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

[LoneLaugher]

You are killin' it here, TK! Slaying libs one after the other! Rock on!

 

[Pheonixops]

Gee, is that what GLAAD was thinking when they bullied A&E into suspending Phil Robertson? Hmm?

What are you gonna do, throw a tantrum because you have been thoroughly debunked in every way in this thread? Were you not the one who tried to initially derail my thread?

Grow up.

GLAAD has every right to speak out against Duckman, that's their First Amendment right.

And Robertson has every right to say what he said, that's his First Amendment right. His contract with A&E notwithstanding. Typical liberal you are, selectively applying the Constitution when it suits you. Pathetic.

Hey jerk off, did you even read my first post?

 

[TemplarKormac]

So who really has nothing Templar?
You can't even post "substantial" facts.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I've been posting facts and logic all this time, you've been taunting me and trying to insert racial issues into a completely irrelevant thread.

And I have nothing? I'm getting sick of your shit, woman.

 

[Luissa]

Gee, is that what GLAAD was thinking when they bullied A&E into suspending Phil Robertson? Hmm?



What are you gonna do, throw a tantrum because you have been thoroughly debunked in every way in this thread? Were you not the one who tried to initially derail my thread?



Grow up.

GLAAD has every right to speak out against Duckman, that's their First Amendment right.

And Robertson has every right to say what he said, that's his First Amendment right. His contract with A&E notwithstanding. Typical liberal you are, selectively applying the Constitution when it suits you. Pathetic.

Who is saying he doesn't have the right?
Your problem is, you don't get that A&E has every right to suspend him.
A&E is owned by Hearst and Disney, you don't think they had a team of lawyers who actually know what they are talking about that figured out the legality before suspending him?



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Katzndogz]

The whole Robertson clan may just have had it with A&E. They will negotiate an out and move to another network.

 

[Pheonixops]

Gee, is that what GLAAD was thinking when they bullied A&E into suspending Phil Robertson? Hmm?

What are you gonna do, throw a tantrum because you have been thoroughly debunked in every way in this thread? Were you not the one who tried to initially derail my thread?

Grow up.

GLAAD has every right to speak out against Duckman, that's their First Amendment right.

And Robertson has every right to say what he said, that's his First Amendment right. His contract with A&E notwithstanding. Typical liberal you are, selectively applying the Constitution when it suits you. Pathetic.

LOL, it is PATHETIC that you made such an IGNORANT assertion (aka LIE)!!!

LOL, too funny! I don't watch Duck Dynasty; I disagree with his statement regarding the sentiments of the Black people he allegedly dealt with, and I disagree with his sentiments regarding homosexuality. I also disagree with his suspension from the show.

Martin Bashir was pretty much forced to resign from his show because of the remarks he made, I disagree with their decision as well. A&E is not a government entity, they are a privately owned business as far as I know and if they don't like his statements, it is their right to be able to do what they are doing now. Aren't supportive of business? Do you not think that a private entity should be able to suspend or fire a person who represents them if they don't like what they are representing?

Aren't you in favor of people and groups like GLAAD being able to use their First Amendment rights to speak out against what Robertson said? I'm pretty sure that you may have been in favor of some of the conservatives speaking out against Bashir and what he said, right?

Thanks for the laugh!

 

[TemplarKormac]

GLAAD has every right to speak out against Duckman, that's their First Amendment right.

And Robertson has every right to say what he said, that's his First Amendment right. His contract with A&E notwithstanding. Typical liberal you are, selectively applying the Constitution when it suits you. Pathetic.

Hey jerk off, did you even read my first post?

Uh yeah, and you contradicted yourself. You were defending Robertson, now you're defending GLAAD. In fact in that very post you were defending GLAAD. Where does your heart truly lie, my schizoid friend? Thanks for the laugh, my conflicted counterpart!

 

[Luissa]

So who really has nothing Templar?

You can't even post "substantial" facts.





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I've been posting facts and logic all this time, you've been taunting me and trying to insert racial issues into a completely irrelevant thread.



And I have nothing? I'm getting sick of your shit, woman.

So by that comment, I take it you didn't bother to look up all of his comments from GQ.
And I am getting sick of morons like you acting like you understand what free speech actually means. And the fact you can't understand A&E has the right to suspend him. There is no logic at all in your posts.
Like I said, you can't handle opposing view points. And when you are proven wrong you cry like a baby.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Luissa]

You are killin' it here, TK! Slaying libs one after the other! Rock on!

