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

[Vox]

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".

nope. law can easily be changed, so it does not trump anything except the legal parameters at the current point in time and place.

 

[Pogo]

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

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

nope. law can easily be changed, so it does not trump anything except the legal parameters at the current point in time and place.

You get dumber by the day. What matters is what the law is today -- not what it "can be changed to".

Want to go rob a bank on the basis that the law against robbing banks "can be changed"?
Good luck with that.

 

[Sunshine]

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.

You didn't answer my question. What is immoral about believing homosexuality is wrong? Here is another. When did you learn all about contracts? My guess is you, like most, couldn't read one correctly if your life depended on it.

Bottom line here, if A & E wanted certain things NOT discussed in interviews, etc. they should have spelled it out and it is clear they did not. These networks put these people on 'reality' shows because of who and what they are. Then when the people behave in character with who and what they are, the network gets all butt hurt over it. He wasn't even on the show when he made the statements. Moreover, he didn't represent his beliefs to be those of A & E. Representing those beliefs to be those of A & E certainly would have been actionable. What he did was to cause nothing more than a knee jerk reaction on the part of the network.

 

[Katzndogz]

A&E didn't sign up for illusion. They signed up for reality. That's what they got, reality. They didn't sign someone up to play a part but someone who was the part. They knew exactly what they were getting. The network just thought they could exercise more control than they really could.

No doubt the network imagined that if they gave Phil Robertson celebrity he would start acting like a celebrity and consider that celebrity worth protecting. He doesn't. He literally is above anything the gay/ liberal cabal can do to him. Even the race card is useless. Robertson can refuse to play. Pick up all the marbles and go hunting.

 

[TemplarKormac]

It all boils down to this:

While a TV network has all the right in the world to regulate what is put on their programming, they are always and ultimately at the mercy of their viewership. People could have simply changed the channel, but nope. Some of them see it as an outlet to attack people of faith, irregardless of what rights the actors/network have.

 

[Pogo]

A&E didn't sign up for illusion. They signed up for reality. That's what they got, reality. They didn't sign someone up to play a part but someone who was the part. They knew exactly what they were getting. The network just thought they could exercise more control than they really could.

No doubt the network imagined that if they gave Phil Robertson celebrity he would start acting like a celebrity and consider that celebrity worth protecting. He doesn't. He literally is above anything the gay/ liberal cabal can do to him. Even the race card is useless. Robertson can refuse to play. Pick up all the marbles and go hunting.

If you think what you see on the screen is "reality" --- why does the show have writers?

 

[Vox]

It all boils down to this:

While a TV network has all the right in the world to regulate what is put on their programming, they are always and ultimately at the mercy of their viewership. People could have simply changed the channel, but nope. Some of them see it as an outlet to attack people of faith, irregardless of what rights the actors/network have.

^^^this

and that is what is happening. they have the absolute right to fire according to their views( or lack thereof), since they are the private enterprise.

He has the absolute right to sue if he feels like it.

we have the absolute right to support whomever we choose to.

what all of us are doing.

 

[Vox]

A&E didn't sign up for illusion. They signed up for reality. That's what they got, reality. They didn't sign someone up to play a part but someone who was the part. They knew exactly what they were getting. The network just thought they could exercise more control than they really could.

No doubt the network imagined that if they gave Phil Robertson celebrity he would start acting like a celebrity and consider that celebrity worth protecting. He doesn't. He literally is above anything the gay/ liberal cabal can do to him. Even the race card is useless. Robertson can refuse to play. Pick up all the marbles and go hunting.

the network clearly did not expect to encounter somebody with proverbial balls.

 

[Katzndogz]

A&E didn't sign up for illusion. They signed up for reality. That's what they got, reality. They didn't sign someone up to play a part but someone who was the part. They knew exactly what they were getting. The network just thought they could exercise more control than they really could.

No doubt the network imagined that if they gave Phil Robertson celebrity he would start acting like a celebrity and consider that celebrity worth protecting. He doesn't. He literally is above anything the gay/ liberal cabal can do to him. Even the race card is useless. Robertson can refuse to play. Pick up all the marbles and go hunting.

If you think what you see on the screen is "reality" --- why does the show have writers?

What do the writers write? If, in fact, the show was scripted wouldn't the writers just write out all those references to God, Jesus and guns rather than tell the family to stop mentioning the subject? If you really think that family spends time memorizing lines you never saw the show.

 

[The T]

It all boils down to this:

While a TV network has all the right in the world to regulate what is put on their programming, they are always and ultimately at the mercy of their viewership. People could have simply changed the channel, but nope. Some of them see it as an outlet to attack people of faith, irregardless of what rights the actors/network have.

^^^this

and that is what is happening. they have the absolute right to fire according to their views( or lack thereof), since they are the private enterprise.

He has the absolute right to sue if he feels like it.

we have the absolute right to support whomever we choose to.

what all of us are doing.

And those that don't support what he stated have NOT the right to claim to be offended...by their offense to shut the man up.

 

[Pogo]

A&E didn't sign up for illusion. They signed up for reality. That's what they got, reality. They didn't sign someone up to play a part but someone who was the part. They knew exactly what they were getting. The network just thought they could exercise more control than they really could.

No doubt the network imagined that if they gave Phil Robertson celebrity he would start acting like a celebrity and consider that celebrity worth protecting. He doesn't. He literally is above anything the gay/ liberal cabal can do to him. Even the race card is useless. Robertson can refuse to play. Pick up all the marbles and go hunting.

