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

[Sunshine]

"Meanwhile, as A&E has learned during the past few days, if it didn’t know it already, a vocal chunk of the show’s audience subscribes to Robertson’s views on the Bible, Christianity, and homosexuality."

'Duck Dynasty' Debacle Has TV Industry Abuzz As A&E Charts New Territory - Deadline.com

A&E just needs to be glad they offended the Christians and not the muslims.

In the case of homosexuality, how it is dealt with differs between the four mainline schools of Sunni jurisprudence today, but what they all agree upon is that homosexuality is worthy of a severe penalty.

In the Hanafi school of thought, the homosexual is first punished through harsh beating, and if he/she repeats the act, the death penalty is to be applied.

As for the Shafi`i school of thought, the homosexual receives the same punishment as adultery (if he/she is married) or fornication (if not married). This means, that if the homosexual is married, he/she is stoned to death, while if single, he/she is whipped 100 times. Hence, the Shafi`i compares the punishment applied in the case of homosexuality with that of adultery and fornication.

The Hanafi differentiates between the two acts because in homosexuality, anal sex [something that is prohibited, regardless of orientation] may also be involved, while in adultery [and fornication], the penis/vagina (which are reproductive parts) are involved.

Some scholars, based on the Qur'an and various ahadith, hold the opinion that the homosexual should be thrown from a high building or stoned to death[1] as a punishment for their crime, but other scholars maintain that they should be imprisoned until death. [2]

Another view is that between two males, the active partner is to be lashed a hundred times if he is unmarried, and killed if he is married; whereas the passive partner is to be killed regardless of his marital status.[3]

Islam and Homosexuality - WikiIslam

They would REALLY be into some deep shit if they had done that.

 

[koshergrl]

So true, hahahahaha!

 

[JoeB131]

Redneck, hillbilly, fundie, Bible thumper, cracker, split tails, geezer, and homophobe are not words of tolerance.​

NO, but they are accurate descriptions of the dumber end of white America.

The kind that cling to their guns and their bibles as they watch their middle class lifestyle taken away from them.

You see, here's the thing. I used to work with this hispanic girl who was a lesbian. And you know what, she was in the same boat I was in. Just trying to make ends meet and get by and do all the little things you do in life.

The problem with the rednecks, Bible thumpers and homophobes is that they've been tricked into thinking that the guys in the silk suits and corner offices who are constantly plotting ways to suck the last dollar out of them are really on the same side they are on.

 

[JoeB131]

People don't tune into the show to laugh. That's the most laughable lie out there, perpetuated by the extremist, anti-Christian, anti-American leftists who apparently still think they're the majority.

Wait a minute, who won the last two presidential elections again?

 

[Mac1958]

Redneck, hillbilly, fundie, Bible thumper, cracker, split tails, geezer, and homophobe are not words of tolerance.​

NO, but they are accurate descriptions of the dumber end of white America.

.

Yikes.

Wow.

I guess I just don't have words...

.

 

[koshergrl]

They're wasted on joeb anyway. The guy is a piece of shit.

 

[koshergrl]

Redneck, hillbilly, fundie, Bible thumper, cracker, split tails, geezer, and homophobe are not words of tolerance.​

NO, but they are accurate descriptions of the dumber end of white America.

The kind that cling to their guns and their bibles as they watch their middle class lifestyle taken away from them.

You see, here's the thing. I used to work with this hispanic girl who was a lesbian. And you know what, she was in the same boat I was in. Just trying to make ends meet and get by and do all the little things you do in life.

The problem with the rednecks, Bible thumpers and homophobes is that they've been tricked into thinking that the guys in the silk suits and corner offices who are constantly plotting ways to suck the last dollar out of them are really on the same side they are on.