At least in his mind he is, that is all that matters.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[LoneLaugher]

You are killin' it here, TK! Slaying libs one after the other! Rock on!

At least in his mind he is, that is all that matters.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Different league, remember.

 

[TemplarKormac]

GLAAD has every right to speak out against Duckman, that's their First Amendment right.

And Robertson has every right to say what he said, that's his First Amendment right. His contract with A&E notwithstanding. Typical liberal you are, selectively applying the Constitution when it suits you. Pathetic.

Who is saying he doesn't have the right?
Your problem is, you don't get that A&E has every right to suspend him.
A&E is owned by Hearst and Disney, you don't think they had a team of lawyers who actually know what they are talking about that figured out the legality before suspending him?



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

As far as I know, Luissa, when can they regulate his speech when he isn't on the show? Hmm?

 

[Pogo]

I know some of you watch Duck Dynasty and probably heard that Phil Robertson was suspended by A&E for his opinion on homosexuality. He had the gall to quote 1 Corinthians 6:9 and express himself openly about his opposition to gay marriage. Groups like GLAAD came out in support of the suspension. Don't you find it odd that people like Martin Bashir get a pass for their intolerance toward conservative women, but people like Phil Robertson are being targeted for their beliefs?

Should TV Networks silence religious speech for the political sensibilities of others? As most of you were aware, Chick-Fil-A came under similar scrutiny by gay rights organizations for its views on homosexuality last year. The response from the public was overwhelming, as the restaurant experienced booming profits from the ordeal. Suffice it to say, ratings for the show may experience similar results.

Should Phil Robertson be suspended for his comments in GQ? Or should he be allowed to express himself as he is allowed to by the the First Amendment? My personal opinion here is that no TV network should be allowed to censor a man for expressing his religious beliefs.

There have been many instances of people or businesses being targeted for their religious beliefs, all for being "intolerant." Isn't it strange that you can be allowed to be homosexual, but not a person of faith? The real intolerance here, is of those who cannot accept that others aren't forced to tolerate their way of life or their practices. If you are any freedom loving American; Democrat, Republican or Libertarian, you should be disturbed by this recent turn of events.

A TV network is a private business. It can "silence" who it wants. Actually it's not "silencing" anyone if it's simply suspending one of its actors from its own airwaves. That's simply removing whatever visibility that network gave him in the first place. Doesn't affect anything that actor says or does elsewhere. They hired him for the show, that means they can dictate what his role is or is not. But a TV network is not the government, so as described this has nothing to do with the First Amendment. And I'm pretty sure the Constitution doesn't grant citizens the right to be on a TV show.

This is basically (again, as described I can only go by what's in the OP) Paula Deen all over again. See also this story for a parallel.

Couple of curiosities about the premise though; how do you figure Martin Bashir "got a pass" by getting fired, and how does Sarah Palin expand to "all conservative women"?

 

[Luissa]

Your own link proved that they listened to his concerns and allowed him to talk about Jesus and pray on the show. You have no argument when it comes to them not tolerating his religion. It is very apparent their problem was with his comments about homosexuals and African Americans.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Katzndogz]

Pre civil rights when black people were happy and not murdering one another in the streets.

What will they do when GAYS start doing the same? [/Rhetorical]

Gays are going to start killing one another in the streets? I recognize that cannibalism is starting to be a problem among gays but it is hardly widespread.

I do not see West Hollywood becoming a swishy Chicago.

 

[TemplarKormac]

So who really has nothing Templar?

You can't even post "substantial" facts.





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I've been posting facts and logic all this time, you've been taunting me and trying to insert racial issues into a completely irrelevant thread.



And I have nothing? I'm getting sick of your shit, woman.

So by that comment, I take it you didn't bother to look up all of his comments from GQ.
And I am getting sick of morons like you acting like you understand what free speech actually means. And the fact you can't understand A&E has the right to suspend him. There is no logic at all in your posts.
Like I said, you can't handle opposing view points. And when you are proven wrong you cry like a baby.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I can handle opposing viewpoints, why do I defend liberals from conservatives and vise versa? Hmm? Or do you have your head so far up your backside you fail to notice that?

