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

[The T]

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.

Why are people so dumb?

The First Amendment guarantees you that the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT can't take away your rights. It says NOTHING about what individuals may do.

A TV station may do as they see fit.

Certainly I don't agree with A&E's decision, but just as certainly, it is THEIR right to do so, no one has a right to be on A&E.

The thing is...leftards call it "hate speech". And it isn't hate speech. They just don't like it. But because they don't like it, they criminalize it...and THEN the gov't is enabled to deny it.

Nazi Germany was an extreme example of HATE SPEECH. Shame some disregard it. They don't learn from history.

 

[koshergrl]

Hell they CREATED it for just this purpose. Which is the same purpose that the nazis did.

 

[KevinWestern]

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.

Damnit, Templar I thought you were better than this.

Would you protest Hobby Lobby firing a Public Relations executive after he/she came out as a Satanist and made a bunch of comments in a national magazine on how he/she supports free and wild sex with multiple partners and denounces God and every Christian who has ever walked this planet?

I would totally support the firing. As a PR exec that person is the public face of the company and if he/she is openly denouncing what the company stands for than I think that's more than enough valid reason to can his/her ass. Don't you?

 

[Luddly Neddite]

I don't know much about this duck dood (thankfully) but I just read another of his quotes, and the creep factor went up to 100.


"A good woman is "hard to find. Mainly because these boys are waiting until they get to be about 20 years old before they marry 'em.

Look, you wait till they get to be about 20 years old, they only picking that's going to take place is your pocket. You gotta marry these girls when they're 15 or 16, they'll pick your ducks. You need to check with mom and dad about that, of course." -- Speaking at Sportsmen's Ministry in Georgia in 2009.

Preaching about marrying 15-year-olds. You see, that's not pedophilia, it's Southern.​

And this is why A&E suspended this idiot. It's not just what he said, which was bad enough by itself, it's what else is going to come out now that people are actually looking.

I read that his own wife was 14 when they married.

Not surprising that the rw's don't want Constitutional protection for most Americans but someone believe that this jerk has been denied his Constitutional rights under the First Amendment.

Serious question: how can we get the rw's to actually read and understand the First Amendment?

 

[koshergrl]

Yes because your statement is in direct conflict with the mission of, and undoubtedly comes as a surprise to, your employer.

So it's not the same thing. This guy has always been outspoken, has voiced them multiples of times, has PUBLISHED THEM, has owned them on his shows...and A&E isn't a dedicated "SIN" network.

They weren't surprised, the statements aren't in conflict with the mission of their network. No, it's not the same.

 

[Katzndogz]

Explain.

.... Still waiting...

I see you've never sign a contract with morality clauses ... other wise you wouldn't have asked it ... in many contracts that you sign especially if you are representing a brand, in this case the A&E brand ... you have to follow their standards of broadcast ... one being you can't state your point of view before asking the company if you can ... that's standard... after all they are the ones that are getting you the money you want ... where you cause them to lose money, which this moron did, he knew he couldn't say what he said, but he said he'll do what he wants any way, which it got him removed from the show ... if the others feel the same way fine cancel the show ... there another one right down the corner ... ask charley scheen ... he got himself fired and he got another show right down the road... the thing is A&E own the show and everyone in it... so they would have to do something else... maybe start a religious show like the 700 club show ... call it the Phil Robertson racist club where he can spew his special kind of hate like pat does... I kow you'll watch it

If there is a morality clause, and we don't know since no one here has read the contract but is assuming there is one. IF there is one, that clause was voided by the prior approval of A&E as to the question and the expected response.

The difference between Charlie Sheen and Phil Robertson is that Charlie Sheen was fired, Two and a Half Men went on because the entire cast didn't quit. If the whole cast had quit, there would be no more Two and a Half Men at all. The network wouldn't even have a set to put a camera on.

A&E made a mistake. They thought they could treat Duck Dynasty like it was a Two and a Half men. Not only does the entire show consist of one family, but that family owns the sets and the land the show is filmed on. They own the buildings, the props. They own everything.

 

[koshergrl]

I don't know much about this duck dood (thankfully) but I just read another of his quotes, and the creep factor went up to 100.


"A good woman is "hard to find. Mainly because these boys are waiting until they get to be about 20 years old before they marry 'em.

