SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
[Update. It appears the original submission was skewing the facts. From the What You Should Know about EEOC and Shelton D. v. U.S. Postal Service (Gadsden Flag case) on the EEOC (US Equal Employment Opportunity Commision) web site:
What You Should Know about EEOC and Shelton D. v. U.S. Postal Service (Gadsden Flag case)
- This decision addressed only the procedural issue of whether the Complainant's allegations of discrimination should be dismissed or investigated. This decision was not on the merits, did not determine that the Gadsden Flag was racist or discriminatory, and did not ban it.
- Given the procedural nature of this appeal and the fact that no investigative record or evidence had been developed yet, it would have been premature and inappropriate for EEOC to determine, one way or the other, the merits of the U.S. Postal Service's argument that the Gadsden Flag and its slogan do not have any racial connotations whatsoever.
- EEOC's decision simply ordered the agency - the U.S. Postal Service - to investigate the allegations. EEOC's decision made no factual or legal determination on whether discrimination actually occurred.
The original story follows. --martyb]
Submitted via IRC for TheMightyBuzzard
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has determined in a preliminary ruling that wearing clothing featuring the Gadsden Flag constitutes legally actionable racial harassment in the workplace. In short, wearing the Gadsden flag while at work can earn you the title of "racist", earn you harassment charges, and cost you your job. The ideological witch hunt started back in 2014 when a black employee at a privately owned company filed a complaint with the EEOC when he saw a co-worker wearing a hat featuring the Gadsden flag and the words "Don't tread on me." The EEOC has decided to side with the over-sensitive employee, despite already admitting that the flag originated in a non-racial context and has been adopted by multiple non-racial political groups, countless companies and more, since it was created.
The ruling is a preliminary ruling and has not yet been made "official" but the preliminary ruling says that you can be charged with "racial harassment." They have not indicated when an "official" ruling will be made and it is ongoing.
Source: American Military News
Better Source: Washington Post
Facts: EEOC
(Score: 4, Informative) by DeathMonkey on Monday August 08 2016, @09:36PM
But facts won't matter... to jmorris who will gladly go off on a rant based on a factually incorrect summary.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by jmorris on Monday August 08 2016, @09:47PM
So what is wrong with the summary? Btw, I saw this story a day or two ago so I'm not basing my post on the summary.
The court agreed the flag and slogan date to the earliest days of the pre-revolutionary colonies. The court agreed there is zero reason for a sane person to believe the thing is racist. Because only a congenital idiot would even try to argue any other position in the face of the extensive historical record. Then the court declared that because a snowflake was triggered that none of the facts mattered, the feelz of a protected snowflake was all that mattered, that if a protected person says they felt racism then the Anita Hill rule applies. That it is the seriousness of the charge and not the facts that matter.
(Score: 5, Informative) by DeathMonkey on Monday August 08 2016, @09:53PM
So what is wrong with the summary?
The very first sentence!
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has determined in a preliminary ruling that wearing clothing featuring the Gadsden Flag constitutes legally actionable racial harassment in the workplace.
This is a quote from the actual EEOC ruling: In light of the ambiguity in the current meaning of this symbol, we find that Complainant’s claim must be investigated to determine the specific context in which C1 displayed the symbol in the workplace.
Bit of a difference there...
(Score: 2) by ikanreed on Monday August 08 2016, @10:15PM
I knew if I control-f'd for the word "context" I'd have a chance of finding someone who actually looked at more than the headline.
Indeed, I was right, this whole thread is a pile of hot-takes from disingenuous summary alone with you being a shining beacon of basic textual investigation.
(Score: 2) by DrkShadow on Tuesday August 09 2016, @12:50AM
It would seem that the only ambiguity is caused by the complainant.
"OMG! You called me a white snowflake! That's racial harrassment!!"
Slippery slopes, 'n all that. Bullshit, nonsense, oversensitivity, and catering to a mentally disturbed few to the _detriment_ of _all_others_, 'n all that.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 08 2016, @10:42PM
So what is wrong with the summary?
There was no "Government Ruling".
The "privately owned company" was the U.S. Postal Service.
The "the preliminary ruling" does not say "that you can be charged with "racial harassment."".
It isn't your fault that you believed the lies. A biased clickbait article that manipulated facts with the purpose of generating OUTRAGE! slipped into our story queue. This site normally has a good enough S/N ratio where you can skip TFA (or even TFS), but this wasn't one of those cases.