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

[Katzndogz]

Yeah. I've lost jobs opening my big mouth also. No biggie.

Actually, you've never lost your job for stating your religious opinions. Big difference there, mister.

On the job, your employer can fire you for running your mouth.

Off the job?

Big lawsuit coming. REAL big.

Love to be an Attorney and land that one. A first year law student could win that case.

Roll over and spread your legs, A&E. You're about to find out what a butt-fucking is like

I would love to take that case and make Disney, Hearst and ABC kick in. It 's not a first amendment issue though.

 

[Antares]

Where has anyone stopped Robertson from fully expressing his religious views?
That has never happened.

thats not the issue. He has been "punished" for holding and expressing views that are not deemed to be politically correct.

There is no such thing as ‘political correctness,’ as private society is entitled to admonish those who speak or act in an inappropriate manner; and the network had every right to suspend the cast member accordingly.

Would you prefer governments determine and dictate social norms and mores through legislation?

Or are you one of those rightists who believes minorities should simply stay quiet and out of sight when subject to abuse, offering no protest?

There is no such thing as ‘political correctness

You sir are simply an idiot...

as private society is entitled to admonish those who speak or act in an inappropriate manner

You don't get to decide what is appropriate and what is not....first...you aren't intelligent enough for anyone to entrust that much power to....

Second, just because someone doesn't "like" something someone else says in no way grants them the "right" silence them.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Freedom of Religious Opinion?

Anybody has the right to speak out, but depending on the situation, they can be rebuked severely.

Antares does not understand that, though. He just spittles on his chin.

 

[candycorn]

This is ridiculous, it’s ignorant as well.

This situation is nothing like North Korea.

A&E is not a ‘government,’ it doesn’t have the authority or ability to arrest or detain; A&E is a private company acting in what it perceived to be its best interests – nothing more.

Robertson retains his right to speak freely, his liberty is in no way in jeopardy, which is why the comparison to NK is idiocy.

Only because it shows that you liberals are fascists.

Martin Bashir, Alec Baldwin, Keith Olbermann fired from MSNBC...
Bill Maher fired from ABC...
Bob Costas, David Gregory and Piers Morgan must be "fired", "jailed" and "deported"...
Jocelyn Elders railroaded...
Dixie Chicks boycotted, CDs crushed by bulldozers...
(recalling Beatle record bonfires)...
PATRIOT act, Iraq war hysteria, "freedom fries" and O'Liarly's boycott on France...

Damn liburruls.


...

tapatalk post

Good to know these deep thoughts are coming from a deep-thought brain sweat device

Left Wing Propaganda....I'm sure none of that happened. It would fracture the psychee of the right wing to acknowledge that.

 

[Pogo]

Actually, you've never lost your job for stating your religious opinions. Big difference there, mister.

On the job, your employer can fire you for running your mouth.

Off the job?

Big lawsuit coming. REAL big.

Love to be an Attorney and land that one. A first year law student could win that case.

Roll over and spread your legs, A&E. You're about to find out what a butt-fucking is like

I would love to take that case and make Disney, Hearst and ABC kick in. It 's not a first amendment issue though.

Given a standard morality clause it's not any kind of issue.

- which we established here days ago without a day of law school. So why is this still pretending to be a quesiton?

STILL waiting for Edgetho to come up with an explanation of what kind of lawsuit A&E is susceptible to...

 

[Antares]

Freedom of Religious Opinion?

Anybody has the right to speak out, but depending on the situation, they can be rebuked severely.

Antares does not understand that, though. He just spittles on his chin.

Not so Jake, I support your right to ignorant and to show it to everybody here every day.
I support your right to teach your progenitors how to lie about everything and be just as unscrupulous as you are.

I support your your right to have zero integrity....and to show THAT to everyone here every day too.

 

[candycorn]

FUX NEWS is NOT obligated to promote the liberal ideology, and they don't. A&E is not obligated to promote the con ideology. So the con whine about it is lame.

