'Duck Dynasty' Under Fire Following Star's Incendiary Anti-Gay Remarks

[Pogo]

Does Dow Chemical require its workers to sign a morals clause? Is it in the business of selling illusions?

I think not.

And btw employers have always had the right to hire and fire according to their needs.

 

[Pogo]

What is it with conservatives and their comprehensive ignorance of fundamental Constitutional principles.

This is not a ‘free speech’ issue; private citizens advocating for a boycott of a given private entity absent government involvement in no way ‘violates’ free speech. Only government can place restrictions on speech where appropriate and in accordance with First Amendment jurisprudence.

I disagree. It is a Free Speech issue. It's NOT a First Amendment issue.

Bullshit.
When you sign up for a TV show, you do so by their rules. You break those rules, they can fire you. He's free to speak anything he wants; what he's not free to do is have a job in violation of his contract.

 

[Iceman]

Does Dow Chemical require its workers to sign a morals clause? Is it in the business of selling illusions?

I think not.

And btw employers have always had the right to hire and fire according to their needs.

No, no morals clause. in my scenario. So would Dow Chemical have the right to fire him?

Are you saying if there wasn't a morals clause they shouldn't have been allowed to indefinitely suspend this duck dynasty guy?

 

[Pogo]

Does Dow Chemical require its workers to sign a morals clause? Is it in the business of selling illusions?

I think not.

And btw employers have always had the right to hire and fire according to their needs.

No, no morals clause. in my scenario. So would Dow Chemical have the right to fire him?

Are you saying if there wasn't a morals clause they shouldn't have been allowed to indefinitely suspend this duck dynasty guy?

I'm not sure; I'm not a lawyer. In the Robertson case the presumed morality clause clearly gives the Producer unlimited leeway to control his speech and actions. Without that -- not sure.

The EECO site sez:
>> Federal Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) Laws

I. What Are the Federal Laws Prohibiting Job Discrimination?

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), which prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin;
the Equal Pay Act of 1963 (EPA), which protects men and women who perform substantially equal work in the same establishment from sex-based wage discrimination;

the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), which protects individuals who are 40 years of age or older;

Title I and Title V of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, as amended (ADA), which prohibit employment discrimination against qualified individuals with disabilities in the private sector, and in state and local governments;

Sections 501 and 505 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, which prohibit discrimination against qualified individuals with disabilities who work in the federal government;
Title II of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 (GINA), which prohibits employment discrimination based on genetic information about an applicant, employee, or former employee; and

the Civil Rights Act of 1991, which, among other things, provides monetary damages in cases of intentional employment discrimination.

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) enforces all of these laws. EEOC also provides oversight and coordination of all federal equal employment opportunity regulations, practices, and policies.

Other federal laws, not enforced by EEOC, also prohibit discrimination and reprisal against federal employees and applicants. The Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 (CSRA) contains a number of prohibitions, known as prohibited personnel practices, which are designed to promote overall fairness in federal personnel actions. 5 U.S.C. 2302. The CSRA prohibits any employee who has authority to take certain personnel actions from discriminating for or against employees or applicants for employment on the bases of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, age or disability. It also provides that certain personnel actions can not be based on attributes or conduct that do not adversely affect employee performance, such as marital status and political affiliation. The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) has interpreted the prohibition of discrimination based on conduct to include discrimination based on sexual orientation. The CSRA also prohibits reprisal against federal employees or applicants for whistle-blowing, or for exercising an appeal, complaint, or grievance right. The CSRA is enforced by both the Office of Special Counsel (OSC) and the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB). << (source here)

It looks to me that the bolded part above would protect the Dow Chemical guy in his case, but not Robertson, based on the fact that the Dow guy's action doesn't affect his employer, while Robertson's does.

 

[Iceman]

You couldn't say for sure. Perhaps the employee held an account with a Christian client, losing them money and an account. Hell, if anything, sticking with Duck Dynasty after this would increase A&E's profits. Loss prevention cannot be the motive here, so you are saying it is ok to fire someone for their beliefs only if they cost you money?

Also, back to the morality clause. The gay lobby, and those of you here who support A&E, didn't support firing him because of him violating the morality clause. You support A&E because you believe he should be punished for his views, and found the morality clause after the fact.

Your position has been until now, that if an individual has offensive views, a company has the right to fire said individual.

 

[Iceman]

So ideally, you should support the right of Dow Chemical firing the individual I mentioned in the scenario.

