• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Office Depot Manager refuses to print a poster for Charlie Kirk Vigil

Yep, the propaganda must be mandatory.

Now the next thing that needs to be done is keep tally on who doesn't show up to the vigil so they know who to round up later.
 
Last edited:
bythoughts said:
I absolutely don't want Office Depot deciding it has to play censor over every poster it prints.

But I do realize that after they fire these people, next week somebody is going to rake Office Depot over the coals for printing "the wrong thing".

Being a printer, in a society decaying into censorship, is a questionable business strategy.
Click to expand...
Yeah, should have just claimed it was against their religious beliefs instead.

I mean if a gyneocologist can refuse to give a woman an abortion or to prescribe her the abortion pill on religious grounds....why not a printer declining a print job for the same reasons?
 
Josie said:
The FAFO stuff happening on social media right now is delicious.
Click to expand...

Whatever happened to FREEI SPEIATCH!!!!

MAGA-tards were screaming Bloody Mary a few years ago that Elon needed to clean up Twitter and unban vaccine conspiracy theorists and racist accounts because FREEI SPEATCH! or something.
 
TobyOne said:
They have apologized and launched an internal review. Good for them. Next, those employees should be fired.

Bake our cake.



Click to expand...


IMO the only real point to make about this is, if you are an employee then keep your political opinions/beliefs to yourself or outside the workplace and just do your job.

That should hold true whether the job is for a private company, or a government agency.
 
Loulit01 said:
But the cake store owner had the right to refuse to create a cake for the gay couple, yes?
Click to expand...

SCrider said:
Hypocrisy is a major tenet of the MAGA cult.
Click to expand...

Let's address these posts logically and with calm... There are a couple of HUGE differences between this and the case shop owner.

#1 The Store Manger had the legal right to refuse the application of artistic skill in making the poster. Just as the Cake Store Owner had the legal right to refuse the application of artistic skill in making the cake. One can argue that Store Manager had MORE of a legal right because public accommodation (PA) laws don't typically apply to political ideology while PA laws in Colorado do cover sexual orientation.

#2 The other big difference is that cake shop owner was - well - the owner of the business. The Store Manager was no. The Store Manager is/was an employee of the owner (who in this case is a Corporate Entity) and while he/she may not be subject to criminal prosecution for their action, that does not mean that their actions complied with the policies, procedures, and practices of the owner (i.e. Corporation) and as such the Store Manger may feel repercussions. Maybe it's stern warning, maybe it's remediation training, maybe it's termination - that is up to corporate powers that be.

WW
 
So if the store had refused to print posters for a George Floyd vigil the same rules would apply. Good to know.
 
WorldWatcher said:
Let's address these posts logically and with calm... There are a couple of HUGE differences between this and the case shop owner.

#1 The Store Manger had the legal right to refuse the application of artistic skill in making the poster. Just as the Cake Store Owner had the legal right to refuse the application of artistic skill in making the cake. One can argue that Store Manager had MORE of a legal right because public accommodation (PA) laws don't typically apply to political ideology while PA laws in Colorado do cover sexual orientation.

#2 The other big difference is that cake shop owner was - well - the owner of the business. The Store Manager was no. The Store Manager is/was an employee of the owner (who in this case is a Corporate Entity) and while he/she may not be subject to criminal prosecution for their action, that does not mean that their actions complied with the policies, procedures, and practices of the owner (i.e. Corporation) and as such the Store Manger may feel repercussions. Maybe it's stern warning, maybe it's remediation training, maybe it's termination - that is up to corporate powers that be.

WW
Click to expand...
So they don't have the right to refuse service to anyone.

1757760479384.webp1757760493136.webp1757760521300.webp

These signs are wrong?
 
Loulit01 said:
So they don't have the right to refuse service to anyone.

View attachment 67588932View attachment 67588933View attachment 67588934

These signs are wrong?
Click to expand...

In a way misleading. Under Public Accommodation laws a business retains the right to refuse service to anyone, but not for any reason. It's not necessarily the person that is refused it's can be for a valid reason.

Let's say someone owns a Donut Shop.
  1. A black person walks in and says I want to place a special order for Saturday. The owner says - sorry we don't serve blacks.
  2. A black person walks in and says I want to place a special order for Sunday. The owner says - sorry we are closed Sundays.

