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

[TemplarKormac]

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.

1. Duck Dynasty is most certainly "scripted". If you watch the credits, you'll see "writers". A "reality show" isn't "reality".

2. He is a "performer" because he is paid by A&E to "perform".

There is no legal distinction that separates "reality show" performers from any other "performers", other than labor agreements. (Reality show performers are usually not SAG members, and the writers aren't WGA members.)

Then why call it a "reality" show if it does nothing of the sort? Isn't that misleading the public? This presents more problems though, by what right can an employer control the speech of one of their employees when they are not in direct control of that person when they commit this alleged offense? Actor or no, reality or no, how come A&E can get away with things that government cannot?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

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.

1. Duck Dynasty is most certainly "scripted". If you watch the credits, you'll see "writers". A "reality show" isn't "reality".

2. He is a "performer" because he is paid by A&E to "perform".

There is no legal distinction that separates "reality show" performers from any other "performers", other than labor agreements. (Reality show performers are usually not SAG members, and the writers aren't WGA members.)

Then why call it a "reality" show if it does nothing of the sort? Isn't that misleading the public?

Yes. Just like everything else on TV.

This presents more problems though, by what right can an employer control the speech of one of their employees when they are not in direct control of that person when they commit this alleged offense?

As I said before, it's almost certainly clearly explained in the contract he signed.

Actor or no, reality or no, how come A&E can get away with things that government cannot?

Because the Bill of Rights only restricts the government, not private companies - who can make almost any contract they wish.

Isn't that the "free market" way?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Teachers get fired for posting scuzzy pics on their websites even though they are not in school. Female cops get fired if racy pics are posted on websites they submitted. Once you sign a contract to represent someone, and it is worded right, yes, you belong to that person and what you can and cannot do. HOWEVER, he was asked about his beliefs. Did his contract state he could not discuss his spiritual beliefs? If so, he was foolish to sign it. If not, A&E is in big doo doo. Regardless, he has a right to his opinion when it comes to his beliefs.

Another question to ask is...what exactly did he say in that interview...and WHO EDITED IT? I mean, really? People edit all the time to get more UMPH for the interviewers readers. Page hits. You know the drill.

I believe Phil over what any media outlet says. But that's me.

The problem is the cast member wasn’t expressing ‘spiritual beliefs,’ he was expressing hateful, ignorant opinions found nowhere in Christian dogma.

The First Amendment affords him the right to express his hate and ignorance concerning gays and African-Americans free from government interference, but the First Amendment doesn’t apply to the network, it took action it considered appropriate, and in the process did not violate the speech or religious rights of the cast member.

 

[TemplarKormac]

1. Duck Dynasty is most certainly "scripted". If you watch the credits, you'll see "writers". A "reality show" isn't "reality".

2. He is a "performer" because he is paid by A&E to "perform".

There is no legal distinction that separates "reality show" performers from any other "performers", other than labor agreements. (Reality show performers are usually not SAG members, and the writers aren't WGA members.)

Then why call it a "reality" show if it does nothing of the sort? Isn't that misleading the public?

Yes. Just like everything else on TV.

This presents more problems though, by what right can an employer control the speech of one of their employees when they are not in direct control of that person when they commit this alleged offense?

As I said before, it's almost certainly clearly explained in the contract he signed.

Actor or no, reality or no, how come A&E can get away with things that government cannot?

Because the Bill of Rights only restricts the government, not private companies - who can make almost any contract they wish.

Isn't that the "free market" way?

How is the free market 'free' when a man isn't allowed to have a religious opinion?

 

[asterism]

The burdens have been met.

This is a business dispute (contract), and A&E's right as an employer supercedes an employee's right to make it look "bad" publicly.

I hate to tell you this, Jake, but the contract doesn't prohibit him from doing off camera interviews with magazines. Nor does it prohibit him from having any religious opinions outside of the show. He isn't representing A&E when he does such. This is an unlawful termination, based on religious discrimination.

If Christians aren't allowed to discriminate against homosexuals, this TV network is not allowed to discriminate against the man for being a Christian. Learn contract law before you decide to foist your flawed interpretations of it on me. Please? A&E has unfairly terminated Robertson for something he did off camera and out of view of the 14 million people who watch that show weekly.

Since you have not read his contract, you don't know what it permits or prohibits. Neither do I, but I've never heard of a contract that carves out off-camera interviews. If you have any examples, please post them for us to read for ourselves.

 

[Pogo]

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.

