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

[Redfish]

He made no mistake. Phil Robertson said exactly what he intended to say. The family has threatened to pull the show in the past over religious differences. A&E decided to work with GQ to arrange these questions in order to punish Phil Robertson for refusing to agree to the changes they wanted to make.

I grew up in the pre civil rights era. YES black people were much happier in those days, less filled with rage and resentment, less entitled. Not only that, but they were a better people with strong families and safe neighborhoods. It has long puzzled me why black people traded their integrity for a welfare check. After all, Robertson was not making a general commentary on the state of civil rights. He was expressing his personal observations as he worked in the fields side by side with black men. Those men likely went home to wives and children. Something they don't do today. If someone had asked me that same question, I would have answered it the exact same way.

To the left? Being gay is like being black...they equate 'gay' with race...it's absurd.

Uh, no, actually, the old fart said really stupid and incredibly ignorant racist shit about blacks. Nothing nearly as brain dead, over the top, racist as this, however -

YES black people were much happier in those days, less filled with rage and resentment, less entitled. Not only that, but they were a better people with strong families and safe neighborhoods. It has long puzzled me why black people traded their integrity for a welfare check. After all, Robertson was not making a general commentary on the state of civil rights. He was expressing his personal observations as he worked in the fields side by side with black men. Those men likely went home to wives and children. Something they don't do today. If someone had asked me that same question, I would have answered it the exact same way.

Remember when Jimmy the Greek accurately stated that slave owners "bred" the biggest and strongest slave men with the biggest and strongest slave women?

What he said was a sad truth, but he lost his job for speaking a poliitcally incorrect truth.

If we ignore history we are doomed to repeat it. Making history politically correct is a terrible thing to do.

what Robertson said was the truth, but it was not the truth that is politically correct.

 

[Gadawg73]

So we have now done away and proven 100% false any and all false claims of "violation of 1st Amendment Rights".
That is a start.

Now to address the issue of tolerance.

In your view, who showed more intolerance? GLAAD and A&E or Phil Robertson?

I could give a shit if anyone is tolerant of anything except the LAW.
I do not tolerate those that claim the 1st Amendment protects employers from limiting the speech of their employees.
Which is 100% of what this is about no matter how the religious right spins it.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Wow, amazing the lack of common sense here.
Sports fans, let me appeal to your reason and common sense.
YOU sell widgets, YOU pay big money to A & E, tens of millions a year in advertising.
YOU have a standard contract that EVERYONE that pays millions a year TO ALL networks use.
That standard contract allows advertisers-YOU, networks and movie studios to terminate a talent agreement when an actor's conduct is detrimental to the interests of the folks that buy the widgets or otherwise devalues the performance due.
Been around since the late 40s.

Problem here is that the actions taken by the network (albeit rightfully), not the words of the performer are proving to be more harmful to the network.

 

[Redfish]

So we have now done away and proven 100% false any and all false claims of "violation of 1st Amendment Rights".
That is a start.

Now to address the issue of tolerance.

In your view, who showed more intolerance? GLAAD and A&E or Phil Robertson?

I could give a shit if anyone is tolerant of anything except the LAW.
I do not tolerate those that claim the 1st Amendment protects employers from limiting the speech of their employees.
Which is 100% of what this is about no matter how the religious right spins it.

sorry, but its the left that is trying to create a demon out of a guy who was simply stating his beliefs.

 

[Katzndogz]

Phil Robertson is a milk weak sissy wimp.
A real man backs up what they say and would be out there TODAY, NOW saying his opinions when told to shut up.
I would have told A & E to FUCK THEMSELVES. No one tells me to shut up if I REALLY BELIEVE what I am saying.
And I support him stating what the hell he wants to.
But he went silent and said "yes maam, I will be quiet" to A & E.
NO FUCKING WAY I would have done that, contract or not.