In both cases it was the same person being refused, but the reasons were different. #1 is illegal under State and Federal PA laws. #2 is not. As far as I know California may be the only state that extends PA laws to political viewpoint - but don't quote me on that. So the Store Manager in this case is probably fine legally, but that does not mean the corporate cannot be unhappy with the actions and take remedial steps with their employee.

WW
 
WorldWatcher said:
In a way misleading. Under Public Accommodation laws a business retains the right to refuse service to anyone, but not for any reason. It's not necessarily the person that is refused it's can be for a valid reason.

Let's say someone owns a Donut Shop.
  1. A black person walks in and says I want to place a special order for Saturday. The owner says - sorry we don't serve blacks.
  2. A black person walks in and says I want to place a special order for Sunday. The owner says - sorry we are closed Sundays.

In both cases it was the same person being refused, but the reasons were different. #1 is illegal under State and Federal PA laws. #2 is not. As far as I know California may be the only state that extends PA laws to political viewpoint - but don't quote me on that. So the Store Manager in this case is probably fine legally, but that does not mean the corporate cannot be unhappy with the actions and take remedial steps with their employee.

WW
Click to expand...
Yeah, but no one says I refuse you because you're Black. They say we're too busy.

I would not have printed those posters for Charlie Kirk. I would have been fired. Fine.
 
multivita-man said:
Whatever happened to FREEI SPEIATCH!!!!

MAGA-tards were screaming Bloody Mary a few years ago that Elon needed to clean up Twitter and unban vaccine conspiracy theorists and racist accounts because FREEI SPEATCH! or something.
Click to expand...

When have I ever said that you can literally say anything you want without consequences?

If a beloved person on the left was killed, and a fellow teacher danced, laughed, made fun of his/her kids because of it, I'd want them immediately removed from my school. Wouldn't you?
 
NuffSaid said:
Oh look, MaGA are only concerned about looks.
I guess Cankles McDroopyface gets a pass?
Click to expand...
Why do you live in such a simple-minded world where anybody who does not march in lockstep with you is "MAGA"?
 
Loulit01 said:
Yeah, but no one says I refuse you because you're Black. They say we're too busy.

I would not have printed those posters for Charlie Kirk. I would have been fired. Fine.
Click to expand...

Which goes back to original post I responded to, which involved "rights" which implies a legal basis.

There is a difference between legal rights enforced under the law, and ramifications based actions of an employer regarding an employee that they feel are not performing their duties in a satisfactory manner.

WW
 
Do we know what was on this supposed poster/flyer?

I heard the manager state “we don’t print propaganda”

If they held that same standard for ALL political propaganda - I’m fine with that. The individuals were not rude, they were not mean, they were professional and courteous and stated a policy.

I’m curious what occurred during the initial visit, because the video shared in the OP was apparently a 2nd visit to the store, not the first. And the 48 second clip didn’t show any behavior by the employees that should have resulted in any termination or employer action (if a policy of not printing propaganda existed)
 
Gardener said:
Why do you live in such a simple-minded world where anybody who does not march in lockstep with you is "MAGA"?
Click to expand...
Why do MAGA live in a material world where Botox laden people are “beautiful” and ordinary looking people are ugly leftists?
 
NuffSaid said:
Why do MAGA live in a material world where Botox laden people are “beautiful” and ordinary looking people are ugly leftists?
Click to expand...
The entire Democrat message is that people are victims of the society at large, that somebody else is responsible for their lack of success, and that the Democrat party is their answer for all their disgruntlement.

It attracts lots of people like these. If people are happy and content with their life, they do not buy in to the message.
 
Last edited:
Josie said:
When have I ever said that you can literally say anything you want without consequences?

If a beloved person on the left was killed, and a fellow teacher danced, laughed, made fun of his/her kids because of it, I'd want them immediately removed from my school. Wouldn't you?
Click to expand...

Yes, but that's an extreme case. But then you have someone like Matthew Dowd, who was fired because he dared to point out that Charlie Kirk really did a lot to create the toxic environment that ultimately killed him. That's not the same as mocking or celebrating his death.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom