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.

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

    They specifically said you can be mad. It’s the first sentence in OP’s comment. WTF are you on about?

    • alignedchaos@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Did you miss where where the point of their comment was to deemphasize Whole Foods’ fault and culpability in this? Or are you starting a linguistics discussion?

      Edit: in other words, they say “You should expect businesses to act this way” and I say otherwise

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

        You either get it or you don’t. I can’t help you with your lack of reading comprehension.

        They specifically said that “you can be mad” about it.

        You want to have it the way that they’re pushing some kind of agenda, when in fact they’re simply stating what’s true.