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.

 

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

page: 2
11
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 16 2018 @ 05:05 PM
link   

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.

If the Farm Bureau can determine what brand of sneakers an employee can wear based on belief, then any place can discriminate based on ideology.

Google does it against conservative employees who are forced to keep silent.

Restaurant employees can refuse service based on ideology.

It's wrong.


About the only time I will ever agree with the evil leftists is when one of their idiotic issues is challenged or censored.

Because even evil leftist douche-tards have rights.




posted on Sep, 16 2018 @ 05:08 PM
link   

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..



posted on Sep, 16 2018 @ 05:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
Since the entire side of most Nike shoes are a huge banner ad, it seems any job should be able to forbid them if they wish.

Like if you had a tshirt with a giant corporate logo across the front of it. They tell you wear one that doesnt.


What's next, they decide what car brands you can't use?

SMH.



posted on Sep, 16 2018 @ 05:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: Southern Guardian
No, seriously... the temper tantrums have now extended to political decision making.


Wait, what? Where have you been? Under a rock? Have you watched 2 minutes of the Kavanaugh hearing?



posted on Sep, 16 2018 @ 05:11 PM
link   
I don't care much for Nike's stuff, but my kids wear New Balance and Under Armour sneakers because they hold up well and are comfortable, and Keen hiking sandals.

Concoct some BS political garbage for the companies mentioned because of some marketing campaign you don't like, and tell me I can't let my kids wear any of those brands, and you're King Snowflake. i decide what a comfortable, durable shoe is, not you.

Plain and simple, end of discussion.



posted on Sep, 16 2018 @ 05:13 PM
link   
a reply to: CriticalStinker

Its called you wear a shoe that doesnt havent an 8" corporate logo down the side of it.




posted on Sep, 16 2018 @ 05:14 PM
link   

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

Their business their rules. AMIRIGHT?


Farm bureau, yes.

Mississippi DPS, not so much.



posted on Sep, 16 2018 @ 05:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
a reply to: CriticalStinker

Its called you wear a shoe that doesnt havent an 8" corporate logo down the side of it.



Who cares? Does it effect job performance?

I'd be willing to bet lawsuits will be drawn up and won on this. I'm not a Kaepernick fan by any stretch, but people are flipping out too much for a guy who had an opinion.



posted on Sep, 16 2018 @ 05:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
a reply to: CriticalStinker

Its called you wear a shoe that doesnt havent an 8" corporate logo down the side of it.


If the shoe meets safety standards to wear on the clock, who the hell cares what brand it is? I don't think Nike's are comfortable shoes at all, I have other brands I prefer if I have to wear a sneaker. But my feet are not everybody else's feet, comfort is a relative thing. Which brand is hell for you to wear, and why should you be forced to wear ill-fitting, or uncomfortable shoes for work if it's going to lead to constant discomfort or possible podiatric problems? Especially when other brands meet the same requirement standards?
edit on 9/16/2018 by Nyiah because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 16 2018 @ 05:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: Lumenari
a reply to: Southern Guardian

What is astounding to me is when the left does this it is a free speech issue.

When anyone else does it then it is a temper tantrum.

Good to see your propaganda hasn't slowed down... the midterms are coming!



This gets really old.

"Blanket Left Right"

I've been Right, Left, and down the middle.

Blinders are sideless.



posted on Sep, 16 2018 @ 05:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Southern Guardian


This doesn't surprise me at all. Many americans in the south are extremely narrow-minded and tend to Old Testament "solutions".



posted on Sep, 16 2018 @ 05:19 PM
link   
a reply to: CriticalStinker

Businesses cant have a dress code for their employees that represent them to the public? I can totally see that being a lawsuit. Next waitresses will be suing if they cant wear neon pink shoes. Then the NFL players will be suing their teams for having to wear uniform jerseys. After that Tiger Woods will be suing to not have to wear his sponsers brands when in public.


edit on 16-9-2018 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 16 2018 @ 05:20 PM
link   
The Texas Farm Bureau are a non-governmental organization. They can pretty much dictate whatever they want from their employees as long as it's within the law.

The Mississippi Department of Safety on the other hand is a governmental agency. Requiring their employees to not purchase a certain brand seems like a clear violation of the First Amendment.

The fact that so many "Constitutionalists" agree with this move proves they don't actually care about the Constitution. They only care when it supports their political agenda.



posted on Sep, 16 2018 @ 05:21 PM
link   
Well, this is up there on the retardometer along with firing people for hand signing OK.



posted on Sep, 16 2018 @ 05:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcalibur254

Agreed.

That was also my point above.



posted on Sep, 16 2018 @ 05:22 PM
link   
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!




posted on Sep, 16 2018 @ 05:30 PM
link   

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.



posted on Sep, 16 2018 @ 05:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Nyiah

Do Nike's not as a standard have the biggest the most brazen logo's down the side of them?

Its the secret of their success.

I imagine they do have certain models at any given time that dont. And nobody should be able to say squat about those. But an article of clothing with an in your face logo by a company that just declared partisan political war in the public arena, what did they expect would happen?



posted on Sep, 16 2018 @ 05:32 PM
link   

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!


And what job actually allows flip-flops? I can't see for any reason any employer allowing that, be it an office, or anything else. Talk about a hazard having your feet that exposed, OSHA would be all over that like flies on horse s#.



posted on Sep, 16 2018 @ 05:32 PM
link   

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.




top topics



 
11
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join