This is the way the worlds works nowadays, if a population has been oppressed in the past, they are former victims(even if they werent born at that time) , you allow them more things and protect them better than others. a lot of populations i cant name use that nowadays to have some advantages and dont care when there are inequalities for others, even if they created a lot of these inequalities by serving their interests

Right thing done to be honest, when you work for someone you are obliged to conduct and behave in a certain manner because you represent your employers. This gentlemen forgot that he's at work and decided to abuse someone and rightly got the sack. Now if he did not get sacked, a lot of people would be crying "oh one rule for them and another for us" or "how can a black man call another the N word or in this case king kong, but when a white person does it's racist"? You see, dammed if you don't and dammed if you do, no one can win with whiners.

Black people (mainly younger ones) call each other niggahs all the time (especially in the ghetto).  It is acceptable for them to say that but not for a white person (unless they have street cred I guess?).  I got in a little trouble a decade or so ago.  I was calling out Ja Rule at a party saying he was a fake niggah and that Bone Thugs were real niggahs.  Some black people at that party didn't like that.  Either they were Ja Rule fans or they didn't like me using the word niggah.  They desensitized the word from using it all the damn time in rap but apparently there is a stigma when other races use it.  Hell, I even had a black coworker at my current job call me a niggah because he was so used to saying the word.

So the racism card is being played against people of the same race now...

At least he didnt make comments involving fried chicken, watermelon and grape soda.

The headline doesn't really seem to match the article. 'Racist' is used in the title but I don't see it quoted anywhere in the body. Was he fired for a 'racist' comment, as the headline implies, or was he fired because his "behaviour was both physically and verbally aggressive and threatening," in addition to "insulting language," which is what the representative was quoted as saying?

My sensationalism sense is tingling.