It could be argued that BLM isn't endorsing a specific candidate. Yes, we all know it is, but you could make the argument. Also does anyone know the specific wording of the rule.
Rule 23a.
"No items endorsing a political candidate or party may be worn, for example "MAGA" attire."
or
Rule 23a
"No items may be worn with the MAGA logo or statement on them".
Also they didn't call out Biden wear, they specified MAGA wear. Pretty obvious that car guys lean towards Trump so the HR tards needed to crack down on it. Like you said, though, they have plausible deniability.
Luckily, this isn't a court of law, so we can still tell them to go fuck themselves and not buy their tires.
It could be argued that BLM isn't endorsing a specific candidate. Yes, we all know it is, but you could make the argument. Also does anyone know the specific wording of the rule.
Rule 23a.
"No items endorsing a political candidate or party may be worn, for example "MAGA" attire."
or
Rule 23a
"No items may be worn with the MAGA logo or statement on them".
Phrasing matters.
Also they didn't call out Biden wear, they specified MAGA wear. Pretty obvious that car guys lean towards Trump so the HR tards needed to crack down on it. Like you said, though, they have plausible deniability.
Luckily, this isn't a court of law, so we can still tell them to go fuck themselves and not buy their tires.
I agree, but even if they didn’t pseudo-endorse the left, it is still political speech.
Same way that “support the 2nd amendment” shirts are still “political” even though it’s not directly an endorsement of the Republican Party.
This isn't a court of law and we all know what they are really saying.