But you are OK with NBC and MSNBC promoting the far left ideology. For the record, on every Fox show the liberal position is given equal time. The problem is that when both sides are given equal time, the left always loses because liberalism is a flawed ideology.

the left only wins when the right is not allowed to speak. You know it, I know it, every thinking person knows it.

332-206. You're full of shit.

 

[kaz]

So are you calling this guy from Duck Dynaasty a hypocrite for not doing everything the Bible tells him? Or are you merely justifying his hypocricy and that of all other Christians?

Um ... no ... I'm calling him a hypocrite because he criticizes Republicans for not following Republican values, such as morality, but he does not criticize Democrats for not following Democratic values, like paying their own taxes. I mean duh, you seriously didn't get that? Wow, that was obvious.

Typical that you know a reality show (I had to Google your reference) but you don't know what the word hypocrisy means, and you didn't Google it to find out...

Not sure what any of that means but whatever...I'm sure you had a point at one time.

You're demonstrating my point. Republicans preach morality, when they aren't moral they're hypocrites! Yes, they are.

However, when it's pointed out that Democrats advocate high taxes, when they evade them they're hypocrites!

Then all the liberals are ... er ... what? What does that mean?

LOL

 

[NYcarbineer]

Okay, let's eviserate this stupidity.

First, homosexuality exists in the animal kingdom. When a male dog humps another male dog, all the other dogs don't whip out bibles and start calling the dog nasty names. So, sorry, Science and Biology give your homophobia no solace. nature just doesn't give a flip about your hangups.

So that leaves you with "religious teachings".

Okay. Religious teachings say "Thou shall not suffer a witch to live". And for centuries, they burned women and sometimes men for "witchcraft", which could be anything from acting a bit odd to knowing what herbs and roots made good medical treatments. And then someone finally figured out, "Geezus, this is the 18th century! There are no freakin' witches."

At least in the advanced world. There are third world countries where they still kill women for being witches. Heck, Sarah Palin's church even invited a witch-hunter to speak.

Slavery, Genocide, genital mutilation, all these things have been justified as "religious teachings" at some point. And thankfully, sane, rational people reject them today.

So do you really have an argument against homosexuality other than "I think it's icky." ?

When a male dog humps another male dog he isn't expressing love or a desire to mate. He is exercising domination over that dog. Dogs do not engage in anal intercourse. If a dog did attempt such a thing (it might be impossible since dog erections are triggered by scent) the other dog would tear him to bits. It would be the dog fight of all dog fights.

Female dogs hump just as much as male dogs to express domination. Female dogs hump male dogs for the same reason.

So don't come up with homosexuality exists in the animal kingdom and use dogs as an example, dogs have better sense than you do.

Dogs also have sex only at times when the female is fertile or very close to it. They do not have sex otherwise.

Over 99% of human sexual intercourse, on the other hand, is done for reasons other than reproduction. In fact the overwhelming majority of human sexual intercourse is done with absolutely no desire for fertilization to occur and in fact numerous measures are taken to prevent such.

So you are saying that most heterosexual human sexual activity is unnatural, if dogs are the model.

You need a new model.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Just to keep this interminable thread up to date and focused, let's remember what Robertson said in 2010:

"Women with women, men with men, they committed indecent acts with one another, and they received in themselves the due penalty for their perversions. They’re full of murder, envy, strife, hatred. They are insolent, arrogant, God-haters. They are heartless, they are faithless, they are senseless, they are ruthless. They invent ways of doing evil."

Now if you have some imagination, and do some revisions here and there, I think many of you could see how similar that sounds to a classic anti-semitic rant against the Jews.

eh?

 

[Pogo]

Just to keep this interminable thread up to date and focused, let's remember what Robertson said in 2010:

"Women with women, men with men, they committed indecent acts with one another, and they received in themselves the due penalty for their perversions. They’re full of murder, envy, strife, hatred. They are insolent, arrogant, God-haters. They are heartless, they are faithless, they are senseless, they are ruthless. They invent ways of doing evil."

