Arkansas woman to be banned from Walmart for racist remarks - what?

[wingnut-]

1 minute ago, Running Gator said:

In the end both WalMart and Worthy would be telling her the same thing, you are not free to say that here.

Would they not?

 

They're not exactly going to say the same thing, Walmart simply banned her for life, that would not be the case here.  Both are entitled as private places to determine rules or expectations.  If you read through the TOS here, you will find that it is covered in the disclaimer, unfortunately that would be a bit more difficult for Walmart to do.  I agree that what they really did wrong here was overreact, but the public could choose to respond to them in kind.  As I said, I don't defend what she said, but I do defend her right to say it in this country, regardless of how much I disagree with her, that's what liberty is all about.

God bless

[Running Gator]

3 minutes ago, wingnut- said:

 

They're not exactly going to say the same thing, Walmart simply banned her for life, that would not be the case here.  Both are entitled as private places to determine rules or expectations.  If you read through the TOS here, you will find that it is covered in the disclaimer, unfortunately that would be a bit more difficult for Walmart to do.  I agree that what they really did wrong here was overreact, but the public could choose to respond to them in kind.  As I said, I don't defend what she said, but I do defend her right to say it in this country, regardless of how much I disagree with her, that's what liberty is all about.

God bless

While their methods are different, the message is the same, you are not to free to say such things on this forum/in our stores.

[SavedByGrace1980]

4 minutes ago, Running Gator said:

The ban would be all but impossible to enforce.  It is almost impossible to enforce one at a single store unless the person is well known to many of the of the associates 

I agree.  In the casino example I cited earlier, they have so-called 'eyes in the sky' - monitored cameras to look for suspicious things and people.  And with current facial recognition software, it's certainly doable.

I don't think Wal-Marts have the equivalent of that, however.  The only thing they might be able to do is to prevent her from using a credit card (in her name) to purchase anything.  Of course, that would not prevent her from using cash.

Blessings,

-Ed

 

[wingnut-]

1 minute ago, Running Gator said:

While their methods are different, the message is the same, you are not to free to say such things on this forum/in our stores.

 

Of course you are, there are just repercussions for saying some things.  One day speaking about Jesus will be punishable as well, but that won't stop me from doing it.  Which is why I will continue to defend the freedom of speech.

[Running Gator]

1 minute ago, SavedByGrace1981 said:

I agree.  In the casino example I cited earlier, they have so-called 'eyes in the sky' - monitored cameras to look for suspicious things and people.  And with current facial recognition software, it's certainly doable.

I don't think Wal-Marts have the equivalent of that, however.  The only thing they might be able to do is to prevent her from using a credit card (in her name) to purchase anything.  Of course, that would not prevent her from using cash.

Blessings,

-Ed

 

Unless things have changed greatly in the 5 years since I left WalMart, they have not the capability to do either.   

WalMart has a long history of over reactions.  Remember the story 7 or so years ago when someone got on the intercom at a WalMart and made racist comments?  WalMart's response was to take the extra phones used for making announcements out of the stores except where there were always associates (i.e. the jewelry counter).   This was a giant over reaction and took what was a 30 second task and made it a 3 or 4 minute task.   And this is just one example

[Running Gator]

14 minutes ago, wingnut- said:

 

Of course you are, there are just repercussions for saying some things.  One day speaking about Jesus will be punishable as well, but that won't stop me from doing it.  Which is why I will continue to defend the freedom of speech.

I will admit, I do not see this as a freedom of speech issue, either with WalMart or with Worthy.  When you go into a WalMart or you join Worthy you freely agree to surrender your right to say some things.  That is not a denial of free speech, that is a choice by the individual not to say them.  

It is really no different than at your place of employment or in your church. 

As a Marine for 20 years I willingly gave up some of my rights to say or do things that technically I had the "freedom" to do.  There was no infringements of those rights, it was a choice made by me.  When you walk into a WalMart the same thing applies. 

I would fight all day long if the government tried to punish the woman, then that would be a true freedom of speech issue, in my opinion.  As WalMart did not tell her she could not say such things, only that she could not in their stores.  And I applaud them for doing so in the same way I applaud Worthy for it standards, even when I think they are wrong!  

[wingnut-]

30 minutes ago, Running Gator said:

I will admit, I do not see this as a freedom of speech issue, either with WalMart or with Worthy.  When you go into a WalMart or you join Worthy you freely agree to surrender your right to say some things.  That is not a denial of free speech, that is a choice by the individual not to say them.  

It is really no different than at your place of employment or in your church. 