1. Duck Dynasty is most certainly "scripted". If you watch the credits, you'll see "writers". A "reality show" isn't "reality".

2. He is a "performer" because he is paid by A&E to "perform".

There is no legal distinction that separates "reality show" performers from any other "performers", other than labor agreements. (Reality show performers are usually not SAG members, and the writers aren't WGA members.)

Then why call it a "reality" show if it does nothing of the sort? Isn't that misleading the public? This presents more problems though, by what right can an employer control the speech of one of their employees when they are not in direct control of that person when they commit this alleged offense? Actor or no, reality or no, how come A&E can get away with things that government cannot?

Because being on their TV network is a benefit they give him in return for the salary they pay him.

If they part ways, then there's no salary and also no contractual restriction, and he can say or do what he wants. But the existence of that contract in the first place was a voluntary agreement -- not a Constitutional right. Again, the Constitution guarantees no one a spot on TV, any more than it guarantees anyone a job.

TV is selling illusions. They're going to invoke morals clauses and such to protect their investment in those illusions. Speaking of which the first rule of life should be: believe NOTHING you see on TV.

Lost in all this is the realization that A&E and several other channels (lookin' at you, NatGeo) have degraded and defiled themselves to a level where they're running unmitigated crap like Duck Dynasty. Especially for a network whose first name is "Arts".

 

[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.

I think in the end that's how it will end up. A&E is taking the hit. Scroll through their lineup tonight, it's all Duck Dynasty.

Sunday is another day long marathon. A&E is going to get what they can while they can. Which ever network executive that thought it would be a good idea to suspend Phil Robertson should resign for being stupid.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Then why call it a "reality" show if it does nothing of the sort? Isn't that misleading the public?

Yes. Just like everything else on TV.



As I said before, it's almost certainly clearly explained in the contract he signed.

Actor or no, reality or no, how come A&E can get away with things that government cannot?

Because the Bill of Rights only restricts the government, not private companies - who can make almost any contract they wish.

Isn't that the "free market" way?

How is the free market 'free' when a man isn't allowed to have a religious opinion?

You really have to quit it with the hyperbole. It's not adding to your argument.

Phil Robertson, just like every other American, has the right to whatever religious opinion that he wants. No one has even suggested that he is not "allowed" to have whatever opinion he wants. He is "free" to believe and say whatever he wants.

Just as A&E is "free" to fire him for it.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

1. Duck Dynasty is most certainly "scripted". If you watch the credits, you'll see "writers". A "reality show" isn't "reality".

2. He is a "performer" because he is paid by A&E to "perform".

There is no legal distinction that separates "reality show" performers from any other "performers", other than labor agreements. (Reality show performers are usually not SAG members, and the writers aren't WGA members.)

Then why call it a "reality" show if it does nothing of the sort? Isn't that misleading the public? This presents more problems though, by what right can an employer control the speech of one of their employees when they are not in direct control of that person when they commit this alleged offense? Actor or no, reality or no, how come A&E can get away with things that government cannot?

Because being on their TV network is a benefit they give him in return for the salary they pay him.

If they part ways, then there's no salary and also no contractual restriction, and he can say or do what he wants. But the existence of that contract in the first place was a voluntary agreement -- not a Constitutional right. Again, the Constitution guarantees no one a spot on TV, any more than it guarantees anyone a job.

TV is selling illusions. They're going to invoke morals clauses and such to protect their investment in those illusions. Speaking of which the first rule of life should be: believe NOTHING you see on TV.

Lost in all this is the realization that A&E and several other channels (lookin' at you, NatGeo) have degraded and defiled themselves to a level where they're running unmitigated crap like Duck Dynasty. Especially for a network whose first name is "Arts".

It's funny you should mention that, A&E owns Nat Geo.

 

[TemplarKormac]

The burdens have been met.

This is a business dispute (contract), and A&E's right as an employer supercedes an employee's right to make it look "bad" publicly.

I hate to tell you this, Jake, but the contract doesn't prohibit him from doing off camera interviews with magazines. Nor does it prohibit him from having any religious opinions outside of the show. He isn't representing A&E when he does such. This is an unlawful termination, based on religious discrimination.

If Christians aren't allowed to discriminate against homosexuals, this TV network is not allowed to discriminate against the man for being a Christian. Learn contract law before you decide to foist your flawed interpretations of it on me. Please? A&E has unfairly terminated Robertson for something he did off camera and out of view of the 14 million people who watch that show weekly.

