StPaulHusker Posted May 13, 2013 Share Posted May 13, 2013 Is there a lawsuit against the Redskins? Link to comment
EbylHusker Posted May 13, 2013 Share Posted May 13, 2013 I'd say some have expressed a very narrow and limited understanding of discrimination. If by narrow and limited, you mean correct, then you are right. Harassment and discrimination are two different things. Link to comment
Someone Posted May 13, 2013 Share Posted May 13, 2013 The EEOC states that Harassment in the form of racial slurs is a type of discrimination. 2 Link to comment
Creighton Duke Posted May 13, 2013 Share Posted May 13, 2013 The EEOC states that Harassment in the form of racial slurs is a type of discrimination. harassment is illegal when it is so frequent or severe that it creates a hostile or offensive work environment or when it results in an adverse employment decision (such as the victim being fired or demoted). http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/race_color.cfm Sorry Mario; your princess is in another castle. Link to comment
knapplc Posted May 13, 2013 Share Posted May 13, 2013 This isn't an employment issue, so Title VII doesn't apply. All lawsuits filed so far (that I know of) are through the Trademark & Patent Office, alleging that the logo itself is offensive. If upheld (and no case has even had a decision reached so far), the Redskins won't be forced to change their name or logo. They just won't be able to enforce their copyright. Link to comment
Someone Posted May 13, 2013 Share Posted May 13, 2013 I have already linked it in my earlier post. You posting the same link does make you correct. Racial Slurs can be considered harassment and a form of discrimination by the EEOC. Racial Slurs can be the basis of discrimination lawsuits. The use of racial slurs can be a form of discrimination. We have plenty of examples where this is the case in the US. To suggest otherwise would be a mistake. Link to comment
Someone Posted May 13, 2013 Share Posted May 13, 2013 Is there a lawsuit against the Redskins? Yes. It was referenced in the link in the opening post. Link to comment
StPaulHusker Posted May 13, 2013 Share Posted May 13, 2013 It's not a discrimination lawsuit. It's a trademark lawsuit. Link to comment
EbylHusker Posted May 14, 2013 Share Posted May 14, 2013 What you posted was not discrimination, nor is anything about the Redskins in this thread. You're posting links about discrimination in the work place, which has no bearing here. This isn't a hard concept to understand. Link to comment
JJ Husker Posted May 14, 2013 Share Posted May 14, 2013 Guess I was wrong Guess so. I'll admit it; I had no idea you would take a copyright/trademark issue, turn it into employment discrimination, and then drag in comparisons to gays and the Catholic church. No idea whatsoever. But, when I'm right, I'm right, like I was with my first impressions of your posting style after less than ten posts. Must say I nailed that one and it has never been in question since. Thanks for being consistent. 1 Link to comment
walksalone Posted May 14, 2013 Share Posted May 14, 2013 this turned into the most asinine argument I've seen in awhile... Link to comment
Someone Posted May 15, 2013 Share Posted May 15, 2013 It's not a discrimination lawsuit. It's a trademark lawsuit. You didn't ask if there was a discrimination lawsuit against the redskins. "Is there a lawsuit against the Redskins?" was you exact question. Link to comment
Someone Posted May 15, 2013 Share Posted May 15, 2013 What you posted was not discrimination, nor is anything about the Redskins in this thread. You're posting links about discrimination in the work place, which has no bearing here. This isn't a hard concept to understand. That is because I was replying to this post: back to the topic: stopping discrimination is not the exclusive providence of those being discriminated against. Who is being discriminated against in the Redskins case? But nobody is preventing them from doing anything, hence, no discrimination. Just because a person isn't prevented from riding in the front of the bus or drinking from a certain water fountain, doesn't mean that there isn't discrimination. Creighton Duke is wrong in his claim. To support this FACT, I linked to EEOC language that confirms that racial slurs is a form of discrimination. I also linked to a Hooters lawsuit where the Asian customer was called Chinx on their printed receipt. Both of my examples illustrate that Creighton Dukes claim "nobody is preventing them from doing anything, hence, no discrimination" is false. In both examples, racial slurs = discrimination. Link to comment
StPaulHusker Posted May 15, 2013 Share Posted May 15, 2013 It's not a discrimination lawsuit. It's a trademark lawsuit. You didn't ask if there was a discrimination lawsuit against the redskins. "Is there a lawsuit against the Redskins?" was you exact question. Right. Because this whole thread and ALL of your comments have been about this thread has been about discrimination. So why wouldn't we change the topic to trademark law? Link to comment
StPaulHusker Posted May 15, 2013 Share Posted May 15, 2013 What you posted was not discrimination, nor is anything about the Redskins in this thread. You're posting links about discrimination in the work place, which has no bearing here. This isn't a hard concept to understand. That is because I was replying to this post: back to the topic: stopping discrimination is not the exclusive providence of those being discriminated against. Who is being discriminated against in the Redskins case? But nobody is preventing them from doing anything, hence, no discrimination. Just because a person isn't prevented from riding in the front of the bus or drinking from a certain water fountain, doesn't mean that there isn't discrimination. Creighton Duke is wrong in his claim. To support this FACT, I linked to EEOC language that confirms that racial slurs is a form of discrimination. I also linked to a Hooters lawsuit where the Asian customer was called Chinx on their printed receipt. Both of my examples illustrate that Creighton Dukes claim "nobody is preventing them from doing anything, hence, no discrimination" is false. In both examples, racial slurs = discrimination. So where is the lawsuit claiming discrimination based on a racial slur with regards to the Redskins? Link to comment
Recommended Posts