Actually, the whole family told A&E to go fuck themselves. Of course the gay groups want to get him in public and relentlessly hammer him. They are demanding that Phil Robertson sit down with gay families and listen to them. While I would LOVE to see him meet with them and deliver a hellfire sermon worthy of Cotton Mather, the best course of action is to not jump when they say jump and not make any command performances.

None of the Robertsons really care what the gay/liberal cabal wants. Going hunting is more important that showing up because some group demands that they show up. This guy was a no show to Barbra Walters, he blew off a white house invitation and let Willie go. You really think he's going to show up because a bunch of fluffers demand it?

 

[TemplarKormac]

So we have now done away and proven 100% false any and all false claims of "violation of 1st Amendment Rights".
That is a start.

Now to address the issue of tolerance.

In your view, who showed more intolerance? GLAAD and A&E or Phil Robertson?

I could give a shit if anyone is tolerant of anything except the LAW.
I do not tolerate those that claim the 1st Amendment protects employers from limiting the speech of their employees.
Which is 100% of what this is about no matter how the religious right spins it.

Uhh okay. So law now trumps opinion? Or belief?

 

[Katzndogz]

Wow, amazing the lack of common sense here.
Sports fans, let me appeal to your reason and common sense.
YOU sell widgets, YOU pay big money to A & E, tens of millions a year in advertising.
YOU have a standard contract that EVERYONE that pays millions a year TO ALL networks use.
That standard contract allows advertisers-YOU, networks and movie studios to terminate a talent agreement when an actor's conduct is detrimental to the interests of the folks that buy the widgets or otherwise devalues the performance due.
Been around since the late 40s.

Problem here is that the actions taken by the network (albeit rightfully), not the words of the performer are proving to be more harmful to the network.

How was Phil Robertson's statements detrimental to hunters who are the folks that buy the widgets?

 

[Pogo]

Now to address the issue of tolerance.

In your view, who showed more intolerance? GLAAD and A&E or Phil Robertson?

I could give a shit if anyone is tolerant of anything except the LAW.
I do not tolerate those that claim the 1st Amendment protects employers from limiting the speech of their employees.
Which is 100% of what this is about no matter how the religious right spins it.

Uhh okay. So law now trumps opinion? Or belief?

Uhh law trumps everything. That's why it's called "law".

 

[Mojo2]

So we have now done away and proven 100% false any and all false claims of "violation of 1st Amendment Rights".
That is a start.

Now to address the issue of tolerance.

In your view, who showed more intolerance? GLAAD and A&E or Phil Robertson?

No question.

GLAAD was the most intolerant..

They picked this fight and I don't think they were wise to do so.

A&E was willing to let the Robertson's be themselves.

There are Grizzly and Polar bears roaming the woods and frozen arctic. But we CO-EXIST with them because the world is a better place with them in it.

They have their place in the overall hierarchy of ecology, irrespective of the fact they could and likely would kill us if we ever got close enough to them.

Yet, we let them alone to be themselves.

Why?

Because they DO occupy a special place in our world and because they are no threat to us where we normally live and work and play.

And we know that just as long as we leave them alone they will leave us alone.

Phil has said that in God's name he would love all the sinners, be they sinners like terrorists or sinners like Gays. Or any sins in between. The sin doesn't matter. That wasn't the emphasis of his statement. The GLAAD folks didn't want to focus too much on THAT.

He was saying that no matter what he was willing to let God sort out which sin was which. Which one worse or not as bad.

And if any new age philosophy fans are out there, Marianne Williamson who interpreted, "A Course in Miracles," and has written several best selling books might say that there actually was no offense to any of the sins people commit.

Because sin is just an indication you were off the mark.

Not that you fell short but that your aim wasn't true.

here's a question that will require you to think outside the box.

What if Gays were MEANT by God to surmount the challenge of their own sexual urges to become heterosexuals or practice celibacy?

I'm not saying I believe that is the case.

But what if it was?

