Some days I feel like we have walked back in time.
This article from the Topeka Journal about a restaurant refusing to serve people who identify as gay came across my fb feed and I found myself wondering the Communication Ethics in posting a sign that so resembles the "No Colored" signs considered discriminatory posted from years ago. How would you respond to a sign like this? What kind of Communication Ethic does it embody?
If you post a response post to this post or article, it will count toward your response posts.
I was watching Jon Steward and the Daily show and he actually talked about this exact bill going through the Kansas government.
ReplyDeleteIf I saw a sign like that, I have no idea how I would react. Even after reading the article, I have a hard time believing that it actually happened! It’s so hard for me to believe because there are some states that have legalized gay marriage and have come so far. But I guess there are other states that are not up to speed with everything. I have several friends who are gay and to think that government workers and businesses can refuse to give them service because they are gay is absolutely outrageous.
From my understanding of communication ethics, this issue is part democratic, universal-humanitarian, codes procedures and standards, and contextual communication ethics. Democratic communication ethics is part of this because there had to be come public communication to get this going. The Kansas house then passed it. Universal-humanitarian fits into this because it is an issue of the greatest good for the greatest number. I think that what is seen as the greatest good is very different depending on if you are in Kansas or not (Contextual). And finally, codes, procedures and standards tops it off because the bill allows government workers and business owners the right to refuse services.
I still can’t believe that the bill got through a house of representatives at a state level.