I would say it's bad for anybody to be "racist". And when anyone engages in racist behavior that becomes public (by photo, video, etc.) it is reasonable that it might affect their employment. This should not be controversial. What is potentially controversial about the Shane Gillis situation is that he was engaging in "racist" behavior in the name of comedy.
The problem with this narrative is that the definitions of racism have expanded into those mostly vague places where their application have become arbitrarily used. The same applies to accusations of misogyny, hate speech, etc. If someone is perceived as "privileged", they can't "punch down" by using any form of talk that offends, but if someone is perceived as marginalized, they get to "punch up" using the same forms of hate mongering that are decried in the first group. So long as you use racist or hateful commentary from
these groups over here, you're fine, but if you use it from these
other groups, you're sanctioned, maligned, and your career is over.
But if hate is hate, regardless, and if racism is racism, regardless, why make accommodations for it in certain categories and deny it in others?
For example, was it racist for presidential candidate Andrew Yang to say that simply because he's Asian, the fact privileges him to access to people in the medical community and greater medical knowledge? If not, why was it okay for him to say that? What if David Duke had made a similar comment in the 1970s about being white and how that fact privileges him to a better understanding of medicine?
That's the problem. There's no consistency in our cultural application of what constitutes appropriateness. The goal post moves based on whatever postmodern Foucaultian slop the masses are slurping up at the moment; the criteria shifts based on whatever political tribe you belong to. SNL is showing that same inconsistency. Can you acknowledge the hypocrisy of SNL on this issue?