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

[Katzndogz]

Phil Robertson had a right to say what he said.
A&E as a private company had a right to suspend Robertson.
There are consequences for that suspension which will be losing the show completely.

The Robertsons aren't going to be hurt. The network will be hurt. That is their decision. It is a business decision.

 

[TemplarKormac]

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

That's called regulating speech, dimwit.

Get a freaking clue, wench.

 

[TemplarKormac]

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

Geez, your sarcasm is second to none, you really got me with that witty riposte!

 

[Pheonixops]

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.

How so in your opinion?

 

[Luissa]

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

That's called regulating speech, dimwit.



Get a freaking clue, wench.

Yeah! I am not the one who needs to get a clue.
You do realize you look very stupid right now, right?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Katzndogz]

A&E got a complaint from GLAAD and panicked because the masters were displeased. They then did the first thing that popped into their heads. Now they have to live with the consequences.

 

[Luissa]

Phil Robertson had a right to say what he said.

A&E as a private company had a right to suspend Robertson.

There are consequences for that suspension which will be losing the show completely.



The Robertsons aren't going to be hurt. The network will be hurt. That is their decision. It is a business decision.

Even Katz gets it.
Give it up Templar, you have no clue what you are talking about.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Phil had every right to say what he said in my opinion. Thanks for letting me share.

No one says he doesn’t.

But the issue has nothing to do with ‘rights.’

The issue has to do with private entities – both the individual and corporate – in the context of private society debating the controversies of the day and as a product of that debate determining what is and is not appropriate speech and behavior.

 

[TemplarKormac]

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.

How so in your opinion?

You first said he shouldn't have been suspended, but then went on to say that GLAAD had every right to protest and play a role in his suspension. You act as if you can have it both ways, not to mention you're advocating a militant gay rights group putting a man and his show out of business for stating his religious views. You are being consistently dishonest if anything. Actually, as far as constitutional rights are concerned, this isn't constitutional, it's tolerance based. However, labor law does generally forbid an employer from regulating speech of their employees unless they are in direct control of the employee at the time they made the comments.

Homosexuals speak of tolerating other peoples beliefs, but when it comes down to it, they don't. Instead they seek to snuff out any speech or opposition to their lifestyles and demand tolerance like spoiled children on a sugar rush.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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

That's called regulating speech, dimwit.

Get a freaking clue, wench.

Here's an example of a morals clause from an entertainer contract:

"If at any time while Artist is rendering or obligated to render on-camera services for the program hereunder, Artist is involved in any situation or occurrence which subjects Artist to public scandal, disrepute, widespread contempt, public ridicule, [or which is widely deemed by members of the general public, to embarrass, offend, insult or denigrate individuals or groups,] or that will tend to shock, insult or offend the community or public morals or decency or prejudice the Producer in general, then Producer shall have the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action it deems appropriate, including but not limited to terminating the production of the program."

Therefore, yes they can do what you keep insisting they can't do.

Read up.

Keep your pants on - the morals clause in performer contracts - Lexology

 

[TemplarKormac]

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

That's called regulating speech, dimwit.



Get a freaking clue, wench.

Yeah! I am not the one who needs to get a clue.
You do realize you look very stupid right now, right?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Um, not really. In fact you were the one who stumbled into this thread yammering about African Americans and Civil Rights, on your iPhone no less.

 

[TemplarKormac]

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

That's called regulating speech, dimwit.

Get a freaking clue, wench.

Here's an example of a morals clause from an entertainer contract:

"If at any time while Artist is rendering or obligated to render on-camera services for the program hereunder, Artist is involved in any situation or occurrence which subjects Artist to public scandal, disrepute, widespread contempt, public ridicule, [or which is widely deemed by members of the general public, to embarrass, offend, insult or denigrate individuals or groups,] or that will tend to shock, insult or offend the community or public morals or decency or prejudice the Producer in general, then Producer shall have the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action it deems appropriate, including but not limited to terminating the production of the program."

Therefore, yes they can do what you keep insisting they can't do.

Read up.

Keep your pants on - the morals clause in performer contracts - Lexology

Here's the one fact you missed. This is a reality show, whereby the performers aren't performing via a script. They are going about their daily lives while being filmed by a TV network, hence "reality show." Therefore, they are not performers per the terms of that excerpt. That doesn't make them "artists" by any stretch of the term.

Perhaps you should "read up" carbine.

 

[The Professor]

Yeah. I've lost jobs opening my big mouth also. No biggie.

Actually, you've never lost your job for stating your religious opinions. Big difference there, mister.