What if Gays weren't supposed to have babies just like some people weren't supposed to have sight or a person was supposed to be a certain height or a certain gender or have a certain eye color. What if things were predetermined and by making improvements by performing life changing medical miracles that change or save infants' lives we may inadvertently be altering His grand plan for us?

Just a thought.

Anyway, A&E was willing to air and promote Duck Dynasty because they believed it was a real revenue generating show and they likely justified their decision with the Bear analogy.

They may have done it for mercenary reasons but that doesn't bother anyone on the right.

We love Capitalism!

Making an honest profit is good.

Wealth is good.

Popularity is good.

And their intolerance only showed up when GLAAD made a big stink about it and A&E's other constituency felt ready to grow like a cancer to dominate the Network and the airwaves and then all of America.

Like a cancer.

Like the Muslim brotherhood.

No.

GLAAD is the most intolerant. Next is A&E.

Phil is as right as rain.

If GLAAD and A&E can simply recognize other people have differing opinions about Gays there would be no problem.

The Robertson's and most of America is willing to allow time to change the social climate about gays until the matter is settled. Or even if it isn't settled most of America is willing to tolerate the changes regarding Gay rights and all.

We are willing to abstain from pushing an ANTI Gay sentiment if you'll just leave us alone and not poke us with a stick.

Leave the bears alone to be themselves.

They aren't hurting anyone much.

Just chill out, GLAAD.

 

[Amelia]

Straight up question, TK: do you agree with what Phil said about blacks and gays.

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 also said gays are "full of murder". I trust that you don't agree with that.

 

[Amelia]

Straight up question, TK: do you agree with what Phil said about blacks and gays.

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, that was nauseating. I've asked on black conservative sites what they think about that. I think I saw an answer -- one which defended Phil within the context of Phil's experience -- but now I can't remember exactly what was said.

 

[Amelia]

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.

From my personal observation, and I lived in Harlem pre civil rights, they WERE! In the face of serious discrimination (although they really didn't have a lot of discrimination in New York City) they had a joy in life, an integrity and yes, I would say even a nobility that they lost. Pre civil rights black families were strong, dad raised his children and they were happier with the support of mom, dad and grandparents. They went to church, they helped one another through the hard times and shared in the good. Crime was very low in black neighborhoods. Lower than in white neighborhoods and way lower than in Irish neighborhoods.

What do they have today, an unbelievable abortion rate, crime off the charts, black babies shot in their cribs by black men driving by? Black cities are failures. Years of entitlements have resulted in a towering resentment that there isn't more.

Even some prominent liberals have acknowledged that the people who set the policy wheels in motion in the 1960's have to some extent harmed the people they were trying to help.

 

[Mojo2]

Wow, amazing the lack of common sense here.
Sports fans, let me appeal to your reason and common sense.
YOU sell widgets, YOU pay big money to A & E, tens of millions a year in advertising.
YOU have a standard contract that EVERYONE that pays millions a year TO ALL networks use.
That standard contract allows advertisers-YOU, networks and movie studios to terminate a talent agreement when an actor's conduct is detrimental to the interests of the folks that buy the widgets or otherwise devalues the performance due.
Been around since the late 40s.

Problem here is that the actions taken by the network (albeit rightfully), not the words of the performer are proving to be more harmful to the network.

How was Phil Robertson's statements detrimental to hunters who are the folks that buy the widgets?

In this case the mix of the advertiser's targeted demographic is HEAVILY slanted in favor of Phil's point of view.

Other advertisers may have a different constituency to please or ameliorate. And that might suggest they should cater less to their Conservative customers in order to save the Liberal members of their desired customer group.

But A&E is also balancing what to do in this case. Do more of their viewers skew Liberal of Conservative?

Would they lose more total viewers by siding with Phil or with GLAAD?

We'll find out.

 

[Pogo]

Actually NO it hasn't.

Jon Gosselin Violates Morals Clause, Moves On with Reality Show

The above was already posted.

Now either shut up or say something else stupid.

You have still yet to prove there was a "morals clause" in his contract. I don't remember A&E citing that as the reason for his suspension either. Unless you have something proving otherwise.