"Instead of acknowledging this tension, however, A&E, GLAAD, and their supporters have responded with disingenuous expressions of shock and horror. And it matters that it’s disingenuous, because if they actually acknowledged that there is a genuine conflict between orthodox Christianity and homosexual sex (along with several forms of heterosexual sex) they would have to confront head-on the fact that calling for a boycott or pressuring for Robertson’s suspension tells orthodox Christians that their religion is no longer acceptable, and that’s not a very politically correct thing to do. Right now, they are trying to weasel out of it by characterizing Robertson as a backwoods bigot who takes his moral cues from Deliverance rather than from a straightforward reading of the Bible and the historic teachings of the Christian religion…

"The message A&E’s decision sends is that the network will not tolerate someone who conscientiously objects to homosexuality on religious grounds. The implication of that message is that 45 percent of Americans should, in principle, be prepared either to sacrifice their jobs or recant their beliefs and endorse a lifestyle to which they are opposed, conscience be damned. To the extent that we embrace that implication, in television and in other American industries, we’re also embracing an identity as a nation that forces conformity while calling it tolerance."

Quotes of the day « Hot Air

We know who the bigots are, and it's not the Robertsons, or the huge number of people who identify with them.

It's weirdoes like joeb.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Redneck, hillbilly, fundie, Bible thumper, cracker, split tails, geezer, and homophobe are not words of tolerance.​

I have never met a redneck who didn't wear that label proudly!

 

[Jarlaxle]

Redneck, hillbilly, fundie, Bible thumper, cracker, split tails, geezer, and homophobe are not words of tolerance.​

NO, but they are accurate descriptions of the dumber end of white America.

The kind that cling to their guns and their bibles as they watch their middle class lifestyle taken away from them.

You see, here's the thing. I used to work with this hispanic girl who was a lesbian. And you know what, she was in the same boat I was in. Just trying to make ends meet and get by and do all the little things you do in life.

The problem with the rednecks, Bible thumpers and homophobes is that they've been tricked into thinking that the guys in the silk suits and corner offices who are constantly plotting ways to suck the last dollar out of them are really on the same side they are on.

Yeah...the Robertsons are such "dumb rednecks" that they have run a successful business for decades and made millions! Dude...envy is an ugly thing!

 

[Katzndogz]

GLAAD got real quiet all of a sudden haven't they? They shut up when Cracker Barrel realized that gays aren't really the majority after all.

They aren't going after Teleflora and the Robertson boquet complete with a CD of Christmas music.

Maybe there's another bakery they can terrorize.

 

[Gadawg73]

"religion"
That means they can not fire or discipline him for being a Baptist.
There are NO free speech protections in this that YOU posted that protects the free speech of an employee from the employer trying to limit them.
NONE.
Again, real slow for y o u:

The First Amendment and ALL the laws of this land ON FREE SPEECH, protects you, me, Phil Robertson, EVERYONE from the government limiting your speech, NOT YOUR EMPLOYER OR ANYONE ELSE, religious or otherwise.

That is THE LAW, religious SPEECH is not protected free speech UNLESS the government tries to limit it.
An employer CAN LEGALLY try to limit your, my, Robertson's OR ANYONE'S speech and that is NOT against any law be it religious speech or any speech.
YOU and NO ONE has ANY legal remedies against your EMPLOYER attempting to limit your speech be it religious or any other speech.

No matter how hard you spin it that is THE LAW.

If the employer is open for business to he public, they are subject to the same 'public policies' that the government is subject to. They cannot discriminate, based on color, age, religion, or nationality.

I have to agree with Sunshine on this one. They essentially suspended him because of his religion. His personal comments had nothing to do with A&E. Though I doubt he would sue them, I'm pretty sure what A&E did to him is against said civil rights law.

They suspended him because of his SPEECH, be it religious or not.
And speech is not protected be it religious or not.
That is the LAW. "pretty sure"? Sorry, you are dead wrong.
NO ONE stopped him from PRACTICING his religion and speech is not covered under that UNLESS it is the GOVERNMENT limiting it.
He has no civil rights case. No offense but you have no clue on that either as SPEECH is not part of that unless GOVERNMENT is the one limiting it.
Never an employer.

