It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Office Depot CEO Apologizes – Agrees to Print Pro-Life Flyer

page: 1
10
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 13 2015 @ 03:34 PM
link   
I was wondering how this was going to turn out. I bet they had a lot of calls and emails.

www.thegatewaypundit.com...

Roland Smith, the chairman and chief executive officer of Office Depot, contacted the pro-life group to apologize. Smith said the store’s decision violated company rules.

Illinois Review reported:

Office Depot has contacted Ms. Goldsteins’s representative to explain that the store associate’s decision to decline a print order was in no way based on religious beliefs, but on the fact that it contained certain words and phrases that could be construed as graphic or advocates the persecution of groups of people, which is a violation of the company’s copy and print policy.

Office Depot has long maintained a policy of not allowing associates to print items that violate copyright laws, advocate persecution of any group or contain graphic material.

Upon a more detailed review, we have determined that the content of Ms. Goldstein’s flyer is not a clear violation of the company’s policy.

“We sincerely apologize to Ms. Goldstein for her experience and our initial reaction was not at all related to her religious beliefs. We invite her to return to Office Depot if she still wishes to print the flyer,” said Roland Smith, chairman and chief executive officer, Office Depot.




posted on Sep, 13 2015 @ 03:44 PM
link   
Well, what else is he going to say. His company managed to anger half of its customers.



posted on Sep, 13 2015 @ 04:24 PM
link   
a reply to: infolurker

I have no problem with the company reviewing if the fliers violated company policy and stating that it didn't.

I bet if she had contacted corporate with her complaint they would have remedied it the same. It seems her first choice was to get a lawyer and contact the media.

In the past I have had problems with lower management at companies, but they have always been solved by contacting corporate and it never needed to go any further.


IMO she saw an opportunity to make a mountain out of a mole hill and took it.
edit on 13-9-2015 by Grimpachi because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 13 2015 @ 04:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Grimpachi




IMO she saw an opportunity to make a mountain out of a mole hill and took it.


That's par for course when it comes to pro-life zealotry.



posted on Sep, 13 2015 @ 04:31 PM
link   
a reply to: infolurker

Yes, this was updated in the original thread. Sounds like they don't want a lawsuit or to be charged with "religious persecution". I think it's totally up to Office Depot to decide.

But I hope it doesn't "embolden" other religious people to push the issue, when this CLEARLY was about the content in the flier, not the customer's religion.

What am I saying? Of course there will be MANY cases of this kind of story, where a company refuses to do something they find offensive (decorate a cake with an aborted fetus?) and the customer lays a religious persecution lawsuit on the business.

Shall be interesting!
edit on 9/13/2015 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 13 2015 @ 04:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Grimpachi




IMO she saw an opportunity to make a mountain out of a mole hill and took it.


That's par for course when it comes to pro-life zealotry.



And you think she wasn't discriminated against?




posted on Sep, 13 2015 @ 04:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
And you think she wasn't discriminated against?


She wasn't. She probably has had many things printed there before. And ANYONE who came in with these fliers would have gotten the same treatment. That's not discrimination.



posted on Sep, 13 2015 @ 04:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: infolurker


IMO she saw an opportunity to make a mountain out of a mole hill and took it.


Of course she did. People who print their agendas on fliers to push onto share with others have only one thing on their mind. Changing other's minds with their particular belief. She'd almost be a hypocrite if she didn't cry wolf. After all, she thinks that's her mission in life.



posted on Sep, 13 2015 @ 04:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Grimpachi




IMO she saw an opportunity to make a mountain out of a mole hill and took it.


That's par for course when it comes to pro-life zealotry.



And you think she wasn't discriminated against?





"Pro-life groups are no more a constitutionally protected class than PETA members are. Some PETA members believe in their cause religiously, and can even cite biblical scripture to back up their zealotry. That doesn't make them a religious group protected from discrimination under Civil Rights laws.


edit on 13-9-2015 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 13 2015 @ 04:58 PM
link   
a reply to: windword

Who said anything about Civil Rights?

She was discriminated against by an ultra-over-zealous employee (sound familiar?).

And the Company said so.

The employee can now be crowned the "Kim Davis" of Office Depot !!




posted on Sep, 13 2015 @ 05:07 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

Discrimination is only illegal if it violates Civil Rights laws. For example, in 31 states it's legal to deny employment, services and housing to LGBTQ individuals, because their group doesn't fall within the list of federally protected groups under Civil Rights laws, yet.



posted on Sep, 13 2015 @ 05:34 PM
link   
a reply to: windword

Oh please.