Media companies aren't about to discuss their contracts with talent in public. But you can bet the house Phil Robertson and everybody else on the show has a morals clause. It's SOP. One example of a "reality show" clause was just given above, here's another, which was posted yesterday and ignored:

here's a whole similar contract to what the Duckers would have signed. See paragraph 13 on page 15. See also section 8(b) and throughout, which makes it clear the Artist signs away all aspects of their "image", including who else they can(not) work for and what they can't do as long as they represent the illusion the Producer hires them for.

That sample contract is for a similar TV show, "Basketball Wives". Again, a standard form.

Not enough? Want a view from closer in?

>> While the specifics of Robertson’s agreement with A&E aren’t known, entertainment-industry protocol suggests that he would likely have have an uphill battle.

TheWrap spoke to multiple legal experts who said that, if Robertson’s contract contained a morals clause — as if often the case with on-air talent — than the reality TV star has little in the way of legal recourse. Often, such morals clauses note that, if talents [sic] speaks or acts in a way that insults or denigrates people, the producer reserves the right to suspend or terminate that talent.

And typically, defining such language or actions is left to the discretion of the studio — basically, “if we say it is so, it is.” Tough to mount a legal argument against that.

&#8220;My guess is that they [suspended Robertson] on the basis of a morality clause,&#8221; one entertainment attorney told TheWrap on Wednesday. &#8220;Once you sign a reality show contract, they own you. << ([URL="http://www.thewrap.com/phil-robertson-duck-dynasty-free-speech-religious-discrimiination"][URL="http://www.thewrap.com/phil-robertson-duck-dynasty-free-speech-religious-discrimiination"]TheWrap[/URL][/URL])

That was posted before too. ( )

Here's one that wasn't posted before, at least by me:

>> Phil and other family members also probably signed contracts containing "morals clauses" in which they promised to, among other things, avoid anything that would embarrass or bring shame to A&E or the brand. Such clauses are standard in the entertainment and sports industries

In essence, the network was asking Phil - a man of legendary individuality, who once passed up an opportunity to sign with the NFL because it might interfere with his hunting - to be somewhat less Phil-like. But that is the kind of wobbly bargain that reality TV producers have been forced to make. If they bought the show, they were getting a volatile personality in the mix. A&E could of course have walked away - but that would have meant passing over a potential TV phenomenon, which is what the Robertsons became.

For some time, Phil Robertson held up his end of the speak-no-evil bargain. But that's over now, obviously. (LA Times)

Seems the burden of proof is on you to prove there is NOT a morals clause. Unless you think A&E would act as if there were without having it in the contract.

 

[Sunshine]

Wow, amazing the lack of common sense here.
Sports fans, let me appeal to your reason and common sense.
YOU sell widgets, YOU pay big money to A & E, tens of millions a year in advertising.
YOU have a standard contract that EVERYONE that pays millions a year TO ALL networks use.
That standard contract allows advertisers-YOU, networks and movie studios to terminate a talent agreement when an actor's conduct is detrimental to the interests of the folks that buy the widgets or otherwise devalues the performance due.
Been around since the late 40s.

Problem here is that the actions taken by the network (albeit rightfully), not the words of the performer are proving to be more harmful to the network.

That is true. Many people are feeling their rights slipping away. I don't even watch DD, but everyone I know who does is talking about it. Some folks were even talking about it in my dentist's waiting room this past week. Christian people are perceiving that they are losing the right to be Christian. And no one dares to speak about race lest you find yourself flung against the wall if you happen not to be the government's favored race these days. If you are white, you are the enemy. Your history is being changed, as are your monuments, as well as many things this country has held dear for several generations.

 

[Mojo2]

Straight up question, TK: do you agree with what Phil said about blacks and gays.

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 also said gays are "full of murder". I trust that you don't agree with that.

America went along with A LOT more lies that were A LOT MORE impactful, and negatively so, when they voted for Obama than by taking what Phil said with a grain of salt.