He has not legal standing of any sort.
Please point to the law or case law or ANY law that supports your claim that SPEECH of any form or kind, religious or not, is exempt from The First Amendment of The United States Constitution.
He has no legal remedies under this.
I will repeat if again for you real slow again for the 20th time now.
This is THE LAW and NO exceptions:
The 1st Amendment protects you, everyone and Phil Robertson included, from THE GOVERNMENT ONLY limiting your speech, NOT YOUR EMPLPOYER.

You can run from that FACT and hundreds of years of case law all you want to but at the end of the day you are DEAD WRONG.
That is the law. You may not like it but that is it. Sorry.
It is said that most people do not understand what the 1st Amendment protects and you are another example of that.

 

[Gadawg73]

Troubling the ignorance here of the basics of the Constitution. Is this the norm in America these days?
We are living in a dumbed down society.

 

[OODA_Loop]

Tonight I thank Baby Jesus for Gadawg73's constitutional law briefs.

 

[Gadawg73]

I am about as redneck as they come. A & E has not labeled them as rednecks.
Slant, spin and distortions because you all know what they did was LEGAL.
I have no problem with what he said as A & E KNEW FULL WELL WHO HE WAS AND WHAT HE BELIEVED IN when they hired him.
Amazing that folks would believe that when a company decides to discipline an employee for whatever reason they claim that is a "civil rights violation".
Laughable. NO ONE has a right to unlimited free speech with no implications in the PRIVATE sector.
Incredible, this is a no brainer for those that have read the Constitution.

 

[hunarcy]

I have never met a redneck who didn't wear that label proudly!

To me, the funniest thing is how the Left wants to vilify "Rednecks" when they have always been supporters of the Democratic Party.

In the beginning, the term meant farmers having a red neck caused by sunburn from hours working in the fields. These people typically supported the Democratic Party as the party of the common man. By 1900, "rednecks" was in common use to designate the political factions inside the Democratic Party comprising poor white farmers in the South. THEN, the United Mine Workers of America appropriated both the term redneck and its literal manifestation, the red bandana, in order to build multiracial unions of white, black, and immigrant miners in the strike-ridden coalfields of northern and central Appalachia between 1912 and 1936.

Of course, being elitists, the Democrats have now turned their backs on these poor folks and now paint them as uneducated, crass and bigoted people. Of course some might say that would still make them typical Democrats, but that's not nice!

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"religion"
That means they can not fire or discipline him for being a Baptist.
There are NO free speech protections in this that YOU posted that protects the free speech of an employee from the employer trying to limit them.
NONE.
Again, real slow for y o u:

The First Amendment and ALL the laws of this land ON FREE SPEECH, protects you, me, Phil Robertson, EVERYONE from the government limiting your speech, NOT YOUR EMPLOYER OR ANYONE ELSE, religious or otherwise.

That is THE LAW, religious SPEECH is not protected free speech UNLESS the government tries to limit it.
An employer CAN LEGALLY try to limit your, my, Robertson's OR ANYONE'S speech and that is NOT against any law be it religious speech or any speech.
YOU and NO ONE has ANY legal remedies against your EMPLOYER attempting to limit your speech be it religious or any other speech.

No matter how hard you spin it that is THE LAW.

If the employer is open for business to he public, they are subject to the same 'public policies' that the government is subject to. They cannot discriminate, based on color, age, religion, or nationality.

I have to agree with Sunshine on this one. They essentially suspended him because of his religion. His personal comments had nothing to do with A&E. Though I doubt he would sue them, I'm pretty sure what A&E did to him is against said civil rights law.

Then you’re as ignorant and as wrong as she.

 

[Gadawg73]

"religion"
That means they can not fire or discipline him for being a Baptist.
There are NO free speech protections in this that YOU posted that protects the free speech of an employee from the employer trying to limit them.
NONE.
Again, real slow for y o u:

The First Amendment and ALL the laws of this land ON FREE SPEECH, protects you, me, Phil Robertson, EVERYONE from the government limiting your speech, NOT YOUR EMPLOYER OR ANYONE ELSE, religious or otherwise.