Look, you wait till they get to be about 20 years old, they only picking that's going to take place is your pocket. You gotta marry these girls when they're 15 or 16, they'll pick your ducks. You need to check with mom and dad about that, of course." -- Speaking at Sportsmen's Ministry in Georgia in 2009.

Preaching about marrying 15-year-olds. You see, that's not pedophilia, it's Southern.​

And this is why A&E suspended this idiot. It's not just what he said, which was bad enough by itself, it's what else is going to come out now that people are actually looking.

I read that his own wife was 14 when they married.

Not surprising that the rw's don't want Constitutional protection for most Americans but someone believe that this jerk has been denied his Constitutional rights under the First Amendment.

Serious question: how can we get the rw's to actually read and understand the First Amendment?

We know it well.

And understand it much, much better than you do.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

[


Maybe you change their minds, maybe you don't.

Maybe as a result of the civil conversation in which each of you is allowed the fundamental dignity of speaking their mind, you will have softened their stance just a bit; maybe you will have changed the minds of others who were not yet set in stone to see things your way.

Your opinions are not worth more than others, no matter what names you call them.

.

My opinion is based on fair play and decency.

Their opinion is based on sexual fear, 3000 year old superstitons and general stupidity.

And here's my biggest problem with the Bible thumping assholes. It's not like they are going to get their way on any of their pet issues. Abortion will be legal, Gay marriage will be the norm, Evolution will be taught in the schools and prayer in school will be disallowed.

But in the process of finally accepting reality, they are going to keep voting in plutocratic assholes who are going to pretty much fuck it up for everyone.

So the faster we utterly crush them, the faster we can get to having the discussions about wealth inequality and economic issues.

Just saw a news story stating that the Ds plan to make income inequality an issue in the next election.

Meanwhile, the Rs just keep working to take rights away from Americans.

Wonder who will win ...

 

[Edgetho]

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.

Why are people so dumb?

The First Amendment guarantees you that the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT can't take away your rights. It says NOTHING about what individuals may do.

A TV station may do as they see fit.

Certainly I don't agree with A&E's decision, but just as certainly, it is THEIR right to do so, no one has a right to be on A&E.

And WHOM stated they did>?

Me.

Try the 14th Amendment. The "Due Process" Amendment.

No? Not convinced? How about the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which forbids the discrimination by PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS AND BUSINESSES against people based on race, color, religion or national origin.

There's also an act the forbids discrimination against pregnant women. And families with children. And disability. And Viet Nam Veterans Status.

You can't discriminate based on religion. And if Phil Robertson can show that his contract violated his right to exercise his religion, then the contract is worthless in its entirety.

What will happen is one of two things....

1) A&E caves and brings him back, or more likely

2) They make him such an incredible deal on all re-runs, that he'll never have to work another day in his life.

I'd take it.

And odds are good that he can go to another network if he wants to. He can call the new Show.... Whatever.... Fishing For Suckers.....

Don't matter.

These TV types ain't as tough as they think they are. They get creamed in Court ALL the time.

And in this case, trust me, they REALLY don't want this to go to Court. A&E will get hurt if it does. Bad.

They over-stepped their authority.

 

[Katzndogz]

I don't know much about this duck dood (thankfully) but I just read another of his quotes, and the creep factor went up to 100.


"A good woman is "hard to find. Mainly because these boys are waiting until they get to be about 20 years old before they marry 'em.

Look, you wait till they get to be about 20 years old, they only picking that's going to take place is your pocket. You gotta marry these girls when they're 15 or 16, they'll pick your ducks. You need to check with mom and dad about that, of course." -- Speaking at Sportsmen's Ministry in Georgia in 2009.

Preaching about marrying 15-year-olds. You see, that's not pedophilia, it's Southern.​

And this is why A&E suspended this idiot. It's not just what he said, which was bad enough by itself, it's what else is going to come out now that people are actually looking.

I read that his own wife was 14 when they married.

Not surprising that the rw's don't want Constitutional protection for most Americans but someone believe that this jerk has been denied his Constitutional rights under the First Amendment.

Serious question: how can we get the rw's to actually read and understand the First Amendment?

According to Miss Kay she was 16. So doesn't it just PISS YOU OFF that they are still married after 50 years. In fact there's no divorce among any of them. Wouldn't you think that some libtard somewhere could find a bimbo they could pay to claim an affair with one of the Robertsons?

 

[Katzndogz]

Why are people so dumb?

The First Amendment guarantees you that the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT can't take away your rights. It says NOTHING about what individuals may do.