 

[Sunshine]

Jon Gosselin Violates Morals Clause, Moves On with Reality Show

The above was already posted.

Now either shut up or say something else stupid.

You have still yet to prove there was a "morals clause" in his contract. I don't remember A&E citing that as the reason for his suspension either. Unless you have something proving otherwise.

Media companies aren't about to discuss their contracts with talent in public. But you can bet the house Phil Robertson and everybody else on the show has a morals clause. It's SOP. One example of a "reality show" clause was just given above, here's another, which was posted yesterday and ignored:

here's a whole similar contract to what the Duckers would have signed. See paragraph 13 on page 15. See also section 8(b) and throughout, which makes it clear the Artist signs away all aspects of their "image", including who else they can(not) work for and what they can't do as long as they represent the illusion the Producer hires them for.

That sample contract is for a similar TV show, "Basketball Wives". Again, a standard form.

Not enough? Want a view from closer in?

>> While the specifics of Robertson’s agreement with A&E aren’t known, entertainment-industry protocol suggests that he would likely have have an uphill battle.

TheWrap spoke to multiple legal experts who said that, if Robertson’s contract contained a morals clause — as if often the case with on-air talent — than the reality TV star has little in the way of legal recourse. Often, such morals clauses note that, if talents [sic] speaks or acts in a way that insults or denigrates people, the producer reserves the right to suspend or terminate that talent.

And typically, defining such language or actions is left to the discretion of the studio — basically, “if we say it is so, it is.” Tough to mount a legal argument against that.

“My guess is that they [suspended Robertson] on the basis of a morality clause,” one entertainment attorney told TheWrap on Wednesday. “Once you sign a reality show contract, they own you. << ([URL="http://www.thewrap.com/phil-robertson-duck-dynasty-free-speech-religious-discrimiination"][URL="http://www.thewrap.com/phil-robertson-duck-dynasty-free-speech-religious-discrimiination"]TheWrap[/URL][/URL])

That was posted before too. ( )

Here's one that wasn't posted before, at least by me:

>> Phil and other family members also probably signed contracts containing "morals clauses" in which they promised to, among other things, avoid anything that would embarrass or bring shame to A&E or the brand. Such clauses are standard in the entertainment and sports industries

In essence, the network was asking Phil - a man of legendary individuality, who once passed up an opportunity to sign with the NFL because it might interfere with his hunting - to be somewhat less Phil-like. But that is the kind of wobbly bargain that reality TV producers have been forced to make. If they bought the show, they were getting a volatile personality in the mix. A&E could of course have walked away - but that would have meant passing over a potential TV phenomenon, which is what the Robertsons became.

For some time, Phil Robertson held up his end of the speak-no-evil bargain. But that's over now, obviously. (LA Times)

Seems the burden of proof is on you to prove there is NOT a morals clause. Unless you think A&E would act as if there were without having it in the contract.

You seriously don't know anything about contract law. This was nothing but a knee jerk reaction to complaints.

While you are on the subject, tell us what is 'immoral' about thinking homosexuality is wrong? How is that belief immoral?

 

[TemplarKormac]

I could give a shit if anyone is tolerant of anything except the LAW.
I do not tolerate those that claim the 1st Amendment protects employers from limiting the speech of their employees.
Which is 100% of what this is about no matter how the religious right spins it.

Uhh okay. So law now trumps opinion? Or belief?

Uhh law trumps everything. That's why it's called "law".

Seriously? Law so absolute that it regulates speech? What kind of law is that?

 

[Mojo2]

http://i.imgur.com/Pi1O7Ek.jpg[/IMG[/quote]

[B][COLOR="Red"][SIZE="5"]You guys have started a fight you didn't want.[/SIZE][/COLOR][/B][/QUOTE]

You always say that[/QUOTE]

First time, IIRC.

Put up or shut up.

Prove your assertion or admit to being wrong/lying/trolling.