On the job, your employer can fire you for running your mouth.

Off the job?

Big lawsuit coming. REAL big.

Love to be an Attorney and land that one. A first year law student could win that case.

Roll over and spread your legs, A&E. You're about to find out what a butt-fucking is like

What one does off the job can be just as important as what he/she does on the job; it all depends on the contract. In contract law there is something called a Morals Clause which restricts certain types of off-the-job behavior.

“Morals clause is a provision within instruments of the contract which curtail, or restrain, or proscribe certain behavior of individuals or party(s) to the contract. A moral clause within contracts used as a means of holding the individual or Party(s) to a certain behavioral standard so as not to bring disrepute, contempt or scandal to other individual or party to the contract and their interests. It attempts to preserve a public and private image of such a party to the contract. In essence one party to the contract is purchasing the other party's good name or reputation. These clauses are most seen in contracts between actors and actresses and their studios, athletes and their organization or proprietors of a product that the athlete(s) may endorse or as a part of a marital settlement. Commonly proscribed activity include the use or abuse of alcohol, the use of illegal drugs or narcotics or illegal or illicit sexual activity."

Morals clause - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Morals Clauses have been around for a long time. The above link points out the Babe Ruth had such a clause in his contract in 1922. I would be surprised if there no Morals Clause in Robertson's contract. Based upon what I have read over the years, Moral Clauses are common in the contracts of actors.

 

[Pheonixops]

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

How so in your opinion?

You first said he shouldn't have been suspended, but then went on to say that GLAAD had every right to protest and play a role in his suspension. You act as if you can have it both ways, not to mention you're advocating a militant gay rights group putting a man and his show out of business for stating his religious views. You are being consistently dishonest if anything. Actually, as far as constitutional rights are concerned, this isn't constitutional, it's tolerance based. However, labor law does generally forbid an employer from regulating speech of their employees unless they are in direct control of the employee at the time they made the comments.

Homosexuals speak of tolerating other peoples beliefs, but when it comes down to it, they don't. Instead they seek to snuff out any speech or opposition to their lifestyles and demand tolerance like spoiled children on a sugar rush.

I still state that I disagree with his suspension and I still state that GLAAD has the right to protest against what he said. What is so hard for you to understand? Do you think that GLAAD should not have a right to voice their angst against the Robertson?

 

[TemplarKormac]

Actually, you've never lost your job for stating your religious opinions. Big difference there, mister.

On the job, your employer can fire you for running your mouth.

Off the job?

Big lawsuit coming. REAL big.

Love to be an Attorney and land that one. A first year law student could win that case.

Roll over and spread your legs, A&E. You're about to find out what a butt-fucking is like

What one does off the job can be just as important as what he/she does on the job; it all depends on the contract. In contract law there is something called a Morals Clause which restricts certain types of off-the-job behavior.

“Morals clause is a provision within instruments of the contract which curtail, or restrain, or proscribe certain behavior of individuals or party(s) to the contract. A moral clause within contracts used as a means of holding the individual or Party(s) to a certain behavioral standard so as not to bring disrepute, contempt or scandal to other individual or party to the contract and their interests. It attempts to preserve a public and private image of such a party to the contract. In essence one party to the contract is purchasing the other party's good name or reputation. These clauses are most seen in contracts between actors and actresses and their studios, athletes and their organization or proprietors of a product that the athlete(s) may endorse or as a part of a marital settlement. Commonly proscribed activity include the use or abuse of alcohol, the use of illegal drugs or narcotics or illegal or illicit sexual activity."

Morals clause - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Morals Clauses have been around for a long time. The above link points out the Babe Ruth had such a clause in his contract in 1922. I would be surprised if there no Morals Clause in Robertson's contract. Based upon what I have read over the years, Moral Clauses are common in the contracts of actors.

The thing is here, Professor, is that Phil Robertson isn't an actor, so why would this clause be in his contract, given that it governs the behavior of actors?

 

[TemplarKormac]

How so in your opinion?

You first said he shouldn't have been suspended, but then went on to say that GLAAD had every right to protest and play a role in his suspension. You act as if you can have it both ways, not to mention you're advocating a militant gay rights group putting a man and his show out of business for stating his religious views. You are being consistently dishonest if anything. Actually, as far as constitutional rights are concerned, this isn't constitutional, it's tolerance based. However, labor law does generally forbid an employer from regulating speech of their employees unless they are in direct control of the employee at the time they made the comments.

