Evolve Community Mgr Fired After Tweet on Donald Sterling - Update

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 NEXT
 

Evolve Community Mgr Fired After Tweet on Donald Sterling - Update

Olin tweet

Acknowledging it as an unpopular opinion, Turtle Rock's Josh Olin calls the banned owner of the Los Angeles Clippers a victim.

Update: Turtle Rock Studios has apparently removed Olin from his position as community manager as a result of his statement. "The comments made by our former community manager stand in stark contrast to our values as a game development studio," the studio tweeted earlier this evening. "We sincerely apologize for his remarks and in no way endorse or support those views."

In his own follow-up tweets posted after he was removed, Olin wrote, "I'll remind you, my remarks were in condemnation of sensational media, and support of one's privacy. Not in support of Sterling's actions... Final thoughts: I believe in racial equality & do not endorse bigotry in any way. I also believe in free speech and decry sensational media."

Original story:

Anyone who follows sports, especially NBA basketball, has been aware of the bigoted utterances of Los Angeles Clippers owner Donald Sterling, and the subsequent lifetime ban from the game by NBA Commissioner Adam Silver. However, the topic is far from dead, and at least one member of the game community has publicly come out to defend the man as a "victim."

Josh Olin is manager of the community and eSports team at developer Turtle Rock, which is making the sci-fi shooter Evolve. What makes this interesting is that his tweet is so out of bounds from the video game business (unless it was an NBA sports game), and a topic one would probably not expect to see from someone that deals with the community on a regular basis.

Olin's comments of Sterling as a victim seem to stem from the recording of the Clippers' owner's comments in the supposed privacy of his home. Forget for a moment that Olin is commenting on Sterling at all, but just a controversial topic outside the scope of his official duties. That seems to be a borderline issue between Olin and Turtle Rock, and any HR policies the company may have on such public comments.

Now, bring in the context of Sterling and his bigotry and Olin's perceived defense of the man, and Turtle Rock may be facing an issue similar to the NBA. The tweet, as of this posting, has been retweeted 25 times, and Olin has more than 142,000 followers. Of course, this is Olin's personal account, not a Turtle Rock one, but again, as the NBA showed, if personal feelings spoken in your home can get you banned for life, is there any difference of a public comment from your private account?

Everyone is entitled to express their opinion as part of the First Amendment, but at what point does that freedom of speech become a PR nightmare for the company said individual works for? The First Amendment allows you to say whatever you want without fear of arrest, but it does not guarantee you exemption from the ramifications those comments may bring from employers or other associations.

While I see (but don't agree with) Olin's point of view, and at the same time abhor Sterling's bigotry, the tweet poses an interesting dilemma worth following.

Permalink

Cool, it looks like I have one less game to buy!

It's his right to be an old bigot, but it's my right to not support anyone who roots for him.

Freedom of speech does not mean freedom of speech without consequence. The NBA isn't the government, they can do as they please.

John Keefer:
Everyone is entitled to express their opinion as part of the First Amendment, but at what point does that freedom of speech become a PR nightmare for the company said individual works for? The First Amendment allows you to say whatever you want without fear of arrest, but it does not guarantee you exemption from the ramifications those comments may bring from employers or other associations.

Pretty much this. People like to forget that the First Amendment only applies to government policy, and has jack to do with the private sector.

You're welcome to whatever opinions you wish, but Freedom of Speech isn't a bulletproof shield against criticism, it just means you can't be incarcerated for them.

I forsee a lot of people suddenly deciding to not buy Evolve and a certain tweet possibly being removed quietly.

Except Sterling was also abusive on court and to his own players. Not to mention his actions reflect poorly on the NBA as a whole, this isn't an old skeleton in the closet like the Firefox debacle he was pulling shit while still being associated with them and thus makes them look bad.

Also, weird thing to bring up as a PR guy.

he's an old bigot, but I think the majority of us would be a hypocrite in some way if all of our private emails/texts/verbal conversations were recorded and one of the horrible highlights of them all made it into public scope. I'm not defending the guy, but the backlash that hit THIS and didn't hit many other things shows a massive inconsistency on what's punishable and what's okay.

If anything he should be getting exposed over what he did with his rental properties, now THAT was some targeted long term racial issues that I do have a problem with.

