Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
.... 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.
WHAT? Are you saying that when a movie is filmed in New York the "owners of the buildings" that the movie was filmed at now own the rights to the film?
Really?
NO !!!!!!!
Not at all you brain dead Dodo bird.
Well, explain. You just said that because Phil "owns the land" the show is filmed on he now "owns the show".
My argument is that A&E - and not Phil - owns the show.
Phil can leave A&E and start his own show, then he will own it. But at the present time he does not.
NO !!!!!!!
Not at all you brain dead Dodo bird.
Well, explain. You just said that because Phil "owns the land" the show is filmed on he now "owns the show".
My argument is that A&E - and not Phil - owns the show.
Phil can leave A&E and start his own show, then he will own it. But at the present time he does not.
I did not say it. Katzndogz said it.
As the owner of a building or land you can refuse filming on your property.
That does not mean you own the film or the show.
And WHOM stated they did>?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.
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.
Someone at Cracker Barrel figured out who their customers are:
Cracker Barrel does a 180: ?Today, we are putting all our Duck Dynasty products back in our stores.? | Twitchy
Dear Cracker Barrel Customer:
When we made the decision to remove and evaluate certain Duck Dynasty items, we offended many of our loyal customers. Our intent was to avoid offending, but thats just what weve done.
You told us we made a mistake. And, you werent shy about it. You wrote, you called and you took to social media to express your thoughts and feelings. You flat out told us we were wrong.
We listened.
Today, we are putting all our Duck Dynasty products back in our stores.
And, we apologize for offending you.
We respect all individuals right to express their beliefs. We certainly did not mean to have anyone think different.
We sincerely hope you will continue to be part of our Cracker Barrel family.
I came close to alerting you dude...30 minutes later... 2 more pages... holy smokes.
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 individuals race, color, religion, sex, or national origin
Try to keep up
Nah...that your thread still has much life in it...I came close to alerting you dude...30 minutes later... 2 more pages... holy smokes.
Alerting me? Did something truly epic happen?
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.
[MENTION=36318]Edgetho[/MENTION] - are you aware of something called the "Morality Clause"? Goes like this...
MORALITY CLAUSE FOR FILMS - Universal Will Cancel Engagements of Actors Who Forfeit Respect. - Article - NYTimes.com
It has no effect on Phil Robertson who doesn't need the money or the show. Also, if you read the clause carefully it references loses the respect of the public. What of someone who GAINS the respect of the public like Phil Robertson has done.
This particular morality clause does not exactly support your point.
Katz- I'm not saying the firing will or will not have an effect on Phil. The guy has a successful show and if you ask me he should simply leave the network and start his own deal.
I HAVE NOTHING AGAINST PHIL, lol.
My point is the guy ran his mouth in an interview in a way that stirred up unpredictable and unwanted controversy and now A&E has a right to fire him if they wish. Most companies don't like controversy and do all they can to protect themselves from it. I guarantee you he signed something that said "if I stir up negative press, etc, the producers have a right to terminate me".
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.
A&E does not own the show. At best, they own the name "Duck Dynasty". A&E does not own the sets, the cars, the buildings or the land the show is filmed on. In the normal course of entertainment law, the producer and director can ban a suspended star or employee from the set. In this case, the set is Phil's house and he owns all the land the show is filmed on. He can ban A&E from his property. They can't ban him.
It has no effect on Phil Robertson who doesn't need the money or the show. Also, if you read the clause carefully it references loses the respect of the public. What of someone who GAINS the respect of the public like Phil Robertson has done.
This particular morality clause does not exactly support your point.
Katz- I'm not saying the firing will or will not have an effect on Phil. The guy has a successful show and if you ask me he should simply leave the network and start his own deal.
I HAVE NOTHING AGAINST PHIL, lol.
My point is the guy ran his mouth in an interview in a way that stirred up unpredictable and unwanted controversy and now A&E has a right to fire him if they wish. Most companies don't like controversy and do all they can to protect themselves from it. I guarantee you he signed something that said "if I stir up negative press, etc, the producers have a right to terminate me".
GQ should not have asked him the question what he viewed as sinful, if some people did not like the answer.
Hi, you have received -2472 reputation points from Pogo.
Reputation was given for this post.
Comment:
You need to get yourself in control, Gummo.
Regards,
Pogo
