Texas Farm Bureau and Mississippi Dept. of Public Safety Ban Employees From Wearing Nikes

a reply to: Southern Guardian

What I wanna know is when this story turnes out to be fake news like the curtain story. Will you correct your BS op?

No worries I won't hold my breath.

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
a reply to: Nyiah

. . . . what did they expect would happen?

Free advertising.

Civil libertarians like myself defending them and leftists douche-bags buying their product just because and finally people who don't give a crap and still like their product.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

Every business person knows you dont mix politics with your business, unless politics is your business.

So why would an employer want their representatives wearing divisive apparel from any company regarding any political persuasion?

a reply to: Nyiah

I said that because this is a dress code domain issue and people act like they're having their First Amendment violated.

As if people can expect to work for a company and go around talking about politics to every customer they deal with each day.

You wear a shirt OR shoes with a logo that has entrenched itself with politics and you wear it you're still communicating that message to them, how couldnt it for "Freedom of Speech" to be being "violated".

Nike lawyers should have seen this coming, that they'd end up screwing many people who wear their big logos to work and now might have to go buy new shoes that dont. Or maybe Nike even factored that in, but decided half of them would be brand loyalist douches and still buy new Nike's that dont have the logos. They may have even released a couple new pairs of plain sided shoes in anticipation of this. Bet!

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
a reply to: CriticalStinker

Every business person knows you dont mix politics with your business, unless politics is your business.

So why would an employer want their representatives wearing divisive apparel from any company regarding any political persuasion?

I understand your dress code argument, that is communicated and agreed upon being hired.

But making a new ban that is brand specific, and not a general "no displaying of logos" for a government agency is insanity.

Seriously, what happens if some people use their car for business and they decide to ban using a brand of vehicles over some overreaction of their free speech?

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: DBCowboy

I disagree, no one cares if Kaep is a Democrat, that isn't what has people mad.

It could be seen as punishing people for a belief.

That happens all the time and people have no problem with it. When people get fired because it turns out they are a KKK member there is no uproar. When you say America is a racist cesspool and the flag is a symbol of oppression many people are going to want to distance themselves.

I fully support his right to believe that and say it, and I fully support people who want to stay away from Nike for supporting that belief.

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
a reply to: Nyiah

I said that because this is a dress code domain issue and people act like they're having their First Amendment violated.

As if people can expect to work for a company and go around talking about politics to every customer they deal with each day.

You wear a shirt OR shows with a logo that has entrenched itself with politics and you wear it you're still communicating that message to them, how couldnt it for "Freedom of Speech" to be being "violated".

Nike lawyers should have seen this coming, that they'd ed up screwing many people who wear their big logos to work and now might have to go buy new shoes that dont. Or maybe Nike even factored that in, but decided half of them would be brand loyalist douches and still buy new Nike's that dont have the logos. They may have even released a couple new pairs of plain sided shows in anticipation of this. Bet!

And what happens if Red Wing Shoes takes a marketing jaunt you don't like? Ban them, too? Ban Dickies work clothes if they have partnered with a spokesperson you don't like?

Again, if the standards are met, everything else is worthless opinions.

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Southern Guardian

When you support someone who says the flag is a symbol of oppression this is what you should expect. Good on them.

Im not even sure people know why they are mad, the media are nothing more than puppet masters at this point pulling the sheep in whichever is the direction of the day..

I know why I am, he said he refuses to respect the flag because it's a symbol of oppression.

originally posted by: SirHardHarry

originally posted by: notsure1
What is it you guys always say?

Their business their rules. AMIRIGHT?

Farm bureau, yes.

Mississippi DPS, not so much.

What law makes the DPS have to support Nike?

a reply to: CriticalStinker

If a car model makes itself The Official Car of SJW (or Neo-Nazi, or whatever), I'd be pissed if I already had that car. Especially if the entire side of the car had the logo welded into it from the factory. But I couldnt blame employers for not wanting to be associated with said political drama. The car company is at fault for making its car business all about politics all the sudden, especially to make some more cheap bucks, without considering or even worse not caring about how that might affect their existing customers abilities to make ends meet.

originally posted by: CriticalStinker

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
a reply to: Xcalibur254

Do they also have to let them wear wife beaters and flip flops? TOTALLY a Constitutional Crisis we have here. Somebody call a Convention before its too late!