This incident was triggering a civil lawsuit.

That's why Office Depot lawyers told the Company to just print the damn flyers.

One meathead employee caused the whole debacle.




posted on Sep, 13 2015 @ 05:48 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen




This incident was triggering a civil lawsuit.


Well, they would have lost. Pro-lifers aren't a protected class. No civil rights laws were violated.



posted on Sep, 13 2015 @ 05:51 PM
link   
a reply to: windword

You should have advised the Office Depot lawyers.




posted on Sep, 13 2015 @ 05:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: infolurker

I have no problem with the company reviewing if the fliers violated company policy and stating that it didn't.

I bet if she had contacted corporate with her complaint they would have remedied it the same. It seems her first choice was to get a lawyer and contact the media.

In the past I have had problems with lower management at companies, but they have always been solved by contacting corporate and it never needed to go any further.


IMO she saw an opportunity to make a mountain out of a mole hill and took it.


After giving your post some thought, I had to research if in fact the woman had or had not attempted to go through higher channels.


On August 20, Maria Goldstein placed her order for printing at the Office Depot in Schaumburg, Illinois. The item to be printed was a flyer that stated several statistics from Planned Parenthood’s 2013-2014 annual report, mentioned the abortion company’s harvesting of fetal body parts, and included a prayer for the conversion of Planned Parenthood.

Goldstein was told by an Office Depot employee that the printing of her flyer was “restricted by corporate policy” and that her order would not be filled.

Goldstein contacted the Office of the Chairman multiple times to discuss the company’s refusal to fill her order. Diane Demma from the Office of the Chairman stood up for the Office Depot employees’ refusal to print Ms. Goldstein’s flyer and offered no other alternatives.
www.lifenews.com...


I also find it odd that in the initial thread it's titled "anti-Planned Parenthood paraphernalia" and in the apology thread, it's "Agrees to Print Pro-Life Flyer". There's a big difference.


Upon a more detailed review, we have determined that the content of Ms. Goldstein’s flyer is not a clear violation of the company’s policy.


The flyer sounds mostly harmless. I personally dislike flyers of any sort and avoid them like the plague.


edit on 13-9-2015 by StoutBroux because: Added link



posted on Sep, 13 2015 @ 06:00 PM
link   
a reply to: StoutBroux

I particularly dislike the flyers about "free" security systems and those satellite TV ones.



posted on Sep, 13 2015 @ 06:01 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

Home Depot and their lawyers know when and how to "pick their battles". This one just wasn't worth it. Much ado about nothing, this one!



posted on Sep, 13 2015 @ 06:03 PM
link   
a reply to: infolurker
Office Depot Corporate was just side stepping publicity that could have gone good or bad in today's climate. If they wanted to push not printing it, based on their policies, they don't have to.

I looked at the flier, too. Some of the numbers are way off. Some of the wording is defamatory.

It seems like, in the end, Office Depot decided to let the nuts print their fliers and move on.



posted on Sep, 13 2015 @ 06:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: infolurker
a reply to: StoutBroux

I particularly dislike the flyers about "free" security systems and those satellite TV ones.


LOL at least there is an asterisk on free. The system is normally free, for a security system, I had one put in free. Included front and back doors, first floor windows so many feet from the ground and 2 motion detectors. I pay 14.99 a month, had to agree to 1 year. Gonna drop the contract soon, the alarm is so loud it can be heard blocks away. No need to be connected to the company.

The sattelite dish is free, it is a cheap piece of plastic, but has a contract like any other thing...



posted on Sep, 13 2015 @ 06:17 PM
link   
a reply to: StoutBroux

Well my view of her has changed since she tried to go through proper channels.

I managed to find the letter from her attorney.

From their own account the reply from office corporate was this.



Ms. Goldstein forwarded a copy of the flyer to her attention. Ms. Demma called her
back later in the day, and told her that "if it makes employees feel uncomfortable they don't have to
print something." She also stated that they are "working on a policy" for situations like this. No
satisfaction was offered to Ms. Goldstein for the refusal of service link


I don't think I would be happy with that explanation either, but how that turned into religious persecution as claimed by her lawyer I don't see it that way.

Office depot probably did just want to avoid a needless lawsuite so they caved. If it did go to court I do not think she would win on those grounds. We will never know now.




top topics



 
10
<<   2 >>

log in

join