That right there is the first I've read of the interview but obviously if you're A&E and this is your "Talent" talking you're seeing a significant swath of your viewership insulted.

Kinda hard to defend sump'm like that.

 

[Antares]

Just to keep this interminable thread up to date and focused, let's remember what Robertson said in 2010:

"Women with women, men with men, they committed indecent acts with one another, and they received in themselves the due penalty for their perversions. They’re full of murder, envy, strife, hatred. They are insolent, arrogant, God-haters. They are heartless, they are faithless, they are senseless, they are ruthless. They invent ways of doing evil."

Now if you have some imagination, and do some revisions here and there, I think many of you could see how similar that sounds to a classic anti-semitic rant against the Jews.

eh?

How very "Godwin" of you.

 

[Iceman]

Freedom of Religious Opinion?

Anybody has the right to speak out, but depending on the situation, they can be rebuked severely.

Antares does not understand that, though. He just spittles on his chin.

So I can fire someone for attacking Christianity and it's traditions?

How about political opinions? If an employee of my voices an opinion I don't like, can I fire them?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Just to keep this interminable thread up to date and focused, let's remember what Robertson said in 2010:

"Women with women, men with men, they committed indecent acts with one another, and they received in themselves the due penalty for their perversions. They’re full of murder, envy, strife, hatred. They are insolent, arrogant, God-haters. They are heartless, they are faithless, they are senseless, they are ruthless. They invent ways of doing evil."

That right there is the first I've read of the interview but obviously if you're A&E and this is your "Talent" talking you're seeing a significant swath of your viewership insulted.

Kinda hard to defend sump'm like that.

And so much for that old fundy Christian escape clause of

'love the sinner, hate the sin'.

 

[Gadawg73]

Freedom of Religious Opinion?

Anybody has the right to speak out, but depending on the situation, they can be rebuked severely.

Antares does not understand that, though. He just spittles on his chin.

So I can fire someone for attacking Christianity and it's traditions?

How about political opinions? If an employee of my voices an opinion I don't like, can I fire them?

Man oh man, you have never heard of a right to work state?
And on top of that let me say it AGAIN:
Your 1st amendment rights of free speech, religious or otherwise, protect you against the power of GOVERNMENT LIMITING IT, NOT your employer.
How many times do I have to post that FACT?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Just to keep this interminable thread up to date and focused, let's remember what Robertson said in 2010:

"Women with women, men with men, they committed indecent acts with one another, and they received in themselves the due penalty for their perversions. They’re full of murder, envy, strife, hatred. They are insolent, arrogant, God-haters. They are heartless, they are faithless, they are senseless, they are ruthless. They invent ways of doing evil."

That right there is the first I've read of the interview but obviously if you're A&E and this is your "Talent" talking you're seeing a significant swath of your viewership insulted.

Kinda hard to defend sump'm like that.

And yet 2 posters today told me that the way GLAAD reacted was either

1) criminal, or,

2) ought to be.

P.S. the quote above was from a different rant by 'Phil' that was discovered after he gave people reason to look.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Just to keep this interminable thread up to date and focused, let's remember what Robertson said in 2010:

"Women with women, men with men, they committed indecent acts with one another, and they received in themselves the due penalty for their perversions. They’re full of murder, envy, strife, hatred. They are insolent, arrogant, God-haters. They are heartless, they are faithless, they are senseless, they are ruthless. They invent ways of doing evil."

That right there is the first I've read of the interview but obviously if you're A&E and this is your "Talent" talking you're seeing a significant swath of your viewership insulted.

Kinda hard to defend sump'm like that.

And yet 2 posters today told me that the way GLAAD reacted was either

1) criminal, or,

2) ought to be.

P.S. the quote above was from a different rant by 'Phil' that was discovered after he gave people reason to look.