I find it perfectly okay that other teams refuse to play the clippers and if the NBA kicks him out, but he still owns the team and the property, so forcing him to sell is....ehhhh, it's not vibing with me well.

Yes, it's his home. He can do what he wants in it. Cook meth, have sex with yeast-based products, plot to burn down the White House, whatever. It's when his bullshit is spouted all over the internert intentional or not, when it becomes a problem, because it's there for everyone to see.

Looks like Evolve, which I was kind of interested in, won't be played by me ever. Oh well, back to my cave.

Phrozenflame500:
Except Sterling was also abusive on court and to his own players.

He apparently took women to look at the 'beautiful black bodies' of his players while they were showering, so you can through in sexual harassment as well. And lets not forget multiple tenants of his filing (and winning) lawsuits against him for using racial slurs and not following through lease agreements because the were black. So he wasn't being just a bigot at his home.

I wonder if Mr. Olin will be the next "victim" here. As has been said many, many times, he sure does have the right be be an old bigot in his own home, and the NBA has the right to not associate with him for being one. Victim my ass. You don't get to shout about Sterling's freedom without recognizing the NBA's freedom.

I foresee unemployment in this guy's future.

I see his point. I'm sure everyone has said something that is radically inappropriate in private. Sterling should have been blasted in the past for his bigoted actions not cause TMZ got a tape(that may have been illegally made depending on state law's regarding consent) and published it.

Church185:
Cool, it looks like I have one less game to buy!

It's his right to be an old bigot, but it's my right to not support anyone who roots for him.

Freedom of speech does not mean freedom of speech without consequence. The NBA isn't the government, they can do as they please.

Sure, the choice to not support someone with views we disagree with is just as good. But I don't think that's what they're saying. This man is being banned from sporting events and other places because of those personal views. It is directly contrary to the freedom of speech.

This is another one of those "I may not agree with what you say but I'll defend with my life your right to say it" scenarios. Racist ass or not, the correct response to someone expressing unpopular views is not to ban him from events or demand he lose/sell his business. For you and me, it means not supporting anything he touches. But to demand his speech not be free flies in the face of basic human rights.

I'm sorry, but he is a victim here. He is a racist bigot too. It's just that the two things are not mutually exclusive. We have a lot of old racist people. They grew up in a time where they were taught these awful things by their parents and teachers and this is the result of society's programming. These people will go away and our generation will take it's place. No doubt with our own problems too.

If the... let's just say, less than modest pictures and words on peoples' Facebook profiles can get someone fired or prevent them from finding work should the employer choose to look up the person in question, why shouldn't a known bigot and racist get a few pegs knocked down from him?

And I can't think of anyone other than another racist and/or bigot who would support and defend a known racist/bigot. Well, other than a defense attorney. I would not be surprised if more people disassociated themselves from Olin.

Lightknight:
Sure, the choice to not support someone with views we disagree with is just as good. But I don't think that's what they're saying. This man is being banned from sporting events and other places because of those personal views. It is directly contrary to the freedom of speech.

This is another one of those "I may not agree with what you say but I'll defend with my life your right to say it" scenarios. Racist ass or not, the correct response to someone expressing unpopular views is not to ban him from events or demand he lose/sell his business. For you and me, it means not supporting anything he touches. But to demand his speech not be free flies in the face of basic human rights.

I'm sorry, but he is a victim here. He is a racist bigot too. It's just that the two things are not mutually exclusive. We have a lot of old racist people. They grew up in a time where they were taught these awful things by their parents and teachers and this is the result of society's programming. These people will go away and our generation will take it's place. No doubt with our own problems too.

The NBA isn't the government, they have a right to ban him from their games and property for whatever reason they see fit. Making them look bad by being racist while they makes tons of money off the backs of (mostly) black athletes is probably a pretty good reason in their book. According to the NBAs constitution, if 75% of the owners want him to sell his team, he will be forced to. He signed contracts and has known about this since the beginning.

This case literally has nothing to do with the 1st Amendment because it is out of the governments hands.

Looking through this thread and seeing all these people swearing off buying the game... you guys are the definition of petty.

Just because one guy out of the HUNDREDS associated with the game, somebody who doesn't even WORK ON the game but manages its forums and community plays devil advocate, you are going to punish the entire group, developer and publisher? Granted in the end your handful of purchases won't amount to much damage, but seriously? How would you feel if someone recorded something you said or did in the privacy of your home and publicized it for the world to see? Would you want the world at large to know the kind of porn you look at? Or something else equally embarrassing?