Homosexuals speak of tolerating other peoples beliefs, but when it comes down to it, they don't. Instead they seek to snuff out any speech or opposition to their lifestyles and demand tolerance like spoiled children on a sugar rush.

I still state that I disagree with his suspension and I still state that GLAAD has the right to protest against what he said. What is so hard for you to understand? Do you think that GLAAD should not have a right to voice their angst against the Robertson?

Thanks for proving my point. You are now defending them, even after they played a role in getting him terminated. Yes they have a right to protest, but Robertson has a right to free speech.

 

[Luissa]

That's called regulating speech, dimwit.







Get a freaking clue, wench.

Yeah! I am not the one who needs to get a clue.

You do realize you look very stupid right now, right?





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Um, not really. In fact you were the one who stumbled into this thread yammering about African Americans and Civil Rights, on your iPhone no less.

Still haven't looked up all of his comments in GQ I see.
As for my iPhone. I have left that sig line up because it seems to bug you right wingers so much.


Bill Maher's show was canceled due to his comments, Alec Baldwin was just canceled for gay slurs, Paula Deen was fired for her comments, Olberman was let go due to his comments, Bashir quit after being suspended, Tiger Woods lost sponsors over his affairs that had nothing to do with Golf, Brett Favre lost sponsors due to his affairs. Do you see a pattern?
A corporation has the right to suspend or fire you if your actions reflect poorly on them. The government doesn't have the right to bring legal action upon you for your speech or actions if not illegal. Learn what the First Amendment protects your from and get back to me.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Luissa]

You first said he shouldn't have been suspended, but then went on to say that GLAAD had every right to protest and play a role in his suspension. You act as if you can have it both ways, not to mention you're advocating a militant gay rights group putting a man and his show out of business for stating his religious views. You are being consistently dishonest if anything. Actually, as far as constitutional rights are concerned, this isn't constitutional, it's tolerance based. However, labor law does generally forbid an employer from regulating speech of their employees unless they are in direct control of the employee at the time they made the comments.



Homosexuals speak of tolerating other peoples beliefs, but when it comes down to it, they don't. Instead they seek to snuff out any speech or opposition to their lifestyles and demand tolerance like spoiled children on a sugar rush.

I still state that I disagree with his suspension and I still state that GLAAD has the right to protest against what he said. What is so hard for you to understand? Do you think that GLAAD should not have a right to voice their angst against the Robertson?

Thanks for proving my point. You are now defending them, even after they played a role in getting him terminated. Yes they have a right to protest, but Robertson has a right to free speech.

He was suspended not terminated.
And no one infringed on his first amendment rights. A&E has every right to suspend him, which still has nothing to do with first amendment rights.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[NYcarbineer]

That's called regulating speech, dimwit.

Get a freaking clue, wench.

Here's an example of a morals clause from an entertainer contract:

"If at any time while Artist is rendering or obligated to render on-camera services for the program hereunder, Artist is involved in any situation or occurrence which subjects Artist to public scandal, disrepute, widespread contempt, public ridicule, [or which is widely deemed by members of the general public, to embarrass, offend, insult or denigrate individuals or groups,] or that will tend to shock, insult or offend the community or public morals or decency or prejudice the Producer in general, then Producer shall have the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action it deems appropriate, including but not limited to terminating the production of the program."

Therefore, yes they can do what you keep insisting they can't do.

Read up.

Keep your pants on - the morals clause in performer contracts - Lexology

Here's the one fact you missed. This is a reality show, whereby the performers aren't performing via a script. They are going about their daily lives while being filmed by a TV network, hence "reality show." Therefore, they are not performers per the terms of that excerpt. That doesn't make them "artists" by any stretch of the term.

Perhaps you should "read up" carbine.

First of all, your claims have been comprehensive, and not limited to reality show performers,

even if that was relevant, which it isn't.

I've produced credible evidence that actors can in fact be required to accept a very far reaching morals clause as a condition of their employment.

It's up to you now to prove with credible evidence that the performers on a so-called reality tv show are for whatever reasons exempt from such a possible requirement.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I still state that I disagree with his suspension and I still state that GLAAD has the right to protest against what he said. What is so hard for you to understand? Do you think that GLAAD should not have a right to voice their angst against the Robertson?

Thanks for proving my point. You are now defending them, even after they played a role in getting him terminated. Yes they have a right to protest, but Robertson has a right to free speech.

He was suspended not terminated.
And no one infringed on his first amendment rights. A&E has every right to suspend him, which still has nothing to do with first amendment rights.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Look up the words "indefinite hiatus" in a dictionary and get back to me.