Most people don’t think making insulting, racist comments is acceptable. Most people think it’s disgusting and disgraceful. Dairy Queen can only win (with most people) by clarifying that they do not want their brand associated with franchisees who insult African American people.
Dairy Queen had the choice: say their company is OK with people making racist comments, or say their company is not OK with people making racist comments. This is a no-brainer for national consumer companies.
Frequently Asian actors don’t get hired for Asian parts in Hollywood because they look Asian (i.e. the Asian part gets converted to a Caucasian part). I was just pointing out how silly these things sound when applied to the straw man argument of discrimination against plumbers and secretaries. It also sounds silly when applied to Asians (insert other minorities too) and Hollywood, but there it is.
If you are in any way referring to me, anomander, I made no mention of discrimination, other that repeating the phrase another poster used.
I mentioned disparagement and slurs. Those are very different than discrimination.
I think Fang is dead-on in the first and second sentence of post 20. I am in that “most people” group, obviously, not all here are. I believe it to be true regardless of the race of the offended party.
On a side note, I never thought of equality for all as a right-wing philosophy. Interesting.
Wait-why was LE called TWICE during this incident? Did the DQ owner threaten the customer with violence? I’m all for social/professional consequences of offensive speech, but I have to draw the line at LE involvement under most circumstances that don’t involve threats.
The police officer was called back to DQ by the franchise owner who was complaining about the unpleasant comments he was getting on social media.
I think in the food service and hospitality industries, disparagement and slurs coming from anyone in a position to extend the hospitality or service is tantamount to discrimination.
What is said or done to you, but not to the general public who seek services there, is such which communicates you are not welcome, and will not be held in the same regard as other customers. You are held out for different, “special” treatment, designed to humiliate, but, further, to sever any expectation of service.
“I do feel for the employees. But I’m not sure what else DQ could have done, if the contract doesn’t provide for replacing the franchisee (and not allowing the franchisee to get the profits) under the circumstances.”
DQ is a big enough corporation that they should 1) help the employees find other jobs & 2) give them some sort of short time compensation while they look for other jobs.
@waiting2exhale:
I was going to respond, but you wrote the perfect response IMO.
As far as ‘freedom for all’ being a right or left wing idea, it isn’t (though usually conservative political philosophy was the supporter of the status quo, that in general reflected ideas like the divine right of kings and nobility, or the class systems and caste systems, the poltical philosophy of the enlightenent that everyone is created equal is not a conservative notion, the founding of this country in particular was radical (that doesn’t mean that leftist philosophy necessarily supports freedom from all, either, many of the radical leftist ideas support freedom for people they want and leave others out).
I also think the DQ article has nothing to do with freedom for all. First of all, this is a contract issue between the franchise owner and the central business, and they have the right to terminate a franchise for any reasons laid out in the contract, and routinely that includes things like a business that is doing things that tarnish the image of the corporation (for example, a store owner with white supremacist symbols or black power symbols on the walls).
More importantly, the concept of freedom for all also brings with it, like any rights, the concept that someone’s rights end where others begin. You have the right to hold racist feelings, and even express them, but your freedom to do so is bound by the rights of others, expressing racist thoughts in public or worse, acting out on them in some way, diminishes the people you express those against, it is inherently saying “all people are equal, but some are more equal than others” to quote animal farm. I am not talking rights here necessarily as a legal right, expressing racist views is covered under the first amendment, but rather the implied right I think we have to treat others with dignity and respect whatever our beliefs are, the golden rule and its varients might be religious law, and cannot be civic law, but it is something that civil society should strive to, the right comes to me from the basis of human dignity.
This is especially true when it involves things that routinely have caused people to be oppressed, religious belief has led to legal oppression, racial superioty has led to oppression, there are certain things that inherently make someone ‘less equal’. Ironically, a corporate environment in some ways (and only some ways) is the model we could only wish society held to. Things like religious belief, political belief, racial beliefs, views on women, in the workplace are often kept seperate (talking larger corporations), because those are things that the people running the business know lead to discord that hurts the business. Legally there is a right to offend, but that right also comes with some burdens on it, too, self policing is important in society. Note that the store owned was not arrested by the cops, so this has nothing to do with freedom of speech, nor is he being charged with discrimination under the law (as far as I know), as he would be if he refused service to the woman.
@MichiganGeorgia , why do you assume that DQ isn’t doing those things?
Call me a skeptic but corporations are all about the bottom line so I figure if they were they would be publicizing it… If I’m wrong great.
If they’re doing it, they may not be publicizing it because they don’t want to set a precedent. Unfortunately, I doubt this will be the last time something like this happens.
Businesses in general are all about the bottom line…
For many (not necessarily all) business in the US, racism this blatant is bad for the bottom line in terms of reputational damage affecting decisions by (potential) customers, employees, suppliers, etc… On the general subject of these forums, note that colleges are affected by this, even when the blatant racism stays within the bounds of free speech at a public college, or just happens to be in the local area or region the college is in.
I contacted DQ’s corporate office giving them kudos for closing the franchise and hoped the employees weren’t suffering due to the franchise owner’s stupidity.
I love DQ. I used to take the kids to DQ at the end of the first school day. It was our place, we talk about the day, new friends, teachers, classes they liked/didn’t like. They closed our DQ about 10 years ago. Now we have to drive 20 miles for the nearest one. boo hoo.
Why shouldn’t they be about the bottom line? That doesn’t mean that they don’t care about their employees and customers, too. The bottom line is what creates jobs, leads to more store openings and helps the economy!
I feel bad about the employees but the economy is good now, so they should all be re-employed soon.
But what happens to all of that yummy ice cream?
There are very few DQs around Honolulu. There used to be one in the shopping center by my folks’ house but they closed and it became a bunch of different things over the years, including a Korean takeout place and now a title company.
The bottom line is important, but not to the exclusion of all other concerns.
Sure, companies need to be profitable. Profitable ENOUGH. Wringing the last few cents out of operations at the expense of employees and the environment, just to mention two legitimate concerns, is neither necessary nor desirable, IMHO.
Re #36
The other concerns tie into the longer term bottom line. A company that acquires a poor reputation for employment practices may have trouble attracting better employees (or may find unions organizing). A reputation as a polluter may bring bad publicity that affects customer decisions.
Of course, some companies follow the short term to the detriment of the long term.
I think that “most” is the operative term.