A TV station may do as they see fit.

Certainly I don't agree with A&E's decision, but just as certainly, it is THEIR right to do so, no one has a right to be on A&E.

And WHOM stated they did>?

Me.

Try the 14th Amendment. The "Due Process" Amendment.

No? Not convinced? How about the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which forbids the discrimination by PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS AND BUSINESSES against people based on race, color, religion or national origin.

There's also an act the forbids discrimination against pregnant women. And families with children. And disability. And Viet Nam Veterans Status.

You can't discriminate based on religion. And if Phil Robertson can show that his contract violated his right to exercise his religion, then the contract is worthless in its entirety.

What will happen is one of two things....

1) A&E caves and brings him back, or more likely

2) They make him such an incredible deal on all re-runs, that he'll never have to work another day in his life.

I'd take it.

And odds are good that he can go to another network if he wants to. He can call the new Show.... Whatever.... Fishing For Suckers.....

Don't matter.

These TV types ain't as tough as they think they are. They get creamed in Court ALL the time.

And in this case, trust me, they REALLY don't want this to go to Court. A&E will get hurt if it does. Bad.

They over-stepped their authority.

Phil Robertson doesn't work a day in his life now! The company is worth 400 million dollars. He spends his days hunting, fishing, preaching and writing books.

A&E will cave, try to find some graceful way out and the Robertsons will tell A&E that the relationship has been so poisoned that they cannot continue. A&E will sue them saying there is a contract with a year to go and the Robertsons are in breach. The defense is that the relationship has suffered such a breakdown that it is impossible to continue. There is ample evidence of that. A competent judge will split the difference. The Robertsons will not be able to have a similar show on any network for a period of time. A&E will have no damages as a result of the breach, but the right to run the reruns.

The Robertson family already has another television show on another network so the absence of television publicity will not impact them. They are so wealthy that their financial losses will be negligible. Phil will go back to hunting, fishing, preaching and writing books and be perfectly happy.

 

[Gadawg73]

Every day.... And I mean every single day, I hear about shit like this.....

When you say: “Merry Christmas,” you are saying: “Congratulations on your false religion,” “Congratulations on your false understanding of life.” You are congratulating them on the most evil of polytheism and heresy. [...]

This is worse than fornication, drinking alcohol, and killing someone.

Or this.....

UAE Hosting World Youth Chess Championships, Refuses To List Nationality of Israeli Players…

Typical anti-Semitism we’ve come to expect from the Islamic world.

Via Chess Base:



British Grocery Store Chain Tells Muslim Employees They Can Refuse To Serve Shoppers Buying Alcohol Or Pork – Update: CAIR Calls Uproar “Islamophobia”…

Marks & Spencer tells Muslim staff they CAN refuse to serve customers buying alcohol or pork | Mail Online

This shit happens every day...... Several times every day....

And you know what liberal scum have to say about it?

Nothing. Not a goddam thing.

You can call Phil Robertson every name in the book to try to justify your own bigotry and you know what?

Reporter Who Called Duck Dynasty Stars “Rural Jackasses” Once Suspended For Trolling

Via LA Times:

Hiltzik Suspended - latimes.com

The L.A. Times has suspended Pulitzer-winning business columnist Michael Hiltzik without pay, and discontinued both his column and his weblog, in response to the news that Hiltzik used psuedonyms on his blog and elsewhere to comment on Times-related matters, including his own work.

It changes nothing. libturds are the scum of the Earth. And I mean every goddamn, motherfucking one of you.

People are starting to catch on to the lying scum that you are.....

CNN Poll: Health care law support drops to all-time low ? CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs

Well they say something about it if it's a baker who refuses to bake for homo weddings...

Last time I looked I live in America.
So does Robertson in a right to work NON UNION state.
The First Amendment protections under The United States Constitution protects you from GOVERNMENT limiting your speech, NOT your employer.
And that includes religious speech.
No one is stopping Robertson from saying a damn thing. He can say all he wants to.
Who has stopped Robertson?
Just today he was on stating NO ONE has stopped him from saying anything.

 

[KevinWestern]

Yes because your statement is in direct conflict with the mission of, and undoubtedly comes as a surprise to, your employer.

So it's not the same thing. This guy has always been outspoken, has voiced them multiples of times, has PUBLISHED THEM, has owned them on his shows...and A&E isn't a dedicated "SIN" network.