That is THE LAW, religious SPEECH is not protected free speech UNLESS the government tries to limit it.
An employer CAN LEGALLY try to limit your, my, Robertson's OR ANYONE'S speech and that is NOT against any law be it religious speech or any speech.
YOU and NO ONE has ANY legal remedies against your EMPLOYER attempting to limit your speech be it religious or any other speech.

No matter how hard you spin it that is THE LAW.

If the employer is open for business to he public, they are subject to the same 'public policies' that the government is subject to. They cannot discriminate, based on color, age, religion, or nationality.

I have to agree with Sunshine on this one. They essentially suspended him because of his religion. His personal comments had nothing to do with A&E. Though I doubt he would sue them, I'm pretty sure what A&E did to him is against said civil rights law.

Let me appeal to your reason and common sense which I believe you have both:

My church preaches that it is a sin for interracial marriage. I am the head of the sales division of the local car dealer. I stand up in my church and proclaim that it is a sin and those that marry another race are going to hell.
My employer fires me on the spot for it.
Are you claiming that this is a civil rights case?
SPEECH is not religion, religion is BELIEFS under the Constitution. You have freedom of religion, NOT freedom of speech in the public sector.
You CAN SAY WHAT YOU WANT but you have to suffer the consequences of that speech as ONLY the government is limited under all laws from limiting your speech.
NEVER your employer.
A suspension for speech is NEVER an actionable civil rights violation under the Constitution.
So tell us if I preach that interracial marriage is a sin and those that do it go to hell under what legal theory of law has it that my employer has violated my civil rights if they fire me?
It is not under free speech and it is not under civil rights violations so what is it?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Troubling the ignorance here of the basics of the Constitution. Is this the norm in America these days?
We are living in a dumbed down society.

What’s just as troubling, if not more so, is the many who elect to remain willfully ignorant, after having been told numerous times, and having had it documented for them numerous times, that the Bill of Rights does not apply to private entities, that only public sector entities are subject to Constitutional restrictions, and that one private entity cannot ‘violate’ the rights of freedom of speech and religion of another private entity.

Clearly they adhere to this wrongheaded nonsense as a consequence of being partisan demagogues.

 

[Gadawg73]

Troubling the ignorance here of the basics of the Constitution. Is this the norm in America these days?
We are living in a dumbed down society.

What’s just as troubling, if not more so, is the many who elect to remain willfully ignorant, after having been told numerous times, and having had it documented for them numerous times, that the Bill of Rights does not apply to private entities, that only public sector entities are subject to Constitutional restrictions, and that one private entity cannot ‘violate’ the rights of freedom of speech and religion of another private entity.

Clearly they adhere to this wrongheaded nonsense as a consequence of being partisan demagogues.

They have their blinders on. The foundation of ALL THE LAWS in this nation are based on what GOVERNMENT CAN NOT DO and grants freedoms to the private sector, ESPECIALLY in speech.
A & E's actions are considered the same as SPEECH as they have the same rights to do what they want to same as Robertson has the right to say what he wants to.
And NO ONE stopped Robertson from saying anything!
That is what amazes me how stupid these folks here are. NO ONE stopped Robertson and NO ONE can stop Robertson from saying EVERYTHING AND ANYTHING he wants to.
And they claim they violated his civil rights? Laughable. NO ONE HAS STOPPED HIM FROM DOING ANYTHING!!!!

 

[orogenicman]

so why is anal sex your preferred choice of sexual relations ? ? ? ? ?

Never tried it. Not into dudes, and never met a chick who wanted to do that.

But here's the thing. 38% of straight couples HAVE tried anal sex. 99% of straight couples have engaged fellatio and cunnilingus. So as much as you all think those things are icky...

What you really have a problem with is people of the same sex doing them.

Not so sure about that Joe. Seems to me that the biggest haters of gay people are those "straight" people that are actually attracted to the same sex. And they use their hatred to convince themselves that they don't REALLY want to have sex with someone of the same sex.

They actually HATE themselves for the way they feel much more than they hate the gay people.

Right edge? You hates you some gay people. Right? Wildman, want to comment?

So you are saying that Phil is a closet gay? Rut-roh.