Master Thread of Employers who Capitulate to Right Wing Terrorism

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:lmao - after years of far left extremists getting people doxed and fired for expressing their political views, turnabout is fair play and I'm here for it.

I hope every single one of them sues their employer and gets a lot of money out of it.

Sue them for what?

Wrongful termination. I would personally sue for a violation of my religious beliefs, because as a good Christian I cannot deviate from my belief that we should call out the lies of a false
Prophet.

Good luck with that. Assuming that you’re not employed by a government entity, you’ll spend a lot of $$$ and you’ll likely lose.

I doubt it, and there are plenty of people taking the cases pro bono. However, I guess that would mean that we are free to fire people posting support of Charlie Kirk, right?

Seems like it would be pretty easy to defend THAT in court.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:lmao - after years of far left extremists getting people doxed and fired for expressing their political views, turnabout is fair play and I'm here for it.

I hope every single one of them sues their employer and gets a lot of money out of it.

Sue them for what?

Wrongful termination. I would personally sue for a violation of my religious beliefs, because as a good Christian I cannot deviate from my belief that we should call out the lies of a false
Prophet.

Good luck with that. Assuming that you’re not employed by a government entity, you’ll spend a lot of $$$ and you’ll likely lose.

You can’t discriminate against me based on my religion. I’d surely being it up in the meeting with HR.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Starting a thread to compile a list of companies who are firing people for exercising their first amendment right to call Charlie Kirk a POS.

Name the names so real Americans know where to not spend their money.

I’m a small business owner (x2).

I’d terminate an employee who posted inflammatory content, whether that be celebrating the death of George Floyd or celebrating the death of Charlie Kirk.

Why?

1. Bc I don’t want to work with a**holes.

2. Bc it shows terrible judgment.

3. Bc it might damage my livelihood.

Would you behave differently if you owned a business?

What about Jeffery Epstein?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Starting a thread to compile a list of companies who are firing people for exercising their first amendment right to call Charlie Kirk a POS.

Name the names so real Americans know where to not spend their money.

I’m a small business owner (x2).

I’d terminate an employee who posted inflammatory content, whether that be celebrating the death of George Floyd or celebrating the death of Charlie Kirk.

Why?

1. Bc I don’t want to work with a**holes.

2. Bc it shows terrible judgment.

3. Bc it might damage my livelihood.

Would you behave differently if you owned a business?

DP, but the problem is that anything that isn’t a glowing tribute to CK is being called “celebrating” political violence.

If someone says something truly heinous then I get it. But why are we rounding up people who are just commenting that he had horrible racist and misogynistic views

So do like me and say nothing! I have never heard of this guy before he was killed and, since I don’t want to get caught on something because of any comment made about him, his views, kid assassination, I have refrained from posting at all.

I do talk about it in my home with my husband and kids. That s it.

I haven’t said anything online. But I also don’t think I need to accept that this administration is using its political power to sow division and create a national environment where only one viewpoint can be expressed without backlash. I have no desire to go post on social media about what a crappy person he was, but I support anyone who does want to speak up against racism and misogyny.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Terrorism OP? Really?

If people simply oppose what Kirk has said that is one thing. People should not be arrested for their speech. That is not what is happening.

People are being fired because their vile comments reflect poorly on their employer. It shows a severe lack of judgment and empathy. Especially those in positions of public trust like teachers, professors, nurses and doctors. When you are outright celebrating murder something is wrong with you.

So who gets to define what a “vile comment” is? I guess you know it when you hear it — which means that “vile comments” that management is fine with are allowed — while supposed “vile comments” that a particular representative of any given management disagrees with become termination-worthy offenses. It’s not like we have commonly understood and accepted standards of “vileness”.

Trump and MAGA are decimating museum collections that have been revered by many — because they don’t meet their own white supremacist MAGA standards.

As to your point about “empathy” PP, I won’t quote it — since many might regard it as “vile” — but check out Charlie Kirk’s own comments on “empathy”.