Yeah, the guy is a bigot and an ass. I don't care who you are, you should pay respect to Magic Johnson. But he said these things in the privacy of his own home, not on national TV or radio and it would have never reached the attention of the public if the recording had not been leaked. We've all got skeletons in the closet we'd rather others didn't know about.

I don't necessarily agree with Olin in this particular instance, but he clearly has noble intentions.

Yes, he has a right to be a bigot in the security of his own home.

Right now, he is being a bigot in the security of his own home.

Therefore, his righ have not been infringed. Yay!

Josh... Josh Josh Josh.
You realize that this guy has been actually putting his racism into his actions right? He has a long history of doing this and has just now hit critical mass of recognition in the nation.

Also, you ran up against a generational divide. If you didn't notice, most people younger than you considers it better to shut up your racist uncle than to just smile and avoid him. This is also known as: your audience.

So yah. Want to try that again?

Pickapok:
Looking through this thread and seeing all these people swearing off buying the game... you guys are the definition of petty.

Just because one guy out of the HUNDREDS associated with the game, somebody who doesn't even WORK ON the game but manages its forums and community plays devil advocate, you are going to punish the entire group, developer and publisher? Granted in the end your handful of purchases won't amount to much damage, but seriously? How would you feel if someone recorded something you said or did in the privacy of your home and publicized it for the world to see? Would you want the world at large to know the kind of porn you look at? Or something else equally embarrassing?

But this is the nature of game press. We identify someone who says something, completely unrelated to games, and identify them with their company and that company's game to generate some kind of weird connection between the two. This whole article represents a side of gaming press I wish would go away.

Talk about "victimizing." An entire creative team's reputation shouldn't have to suffer because of the misguided political views of one member.

Lightknight:

I'm sorry, but he is a victim here.

He's been a known racist for a long time. Here's an excerpt from his Wikipedia page:

In February 2009, Sterling was sued by former longtime Clippers executive Elgin Baylor for employment discrimination on the basis of age and race. The lawsuit alleges Sterling told Baylor that he wanted to fill his team with "poor black boys from the South and a white head coach". The suit alleges that during negotiations for Danny Manning, Sterling said "I'm offering a lot of money for a poor black kid." The suit noted those comments while alleging "the Caucasian head coach was given a four-year, $22-million contract", but Baylor's salary had "been frozen at a comparatively paltry $350,000 since 2003".

Source

Not to mention all the tenant-related incidents.

So it's not an outlier event - just the one to push things over the edge. And his bigotry has affected the people around him too (pay disputes, harassment). It's understandable if a private organization wants to distance itself from such a bigot.

Lvl 64 Klutz:

But this is the nature of game press. We identify someone who says something, completely unrelated to games, and identify them with their company and that company's game to generate some kind of weird connection between the two. This whole article represents a side of gaming press I wish would go away.

Talk about "victimizing." An entire creative team's reputation shouldn't have to suffer because of the misguided political views of one member.

And he isn't even necessarily a member of the creative team, he's the guy that runs the forums. That's about as low on the team totem poll as you can get.

Lol, he is absolutely right. The guy is a bigot and a dick. But he has the right to say what he wants in the confines of his own home and not face public consequences. You aren't going to change his opinions on certain races by banning Sterling from the NBA, and it's not going to make Josh Olin any less right to punish Turtle Rock. The right thing to do would be to let this slide by unnoticed, but the media has already got their dirty little hands on it. It's race, so it's a click through.

Also, anyone who thinks this is gonna stop anyone from buying Evolve... well you're a fooling yourselves. The fact that you would punish and entire game development team for the opinion of one man makes you little more than a child participating in kindergarten politics. In all honestly, the entire gaming community would be better off without you.

I see Olin's point, and agree with him - I'd also like to note Olin has never said he agreed with Sterling. Sterling is an old bigoted prick, however he should be allowed to do so in the safety of his own home.

I think XKCD said it best...
http://xkcd.com/1357/

Well I spent two extra minutes reading about this Sterling deal and it is obvious the guy has been walking the limits of legality for a very long time, and it is doubtful he even heard of morality. So no Mr. Olin he is not the victim of a private slip up, he is the victim of his own landslide of shit he pulled over the years.