I'm sure it would be if the brand was being banned for a concervative view.

I'd argue this either way though no matter who's ideology was being censored over butt hurt.

False. This has nothing to do with liberal views. Or are you saying all liberals think the flag is a symbol of oppression and America deserves no respect.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Southern Guardian

When you support someone who says the flag is a symbol of oppression this is what you should expect. Good on them.

Im not even sure people know why they are mad, the media are nothing more than puppet masters at this point pulling the sheep in whichever is the direction of the day..

I know why I am, he said he refuses to respect the flag because it's a symbol of oppression.

To be Fair , people are pretty dumb .

Without any announcement of his “fight against police brutality”. Colin Karepernick sat on the bench for the first , second and third preseason games.

Someone took a picture that went viral at the third game.

At the fourth preseason game he knelt.

I think he didn’t have any position or stance until that photo went viral. He’s just a opportunist that had something drop in his lap .

Poser

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: CriticalStinker

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
a reply to: Xcalibur254

Do they also have to let them wear wife beaters and flip flops? TOTALLY a Constitutional Crisis we have here. Somebody call a Convention before its too late!

I'm sure it would be if the brand was being banned for a concervative view.

I'd argue this either way though no matter who's ideology was being censored over butt hurt.

False. This has nothing to do with liberal views. Or are you saying all liberals think the flag is a symbol of oppression and America deserves no respect.

It's mainly concervatives that are so against nike/Kaepernick.

I don't ever remember him saying America deserves no respect, and I may be wrong, but even if he did he is free to do so. I don't agree with that statement, and I don't own any Nike products anyways, but I'm not butt hurt about someone saying something I don't agree with.

Get some thick skin.

a reply to: Nyiah

Note Red Wing Shoes isnt affiliated with the Detroit Red Wings Hockey Team. So wearing them isnt going to offend people from Colorado, that have a clue anyways.

If every shoe company wants to make the whole side of their shoes their logos, and then take huge PR positions of divisive plitical party platform issues whatever BS, then a new shoe company will rise up offering shoes to workers that dont have all that drama that's bad for businesses.

a reply to: Fallingdown

Actually according to Kaep himself it was about disrespecting the flag because it's a symbol of oppression. Liberals are the ones who say it was about police brutality and had nothing to do with disrespecting the flag. It's a lie.

I am not going to stand up to show pride in a flag for a country that oppresses Black people and people of color.

That is not to say police brutality was not an issue, but it was not THE issue, THE issue was how America oppresses black people and he refuses to stand for America.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

Well look at my post before this I quoted him. The problem is not cops, the problem is the country oppresses black people, and as such he refuses to stand up and show pride in America. He can say what he wants, but people who think that way and defend those thoughts and hate America are the SJW warriors that are destroying this country with their PC nonsense. Like the Coast Guard guy who was removed from his job during Florence because he made the OK symbol and people went nuts saying it was racist.

I'll bet we could dig up threads about companies not hiring people after looking up peoples social media and not liking their counter-"liberal" politics, and find resident "liberals" defending them.

I wouldn't.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Like the Coast Guard guy who was removed from his job during Florence because he made the OK symbol and people went nuts saying it was racist.

Excellent evidence that yes indeed both sides are ideology clinging sissies who overreact to opinions they don't like.

You don't need to sell me on being an independent anymore, I assure you. Both sides would love to silence anyone not reading from their sellout politicians scripts.

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
a reply to: Nyiah

I said that because this is a dress code domain issue and people act like they're having their First Amendment violated.

As if people can expect to work for a company and go around talking about politics to every customer they deal with each day.

You wear a shirt OR shows with a logo that has entrenched itself with politics and you wear it you're still communicating that message to them, how couldnt it for "Freedom of Speech" to be being "violated".

Nike lawyers should have seen this coming, that they'd ed up screwing many people who wear their big logos to work and now might have to go buy new shoes that dont. Or maybe Nike even factored that in, but decided half of them would be brand loyalist douches and still buy new Nike's that dont have the logos. They may have even released a couple new pairs of plain sided shows in anticipation of this. Bet!

Yep! What if Converse (do they still exist) supported someone who was considered a Nazi? Would the OP and the people screeching about "Dress Code" in this thread still say the same thing?


With the exception of DB of course!