DP.

I think we largely DO have commonly understood and accepted standards of vileness.

It’s just that people have forgotten that they apply to speech on social media.

Is quoting CK considered "vile" or "celebrating"?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Terrorism OP? Really?

If people simply oppose what Kirk has said that is one thing. People should not be arrested for their speech. That is not what is happening.

People are being fired because their vile comments reflect poorly on their employer. It shows a severe lack of judgment and empathy. Especially those in positions of public trust like teachers, professors, nurses and doctors. When you are outright celebrating murder something is wrong with you.

So who gets to define what a “vile comment” is? I guess you know it when you hear it — which means that “vile comments” that management is fine with are allowed — while supposed “vile comments” that a particular representative of any given management disagrees with become termination-worthy offenses. It’s not like we have commonly understood and accepted standards of “vileness”.

Trump and MAGA are decimating museum collections that have been revered by many — because they don’t meet their own white supremacist MAGA standards.

As to your point about “empathy” PP, I won’t quote it — since many might regard it as “vile” — but check out Charlie Kirk’s own comments on “empathy”.

DP.

I think we largely DO have commonly understood and accepted standards of vileness.

It’s just that people have forgotten that they apply to speech on social media.

Is quoting CK considered "vile" or "celebrating"?

PP. No, but in poor taste and inadvisable imo. Would not fire someone for that, but would probably have a chat if it were brought to my attention.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Starting a thread to compile a list of companies who are firing people for exercising their first amendment right to call Charlie Kirk a POS.

Name the names so real Americans know where to not spend their money.

I’m a small business owner (x2).

I’d terminate an employee who posted inflammatory content, whether that be celebrating the death of George Floyd or celebrating the death of Charlie Kirk.

Why?

1. Bc I don’t want to work with a**holes.

2. Bc it shows terrible judgment.

3. Bc it might damage my livelihood.

Would you behave differently if you owned a business?

What about Jeffery Epstein?

Somewhat different story if someone’s been convicted of a heinous crime, but in general it’s not a good idea to publicly celebrate the death of someone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:lmao - after years of far left extremists getting people doxed and fired for expressing their political views, turnabout is fair play and I'm here for it.

I hope every single one of them sues their employer and gets a lot of money out of it.

Sue them for what?

Wrongful termination. I would personally sue for a violation of my religious beliefs, because as a good Christian I cannot deviate from my belief that we should call out the lies of a false
Prophet.

Good luck with that. Assuming that you’re not employed by a government entity, you’ll spend a lot of $$$ and you’ll likely lose.

You can’t discriminate against me based on my religion. I’d surely being it up in the meeting with HR.

Internet lawyering generally doesn’t work in the real world.

Obviously pretextual religious claims don’t qualify for protection.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:lmao - after years of far left extremists getting people doxed and fired for expressing their political views, turnabout is fair play and I'm here for it.

I hope every single one of them sues their employer and gets a lot of money out of it.

Sue them for what?

Wrongful termination. I would personally sue for a violation of my religious beliefs, because as a good Christian I cannot deviate from my belief that we should call out the lies of a false
Prophet.

Good luck with that. Assuming that you’re not employed by a government entity, you’ll spend a lot of $$$ and you’ll likely lose.

I doubt it, and there are plenty of people taking the cases pro bono. However, I guess that would mean that we are free to fire people posting support of Charlie Kirk, right?

Seems like it would be pretty easy to defend THAT in court.

Sure. Very few restrictions on who can be fired in at will employment situations.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Terrorism OP? Really?

If people simply oppose what Kirk has said that is one thing. People should not be arrested for their speech. That is not what is happening.

People are being fired because their vile comments reflect poorly on their employer. It shows a severe lack of judgment and empathy. Especially those in positions of public trust like teachers, professors, nurses and doctors. When you are outright celebrating murder something is wrong with you.

