Cincinnati barbecue spot Lucius Q reels after co-owner Aaron Sharpe’s ‘Charlie Kirk assassination’ post; owner ousted amid boycott calls
Lucius Q BBQ in Cincinnati faced rapid backlash after co-owner Aaron Sharpe posted a deleted Facebook comment celebrating Charlie Kirk’s assassination, prompting his removal from ownership, widespread boycott calls and contract cancellations as the restaurant scrambled to repair reputational damage.
Key takeaways
- Incident: Co-owner Aaron Sharpe posted a deleted Facebook reply that included “good riddance” and called Charlie Kirk “a piece of s–t,” screenshots spread widely online.
- Immediate fallout: Lucius Q apologized, severed ties with Sharpe and removed him from ownership as boycott calls and contract cancellations followed.
- Business impact: Partners reviewed or canceled contracts; local boycott efforts and returned orders affected reputation and revenue.
- Reporting: Coverage drawn from Local12, Fox News and the Economic Times.
What happened, and how it spread
Patrons and the public first learned about the episode when screenshots of a Facebook comment by Aaron Sharpe circulated online. In reply to a post offering prayers for Charlie Kirk’s family after Kirk was fatally shot at a speaking event, Sharpe wrote words that included “good riddance” and called Kirk “a piece of s–t.” The comment was deleted quickly, but not before images were shared widely on social media.
Local reporting and national outlets tracked the spread; see reporting from Local12 and Fox News.
Sharpe’s response and reaction
Sharpe later posted additional comments online, saying he would not be silenced and doubling down on his criticism of Kirk and former President Donald Trump — remarks that further intensified public reaction and broadened calls for businesses and customers to cut ties with Lucius Q.
Impact: The follow-up posts transformed a deleted reply into a sustained public-relations crisis, drawing national attention to a local business.
Restaurant response and leadership change
Lucius Q issued a public apology stating Sharpe’s comments did not reflect the values of the restaurant’s ownership, staff or investors, noted the business does not condone violence, and apologized to Kirk’s family. On Sept. 11 the restaurant announced it had severed ties with Sharpe and that he was no longer listed as an owner.
The move aimed to stabilize relationships with the Cincinnati community and signal that the brand would repair reputational harm (Local12; Economic Times).
Contract cancellations and business fallout
The controversy prompted business partners to distance themselves. Reported contract cancellations included work with logistics partner TQL, among others, producing immediate operational and financial implications for a popular local eatery that relies on partnerships for events and distribution.
Locally, social media users called for boycotts, posted images claiming returned orders and canceled bookings. Some customers continued to visit, leaving the exact scope of revenue loss unclear as the fallout unfolded (Economic Times; Fox News).
Social media and personal consequences
Sharpe’s Facebook account was reported deactivated by the Friday following the incident, removing the post and his public profile from view. The episode underscores how quickly a single comment can move from a private reply to a full-scale business crisis.
Takeaway: Owners’ personal speech on platforms can become a business liability, particularly when comments touch on violence or public safety — and partners are increasingly sensitive to statements made by brand representatives.
Legal and investigative status
As of the latest reporting, there are no public indications of a criminal probe into Lucius Q itself. Law enforcement attention is focused on the confirmed killing of Charlie Kirk and the arrest of a suspect; those matters are separate from the restaurant’s internal actions (Local12; Economic Times).
Wider context: public figures, partisan divides and business accountability
The incident sits amid national debates over speech, accountability and political violence. Public outrage here was driven both by the content of Sharpe’s comment and by the timing — soon after a public figure was killed while speaking. Business responses — cutting ties or enforcing ownership changes — reflect growing pressure on companies to act quickly when a representative’s words clash with community norms.
Local brands can be drawn into national partisan conflicts, meaning a Cincinnati incident can quickly reach a national audience and magnify pressure on partners and investors (Fox News).
Implications for Sonoma, California
Although the episode occurred in Cincinnati, Sonoma-area businesses should note several clear lessons:
- Reputation risk: Tourism-dependent restaurants risk rapid loss of bookings and contracts after a social media backlash.
- Policy and preparedness: Review social media policies, crisis communications plans and ownership conduct standards to enable quick, clear responses.
- Partner sensitivity: Wineries, event planners and vendors may cancel contracts quickly; reputation clauses and rapid-response provisions are prudent.
- Community cohesion: Sonoma’s mixed political landscape means public comments about national figures can divide customers and staff; training and clear community standards can help mitigate harm.
Sources and reporting
This article draws on reporting from Local12, Fox News and the Economic Times.