 

[Pogo]

You couldn't say for sure. Perhaps the employee held an account with a Christian client, losing them money and an account. Hell, if anything, sticking with Duck Dynasty after this would increase A&E's profits. Loss prevention cannot be the motive here, so you are saying it is ok to fire someone for their beliefs only if they cost you money?

Also, back to the morality clause. The gay lobby, and those of you here who support A&E, didn't support firing him because of him violating the morality clause. You support A&E because you believe he should be punished for his views, and found the morality clause after the fact.

You don't EVER presume to tell me what I think, asswipe.

 

[Pogo]

So ideally, you should support the right of Dow Chemical firing the individual I mentioned in the scenario.

Wrong. Learn how to read.

 

[Iceman]

So you want him fired because he violated the morality clause? How could you of even known about this morality clause, we didn't know about this until after the duck dynasty guy were indefinitely suspended. So unless you worked at A&E as their lawyer, how could you even know about it?

So I am mistaken that the liberals' position here is that a private corporation has the right to fire an employee for offensive views? What is your position then?

 

[Iceman]

So ideally, you should support the right of Dow Chemical firing the individual I mentioned in the scenario.

Wrong. Learn how to read.

So then you don't think corporations should not have the right to fire individuals for their views?

So you oppose the duck dynasty guy getting fired?

 

[Pogo]

So you want him fired because he violated the morality clause? How could you of even known about this morality clause, we didn't know about this until after the duck dynasty guy were indefinitely suspended. So unless you worked at A&E as their lawyer, how could you even know about it?

Number one turdbreath, I've never said I 'want' anything. I and many others have simply explained how it works. I don't have a duck in this race; I don't watch either the show OR the channel. And number two, how would I know about it? Maybe because I worked in broadcasting for 25 years as well as on talent contracts, and it's a standard contract clause. And because it's come up before many times.

Now take your moronic self-righteous presumptuous narcissistic troll orgasm and cram it up your ass.

 

[Iceman]

So you want him fired because he violated the morality clause? How could you of even known about this morality clause, we didn't know about this until after the duck dynasty guy were indefinitely suspended. So unless you worked at A&E as their lawyer, how could you even know about it?

Number one turdbreath, I've never said I 'want' anything. I and many others have explained how it works. And number two, how would I know about it? Maybe because I worked in broadcasting for 25 years as well as on talent contracts, and it's a standard contract clause. And because it's come up before many times.

Now take your moronic self-righteous presumptuous narcissist troll orgasm and cram it up your ass.

So you think he should be fired for violating the morality clause, not because of his views on homosexuality?

Why are you so angry about a clause in a contract? Why does that get you so fired up?

I can't say I have heard anyone from your point of view on this subject. Glaad and the liberals I have heard on the net are angry with his views on homosexuality, and think he should be fired for them. They just used the morality clause to justify their position further. They didn't think in of itself violating the morality clause is bad.

 

[Politico]

How do you know what is 'normal'? Ten percent of the population is homosexual. Animals engage in same sex sexual activity. Prove, other than what your religion says, that homosexual behavior is not 'normal.' Empirically, with solid, indisputable, scientific evidence.

Seriously 60 pages is sad enough. But this is ridiculous. I hate to be crude but it seems to be the only way to call the trolls out. The purpose of sex is for procreation. That is it's function. That is normal. A guy dumping a load in another guy's ass is not. Like it or not that's reality. If you think it is then fine. But have the spine to say hey it ain't right but they have a right to do it.

I'm not a troll, you fucking jackass, but you are an idiot. You narrow minded, ignorant fools think there is only one way to see the world and that is your way. You've never opened or used your mind long enough to think about anything; never opened up and read a book long enough to learn anything outside your narrow little world.

Animals in the animal kingdom engage in same sex sexual activity. Ten percent of the human population is and always has been homosexual. How do you define normal? It is a subjective term. You and your ilk do not have the finite definition of normal, fool. You don't even realize that what you consider 'normal' or 'natural' is only what you consider it to be. You don't even realize that there are no absolutes, that the rest of the world does not have to adhere to your religious or personal perspective on what is right and what is wrong. You are an idiot for not even being able to understand that there are other perspectives of reality than your own.

I don't have a religious perspective derp. Wasted drivel.

 

[JoeB131]

It is interesting how liberals are now free market libertarians when it comes to allowing a corporation to fire or suspend it's workers for stating their religious/moral or political views.

So I will pose a scenario to them. Let's say there was an employee for a major corporation, like Dow Chemical. This individual happened to be an Atheist. He goes on facebook(outside his work environment mind you), and criticizes Christmas, saying God is not real and Jesus is a myth. Dow Chemical finds out and fires him. Are you saying Dow Chemical has the right to fire someone for criticizing a religion?