Since you have not read his contract, you don't know what it permits or prohibits. Neither do I, but I've never heard of a contract that carves out off-camera interviews. If you have any examples, please post them for us to read for ourselves.

Then by making this contention, how can we know there is a clause prohibiting from doing what he did? If we don't know what it permits or prohibits, then how can we contend that he was rightfully suspended by A&E? Did they cite a breach of contracts? So far all I see right now is speculation, (for which I fell victim to), not assertion of fact.

 

[Pogo]

Then why call it a "reality" show if it does nothing of the sort? Isn't that misleading the public? This presents more problems though, by what right can an employer control the speech of one of their employees when they are not in direct control of that person when they commit this alleged offense? Actor or no, reality or no, how come A&E can get away with things that government cannot?

Because being on their TV network is a benefit they give him in return for the salary they pay him.

If they part ways, then there's no salary and also no contractual restriction, and he can say or do what he wants. But the existence of that contract in the first place was a voluntary agreement -- not a Constitutional right. Again, the Constitution guarantees no one a spot on TV, any more than it guarantees anyone a job.

TV is selling illusions. They're going to invoke morals clauses and such to protect their investment in those illusions. Speaking of which the first rule of life should be: believe NOTHING you see on TV.

Lost in all this is the realization that A&E and several other channels (lookin' at you, NatGeo) have degraded and defiled themselves to a level where they're running unmitigated crap like Duck Dynasty. Especially for a network whose first name is "Arts".

It's funny you should mention that, A&E owns Nat Geo.

Ah, well the pattern was obvious without knowing that. And I don't even have TV!

 

[NYcarbineer]

[
Doesn't that sound strange that an employer can control their employees wherever they are?

You find that unpleasant? Then you should be downright outraged over this:

Catholic Morality Clause Drives Good Teachers Out of Louisiana Schools

Catholic Morality Clause Drives Good Teachers Out of Louisiana Schools

And I hope you appreciate the mountain of irony that it treats us to, given the theme of this thread.

 

[bodecea]

[
Doesn't that sound strange that an employer can control their employees wherever they are?

You find that unpleasant? Then you should be downright outraged over this:

Catholic Morality Clause Drives Good Teachers Out of Louisiana Schools

Catholic Morality Clause Drives Good Teachers Out of Louisiana Schools

And I hope you appreciate the mountain of irony that it treats us to, given the theme of this thread.

Interesting read. I have contended for quite a while that many christians have NO problem bearing false witness even tho it's one of the BIG X Commandments.

 

[Luissa]

1. Duck Dynasty is most certainly "scripted". If you watch the credits, you'll see "writers". A "reality show" isn't "reality".



2. He is a "performer" because he is paid by A&E to "perform".



There is no legal distinction that separates "reality show" performers from any other "performers", other than labor agreements. (Reality show performers are usually not SAG members, and the writers aren't WGA members.)

Then why call it a "reality" show if it does nothing of the sort? Isn't that misleading the public?

Yes. Just like everything else on TV.

This presents more problems though, by what right can an employer control the speech of one of their employees when they are not in direct control of that person when they commit this alleged offense?

As I said before, it's almost certainly clearly explained in the contract he signed.

Actor or no, reality or no, how come A&E can get away with things that government cannot?

Because the Bill of Rights only restricts the government, not private companies - who can make almost any contract they wish.



Isn't that the "free market" way?

Do you find it as funny as I do that a right winger would have made that comment?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Katzndogz]

[
Doesn't that sound strange that an employer can control their employees wherever they are?

You find that unpleasant? Then you should be downright outraged over this:

Catholic Morality Clause Drives Good Teachers Out of Louisiana Schools

Catholic Morality Clause Drives Good Teachers Out of Louisiana Schools

And I hope you appreciate the mountain of irony that it treats us to, given the theme of this thread.

From The Friendly Atheist!

 

[Luissa]

Then why call it a "reality" show if it does nothing of the sort? Isn't that misleading the public?

Yes. Just like everything else on TV.







As I said before, it's almost certainly clearly explained in the contract he signed.

Actor or no, reality or no, how come A&E can get away with things that government cannot?

Because the Bill of Rights only restricts the government, not private companies - who can make almost any contract they wish.



Isn't that the "free market" way?

How is the free market 'free' when a man isn't allowed to have a religious opinion?

How is a free market free when an employer cant fire whom they choose?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[TemplarKormac]

Yes. Just like everything else on TV.