 

[Pogo]

You have still yet to prove there was a "morals clause" in his contract. I don't remember A&E citing that as the reason for his suspension either. Unless you have something proving otherwise.

Media companies aren't about to discuss their contracts with talent in public. But you can bet the house Phil Robertson and everybody else on the show has a morals clause. It's SOP. One example of a "reality show" clause was just given above, here's another, which was posted yesterday and ignored:

here's a whole similar contract to what the Duckers would have signed. See paragraph 13 on page 15. See also section 8(b) and throughout, which makes it clear the Artist signs away all aspects of their "image", including who else they can(not) work for and what they can't do as long as they represent the illusion the Producer hires them for.

That sample contract is for a similar TV show, "Basketball Wives". Again, a standard form.

Not enough? Want a view from closer in?

>> While the specifics of Robertson&#8217;s agreement with A&E aren&#8217;t known, entertainment-industry protocol suggests that he would likely have have an uphill battle.

TheWrap spoke to multiple legal experts who said that, if Robertson&#8217;s contract contained a morals clause &#8212; as if often the case with on-air talent &#8212; than the reality TV star has little in the way of legal recourse. Often, such morals clauses note that, if talents [sic] speaks or acts in a way that insults or denigrates people, the producer reserves the right to suspend or terminate that talent.

And typically, defining such language or actions is left to the discretion of the studio &#8212; basically, &#8220;if we say it is so, it is.&#8221; Tough to mount a legal argument against that.

&#8220;My guess is that they [suspended Robertson] on the basis of a morality clause,&#8221; one entertainment attorney told TheWrap on Wednesday. &#8220;Once you sign a reality show contract, they own you. << ([URL="http://www.thewrap.com/phil-robertson-duck-dynasty-free-speech-religious-discrimiination"][URL="http://www.thewrap.com/phil-robertson-duck-dynasty-free-speech-religious-discrimiination"]TheWrap[/URL][/URL])

That was posted before too. ( )

Here's one that wasn't posted before, at least by me:

>> Phil and other family members also probably signed contracts containing "morals clauses" in which they promised to, among other things, avoid anything that would embarrass or bring shame to A&E or the brand. Such clauses are standard in the entertainment and sports industries

In essence, the network was asking Phil - a man of legendary individuality, who once passed up an opportunity to sign with the NFL because it might interfere with his hunting - to be somewhat less Phil-like. But that is the kind of wobbly bargain that reality TV producers have been forced to make. If they bought the show, they were getting a volatile personality in the mix. A&E could of course have walked away - but that would have meant passing over a potential TV phenomenon, which is what the Robertsons became.

For some time, Phil Robertson held up his end of the speak-no-evil bargain. But that's over now, obviously. (LA Times)

Seems the burden of proof is on you to prove there is NOT a morals clause. Unless you think A&E would act as if there were without having it in the contract.

You seriously don't know anything about contract law. This was nothing but a knee jerk reaction to complaints.

Ah but I seriously do, particularly entertainment law. For those too lazy to go read the link I already put up there, here's a typical "morals clause":

>> 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. <<

That is what the legal term "morals clause" means.

While you are on the subject, tell us what is 'immoral' about thinking homosexuality is wrong? How is that belief immoral?

Does not apply. See above.

Once again -- basically when you sign up for a TV show, the Producer owns you and your soul. What they're selling on the boob tube is an illusion. That goes for any fictitious show on TV. And if Talent is not serving that illusion, for whatever reason, they can pull the plug. Simple as that.

They have that right because both parties enter into such a contract voluntarily. That doesn't mean Robertson can't say whatever he wants; it just means that if he does and it doesn't serve the image, then he can be fired. He's got the right to free speech; he doesn't have the right to a free job.

See also Alec Baldwin... Martin Bashir... Glenn Beck... Keith Olbermann... Rush Limbaugh (on NFL telecasts)... this is Television, folks. Mass commercial media, which exists to make money. Again, simple as that.