As a Marine for 20 years I willingly gave up some of my rights to say or do things that technically I had the "freedom" to do.  There was no infringements of those rights, it was a choice made by me.  When you walk into a WalMart the same thing applies. 

I would fight all day long if the government tried to punish the woman, then that would be a true freedom of speech issue, in my opinion.  As WalMart did not tell her she could not say such things, only that she could not in their stores.  And I applaud them for doing so in the same way I applaud Worthy for it standards, even when I think they are wrong!  

 

Well, I am not really seeing the two in the same light.  For one, this forum specifically tells those who join what the expectations are, and if someone does not like them they can easily go start their own website and spout whatever nonsense they want to there.  Walmart is a public business that provides food, clothes, and prescription medications amongst other things to the public.  They have put smaller competitors and locally owned stores out of business, severely limiting the options for many people across this country.

I am not familiar with the area this woman lives in, but what if there is nothing else close for her to fill her prescriptions?  Wouldn't it be more prudent for Walmart to give someone a warning as to the expectations considering they don't provide any such disclaimer to the public?  They have a long history of questionable and even illegal behavior in regards to others.  For instance, several years ago they were guilty of locking employees inside of a store intentionally.  They have caused harm to shoppers by not providing proper safety measures during black Friday events which have led to people being trampled to death.  Now they are trying to legislate morality?  A bit hypocritical if you ask me.

It's always easy to dismiss freedom of speech when the individual in question says something we don't agree with, but if those who provide things people need to survive can simply refuse someone service because they don't like what they say, wouldn't that be the same as denying one the right to life?  If all grocery stores and pharmacies follow suit, what becomes of this woman?  It's a slippery slope isn't it?   Also, let's not forget that the government has stepped in on such things already, telling private clubs that they must change their membership requirements to accommodate for those previously excluded.  What is the difference here?

God bless

[Running Gator]

31 minutes ago, wingnut- said:

Well, I am not really seeing the two in the same light.  For one, this forum specifically tells those who join what the expectations are, and if someone does not like them they can easily go start their own website and spout whatever nonsense they want to there.  Walmart is a public business that provides food, clothes, and prescription medications amongst other things to the public.  They have put smaller competitors and locally owned stores out of business, severely limiting the options for many people across this country.

Seems this is more about WalMart than freedom of speech.  If it had been a Best Buy or a Home Depot that did this same thing, would it have been as big an issue for you?

Quote

I am not familiar with the area this woman lives in, but what if there is nothing else close for her to fill her prescriptions?  Wouldn't it be more prudent for Walmart to give someone a warning as to the expectations considering they don't provide any such disclaimer to the public?  They have a long history of questionable and even illegal behavior in regards to others.  For instance, several years ago they were guilty of locking employees inside of a store intentionally.  They have caused harm to shoppers by not providing proper safety measures during black Friday events which have led to people being trampled to death.  Now they are trying to legislate morality?  A bit hypocritical if you ask me.

I can assure you WalMart does not care one iota about morality, this is a business decision, nothing else.  It is an overreaction to bad press, something that WalMart is very well known for doing. 

Quote

 

It's always easy to dismiss freedom of speech when the individual in question says something we don't agree with, but if those who provide things people need to survive can simply refuse someone service because they don't like what they say, wouldn't that be the same as denying one the right to life?  If all grocery stores and pharmacies follow suit, what becomes of this woman?  It's a slippery slope isn't it?   Also, let's not forget that the government has stepped in on such things already, telling private clubs that they must change their membership requirements to accommodate for those previously excluded.  What is the difference here?

God bless

 

I do not believe I am dismissing the freedom of speech because it is not a freedom of speech issue to me.  She was not told she could not say those things, she was told she could not say them in a Walmart.   Did WalMart overreact by banning her from every WalMart for ever?  sure (if they really did that, since it seems they did not).    

Why would all the  grocery stores and pharmacies follow suit?  I mean, sure anything is possible, but why in the world would they? 

[MorningGlory]

2 hours ago, Running Gator said:

So, if I am reading what you wrote correctly Worthy is just as wrong as WalMart for limiting what we can say

No you are NOT reading me correctly.  Worthy only prohibits vulgar or antichristian rhetoric and I'm glad they do.  This board allows free speech as much as it can within Christian principles.  Walmart can restrict speech in their stores too all day long but it's not right and I don't like it.  And yes, if and when I choose to speak my mind I will and let the chips fall where they may.  It's just part of being American I guess.

[MorningGlory]

1 hour ago, wingnut- said:

 

Of course you are, there are just repercussions for saying some things.  One day speaking about Jesus will be punishable as well, but that won't stop me from doing it.  Which is why I will continue to defend the freedom of speech.

Amen, wingnut.