Earlier this year Manny Pacquiao expressed his religion based position on homosexuality by quoting a verse in the Bible that generally states that such persons should be stoned. Not that I personally agree with such a position but it's supposed to be "America" where two things are supposedly sacrosanct: speech and religion. The owners of The Grove in LA said that due to Pacquiao's comments he would be banned from the LA mall. While many people went on and on about Manny's statement, nobody, not a single person from the "gay rights" crowd or the so called "equal protection" crowd expressed alarm over a place of public accommodation blatantly violating the law and in particular the Civil Rights Act of 1964. You know, the one people like to beat over your head when there are threats of racial discrimination.When this news broke the Department of Justice [sic] and the EEOC should have come down hard on The Grove's owners. You would think that business owners would know better than to announce such an action publicly. But no, There was no announcement by the Justice Department [sic] and apparently Pacquiao decided that he didn't want to file a discrimination suit. Anyone who has been bullied knows that a bully usually tests the will of his or her potential victim. They do a small but obvious action in order to see if the potential victim will be compliant (and provide entertainment) or if they will put up resistance. And if they do put up resistance how much resistance they will give. Usually the way to effectively stop a bully is to make a large show of resistance so that the bully has to consider whether it is worth the risk to his reputation to attempt (and fail) to get submission from the mark or to move onto easier targets. Children who are bullied long term usually fail badly at resisting the initial test. The way I see it when The Grove got away with openly discriminating against Manny Pacquiao, the bullies knew they could continue. Then came the Chik-Fil-A issue.
Anyone who has been paying attention (apparently that would be few of us) knows that Chik-Fil-A was founded by what we would call conservative Christians. The stores are not open on Sundays in order to observe the Protestant/Catholic Sabbath. In light of this to be surprised about the founder's position on marriage amounts to a whole lot of wishful thinking on the part of those so disposed. But in reality the position of the founder is of little relevance because the constitution, that pesky piece of paper, protects his right to his position as well as his right to open up any legal enterprise that meets all municipal codes and adheres to the rules laid out by the 1964 Civil Rights Act as it pertains to public accommodation... What was conspicuously absent from the threats agains Chik Fil-A was any charge of discriminatory practices in it's corporate HQ or at any one of it's local franchises. Not one of the talking bobble heads could point to any case where a homosexual, black, Hindu, Muslim or disabled person was discriminated against in any of the franchise locations. Not. A. One. Think about that. A store being threatened with denial of service by local governments for not discriminating against its customers. That's some bullshit. You may think that this is preposterous but it isn't. By threatening local franchisees with an illegal and unconstitutional denial of permits and the like based on some third party's opinion is exactly what is being proposed. That these mayors have to be reminded of this rather than they (except Bloomberg) didn't brush such idiocy aside from the beginning shows exactly what these people are about.Again we ask: Where was the Department Of Justice [sic] when these clearly discriminatory actions were being proposed by the agents of the state? There should have been a swift and hard response from the federal government when this happened. There was not. So the lesson to the bullies here was clear not only will the state not pursue us when we discriminate in public accommodations held by private parties, but the state will not even police it's own. Therefore anyone can be targeted. Enter Eich. I don't have to explain what happened to Eich. Essentially, under the law, Eich was subject to a hostile work environment by other employees at Mozilla. That is an actionable discrimination claim. The management at Mozilla (meaning HR) did nothing to make it clear to the employees of Mozilla that their actions constituted discrimination and harassment under employment law. I'm not saying that the employees with issues with Eich don't have a right to hold and discuss their positions on Eich's donation. They do. They even have the right to complain. They also can (and should have been) subject to firing(for cause) and whatever else that would constitute civil disobedience.
DISCRIMINATION BECAUSE OF RACE, COLOR, RELIGION, SEX, OR NATIONAL ORIGIN SEC. 703. (a) It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer--If Eich supported Prop 208 because of his religious convictions then he was discriminated against by his employer, Mozilla, and was wrongfully discharged. Now I'm certain that by pressuring Eich to resign, Mozilla's lawyers were and are looking to get around this provision by saying Eich decided to leave. This puts the ball squarely in Eich's court. In my opinion Eich should not have agreed to resign. Eich should have stated that his support was an expression of his religious faith (which he may or may not have changed) and the Department of Justice[sic] should have immediately put Mozilla on notice about the apparent discrimination investigation that would be forthcoming. While thinking of this situation I think of the one person who managed to beat off the bully: Phil Robertson of Duck Dynasty. See, what Phil did, whether you like or agree with him or not, was not back down from the bully. He said what he said. He didn't apologize AND his people came to his defense in a very vocal and visible manner. How many more Mannys and Brendans will there be before you figure it out?
(1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin; or
(2) to limit, segregate, or classify his employees in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.