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

[Luissa]

And are you sure you are a conservative?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Dutch]

NOR does A&E. Touche...Intolerant much? YOU exude it.

A&E can fire whom they choose. Or do you not believe they have rights also?
Try posting something that makes sense.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

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...

I'm sorry but you are a moron. Let's say a NFL player gives a interview to playboy magazine and says "I can't stand Jews, and according to the Bible they will all go to hell come judgment day, Hitler was right." That player would be released the next day. But according to you, since it was not associated with the NFL he should not be fired. There are plenty of examples of this, it's not that hard to understand.

 

[Pogo]

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.

Because, again TK, the TV channel is selling an illusion. The actors are hired to help build that illusion, and the illusion is inextricably identified with the TV channel that presents it. If the TV channel finds an actor for whatever reason either disrupting that illusion or putting the TV company in an unfavorable light, then that actor is not worth as much to them and as his employer they can decide to vacate the contract. None of which affects that actor's right to hold or express any opinion; it just affects his contract.

 

[asterism]

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.

Because unless you can find and post a personal services contract that does not have this clause I'm going to say it doesn't exist.

 

[asterism]

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.

He's free to make a living (A&E did not shut down his duck calling company), he's just not free to live off of A&E doing their TV show if he wishes to speak his mind in a way that they feel damages their brand.

 

[Plasmaball]

This thread is the greatest.

 

[Dutch]

Hell, i don't make a tenth of what Phil makes, but if I post something racist or offensive on facebook my ass would be fired.

 

[asterism]

Hell, i don't make a tenth of what Phil makes, but if I post something racist or offensive on facebook my ass would be fired.

That's the problem with this faux outrage. It would have been an excellent protest and counter-protest in the market of ideas if it was just a bunch of DD viewers saying that they don't care what a bunch of gay non-DD viewers thought - they want to watch Phil on TV. But when it gets to this level of hyperbole it makes the Duck Dynasty fans look an awful lot like the GLAAD sissies they hate so much (and GLAAD is being a bunch of sissies about this too - but it's why they are GLAAD and not "spokespeople for all gay americans").

 

[asterism]

I support gay equality and have for over 20 years even when it wasn't cool. However, GLAAD is a racket and they do nothing more than extort money from their "enemies" and sell out their principles:

Some bad, bad news concerning me and GLAAD

Why Is GLAAD Endorsing the AT&T/T-Mobile Merger? | The Bilerico Project

GLAAD -- Alec Baldwin Gets a Pass ... 'Cause We're Starf**kers | TMZ.com

GLAAD | TMZ.com

 

[RandallFlagg]

I support gay equality and have for over 20 years even when it wasn't cool. However, GLAAD is a racket and they do nothing more than extort money from their "enemies" and sell out their principles:

Some bad, bad news concerning me and GLAAD

Why Is GLAAD Endorsing the AT&T/T-Mobile Merger? | The Bilerico Project

GLAAD -- Alec Baldwin Gets a Pass ... 'Cause We're Starf**kers | TMZ.com

GLAAD | TMZ.com

I see…..so (basically) they are no different than Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton….got it!

 

[asterism]

I support gay equality and have for over 20 years even when it wasn't cool. However, GLAAD is a racket and they do nothing more than extort money from their "enemies" and sell out their principles:

Some bad, bad news concerning me and GLAAD

Why Is GLAAD Endorsing the AT&T/T-Mobile Merger? | The Bilerico Project

GLAAD -- Alec Baldwin Gets a Pass ... 'Cause We're Starf**kers | TMZ.com

GLAAD | TMZ.com

I see…..so (basically) they are no different than Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton….got it!

Pretty much.

Read the first link, from Kevin Smith (a big supporter of the gay community and a huge liberal).

 

[The2ndAmendment]

So you think that CNN is a govt. run media outlet. Sure buddy, sure.

It doesn't operate any different than a gov.t run media outlet; so your question is moot.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Anyone change their tune yet? Any retractions?

 

[BDBoop]

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.

Really?

Did Bashir get his job back? I hadn't heard such.

 

[Mac1958]

.

I want to know who the crazies are, where they are, what they're thinking, and -- most importantly -- who agrees with them. I can't know that if they can't speak freely. That's the beauty of the First Amendment.

If you're so afraid of what someone might say that you have to intimidate them into silence, perhaps you haven't done a very good job of making your OWN point.

Sad to see this happening in America, of all places.

.

 

[BDBoop]

NOR does A&E. Touche...Intolerant much? YOU exude it.

A&E can fire whom they choose. Or do you not believe they have rights also?
Try posting something that makes sense.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

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...

How on earth does a national magazine with decent circulation figures equal a private venue?

 

[LoneLaugher]

You would not understand, BD......we are out of his league. But some of us are sensible enough to stay on topic.

 

[BDBoop]

I would like to add - his Jim Crowe comments had me more aghast then the gay ones, and I doubt that I'm alone, so. Yeah. That piece of the puzzle absolutely fits in this discussion.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I would like to add - his Jim Crowe comments had me more aghast then the gay ones, and I doubt that I'm alone, so. Yeah. That piece of the puzzle absolutely fits in this discussion.

Yes, that was some crazy-ass shit, pardon the expression. That put him right up there in the conservative Republican Congressman league.

 

[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.

From The Friendly Atheist!

I resent being called friendly.