If you think what you see on the screen is "reality" --- why does the show have writers?

What do the writers write? If, in fact, the show was scripted wouldn't the writers just write out all those references to God, Jesus and guns rather than tell the family to stop mentioning the subject?

No, not if it $ells.
Some of y'all keep imagining the Producer acts out of some kind of ideology. They don't. They sell what $ells.

If you really think that family spends time memorizing lines you never saw the show.

So you're saying they're stupid rednecks? Or just stupid?
Run with that.

 

[LoneLaugher]

The show is scripted.

 

[The T]

A&E didn't sign up for illusion. They signed up for reality. That's what they got, reality. They didn't sign someone up to play a part but someone who was the part. They knew exactly what they were getting. The network just thought they could exercise more control than they really could.

No doubt the network imagined that if they gave Phil Robertson celebrity he would start acting like a celebrity and consider that celebrity worth protecting. He doesn't. He literally is above anything the gay/ liberal cabal can do to him. Even the race card is useless. Robertson can refuse to play. Pick up all the marbles and go hunting.

the network clearly did not expect to encounter somebody with proverbial balls.

And it will be their undoing. Look for their viewership to dwindle.

 

[LoneLaugher]

It all boils down to this:

While a TV network has all the right in the world to regulate what is put on their programming, they are always and ultimately at the mercy of their viewership. People could have simply changed the channel, but nope. Some of them see it as an outlet to attack people of faith, irregardless of what rights the actors/network have.

^^^this

and that is what is happening. they have the absolute right to fire according to their views( or lack thereof), since they are the private enterprise.

He has the absolute right to sue if he feels like it.

we have the absolute right to support whomever we choose to.

what all of us are doing.

And those that don't support what he stated have NOT the right to claim to be offended...by their offense to shut the man up.

That made perfect sense.

 

[Katzndogz]

A&E didn't sign up for illusion. They signed up for reality. That's what they got, reality. They didn't sign someone up to play a part but someone who was the part. They knew exactly what they were getting. The network just thought they could exercise more control than they really could.

No doubt the network imagined that if they gave Phil Robertson celebrity he would start acting like a celebrity and consider that celebrity worth protecting. He doesn't. He literally is above anything the gay/ liberal cabal can do to him. Even the race card is useless. Robertson can refuse to play. Pick up all the marbles and go hunting.

the network clearly did not expect to encounter somebody with proverbial balls.

Of course not. I would be more sympathetic to the network if they were blindsided. They knew what was going to be asked and had a representative at the interview. The family believes this was a set up and so do I. There has been a long running controversy over the family's use of faith on the show. A&E thought they would teach them a lesson. It never occurred to them that Phil Robertson wouldn't give a rats ass.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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?

First Amendment jurisprudence – shouting fire in a crowded theater or advocating for imminent lawlessness, for example.

Although our rights are inalienable, they’re not absolute, and subject to reasonable government restrictions.

 

[Spiderman]

The show is scripted.

and edited

if the big wigs at A&E didn't want that comment aired it wouldn't have been.

This is all a manufactured publicity gambit and I am sad to say that the people of this country are stupid enough to make it pay off.

 

[TemplarKormac]

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?

First Amendment jurisprudence – shouting fire in a crowded theater or advocating for imminent lawlessness, for example.

Although our rights are inalienable, they’re not absolute, and subject to reasonable government restrictions.

Do you hear yourself right now? If our rights are "subject to reasonable government restrictions" whats to stop government from pushing the boundaries of "reasonable"?

Jurisprudence restricting speech can set terrible precedent.

 

[Luissa]

I don't assume. Your reactions tell me all I need to know. So analytical am I, that I look for patterns, analyze behavior and speech patterns. Thus, I have never caught you at odds with a liberal on this board, but you are constantly warring with conservatives here. Simple statement of observation, Luissa. No need to lie.

You see what you want to see. And you are the one lying.

You are not analytical one bit.



And like I said, your assumptions don't prove I am far left. For one I actually know what free speech means, agree that A&E has the right to fire Robertson, I don't believe in the government running are means of production, banking, etc., I don't agree with Marxism, I am not an environmentalist, Seattle leftist drive me crazy, I don't agree with Tipper Gore and her war on rappers. The only gun control I believe in is being licensed and having a back ground check.

And I worker harder in one week, than you have in your life. A bum like you should never try to fool anyone into believing you have any sort of knowledge on anything other than video games.

What I do believe in, is the government shouldn't tell me what I should do with my body, what I can smoke, and who I can marry. And I think religion should stay far away from the government.

As for conservatives, I am guessing I associate with quite a bit more than you do.

Your problem is, you spend way too much time analyzing life instead of living it.





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I remember Coyote saying something about "getting back on topic." This does not contribute to the subject matter of the original post.



As an aside, if you have to type an essay to prove your point, you most likely don't understand the point well enough. You are a liberal.



Back on topic.

Responding to your post, whiner.
No libertarian would whine as much you do. No libertarian would post this thread.
And a libertarian would get Robertson's free speech was not violated.
You made a stupid point, there wasn't anything to get. Your brain is too full of butthurt to understand what being far left means. Go back to playing WOW, ya baby.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[LoneLaugher]

Liberals can choose the people who nutters will follow, defend and support. All we have to do is pick one and call him or her an idiot. They immediately get a loyal following.

Palin.....Joe the Plumber......Ted Nugent.......George Zimmerman....Ted Cruz........Duckman.........

Line up and buy your books, t-shirts and coffee mugs, nutters. Wait for our cue on who to get behind next.