If you took the extra couple of minutes then you would have seen it too, but hey it's an easy mistake to make.

RA92:

Lightknight:

I'm sorry, but he is a victim here.

He's been a known racist for a long time. Here's an excerpt from his Wikipedia page:

In February 2009, Sterling was sued by former longtime Clippers executive Elgin Baylor for employment discrimination on the basis of age and race. The lawsuit alleges Sterling told Baylor that he wanted to fill his team with "poor black boys from the South and a white head coach". The suit alleges that during negotiations for Danny Manning, Sterling said "I'm offering a lot of money for a poor black kid." The suit noted those comments while alleging "the Caucasian head coach was given a four-year, $22-million contract", but Baylor's salary had "been frozen at a comparatively paltry $350,000 since 2003".

Source

Not to mention all the tenant-related incidents.

So it's not an outlier event - just the one to push things over the edge. And his bigotry has affected the people around him too (pay disputes, harassment). It's understandable if a private organization wants to distance itself from such a bigot.

Um... if you didn't cut off the next couple of sentences then maybe it'd make sense why you responding that he is racist doesn't really impact anything.

"I'm sorry, but he is a victim here. He is a racist bigot too. It's just that the two things are not mutually exclusive. "

The issue isn't whether or not he's racist. The issue is that his right to say these crazy things is a legally defensible right. As long as he isn't inciting people to violence or breaking any of the other conditions under which speech is not protected then he should be able to make these comments and not be banned. Legally speaking, them banning him is not different from banning people who support gays or are members of a religion. That's why it's important not to join the bandwagon here when a fundamental human right is being squashed. I want that right to be there for us and our children if we ever find ourselves in a similar situation.

This is civil liberties 101.

Church185:
The NBA isn't the government, they have a right to ban him from their games and property for whatever reason they see fit. Making them look bad by being racist while they makes tons of money off the backs of (mostly) black athletes is probably a pretty good reason in their book. According to the NBAs constitution, if 75% of the owners want him to sell his team, he will be forced to. He signed contracts and has known about this since the beginning.

This case literally has nothing to do with the 1st Amendment because it is out of the governments hands.

You may be unfamiliar with the discrimination laws built on the 1st amendment. Do you think the NBA could ban all Christians or Muslims from attending their games because they believe in a divine being and not what the NBA thinks they should believe in?

Or do you think they'd be successfully sued into the ground for trying that? Discrimination based on beliefs is against the law in the US and does not just apply to the government. Wrong as he is, denying him services is illegal. These laws are in place to protect us and need to be upheld in these situations to ensure they're there to protect people that history finds is in the right. There was a time where people who are pro-diversity and pro-gays would have been banned.

Micah Weil:
I think XKCD said it best...
http://xkcd.com/1357/

None of those things are what is being argued against. He absolutely deserves the criticism he gets. It's the denial of services based on his beliefs and the push for him to have to sell his business (which likely won't succeed) that aren't acceptable ramifications. Even getting fired for saying these kinds of things would quickly land someone in murky freedom of speech territory.

Pickapok:
Looking through this thread and seeing all these people swearing off buying the game... you guys are the definition of petty.

Just because one guy out of the HUNDREDS associated with the game, somebody who doesn't even WORK ON the game but manages its forums and community plays devil advocate, you are going to punish the entire group, developer and publisher?

This^

It is pretty fucking ridiculous the amount of retardation being displayed here. Makes me want to check back to make sure I haven't done something similar in the past.

OT: I think Olin is only aware of this one scenario involving Sterling. As many people have said, Sterling has apparently done some racist crap in the past, but Olin may not be aware of that. I think he only sees that one embarrassing recording was taken covertly inside his home and released to the public, that's why he's calling 'victim' (though idk if I'd use that word for it myself).

Pickapok:

Lvl 64 Klutz:

But this is the nature of game press. We identify someone who says something, completely unrelated to games, and identify them with their company and that company's game to generate some kind of weird connection between the two. This whole article represents a side of gaming press I wish would go away.

Talk about "victimizing." An entire creative team's reputation shouldn't have to suffer because of the misguided political views of one member.

And he isn't even necessarily a member of the creative team, he's the guy that runs the forums. That's about as low on the team totem poll as you can get.

Plus he used his personal account to post this. Without having it pointed out to them, how many people would have known this guy was connected to the game? I'm guessing not many.