So who gets to define what a “vile comment” is? I guess you know it when you hear it — which means that “vile comments” that management is fine with are allowed — while supposed “vile comments” that a particular representative of any given management disagrees with become termination-worthy offenses. It’s not like we have commonly understood and accepted standards of “vileness”.

Trump and MAGA are decimating museum collections that have been revered by many — because they don’t meet their own white supremacist MAGA standards.

As to your point about “empathy” PP, I won’t quote it — since many might regard it as “vile” — but check out Charlie Kirk’s own comments on “empathy”.

DP.

I think we largely DO have commonly understood and accepted standards of vileness.

It’s just that people have forgotten that they apply to speech on social media.

Is quoting CK considered "vile" or "celebrating"?

PP. No, but in poor taste and inadvisable imo. Would not fire someone for that, but would probably have a chat if it were brought to my attention.

Think it's OK for people to get fired or aggressively publicly doxxed over that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Starting a thread to compile a list of companies who are firing people for exercising their first amendment right to call Charlie Kirk a POS.

Name the names so real Americans know where to not spend their money.

I’m a small business owner (x2).

I’d terminate an employee who posted inflammatory content, whether that be celebrating the death of George Floyd or celebrating the death of Charlie Kirk.

Why?

1. Bc I don’t want to work with a**holes.

2. Bc it shows terrible judgment.

3. Bc it might damage my livelihood.

Would you behave differently if you owned a business?

DP, but the problem is that anything that isn’t a glowing tribute to CK is being called “celebrating” political violence.

If someone says something truly heinous then I get it. But why are we rounding up people who are just commenting that he had horrible racist and misogynistic views

THIS THIS THIS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Anonymous]

what is the terroism part of the subject, i dont get it

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:lmao - after years of far left extremists getting people doxed and fired for expressing their political views, turnabout is fair play and I'm here for it.

I hope every single one of them sues their employer and gets a lot of money out of it.

Sue them for what?

Wrongful termination. I would personally sue for a violation of my religious beliefs, because as a good Christian I cannot deviate from my belief that we should call out the lies of a false
Prophet.

Good luck with that. Assuming that you’re not employed by a government entity, you’ll spend a lot of $$$ and you’ll likely lose.

I doubt it, and there are plenty of people taking the cases pro bono. However, I guess that would mean that we are free to fire people posting support of Charlie Kirk, right?

Seems like it would be pretty easy to defend THAT in court.

This. Or I saw a post from a right leaning person who said they think the suspect should be beaten and put in front of a public firing squad....those who post violent posts should he be fired too right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Starting a thread to compile a list of companies who are firing people for exercising their first amendment right to call Charlie Kirk a POS.

Name the names so real Americans know where to not spend their money.

I’m a small business owner (x2).

I’d terminate an employee who posted inflammatory content, whether that be celebrating the death of George Floyd or celebrating the death of Charlie Kirk.

Why?

1. Bc I don’t want to work with a**holes.

2. Bc it shows terrible judgment.

3. Bc it might damage my livelihood.

Would you behave differently if you owned a business?

DP, but the problem is that anything that isn’t a glowing tribute to CK is being called “celebrating” political violence.

If someone says something truly heinous then I get it. But why are we rounding up people who are just commenting that he had horrible racist and misogynistic views

So do like me and say nothing! I have never heard of this guy before he was killed and, since I don’t want to get caught on something because of any comment made about him, his views, kid assassination, I have refrained from posting at all.

I do talk about it in my home with my husband and kids. That s it.

I haven’t said anything online. But I also don’t think I need to accept that this administration is using its political power to sow division and create a national environment where only one viewpoint can be expressed without backlash. I have no desire to go post on social media about what a crappy person he was, but I support anyone who does want to speak up against racism and misogyny.

Me too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Is quoting CK considered "vile" or "celebrating"?

Is saying "he and his views were divisive" considered "vile" or "celebrating"?

MAGA snowflakes. I'm just telling it like it is. And what happened to my 1st amendment rights?