And you're right, A&E has all the rights in the world to can him. Indeed this isn't a 1st Amendment issue. It's a tolerance issue, and A&E is showing that is has none. Just as you clearly are demonstrating as well.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Your own link proved that they listened to his concerns and allowed him to talk about Jesus and pray on the show. You have no argument when it comes to them not tolerating his religion. It is very apparent their problem was with his comments about homosexuals and African Americans.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

They tried stopping him from saying and doing those things, they went as far as bleeping them out. Apparently they didn't take his concerns into account when they fired him. Your argument? Like chaff in the wind. How can A7E suspend him for expressing himself but air a show like Growing up Gotti? Hmm? Why the double standard?

 

[Pheonixops]

And Robertson has every right to say what he said, that's his First Amendment right. His contract with A&E notwithstanding. Typical liberal you are, selectively applying the Constitution when it suits you. Pathetic.

Hey jerk off, did you even read my first post?

Uh yeah, and you contradicted yourself. You were defending Robertson, now you're defending GLAAD. In fact in that very post you were defending GLAAD. Where does your heart truly lie, my schizoid friend? Thanks for the laugh, my conflicted counterpart!

It's called being CONSISTENT and HONEST, I know that may be a hard concept for you to understand. Regarding Robertson; I thought that it was bogus for A&E to suspend him for his comments even though I disagree with his sentiments. As far as GLAAD; they do have a right to protest against this guy. Where's the so-called "conflict"? It seems that YOU are the one who is "selective" about people's First Amendment rights, certainly not me.

 

[Pogo]

I've been posting facts and logic all this time, you've been taunting me and trying to insert racial issues into a completely irrelevant thread.



And I have nothing? I'm getting sick of your shit, woman.

So by that comment, I take it you didn't bother to look up all of his comments from GQ.
And I am getting sick of morons like you acting like you understand what free speech actually means. And the fact you can't understand A&E has the right to suspend him. There is no logic at all in your posts.
Like I said, you can't handle opposing view points. And when you are proven wrong you cry like a baby.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I can handle opposing viewpoints, why do I defend liberals from conservatives and vise versa? Hmm? Or do you have your head so far up your backside you fail to notice that?

And you're right, A&E has all the rights in the world to can him. Indeed this isn't a 1st Amendment issue. It's a tolerance issue, and A&E is showing that is has none. Just as you clearly are demonstrating as well.

Mass media companies don't have a "tolerance" level. That's a human trait. A&E is a corporation. Its objective is the bottom line. Any action they take would be based on the expected impact on that bottom line, nothing more. Again, see Paula Deen.

 

[Luissa]

And Robertson has every right to say what he said, that's his First Amendment right. His contract with A&E notwithstanding. Typical liberal you are, selectively applying the Constitution when it suits you. Pathetic.

Who is saying he doesn't have the right?

Your problem is, you don't get that A&E has every right to suspend him.

A&E is owned by Hearst and Disney, you don't think they had a team of lawyers who actually know what they are talking about that figured out the legality before suspending him?







Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

As far as I know, Luissa, when can they regulate his speech when he isn't on the show? Hmm?

They can't regulate his speech, but they can suspend him for what he says.
I have the freedom to call my boss <insert any derogatory term> without facing legal back lash. But my boss has every right to fire me.
I have the right to say rude comments about the elderly, but my boss has the right to fire me for how that might make my employer look.
When I was hired I had to sign a piece of paper saying I would not talk badly or misrepresent my corporation on social media.

The problem is, you don't get what Freedom of Speech protects you from and what rights a employer has.
Or the fact A&E most likely figured out their legal rights before acting. They pay lawyers lots of money to protect themselves.

Get a freakin clue, moron.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[TemplarKormac]

Hey jerk off, did you even read my first post?

Uh yeah, and you contradicted yourself. You were defending Robertson, now you're defending GLAAD. In fact in that very post you were defending GLAAD. Where does your heart truly lie, my schizoid friend? Thanks for the laugh, my conflicted counterpart!

It's called being CONSISTENT and HONEST, I know that may be a hard concept for you to understand. Regarding Robertson; I thought that it was bogus for A&E to suspend him for his comments even though I disagree with his sentiments. As far as GLAAD; they do have a right to protest against this guy. Where's the so-called "conflict"? It seems that YOU are the one who is "selective" about people's First Amendment rights, certainly not me.

"Consistent" and "honest" are relative terms with you in particular.