Redskins will "never" change name

[knapplc]

So where is the lawsuit claiming discrimination based on a racial slur with regards to the Redskins?

 

Blackhorse et al v. Football, Inc.

 

The predecessor case, Harjo et al v. Pro Football, Inc. was never brought to trial and was barred by laches.

[Saunders]

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.

wjw

[StPaulHusker]

So where is the lawsuit claiming discrimination based on a racial slur with regards to the Redskins?

 

Blackhorse et al v. Football, Inc.

 

The predecessor case, Harjo et al v. Pro Football, Inc. was never brought to trial and was barred by laches.

I am not sure if it is the same thing but this again is a trademark lawsuit not a discrimination lawsuit. Does one have to happen before the other? What I'm saying is that why are they not filing discrimination lawsuits? Are they not allowed? Why be concerned about the trademark when apparently discrimination is the focal point?

[knapplc]

There is no law that covers "discrimination" in everyday life, that's the problem. Title II covers Public Accommodations. Title VII covers Employment. The Fair Housing Act covers housing. The ADA (or ADAAA) covers disability. But there is no specific law that says, because I find the Redskins mascot/nickname offensive, I get to file suit against the Redskins.

[StPaulHusker]

So basically their lawsuit is filed so that Snyder can't be the only one to profit from the name?

 

That means a team could be started in Los Angeles and could have a nickname/mascot that is derogatory towards Mexicans and no one could do anything about it?

 

Not picking a fight by the way. Trying to understand the logic behind the lawsuit and comments on this thread.

[EbylHusker]

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.

No they don't, and we've already explained why. Since you seem incapable of grasping this concept, despite being shown how wrong you are, welcome to ignore.

[Creighton Duke]

There is no law that covers "discrimination" in everyday life, that's the problem. Title II covers Public Accommodations. Title VII covers Employment. The Fair Housing Act covers housing. The ADA (or ADAAA) covers disability. But there is no specific law that says, because I find the Redskins mascot/nickname offensive, I get to file suit against the Redskins.

Exactly. So I have a problem with the "FatBurger" franchise because I'm fat (although in reality, I am far from it). Discrimination! Not so much...On top of that, how is it "discrimination"? Nobody is being barred from entering a "Fatburger" or from being a Redskins fan because they're offended. Look at your "Hooters" example. Discrimination against women for the name of the chain as it could be offensive to women? No.

[QMany]

Are people trying to analogize being called "fat" to being called "redskins, n*ggers," ect.?

[Creighton Duke]

Are people trying to analogize being called "fat" to being called "redskins, n*ggers," ect.?

Maybe people aren't, but I am in the sense that "someone" is trying to make a discrimination case out of this. Also, if you go by what many have said the entire time, sure, you can say that they are equal. You could even say that being called fat is worse than the others....if that's what offends you "personally"...

[knapplc]

There is no law that covers "discrimination" in everyday life, that's the problem. Title II covers Public Accommodations. Title VII covers Employment. The Fair Housing Act covers housing. The ADA (or ADAAA) covers disability. But there is no specific law that says, because I find the Redskins mascot/nickname offensive, I get to file suit against the Redskins.

Exactly. So I have a problem with the "FatBurger" franchise because I'm fat (although in reality, I am far from it). Discrimination! Not so much...On top of that, how is it "discrimination"? Nobody is being barred from entering a "Fatburger" or from being a Redskins fan because they're offended. Look at your "Hooters" example. Discrimination against women for the name of the chain as it could be offensive to women? No.

 

For that you'll have to ask the people offended by the name. You and I cannot tell them they are not or cannot be offended. It's an individual's prerogative, and the fact that the law doesn't cover the real cause of their offense is not their fault.

 

That doesn't mean that the law should though - we'd be delving into First Amendment issues there if we prohibited these guys from using a name they want to use. But that's the age-old question of rights: Where do my rights end and yours begin?

 

For the record, the NCAA has tackled this issue as well. A few years ago they issued an edict banning several teams from using Native American mascots and logos. Well, banning isn't the right word - they wouldn't be allowed to participate in championship events in their sports if they didn't change, as I recall. Some schools fought back, but in the end most or all caved, or are in the process of caving. Some schools, like Florida State, have received specific permission from the tribe they use as their mascot, and the NCAA allowed it.

[knapplc]

Are people trying to analogize being called "fat" to being called "redskins, n*ggers," ect.?

Maybe people aren't, but I am in the sense that "someone" is trying to make a discrimination case out of this.

 

If the term "redskin" were directed at an employee in a work setting, and that employee objected to its use, and the employer did nothing about it and allowed the action to continue frequently and long enough, the employer could be found guilty of discrimination. So "trying to make a discrimination case out of this" isn't coming from left field. It's just that there's no specifically applicable law.

[Creighton Duke]

Are people trying to analogize being called "fat" to being called "redskins, n*ggers," ect.?

Maybe people aren't, but I am in the sense that "someone" is trying to make a discrimination case out of this.

 

If the term "redskin" were directed at an employee in a work setting, and that employee objected to its use, and the employer did nothing about it and allowed the action to continue frequently and long enough, the employer could be found guilty of discrimination. So "trying to make a discrimination case out of this" isn't coming from left field. It's just that there's no specifically applicable law.

 

I know this, but this is not in any way the same situation. Thankfully there is no applicable law and, hopefully, there will never be one.

[knapplc]

I believe the situations are entirely similar. The setting is the only thing that's different. I also believe you'll likely get your wish that there would never be a law covering this.

[Someone]

Some might believe Redskins is a racial slur.

 

Racial Slurs are a form of discrimination both in the workplace and outside the workplace.

 

Any questions?

 

 

PS:

 

Al Capone was convicted for tax evasion.

 

PPS:

 

It is sad that at least 1 poster still is suggesting that if nobody is being preventing from doing something, then there is no discrimination. Such an view point suggests a lack of understands as to what discrimination is.

[knapplc]

Racial Slurs are a form of discrimination ... outside the workplace.

 

Under what law?