agree with, and if you cannot do this, then you do not have free speech

This, is the same reason we have to give voice to the worst. We can't just let the things we agree with have voice.

We have to let all things have voice.

Imagine if we acted in 1945 like we do now and persecute anyone who does not agree with us, thus freezing us in the morality/culture of 1945 forever

So, no gay marriage, no desegregation, etc

But, since people who came before us were not such a bunch of fascist ass persecuting assholes like the SJW / twitter witch burners are, we were able to change our views as a culture over time without getting twtter fired for making a joke or having an unpopular opinion and having some twitter douches bombard our employers until they fire us.

But keep on posting the dumb pics you posted. Probably better than your words anyway with your fucking Teddy Ruxpin answers every time you see a certain buzzword.

It seems to me that you are the one with reading comprehension issues here. The point of the webcomic I posted is that the right to free speech applies only in the relationship between the government and private individuals.

Other private citizens have no obligation to listen to, cater to, facilitate, tolerate or stay quiet in the face of repugnant and bigoted beliefs or speech. The furniture store would not have been violating the racist fuck's right to free speech by refusing to accommodate her repugnant racist beliefs.

But apparently you are too much of an imbecile to understand the difference between the way private individuals interact with one another and the way the government interacts with private individuals.

Let me put it in small words for you:

• right to free speech ≠ shield against consequences
• right to free speech ≠ shield against the opinions of others
• right to free speech ≠ people can't call you out on your bullshit.

 

[JadeOwl]

Was it? Or was it led by certain people in this country and funneled down. It was most felt in Hollywood and the black list there.

It was not the average person persecuting people. Just like today it is not the average person persecuting
Just mobs as always.

The people who got crosses burned in their lawns for saying they wanted to vote in the US South would beg to differ.

 

[cooks1]

If I was the black guy, I'd say "look lady, if you want this furniture, I will carry it in for you. If you don't want me in your house, I'll drop it off in your yard. Take your pick."

Yep. That's exactly what Lowes should have told her. 'Our driver is our driver. House or driveway. Choose.'

If the lady want's to get her bigot on in the privacy of her own home, fair enough. But no company should be an accessory to that.