Charlie Kirk Shot

[Sheik]

I don’t have an issue with this. A business has the right to refuse service to anyone. I wouldn’t have refused the service to the guy, but it’s fine that they did.

Office Depot isn’t owned by the people that run them. That’s the problem. A rogue employee(s) decided to take a stance on something that the company hadn’t put out guidance on.

They ended up unemployed and that was the correct move.

 

[Cotton]

 

[Chocolate Lab]

Hopefully this does not continue the dumb way it is going and spurs some sort of progressive dialogue.

But it will not.

That's exactly what he was trying to do, and they killed him.

 

[Smitty]

Office Depot isn’t owned by the people that run them. That’s the problem. A rogue employee(s) decided to take a stance on something that the company hadn’t put out guidance on.

They ended up unemployed and that was the correct move.

They were fired? Good.


And yes, what you said is the point here.

 

[Smitty]

So to be fair, some of the first headlines Rubin was reading from Cenk’s website (“ex employee exposes Charlie Kirk’s grift,” “Charlie Kirk embarrasses himself,” “Charlie Kirk’s brain melts explaining anti vax conspiracy,”) sounded an awful lot like like the titles of many of Rubin’s own YouTube channel videos.

Some of that stuff is sensationalist to generate an audience’s interest, without crossing a line. I’m not sure Cenk is the right one to go after in this situation.

 

[UncleMilti]

Easier said than done. They are decentralized and unorganized. More like terrorist cells, but not even that together.

They show up in mass quite often to promote their agenda. As a designated terrorist group, they would most likely be immediately arrested or detained. They would also be put under surveillance and a ton more scrutiny than they are now.

 

[Genghis Khan]

So to be fair, some of the first headlines Rubin was reading from Cenk’s website (“ex employee exposes Charlie Kirk’s grift,” “Charlie Kirk embarrasses himself,” “Charlie Kirk’s brain melts explaining anti vax conspiracy,”) sounded an awful lot like like the titles of many of Rubin’s own YouTube channel videos.

Some of that stuff is sensationalist to generate an audience’s interest, without crossing a line. I’m not sure Cenk is the right one to go after in this situation.

Yeah, I agree. Those I think are unfair to Kirk, but they don't sound like the type of headlines that I think incite this type of thing.

 

[NoDak]

My point is that I’m fine with a company choosing not to serve someone. Again, I would’ve printed the poster, but I find it hilarious when people were arguing in support of a bakery refusing to serve a gay couple and then getting pissed when someone refuses to serve someone of their ilk. It’s the double standard and self-victimization that I laugh at.

I think it’s more being mad at the double standard. ‘We will force you to comply, but it’s ok for us.’

 

[Cujo]

Office Depot isn’t owned by the people that run them. That’s the problem. A rogue employee(s) decided to take a stance on something that the company hadn’t put out guidance on.

They ended up unemployed and that was the correct move.

Very distinct difference. Employees can’t arbitrarily decide what’s propaganda or not. Fucking absurd

 

[Cujo]

They show up in mass quite often to promote their agenda. As a designated terrorist group, they would most likely be immediately arrested or detained. They would also be put under surveillance and a ton more scrutiny than they are now.

If those mfs show up here, we’re gonna beat the fucking brakes off of them.

 

[Bipo]

 

[bbgun]

Suddenly Candace Owens is a credible source on the Left

 

[Cowboysrock55]

I think it’s more being mad at the double standard. ‘We will force you to comply, but it’s ok for us.’

I agree that a business can refuse service. But ultimately those opinions could destroy the business financially.

With that being said there is a line. I mean what if a restaurant wants to not serve black people? I mean at one point in time that was a legit problem in the United States. Now we know that business would never survive if it did that. And really it's not the same thing as being unwilling to bake a cake for a gay marriage or refusing to print a sign to memorialize Charlie Kirk. But there was a time where a class needed to be protected from that discrimination. And the jump from that to the cake situation is exactly the line some wanted to draw. That gay people should be protected just like a race needed to be protected at one time.

 

[bbgun]

 

[Plan9Misfit]

Office Depot isn’t owned by the people that run them. That’s the problem. A rogue employee(s) decided to take a stance on something that the company hadn’t put out guidance on.

They ended up unemployed and that was the correct move.

If she was fired, fine. However, none of us (that I’m aware of) know what Office Depot’s corporate policies are. While I doubt there’s anything which addresses that specific issue, there might be. My company has very strict policies on media and potential propaganda. If Office Depot made a public statement on this (which I haven’t checked to see if they did), then great. If not, then she can claim that she acted within their guidelines, even though it doesn’t feel like she did. To me, it felt like she was grandstanding on her own agenda.

 

[Plan9Misfit]

I think it’s more being mad at the double standard. ‘We will force you to comply, but it’s ok for us.’

If that was the case (which is entirely possible), then yes, HUGE problem. If not, then people are being hypocrites. I think we can all agree on that.

 

[Cotton]

 

[Cowboysrock55]

If she was fired, fine. However, none of us (that I’m aware of) know what Office Depot’s corporate policies are. While I doubt there’s anything which addresses that specific issue, there might be. My company has very strict policies on media and potential propaganda. If Office Depot made a public statement on this (which I haven’t checked to see if they did), then great. If not, then she can claim that she acted within their guidelines, even though it doesn’t feel like she did. To me, it felt like she was grandstanding on her own agenda.

Clip of the article from FoxNews if anyone is curious. I just googled it and got an easy answer of Office Depot and their policy.

Office Depot said Friday night that an "immediate internal review" was launched, and the employee involved in the incident is "no longer with the organization." The company also said it reached out to the customer as soon as it learned of the incident "to address their concerns and seek to fulfill their order to their satisfaction."

"The behavior displayed by our associate is completely unacceptable and insensitive, violates our company policies, and does not reflect the values we uphold at Office Depot," the statement reads.

 

[Smitty]

of course

 

[Smitty]

If she was fired, fine. However, none of us (that I’m aware of) know what Office Depot’s corporate policies are. While I doubt there’s anything which addresses that specific issue, there might be. My company has very strict policies on media and potential propaganda. If Office Depot made a public statement on this (which I haven’t checked to see if they did), then great. If not, then she can claim that she acted within their guidelines, even though it doesn’t feel like she did. To me, it felt like she was grandstanding on her own agenda.

Well Office Depot fired her and stated her actions went against their policy, so we do know.