I think it would depend on how he was presenting himself and how public that was.

It would quite another thing if he presented that viewpoint on LinkedIn, which is a professional website, opposed to Facebook, which isn't. If she presented herself as "I'm an Employee of Dow Chemical and I think Jesus sucks," she probably would be in violation of company policies.

But at my current job, a lady was fired because she posted a resume on Craig's List and said that "The company was bought out and she didn't feel comfortable there", and she was promptly fired for it.

Now, personally, I think that this is what happens when you have "right to work", non-union, "At-Will" employment, where workers have no rights, you should expect this sort of ass-hattery.

 

[thanatos144]

How do you break a morality clause by being moral?

tapatalk post

 

[JoeB131]

How do you break a morality clause by being moral?

tapatalk post

Hating people isn't moral.

 

[ItsOnlyMe]

Would watching the show make his comments less offensive?

A lot of the people who screamed that Martin Bashir be fired didn't watch his show either. The same with the people who insisted that Alec Baldwin be fired from his show.

You can't insist those guys get fired and then say that this guy should get a pass.

So you're offended? Time to grow up and get over yourself. If you find this offensive, change the channel. It's not like there aren't plenty of trashy shows out there that would be less offensive to you.

Guy, I work three jobs, I don't have time to watch TV. And I probably need to cut down on the time I waste here.

But that wasn't the point I was making to Cave-man.

The point is, Robertson made comments that were offensive to most decent people, and used the bible to justify them.

A&E decided they didn't want to get involved in that shit. They were just making a fun series about rednecks who hunt ducks.

Oh so anybody who hunts ducks is a "redneck" - now THAT is offensive. For your information, the family's business is duck calls and other duck-hunting things duck hunters buy from them. People of all education levels hunt, ducks and otherwise. What in God's name they even aligned themselves with A&E in the first place is beyond me.

 

[kiwiman127]

Well as the far left has demonstrated that they believe that their programmed opinions/propaganda is "fact".

Once the far left learns that their programming is DNC propaganda then we all can move forward.

Hey now, both sides are guilty of this. People on both sides are being programmed by their parties to think one way or another.

True, but the far left seems to be the worst of the lot and far more dangerous and damaging.

I'd say that each side of the aisle has their moments. That's one of the reasons I come here. It's great entertainment!
One side screws up or shows intolerance and the other side jumps all over it to the point of serious exaggeration and that's usually where the humor comes in. In the end, both sides look stupid!

 

[ItsOnlyMe]

If everyone were fired for thinking or even saying anything against gays, we'd be at 95% unemployment. If I were in Phil's shoes, I'd make no more mention of this, and simply sever ties with A&E and move on to another network. or take my money and retire. Unfortunately all this does is once again fuel the idea that the poor gays are "victims" once again. I am sick of it. It plays right into the gays' hands. Once again they are center of attention. They are eating it up. And just because someone doesn't think being "gay" is normal, that doesn't mean we hate them or fear them (don't make me laugh!) or anything else. It is just not normal. Period.

How do you know what is 'normal'? Ten percent of the population is homosexual. Animals engage in same sex sexual activity. Prove, other than what your religion says, that homosexual behavior is not 'normal.' Empirically, with solid, indisputable, scientific evidence.

do 2 male ducks mate for life? do 2 male lions have sex to the exclusion of the females? It is not NATURE. And it is MY opinion. I"M not "relgious" necessarily either. It's my opinion, it's common sense. We are all entitled to our own opinions. Or are liberals the only ones whose opinion matter? If you don't LIKE my opinion that mating for life with teh same gender and a man putting his member in another man anus, TOUGH! Get over it. I couldn't care less. I don't NEED to provide proof. YOU provide "proof" to ME that animals of the same gender actually are having sex, and not some sort of dominant posturing crap. YOU are entitled to YOUR opinion and I to mine. But you liberals can't stand any opinion that isn't your. YOU the most intolerant!!

In fact, you like the way animals live? They eat their young, the males kill the babies to make the mother go in heat faster, the ones who aren't at the top of the food chain get killed and eaten. And so unlike you libs, they are self-reliant. If they don't hunt, they don't eat. They alone are responsible for themselves, not some "animal government." If one of them does see another same gender goings on, they are within their rights to stop it if they so desire. There is no political correctness in the animal world. They animals live under a creed that no liberal can grasp. You'd never make it as an animal. You can ACT like animals, but that's the extent of it.

 

[Wake]

This controversy cements my belief that those who preach tolerance are usually the most intolerant.