Lightknight:
As long as he isn't inciting people to violence or breaking any of the other conditions under which speech is not protected then he should be able to make these comments and not be banned.

My point was that while his bigotry did not incite violence and such, it did have a negative effect on other people. He underpaid black players. He sexually harassed them by showing them off to his mistresses while they were showering. He wrongfully evicted black tenants after acquiring new properties. His ban takes into context his past behavior, not just this one incident.

By banning him NBA is not infringing on his right to speech. He can continue being a racist bigot. They are just disassociating themselves from him.

Lightknight:
You may be unfamiliar with the discrimination laws built on the 1st amendment. Do you think the NBA could ban all Christians or Muslims from attending their games because they believe in a divine being and not what the NBA thinks they should believe in?

Or do you think they'd be successfully sued into the ground for trying that? Discrimination based on beliefs is against the law in the US and does not just apply to the government. Wrong as he is, denying him services is illegal. These laws are in place to protect us and need to be upheld in these situations to ensure they're there to protect people that history finds is in the right. There was a time where people who are pro-diversity and pro-gays would have been banned.

Correction: discrimination based on religion is illegal. Discrimination based on race is also illegal. Being pushed out of an organization for wishing to discriminate based on race is super-legal, especially if the association can bring monetary harm to the organization and the person in question has a history doing so. Also this guy signed onto the bylaws of this organization.

Considering sexual orientation is not a fully protected class in the majority of states (IE-you can be fired for being gay in 29), I'm not going to shed a tear for this asswipe.

John Keefer:

While I see (but don't agree with) Olin's point of view, and at the same time abhor Sterling's bigotry, the tweet poses an interesting dilemma worth following.

I don't see the interesting dilemma here. You have the right to free speech, but not (to borrow a line from Jon Stewart) consequence-free speech. He has the right to be a bigot in his own home. He has a right to be a bigot in the streets. He has the right not hold up a sign at a black person's funeral saying "God Hates Black People," as WBC has done with homosexuals over the years. He has the absolute right to be a bigot so long as he doesn't threaten harm, attempt to incite violence, or attempt to cause panic.

He does not have the right to be employed, however, despite this[1]. And one of the great ironies is that it's largely conservatives up in arms. The same people who vote for the "at will employment" laws. The same laws that say a private business doesn't need to have a reason to fire you.

It also doesn't give you the right to be free from criticism. And it doesn't really matter if he thought he was saying it in private.

You even say this, though in less detail. So where's the dilemma? The home angle? Assumed privacy is nothing more than that: assumed.

Phrozenflame500:

Also, weird thing to bring up as a PR guy.

There's an old saying that I think needs updating to something like "Twitter makes fools of us all."

RA92:

He apparently took women to look at the 'beautiful black bodies' of his players while they were showering, so you can through in sexual harassment as well. And lets not forget multiple tenants of his filing (and winning) lawsuits against him for using racial slurs and not following through lease agreements because the were black. So he wasn't being just a bigot at his home.

Wow. Sounds like the acts of a victim to me.

Quantum Glass:
I don't necessarily agree with Olin in this particular instance, but he clearly has noble intentions.

I'm hoping it's more of a "Devil's Advocate" thing.

Baresark:
You aren't going to change his opinions on certain races by banning Sterling from the NBA

I wasn't aware that was anyone's intent. Can you point to some people who have said "If we ban him from the NBA, maybe he won't hate black people anymore?"

Also, anyone who thinks this is gonna stop anyone from buying Evolve... well you're a fooling yourselves. The fact that you would punish and entire game development team for the opinion of one man makes you little more than a child participating in kindergarten politics.

I'm confused. How are they fooling themselves? Not buying products gets the intended result, from getting rid of the Mozilla guy to getting back the Duck Dynasty guy. Even if you think it's "childish" or "kindergarten politics," it works. And by your own rationale, they're already not buying the games, so they can't be fooling themselves into thinking this will stop people from buying the game, because they already have a body of proof.

Pickapok:

And he isn't even necessarily a member of the creative team, he's the guy that runs the forums. That's about as low on the team totem poll as you can get.

When you hire HR/PR/Community managers, they're ostensibly there to represent your company. This seems like a poor excuse.

