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

[WelfareQueen]

Statement issued by family.


"We want to thank all of you for your prayers and support. The family has spent much time in prayer since learning of A&E’s decision. We want you to know that first and foremost we are a family rooted in our faith in God and our belief that the Bible is His word. While some of Phil’s unfiltered comments to the reporter were coarse, his beliefs are grounded in the teachings of the Bible. Phil is a Godly man who follows what the Bible says are the greatest commandments: “Love the Lord your God with all your heart” and “Love your neighbor as yourself.” Phil would never incite or encourage hate.We are disappointed that Phil has been placed on hiatus for expressing his faith, which is his constitutionally protected right.We have had a successful working relationship with A&E but, as a family, we cannot imagine the show going forward without our patriarch at the helm. We are in discussions with A&E to see what that means for the future of Duck Dynasty. Again, thank you for your continued support of our family."

 

[TemplarKormac]

Yes...I understand

You got your view of history from rightwing blogsites

That is how you can post such a ridiculous OP and expect people to think it has any merit

Actually, I didn't. I don't read "right wing blogsites" but you read left wing ones I'm sure. You admitted you do so. I take my history in raw and unadulterated. I am an absolutist, not a revisionist, such as yourself.

So when you run out of argument, you trash my OP? How... intelligent... of you.

Are you challenging my first amendment right to trash your OP?

Tissue? You don't seem to mind trashing the first amendment rights of those you disagree with.

No, I'm challenging you to put forth a cogent argument. You failed.

 

[Luissa]

No. He has an inherent right to his opinion. Nobody has an inherent right to be famous. Big difference.

So you agree A&E can fire him?





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No, because they violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. His civil rights were violated.

No they didn't.
Wow! You really have no basic understanding on civil rights or the bill of rights, or Employment laws.
Please stop pretending you do, this is how misinformation is spread.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[NYcarbineer]

Yeah, if you read what he said, he isn't one to judge, whatever failing a person has, it is between them and god. His job is to spread the gospel. Second, he tilled the fields with blacks, he never once slandered them.

So yes, I agree, simply because unlike the lot of you, I did read the GQ interview.

He said blacks were happier in the pre-civil rights era.

Yeah, when he tilled the fields with them, side by side, picked cotton with them, he has a unique perspective that you don't. He never once heard a black man or woman badmouth whites.

Really? He grew up in the South in the 50's and 60's and was somehow magically unaware of the ongoing civil rights movement?

That's some sort of unique perspective?

It's standard issue white Southern mythology...

...it's wishing you were in the land of cotton...old times there are not forgotten...

 

[SwimExpert]

I don't care what it applies to. That doesn't mean you have to sacrifice your beliefs simply for the entertainment of others.

You make it sound like Robertson has some kind of inherent right to be the star of a reality TV show on A&E. If Robertson wants to continue appearing on reality TV he can go find some other network interested in a new show, or he can create his own show and broadcast it himself.

Absolutely, the Robertson family has probably had numerous offers already. The Robertsons have an equal right to tell A&E to go piss up a rope.

A&E made a mistake. They picked a close knit family rather than a cast portraying a close knit family. Lose one, you lose them all. What's really astounding is that someone at A&E must have thought, at some time, that the Robertson family would just take it and tell Papa to stay home! That's the most surprising thing of all.

That's why part of me wonders if this whole thing isn't a big publicity stunt. It's hard to imagine that the company could be this stupid. I guess what happens next will depend on the contractual agreement and both sides' ability to negotiate a deal.

 

[Luissa]

So, TV networks can freely infringe on constitutional freedom without the slightest of thoughts? Does anyone not see the problem with this? Or are you unfamiliar with Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964?



Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964



A&E violated the hell out of it.



SEC. 2000e-2 (a)(1)



(a) Employer practices



It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer -



(1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.

They did not violate his Civil Rights.



They didn't discriminate against him because of his race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.



They suspended him because he said something stupid and offensive.



Where in the Civil Rights Act does it say a company can't discriminate against someone because they make stupid comments?

As far as I know "stupid and offensive" is still free speech. He expressed his religious views and was terminated for it.

Free speech doesn't apply to the employer, you moron.
That is like saying I can call my boss an asshole and not be fired. Get a clue.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[TemplarKormac]

So you agree A&E can fire him?





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No, because they violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. His civil rights were violated.

No they didn't.
Wow! You really have no basic understanding on civil rights or the bill of rights, or Employment laws.
Please stop pretending you do, this is how misinformation is spread.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Uh yeah, he was being paid, compensated by the network to perform on the show. That constitutes "employment" under that title. Do you ever read law, or do you sit there and imagine it?

 

[bendog]

He was 18 when he started dating his furture wife who was 14. So, he might want to not cast stones and instead practice some of that "love" he preaches. Just saying.

It's a stupid show. WTF cares. They're hypocrites and rednecks. No surprises.

 

[peach174]

Phil is just another idiotic fundamentalist right winger with a reality TV show on cable. I don't think anyone was surprised by his views, but we were surprised that his handlers didn't keep him reigned in better. Maybe this is just a publicity ploy, though, because the dumb fuckers that enjoy that show aren't likely offended anyway.

That is the whole problem.
The elite lefties of the Political Correctness Police. It has gotten way out of hand.
Reigned in better?
No one should say anything that is opposite of their their points of view?

Yes, I am an elitist educated leftist snob, and I do look down at you. Thanks for noticing, though!

Everybody has to look down at me because I am a very short person.

That does not mean that Conservatives have to remain silent on our opinions because some on the left is offended.

 

[bodecea]

So, TV networks can freely infringe on constitutional freedom without the slightest of thoughts? Does anyone not see the problem with this? Or are you unfamiliar with Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964?

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

A&E violated the hell out of it.

SEC. 2000e-2 (a)(1)

(a) Employer practices

It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer -

(1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.

They did not violate his Civil Rights.

They didn't discriminate against him because of his race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.

They suspended him because he said something stupid and offensive.

Where in the Civil Rights Act does it say a company can't discriminate against someone because they make stupid comments?

As far as I know "stupid and offensive" is still free speech. He expressed his religious views and was terminated for it.

There's plenty of stupid to go around in this event.

He was kinda stupid to say what he said (yes, I know he has the right to say such things)

A&E was stupid to make a deal out of it. (yes, I know they have the right to drop celebrities they think are reflecting adversely on their network)

Phil Robertson is a silly person on a silly show....he has an excuse.

What is A&E's excuse for being silly?

 

[WelfareQueen]

He said blacks were happier in the pre-civil rights era.

Yeah, when he tilled the fields with them, side by side, picked cotton with them, he has a unique perspective that you don't. He never once heard a black man or woman badmouth whites.

Really? He grew up in the South in the 50's and 60's and was somehow magically unaware of the ongoing civil rights movement?

That's some sort of unique perspective?

It's standard issue white Southern mythology...

...it's wishing you were in the land of cotton...old times there are not forgotten...

That is some bigoted shit against Southerners. But I guess in your world that is okay. Anymore thoughts about your fellow Americans? Asshole.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Robertson had every right to say what he said, and the television network had every right to kick him off of their property for saying it. And now, viewers have every right to punish the network by boycotting them until they bring Robertson back, as many have pledged to do.

Not a lot of healing or understanding going on there. Just more anger, more division.

Allowing people to say what they're thinking is the first step in fixing a problem.

.

I'm not sure I understand you. Who is not allowing somebody to say what they're thinking?

 

[TemplarKormac]

They did not violate his Civil Rights.



They didn't discriminate against him because of his race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.



They suspended him because he said something stupid and offensive.



Where in the Civil Rights Act does it say a company can't discriminate against someone because they make stupid comments?

As far as I know "stupid and offensive" is still free speech. He expressed his religious views and was terminated for it.

Free speech doesn't apply to the employer, you moron.
That is like saying I can call my boss an asshole and not be fired. Get a clue.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That's a first. Anything they produce can be considered free speech, with exception of their actors of course. If the government resorts to censoring them for what they put on television for no good reason, they'll contend they have the right to free speech. How is it fair for the network to have free speech rights but not it's employees and performers?

If you call your boss an asshole to his or her face, pack your bags, you're fired.

On the other hand, if you called him an asshole out of earshot, he can't hold you liable nor can he fire you for it.

 

[bodecea]

You make it sound like Robertson has some kind of inherent right to be the star of a reality TV show on A&E. If Robertson wants to continue appearing on reality TV he can go find some other network interested in a new show, or he can create his own show and broadcast it himself.