Perhaps if you were treated in such a fashion, you'd change your mind. You never ever know someone until you've walked a mile in his shoes. Frankly, the man is 67 years old, lived through Jim Crow, was a flaming, drug doing, sex happy hippie from the 60's, he had to flee Arkansas after beating a bar owner and his wife to a pulp at a bar. Then someone led him to Christ. Now, when he remembers what he used to be and what he is now, he rightfully proclaims his faith.

It should be criminal to seek the destruction of a man for having an opinion. Given that our law says otherwise and protects the right of someone to be spiteful to another, that is an impossibility. What those two people were doing was voicing an opinion, not a desire to criminalize anything. Try looking up those two words when you get the chance.

 

[LoneLaugher]

That right there is the first I've read of the interview but obviously if you're A&E and this is your "Talent" talking you're seeing a significant swath of your viewership insulted.

Kinda hard to defend sump'm like that.

And yet 2 posters today told me that the way GLAAD reacted was either

1) criminal, or,

2) ought to be.

P.S. the quote above was from a different rant by 'Phil' that was discovered after he gave people reason to look.

Perhaps if you were treated in such a fashion, you'd change your mind. You never ever know someone until you've walked a mile in his shoes. Frankly, the man is 67 years old, lived through Jim Crow, was a flaming, drug doing, sex happy hippie from the 60's, he had to flee Arkansas after beating a bar owner and his wife to a pulp at a bar. Then someone led him to Christ. Now, when he remembers what he used to be and what he is now, he rightfully proclaims his faith.

It should be criminal to seek the destruction of a man for having an opinion. Given that our law says otherwise and protects the right of someone to be spiteful to another, that is an impossibility. What those two people were doing was voicing an opinion, not a desire to criminalize anything. Try looking up those two words when you get the chance.

He lived through Jim Crow? That must have been horrible for him.

 

[thanatos144]

This is ridiculous, it’s ignorant as well.

This situation is nothing like North Korea.

A&E is not a ‘government,’ it doesn’t have the authority or ability to arrest or detain; A&E is a private company acting in what it perceived to be its best interests – nothing more.

Robertson retains his right to speak freely, his liberty is in no way in jeopardy, which is why the comparison to NK is idiocy.

Only because it shows that you liberals are fascists.

Martin Bashir, Alec Baldwin, Keith Olbermann fired from MSNBC...
Bill Maher fired from ABC...
Bob Costas, David Gregory and Piers Morgan must be "fired", "jailed" and "deported"...
Jocelyn Elders railroaded...
Dixie Chicks boycotted, CDs crushed by bulldozers...
(recalling Beatle record bonfires)...
PATRIOT act, Iraq war hysteria, "freedom fries" and O'Liarly's boycott on France...

Damn liburruls.


...

tapatalk post

Good to know these deep thoughts are coming from a deep-thought brain sweat device

Lol if you think so

tapatalk post

 

[thanatos144]

And yet 2 posters today told me that the way GLAAD reacted was either

1) criminal, or,

2) ought to be.

P.S. the quote above was from a different rant by 'Phil' that was discovered after he gave people reason to look.

Perhaps if you were treated in such a fashion, you'd change your mind. You never ever know someone until you've walked a mile in his shoes. Frankly, the man is 67 years old, lived through Jim Crow, was a flaming, drug doing, sex happy hippie from the 60's, he had to flee Arkansas after beating a bar owner and his wife to a pulp at a bar. Then someone led him to Christ. Now, when he remembers what he used to be and what he is now, he rightfully proclaims his faith.

It should be criminal to seek the destruction of a man for having an opinion. Given that our law says otherwise and protects the right of someone to be spiteful to another, that is an impossibility. What those two people were doing was voicing an opinion, not a desire to criminalize anything. Try looking up those two words when you get the chance.

He lived through Jim Crow? That must have been horrible for him.

Not all relish black suffering like you democrats do

tapatalk post