They weren't surprised, the statements aren't in conflict with the mission of their network. No, it's not the same.

I just feel like if A&E deems Phil's comments a threat to the public image of the company, they have a right to fire him. They own the show and can do whatever the fuck they want with it.

 

[Gadawg73]

Yes because your statement is in direct conflict with the mission of, and undoubtedly comes as a surprise to, your employer.

So it's not the same thing. This guy has always been outspoken, has voiced them multiples of times, has PUBLISHED THEM, has owned them on his shows...and A&E isn't a dedicated "SIN" network.

They weren't surprised, the statements aren't in conflict with the mission of their network. No, it's not the same.

I just feel like if A&E deems Phil's comments a threat to the public image of the company, they have a right to fire him. They own the show and can do whatever the fuck they want with it.

And they never fired him, just suspended him.

 

[Gadawg73]

The same folks here that blast workers that seek union protections for the exact same thing as Robertson's situation now want those same protections because is a Christian TV star hero to them.
Hypocrisy at it's highest form.

 

[Edgetho]

Every day.... And I mean every single day, I hear about shit like this.....

Or this.....

UAE Hosting World Youth Chess Championships, Refuses To List Nationality of Israeli Players…

Typical anti-Semitism we’ve come to expect from the Islamic world.

Via Chess Base:



British Grocery Store Chain Tells Muslim Employees They Can Refuse To Serve Shoppers Buying Alcohol Or Pork – Update: CAIR Calls Uproar “Islamophobia”…

Marks & Spencer tells Muslim staff they CAN refuse to serve customers buying alcohol or pork | Mail Online

This shit happens every day...... Several times every day....

And you know what liberal scum have to say about it?

Nothing. Not a goddam thing.

You can call Phil Robertson every name in the book to try to justify your own bigotry and you know what?

Reporter Who Called Duck Dynasty Stars “Rural Jackasses” Once Suspended For Trolling



It changes nothing. libturds are the scum of the Earth. And I mean every goddamn, motherfucking one of you.

People are starting to catch on to the lying scum that you are.....

CNN Poll: Health care law support drops to all-time low ? CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs

Well they say something about it if it's a baker who refuses to bake for homo weddings...

Last time I looked I live in America.
So does Robertson in a right to work NON UNION state.
The First Amendment protections under The United States Constitution protects you from GOVERNMENT limiting your speech, NOT your employer.
And that includes religious speech.
No one is stopping Robertson from saying a damn thing. He can say all he wants to.
Who has stopped Robertson?
Just today he was on stating NO ONE has stopped him from saying anything.

Let me see if I can help you out.....

The Constitution of The United States is not the Law. It is above the Law. It is what Laws are based on.

The US Constitution doesn't really deal with individuals on an individual basis, it deals with Laws. What kind of Laws can be passed and what kind of Laws shall be struck down by the Courts.

With me?

Good, now pay attention.....

Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act sez:

[Section 703]

(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

Try to keep up

 

[KevinWestern]

(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

Try to keep up

Are you saying that a company cannot fire a public spokesperson for stirring up unwanted controversy if the controversy is somehow related to religion? That makes no sense to me. Can a PR executive representing a $10 billion dollar TV brand publicly denounce all materialistic objects (including TVs) because it's against his/her religion and still expect to have a job?


.

 

[Edgetho]

You can't change the Law by contract. The law is above ANY contract.

Period.

A&E discriminated against Phil Robertson's Constitutionally guaranteed right to practice his religion.

You.Just.Can't.Do.That.

 

[The T]

The same folks here that blast workers that seek union protections for the exact same thing as Robertson's situation now want those same protections because is a Christian TV star hero to them.
Hypocrisy at it's highest form.

UNION PROTECTIONS are entertainment enterprise Gracie? Really?

How much does Robertson's speech cost the taxpayer except in frustration toward those that wish to limit his speech?

 

[Luddly Neddite]

And this is why A&E suspended this idiot. It's not just what he said, which was bad enough by itself, it's what else is going to come out now that people are actually looking.

I read that his own wife was 14 when they married.

Not surprising that the rw's don't want Constitutional protection for most Americans but someone believe that this jerk has been denied his Constitutional rights under the First Amendment.

Serious question: how can we get the rw's to actually read and understand the First Amendment?

We know it well.

And understand it much, much better than you do.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Then why have some said the DD fart has had his Constitutional rights denied?

For example, have you noticed the title of this thread and some of the idiotic posts herein?