• Twitter
  • Facebook
News-Sentinel.com Your Town. Your Voice.
Opening Arguments

Spit-take

Gerald Foday, executive director of the Metropolitan Human Relations Commission, has announced a settlement of the investigation into Ricker Oil Co.'s unfortunate "No Burmese people allowed" sign at a southside laundry:

Although company President Jay Ricker apologized for the sign, saying an employee had “responded to an alarming situation in an inappropriate manner,” Foday said the company will issue another apology, agree to mandatory diversity training for all its Fort Wayne employees and make a financial donation to the Burmese Advocacy Center, 2826 S. Calhoun St.

The sign was a stupid response to a perceived issue; if people are spitting on the floor, you put up a "no spitting" sign, not one inviting a whole group to stay away. But the horrified business owner realized that an employee had been stupid and issued a quick apology. So this seems like overkill in a big way. The "mandatory diversity training" especially seems likely to create resentment rather than actually make people more sensitive. But it's Ricker's company, and if he wants to agree to this, it's his call.

But I'd like to hear from those of you who: 1) were so quick to stand up for business owners' rights when they were trying to keep those evil guns off the premises or, 2) were adamant that the right to carry trumped the business owners' rights.

Comments

tim zank
Wed, 04/21/2010 - 10:01am

I like simple. simple is good. My right to protect myself and carry a lawfully registered firearm (in my view) anywhere I damn well please is sacrosanct. My carrying of a concealed firearm does not infringe in the least on anyones "property rights" be they an employer or a grocery store or a movie theater etc.

As for the Burmese kerfluffle, The Rickers company, as the property owner has the property rights to disallow any persons that do it's property harm (as in spitting all over the place) . The employee made a mistake in wording the sign properly as Leo has noted. He didn't seek to discriminate against a race of people, he sought to discriminate against a group of people that were fricking up his place of business.
An apology was/is all that is necessary, this wasn't exactly
Tiananmen Square.

Guess what, people make mistakes, peoples feelings get hurt, people get over it, life goes on. No Johnny Cochran necessary.

Quantcast