Absolutely, the Robertson family has probably had numerous offers already. The Robertsons have an equal right to tell A&E to go piss up a rope.

A&E made a mistake. They picked a close knit family rather than a cast portraying a close knit family. Lose one, you lose them all. What's really astounding is that someone at A&E must have thought, at some time, that the Robertson family would just take it and tell Papa to stay home! That's the most surprising thing of all.

That's why part of me wonders if this whole thing isn't a big publicity stunt. It's hard to imagine that the company could be this stupid. I guess what happens next will depend on the contractual agreement and both sides' ability to negotiate a deal.

I've wondered this myself. Just in time for those last minute christmas presents too. Hmmmmmm.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Actually, I didn't. I don't read "right wing blogsites" but you read left wing ones I'm sure. You admitted you do so. I take my history in raw and unadulterated. I am an absolutist, not a revisionist, such as yourself.

So when you run out of argument, you trash my OP? How... intelligent... of you.

Are you challenging my first amendment right to trash your OP?

Tissue? You don't seem to mind trashing the first amendment rights of those you disagree with.

No, I'm challenging you to put forth a cogent argument. You failed.

I proved you wrong last night. I proved that you were wrong to claim that A&E had no right to put a morals clause in his contract,

I proved then that you were to claim that didn't apply to performers in reality shows.

The entire premise of your thread, that Robertson possesses some sort of constitutional right not to have his employment terminated at A&E for reasons of his behaviour,

on or off the show,

has been comprehensively destroyed...your obstinate denials notwithstanding.

 

[Katzndogz]

So, TV networks can freely infringe on constitutional freedom without the slightest of thoughts? Does anyone not see the problem with this? Or are you unfamiliar with Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964?

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

A&E violated the hell out of it.

SEC. 2000e-2 (a)(1)

(a) Employer practices

It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer -

(1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.

They did not violate his Civil Rights.

They didn't discriminate against him because of his race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.

They suspended him because he said something stupid and offensive.

Where in the Civil Rights Act does it say a company can't discriminate against someone because they make stupid comments?

As far as I know "stupid and offensive" is still free speech. He expressed his religious views and was terminated for it.

He wasn't fired for being a Christian that's unconstitutional. He was fired for acting like a Christian.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

So, TV networks can freely infringe on constitutional freedom without the slightest of thoughts? Does anyone not see the problem with this? Or are you unfamiliar with Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964?

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

A&E violated the hell out of it.

SEC. 2000e-2 (a)(1)

(a) Employer practices

It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer -

(1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.

They did not violate his Civil Rights.

They didn't discriminate against him because of his race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.

They suspended him because he said something stupid and offensive.

Where in the Civil Rights Act does it say a company can't discriminate against someone because they make stupid comments?

As far as I know "stupid and offensive" is still free speech. He expressed his religious views and was terminated for it.

Freedom of speech is not applicable when it comes to somebody else's property.

 

[Luissa]

No, because they violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. His civil rights were violated.

No they didn't.

Wow! You really have no basic understanding on civil rights or the bill of rights, or Employment laws.

Please stop pretending you do, this is how misinformation is spread.







Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Uh yeah, he was being paid, compensated by the network to perform on the show. That constitutes "employment" under that title. Do you ever read law, or do you sit there and imagine it?

I did. Did you? Because you have no real understanding what is protected and what isn't.
Plus he wasn't fired for his religion, otherwise he would have been fired a long time ago. He was suspended for his offensive remarks, which his employer has every right to do.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[WelfareQueen]

He was 18 when he started dating his furture wife who was 14. So, he might want to not cast stones and instead practice some of that "love" he preaches. Just saying.

It's a stupid show. WTF cares. They're hypocrites and rednecks. No surprises.

Define redneck and try not to be racist or offensive. Go.....

 

[Freemason9]

You make it sound like Robertson has some kind of inherent right to be the star of a reality TV show on A&E. If Robertson wants to continue appearing on reality TV he can go find some other network interested in a new show, or he can create his own show and broadcast it himself.

No. He has an inherent right to his opinion. Nobody has an inherent right to be famous. Big difference.

Nobody has taken his opinion away from him.

This shows how stupid America has become when one of the most popular cable TV shows is a reality program called "Duck Dynasty."