As I said before, it's almost certainly clearly explained in the contract he signed.



Because the Bill of Rights only restricts the government, not private companies - who can make almost any contract they wish.

Isn't that the "free market" way?

How is the free market 'free' when a man isn't allowed to have a religious opinion?

You really have to quit it with the hyperbole. It's not adding to your argument.

Phil Robertson, just like every other American, has the right to whatever religious opinion that he wants. No one has even suggested that he is not "allowed" to have whatever opinion he wants. He is "free" to believe and say whatever he wants.

Just as A&E is "free" to fire him for it.

So, he is free to make a living so long as he doesn't have an opinion that somehow offends the sensitivities of his employer? Being an actor or artist or whatever he might be surely comes with a ton of caveats, and I for one fail to see why it is necessary to make someone surrender their religious opinions for the sake of being able to pursue a trade or partake in their livelihoods (acting, performing or etc.)

It isn't hyperbole, Doc, if a man has no freedom to make an opinion without reprisal at his workplace, he has none until he quits or fired. It seems here to me he's either A) willingly surrendering some of his freedoms or B) is being forced to surrender some of his freedoms in order to maintain his employment with said network.

 

[asterism]

He has. Unlike you. What the hell do pre Civil Rights era African Americans have to do with this thread? Exactly, so politely can it.

What right do they have firing a man for making comments about gay marriage in a private venue outside of his TV show? Nobody wants to answer this question...

There is likely some clause in his contract that allows it to be terminated for conduct detrimental to the network, no matter the venue.

Sorry, they aren't allowed to insert clauses like that into his contract. If he can't express himself freely apart from the show without being fired, A&E is in the wrong. It's like my boss firing me because I say something bad about the president in an interview.

If you were a spokesperson for any brand that would indeed be in your contract for personal services. ANYTHING you do that reflects negatively on the brand you represent can be grounds to end your contract.

Talent Agreement for ZKID Network Spokesperson from RealDealDocs.com | Legal Agreements 101

Here's where just one tweet about a service gets into a personal services conflict.

When Being a Spokesperson Conflicts With Your Day Job | Backstage

A tweet is much more personal than an interview likely arranged by the same people who produce the TV show.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

How is the free market 'free' when a man isn't allowed to have a religious opinion?

You really have to quit it with the hyperbole. It's not adding to your argument.

Phil Robertson, just like every other American, has the right to whatever religious opinion that he wants. No one has even suggested that he is not "allowed" to have whatever opinion he wants. He is "free" to believe and say whatever he wants.

Just as A&E is "free" to fire him for it.

So, he is free to make a living so long as he doesn't have an opinion that somehow offends the sensitivities of his employer? Being an actor or artist or whatever he might be surely comes with a ton of caveats, and I for one fail to see why it is necessary to make someone surrender their religious opinions for the sake of being able to pursue a trade or partake in their livelihoods (acting, performing or etc.)

It isn't hyperbole, Doc, if a man has no freedom to make an opinion without reprisal at his workplace, he has none until he quits or fired. It seems here to me he's either A) willingly surrendering some of his freedoms or B) is being forced to surrender some of his freedoms in order to maintain his employment with said network.

No one has a "right" to make a living, and "willingly surrendering some of your freedoms" is part of any job on the face of the Earth.

To paraphrase what conservatives always like to say when anyone complains about their salary - Phil Robertson is welcome to find another job if he doesn't like the rules of the one he has.

 

[Luissa]

How is the free market 'free' when a man isn't allowed to have a religious opinion?

You really have to quit it with the hyperbole. It's not adding to your argument.



Phil Robertson, just like every other American, has the right to whatever religious opinion that he wants. No one has even suggested that he is not "allowed" to have whatever opinion he wants. He is "free" to believe and say whatever he wants.



Just as A&E is "free" to fire him for it.

So, he is free to make a living so long as he doesn't have an opinion that somehow offends the sensitivities of his employer? Being an actor or artist or whatever he might be surely comes with a ton of caveats, and I for one fail to see why it is necessary to make someone surrender their religious opinions for the sake of being able to pursue a trade or partake in their livelihoods (acting, performing or etc.)



It isn't hyperbole, Doc, if a man has no freedom to make an opinion without reprisal at his workplace, he has none until he quits or fired. It seems here to me he's either A) willingly surrendering some of his freedoms or B) is being forced to surrender some of his freedoms in order to maintain his employment with said network.

Have you never had a job?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk