Freedom of Religious Opinion? Not If You're Phil Robertson

[JoeB131]

Edgey, I think you are a bit confused here.

The "Free Speech" crowd did fire Phil the Homophobe. The Left didn't. GLAAD didn't. GLAAD merely asked A&E if they stood behind him.

Phil the HOmophobe was fired by a big corporation that simply didn't want the controversy of having him on TV, because other big corporations that buy air time didn't want their products associated with him.

And usually, when a big corporation moves a factory to China or busts up a union or fires an employee because he runs up too many medical bills, you guys are all for it, and if someone objects, you start screaming about "Freedom", because Freedom is the ability of those with money to abuse those without it.

So really, aren't you for the "Freedom" of A&E to make a business decision with their property?

Oliver Wendell Holmes.

Think about it

So you don't have an answer to that?

I mean, you guys scream freedom all day when it's rich people fucking working folks, but man, they fuck over a Christian homophobe, and you guys just go whacky.

 

[Katzndogz]

Edgey, I think you are a bit confused here.

The "Free Speech" crowd did fire Phil the Homophobe. The Left didn't. GLAAD didn't. GLAAD merely asked A&E if they stood behind him.

Phil the HOmophobe was fired by a big corporation that simply didn't want the controversy of having him on TV, because other big corporations that buy air time didn't want their products associated with him.

And usually, when a big corporation moves a factory to China or busts up a union or fires an employee because he runs up too many medical bills, you guys are all for it, and if someone objects, you start screaming about "Freedom", because Freedom is the ability of those with money to abuse those without it.

So really, aren't you for the "Freedom" of A&E to make a business decision with their property?

Which corporations would those be who buy air time and didn't want their products associated with him? Please name them, we're all interested.

The two major sponsors, Skyjacker and Under Armor said that they are prepared to pull all NETWORK advertising if the suspension is allowed to stand. This somewhat more serious than pulling advertising from a single show.

We all know what happened to Cracker Barrel, so it's really curious at to which companies YOU think buy air time and don't want their products associated with Phil Robertson.

 

[JoeB131]

Edgey, I think you are a bit confused here.

The "Free Speech" crowd did fire Phil the Homophobe. The Left didn't. GLAAD didn't. GLAAD merely asked A&E if they stood behind him.

Phil the HOmophobe was fired by a big corporation that simply didn't want the controversy of having him on TV, because other big corporations that buy air time didn't want their products associated with him.

And usually, when a big corporation moves a factory to China or busts up a union or fires an employee because he runs up too many medical bills, you guys are all for it, and if someone objects, you start screaming about "Freedom", because Freedom is the ability of those with money to abuse those without it.

So really, aren't you for the "Freedom" of A&E to make a business decision with their property?

Which corporations would those be who buy air time and didn't want their products associated with him? Please name them, we're all interested.

The two major sponsors, Skyjacker and Under Armor said that they are prepared to pull all NETWORK advertising if the suspension is allowed to stand. This somewhat more serious than pulling advertising from a single show.

We all know what happened to Cracker Barrel, so it's really curious at to which companies YOU think buy air time and don't want their products associated with Phil Robertson.

Guy, please don't think you homophobes are going to win this one in the long run.

The last thing A&E wants is to become the Bigotry channel.

 

[Sunshine]

I wonder why liberals, who get all bent out of shape over the Christian religion thinking homosexuality is wrong, don't get bent of shape over muslims holding women to be second class citizens. That is a puzzlement. They want to rewrite Christianity to suit them, but they won't touch a vile and sexist religion.

 

[Sunshine]

And I wonder what liberals want deleted from Buddhism, or Hinduism.

 

[The T]

And I wonder what liberals want deleted from Buddhism, or Hinduism.

Or Islam? Yeah, I said it.

 

[RKMBrown]

Amazing the ignorance of the 1st Amendment here.

I think you are missing the point, entirely.

The issue is not the first amendment. The issue is civil rights. An employer can't discriminate based on religion.

 

[Sunshine]

Edgey, I think you are a bit confused here.

The "Free Speech" crowd did fire Phil the Homophobe. The Left didn't. GLAAD didn't. GLAAD merely asked A&E if they stood behind him.

Phil the HOmophobe was fired by a big corporation that simply didn't want the controversy of having him on TV, because other big corporations that buy air time didn't want their products associated with him.

And usually, when a big corporation moves a factory to China or busts up a union or fires an employee because he runs up too many medical bills, you guys are all for it, and if someone objects, you start screaming about "Freedom", because Freedom is the ability of those with money to abuse those without it.

So really, aren't you for the "Freedom" of A&E to make a business decision with their property?

Which corporations would those be who buy air time and didn't want their products associated with him? Please name them, we're all interested.

The two major sponsors, Skyjacker and Under Armor said that they are prepared to pull all NETWORK advertising if the suspension is allowed to stand. This somewhat more serious than pulling advertising from a single show.

We all know what happened to Cracker Barrel, so it's really curious at to which companies YOU think buy air time and don't want their products associated with Phil Robertson.

There are and will be none who sell commercial products to distance themselves from him. The majority of people who spend money on commercial products in the US are Christians:

The majority of Americans (73–80%) identify themselves as Christians

Religion in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Only 3.8% of Americans are homosexuals.

According to a Williams Institute review conducted in April 2011, approximately 3.8% of American adults identify themselves either as lesbian or gay

LGBT demographics of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It is clear who has the greater purchasing power. Products are marketed according to demographics. Commercial products are not going to kick a network to the curb over a few gheys.

 

[koshergrl]

You cannot fire a person for voicing his faith in answer to a question...particularly if you HIRED him knowing he held those views.

 

[The T]

Amazing the ignorance of the 1st Amendment here.

I think you are missing the point, entirely.

The issue is not the first amendment. The issue is civil rights. An employer can't discriminate based on religion.

Or anything else. As to Civil rights? (IN the 1960's sense)? Is GAY a race of humans we don't know of yet? One that hasn't been classified by the all-knowing scientists that WE conservatives are accused of shunning? It is a choice...and I defy anyone to tell me what 'RIGHT' gays don't have apart from any other citizen.

Sexuality belongs in the closet, period. I don't want to know ANY human's sexual proclivities. What we are talking here is forced acceptance, and that in of itself is just plain wrong. Using the power of government to force the issue is even worse.

 

[Pogo]

You cannot fire a person for voicing his faith in answer to a question...particularly if you HIRED him knowing he held those views.

This time you actually are correct.

-- which is why this was never a case of religious discrimination. PR's religion never changed.
Interesting that Brownie thanks this post even though it contradicts his own...

 

[RKMBrown]

You cannot fire a person for voicing his faith in answer to a question...particularly if you HIRED him knowing he held those views.

This time you actually are correct.

-- which is why this was never a case of religious discrimination. PR's religion never changed.
Interesting that Brownie thanks this post even though it contradicts his own...

Huh?

 

[Pogo]

I lived through the 60s.

As an adult.

I watched it, I marveled at the New Age Radicals demanding Free Speech and I even (almost) respected the guys, and a few numbskull females, that had the word "FUCK" tattooed on their foreheads.

Grace Slick, Janis, Jimi, the SDS, Bill Ayers' group the Weathermen, Joni Mitchell, Judy Collins, all the protest songs, all the preaching and asking and begging and demanding Free Speech.

Because, the truth is, during the "Red Scare" Free Speech took a beating. Hollywood got scared, J Edgar was running rough-shod over anybody and everybody he didn't like and McCarthyism was fresh in everybody's minds.

I was there. I was in Boston as an adult listening to, talking to and observing the shakers and movers involved in it.

All this bullshit about "can" A&E fire Phil R is just that -- Bullshit.

For the purposes of this post, I'll concede they can. But that's not the question we need answered

The real question is "SHOULD" A&E have fired Phil R.

Before you answer that, think about this.....

Know what happened to the Free Speech crowd of the 60s?

They came to power.

Now that they have power, they don't seem to be all that interested in 'Free Speech' anymore, huh?

Funny how that works....

Yeah, even funnier how you made yourself scarce when your previous position was challenged and now you're all like "we were always at war with Eastasia" and the previous question never was the question.

 

[Sunshine]

And I wonder what liberals want deleted from Buddhism, or Hinduism.

Or Islam? Yeah, I said it.

I think I said it somewhere. I dared not repeat it the way things are going today.

 

[Sunshine]

You cannot fire a person for voicing his faith in answer to a question...particularly if you HIRED him knowing he held those views.

They skirted the 'firing' issue because they didn't fire him. They suspended him. However, if done for religious reasons, they still can have a huge problem over it.

 

[Sunshine]

You cannot fire a person for voicing his faith in answer to a question...particularly if you HIRED him knowing he held those views.

This time you actually are correct.

-- which is why this was never a case of religious discrimination. PR's religion never changed.
Interesting that Brownie thanks this post even though it contradicts his own...

His religion doesn't have to change for it to be discrimination.

 

[The T]

And I wonder what liberals want deleted from Buddhism, or Hinduism.

Or Islam? Yeah, I said it.

I think I said it somewhere. I dared not repeat it the way things are going today.

That's OK. I'll take the heat for it.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Amazing the ignorance of the 1st Amendment here.

I think you are missing the point, entirely.

The issue is not the first amendment. The issue is civil rights. An employer can't discriminate based on religion.

Neither is the issue, as there is no "discrimination," based on religion or anything else.

 

[Sunshine]

Amazing the ignorance of the 1st Amendment here.

I think you are missing the point, entirely.

The issue is not the first amendment. The issue is civil rights. An employer can't discriminate based on religion.

Neither is the issue, as there is no "discrimination," based on religion or anything else.

So what WAS his suspension based on?

 

[koshergrl]

Yes, there is. If they fired him for answering questions about his faith....the faith that is a cornerstone of his shows and his books and which they have been perfectly aware of all along...then that is discrimination.

But they didn't fire him. Because they know that they would be in deep doo doo if they did.