Redskin Illegal or Racist

Redskin Trademark Facts Many sports teams use Indian logos and names as their moniker. One such team is the Washington Redskins. There are many people, both Indians and non-Indians, that say that the use of such logos is wrong and that the word "redskin" is racist. However, not all people (even including many Indians) agree on this matter (Cox et al., 2017). The issue to address is whether the trademark/patent and other offices have the right to impose a rule or guideline based on the presumption that "redskin" is racist.

There is, of course, the question of whether there are violations of Title VII, hate speech laws, etc. (Cox et al., 2017). Rule of Law Even if the trademark office has yanked Redskin as a usable name, there is not a clear violation of the law and there is rampant disagreement about whether redskin is a racist term.

It would seem to come down to political ideology versus an unwillingness to change the mascot on the part of Dan Snyder (owner of the Redskins) (Cox et al., 2017) Application of Law Until or unless the use of "racist" terms and mascots is banned, it is unlikely that the impasse will be resolved any time soon. There is the issue, of course, of the First Amendent. Even offensive speech (e.g. Westboro Baptist, KKK, etc.) is held to be lawful (Cox et al., 2017).

Conclusion There is clearly a stalemate and there is clearly not a uniform level of thought on whether the mascot should change or what it should be changed to. If the fans of the Redskins and/or the Indians themselves feel that there is no problem, the status quo will continue. No Kids Allowed Facts Many restaurants and other establishments (e.g. fine arts concerts, plays, etc.) ban kids under a certain age or entirely so as to cater to the people in their market.

Some hold that this is discriminatory towards people with families. The other side says that kids often create a ruckus and disruption and thus banning them is a choice that a business owner can/should use if the situation or customers ask for it. Issue The issue that arises is whether businesses are within their right to ban children or if there is age/parent/family discrimination involved. Many to most of the places involved are privately owned so that is an issue as well.

Rule of Law Generally speaking, private businesses have a right to refuse service to "anyone". The quotes are there because there are exceptions such as banning people based on race, ethnicity and other illegal reasons. Application of the Law Since the ban is less about age and more about what younger children tend to do (be loud, cry, etc.), the businesses in question are probably in the clear to keep doing what they are doing.

If it was less about serenity and the customer experience and more about the specific age involved, things be different. Other than the ADEA, there is not really an age discrimination law in place and that relates to employment. Conclusion The employer has the right to regulate their environment just as the consumers have the right to "vote with their wallet" if they don't like what they see.

Generally, however, people that see this rule in place will agree because they probably do not want a noisy kid ruining the mood.