[1] And I know the ownership of a franchise is a little more complex that that, but he still doesn't get any special right to no consequences, or for people to buy his merchandise, etc

RA92:

Lightknight:
As long as he isn't inciting people to violence or breaking any of the other conditions under which speech is not protected then he should be able to make these comments and not be banned.

My point was that while his bigotry did not incite violence and such, it did have a negative effect on other people. He underpaid black players. He sexually harassed them by showing them off to his mistresses while they were showering. He wrongfully evicted black tenants after acquiring new properties. His ban takes into context his past behavior, not just this one incident.

By banning him NBA is not infringing on his right to speech. He can continue being a racist bigot. They are just disassociating themselves from him.

Whoa, holy hell on a cracker (pun intended).

Then he broke the law. Wow. I just thought he said stuff, not that he did that crap. Do you have citation? That's horrendous and illegal. Breaking the law is of course not a legally defensible position. If he actually did those things then I'd of course rescind any comments as to his victimhood.

MCerberus:

Correction: discrimination based on religion is illegal. Discrimination based on race is also illegal. Being pushed out of an organization for wishing to discriminate based on race is super-legal, especially if the association can bring monetary harm to the organization and the person in question has a history doing so.

And the denial of services? Should he also have to drink at a different water fountain or be refused service to restaurants? While I admit that would be comic gold it's really a problem to support the refusal of service for beliefs. If he did everything the person above said then that's different.

Also this guy signed onto the bylaws of this organization.

And the bylaws say...?

Considering sexual orientation is not a fully protected class in the majority of states (IE-you can be fired for being gay in 29), I'm not going to shed a tear for this asswipe.

So... because some people don't have rights you're ok with other people not having rights? Why can't you just be pro-people having rights? Should people not have rights until everyone has rights?

Lightknight:

RA92:

Lightknight:
As long as he isn't inciting people to violence or breaking any of the other conditions under which speech is not protected then he should be able to make these comments and not be banned.

My point was that while his bigotry did not incite violence and such, it did have a negative effect on other people. He underpaid black players. He sexually harassed them by showing them off to his mistresses while they were showering. He wrongfully evicted black tenants after acquiring new properties. His ban takes into context his past behavior, not just this one incident.

By banning him NBA is not infringing on his right to speech. He can continue being a racist bigot. They are just disassociating themselves from him.

Whoa, holy hell on a cracker (pun intended).

Then he broke the law. Wow. I just thought he said stuff, not that he did that crap. Do you have citation? That's horrendous.

I... kinda got that you didn't know the guy properly. :)

Here's an article with plenty of citations. There's sexism in their too, 'cause why not.

http://www.sfgate.com/technology/businessinsider/article/LA-Clippers-Owner-Donald-Sterling-Allegedly-4642519.php

RA92:

Lightknight:

RA92:

My point was that while his bigotry did not incite violence and such, it did have a negative effect on other people. He underpaid black players. He sexually harassed them by showing them off to his mistresses while they were showering. He wrongfully evicted black tenants after acquiring new properties. His ban takes into context his past behavior, not just this one incident.

By banning him NBA is not infringing on his right to speech. He can continue being a racist bigot. They are just disassociating themselves from him.

Whoa, holy hell on a cracker (pun intended).

Then he broke the law. Wow. I just thought he said stuff, not that he did that crap. Do you have citation? That's horrendous.

I... kinda got that you didn't know the guy properly. :)

Here's an article with plenty of citations. There's sexism in their too, 'cause why not.

http://www.sfgate.com/technology/businessinsider/article/LA-Clippers-Owner-Donald-Sterling-Allegedly-4642519.php

Whoa! Haha, that's... geeze.

I'm walking away from this one. Thanks for the info. Glad this was the first place I said anything.

Seeing as he committed numerous legally questionable issues here I'd say that banning him would be functionally no different than banning someone for fighting in the stadiums.

I can't stand people who defend bigotry or racism by using "hurr durr 1st amendment" like it's some sort of shield.If I had my way every bigoted or racist person would get fined for the filth they spew, and hardcore racists get the crap beat out of them by the group they throw bigoted slurs at.

Also to all the people who think it's petty to not buy something from a business because one of it's employees defends bigotry?You're wrong.Just like people have a right to be a bigoted fuck,everyone else has a right to not do business with them or anyone who defends this shit.

The 1st Amendment should not be used as a shield for every bigoted asshole out there.

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here