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

[thanatos144]

No, it is not.

Neither TV Producers nor Talent act on what may or may not be in a future contract. They act on the present one. If we acted on future hypotheticals, contracts would mean nothing.

You don't know what's in their contract stop acting like you know anything because don't know a fucking thing

tapatalk post

tick... tick... tick...

Actually I do know what typically goes in them, such as here (paragraph 13, page 15)...

or this typical language, already posted many times:

>> "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."


Not to mention this industry publication story about the instant case:

>> 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 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.” <<

And you have ---- what? Robertson's contract? No.
Scattershot ad hominem?

Yeah. Run with that one.

tick .... tick... tick....

You don't know shit about their contract stop lying

tapatalk post

 

[orogenicman]

"Media boycotts" never work. As long as the media in question is disseminated to the general public (which this unfortunately is), anyone is free to watch. The simple psychology is that if X% of regular viewers abstain from the show, 2X or 3X or 5X new viewers will be drawn in if only to find out what the controversy's all about, more than making up for them.

That is, if they abstain, which is doubtful. Talk is cheap.

None of which really matters - the show is paid for by its advertisers, and those ad rates are set according to what kind of audience the ad buyer can expect. Boycotters cannot bring down a TV show unless they find a way to keep viewers from watching it. Ad buyers and ratings watchers know this truism well, trust me. Since there's literally no such thing as bad publicity, bet the house the ad rates for DD just went up -- not down.

We're not talking about M.A.S.H here. While this is a popular show, from what I understand, it has a targeted market.

And that market is made up of people that think just like Phil Robertson does.

Like I said, I've never seen the first episode. And I also think judging gays so harshly is wrong.

But the fact is, a lot of people that watch that show have the same, exact attitudes towards sex that PR does.

Advertisers target market as well. I doubt you see a lot of Ads for Mercedes on the show. Maybe a few for tractors, but not too many for expensive perfumes or designer clothing.

Then there's the local markets....

A&E screwed the pooch. And they're gonna pay.

The DD gang? They're gonna make out like bandits. Another Network will snap them up for a big, fat contract in a heartbeat if they can. If A&E lets them out of their last year.

Which is what I think happens to avoid a lawsuit.

Targeted market or not, the target just got a lot bigger from all this buzz, regardless whether that buzz is warranted. Buzz creates ratings. Whatever you're wishing for in terms of TV failures, your perpetuation of the buzz is feeding the opposite effect.

And there is no "avoid a lawsuit" dance. I've defied you since yesterday to come up with a legal basis for a lawsuit, and you've got ... crickets.

Life in the comic books.

At least we now know where all the assholes are.

 

[Edgetho]

"Media boycotts" never work. As long as the media in question is disseminated to the general public (which this unfortunately is), anyone is free to watch. The simple psychology is that if X% of regular viewers abstain from the show, 2X or 3X or 5X new viewers will be drawn in if only to find out what the controversy's all about, more than making up for them.

That is, if they abstain, which is doubtful. Talk is cheap.

None of which really matters - the show is paid for by its advertisers, and those ad rates are set according to what kind of audience the ad buyer can expect. Boycotters cannot bring down a TV show unless they find a way to keep viewers from watching it. Ad buyers and ratings watchers know this truism well, trust me. Since there's literally no such thing as bad publicity, bet the house the ad rates for DD just went up -- not down.

We're not talking about M.A.S.H here. While this is a popular show, from what I understand, it has a targeted market.

And that market is made up of people that think just like Phil Robertson does.

Like I said, I've never seen the first episode. And I also think judging gays so harshly is wrong.

But the fact is, a lot of people that watch that show have the same, exact attitudes towards sex that PR does.

Advertisers target market as well. I doubt you see a lot of Ads for Mercedes on the show. Maybe a few for tractors, but not too many for expensive perfumes or designer clothing.

Then there's the local markets....

A&E screwed the pooch. And they're gonna pay.

The DD gang? They're gonna make out like bandits. Another Network will snap them up for a big, fat contract in a heartbeat if they can. If A&E lets them out of their last year.

Which is what I think happens to avoid a lawsuit.

Targeted market or not, the target just got a lot bigger from all this buzz, regardless whether that buzz is warranted. Buzz creates ratings. Whatever you're wishing for in terms of TV failures, your perpetuation of the buzz is feeding the opposite effect.

And there is no "avoid a lawsuit" dance. I've defied you since yesterday to come up with a legal basis for a lawsuit, and you've got ... crickets.

Life in the comic books.

Dewd, I've posted at least 4, maybe 5 times in here covering Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

UNLAWFUL EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES
SEC. 2000e-2. [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&#8217;s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin; or

(2) to limit, segregate, or classify his employees or applicants for employment in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee, because of such individual&#8217;s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.

gimme a break already, sheesh

 

[Edgetho]

I love how someone made the comment in here that they can get away with firing Phil R because of the "Morality Clause" in his contract.

Right.....

Phil quotes the Bible and A&E fires him under their morality clause.

Love to hear them explain that to a Judge.

 

[koshergrl]

Yeah, not going to happen.

He's not going anywhere, unless he just decides to leave. Which he might. People are lined up offering him carte blanche.

 

[koshergrl]

"
But the particular problem for the TV industry is that it&#8217;s trying to profit off the same cultural tensions it&#8217;s exploiting. That inevitably leads to problems such as the current one engulfing &#8220;Duck Dynasty.&#8221;
The reality programming trend in recent years has made stars out of everyone from bakers to pawnbrokers to catfish-wranglers. That these &#8220;authentic&#8221; people have opinions and values that don&#8217;t always jibe with those of the media elite in New York and Los Angeles isn&#8217;t surprising.
But it means that the executives and PR handlers have had to get very good at backpedaling away from uncomfortable realities. That&#8217;s most likely what is happening now on &#8220;Duck Dynasty.&#8221;
&#8220;A&E has been very careful in editing and presenting this family, being careful not to show any potential controversial views,&#8221; said Robert J. Thompson, professor of television and popular culture at Syracuse University. &#8220;But they can&#8217;t control what they say outside of the show.&#8221;
&#8220;Channels like A&E program &#8216;regular&#8217; people mostly to make curiosities out of them,&#8221; said Jeffrey McCall, a media studies professor at DePauw University. &#8220;The programmers want to manage every aspect of their &#8216;reality&#8217; commodities, but that isn&#8217;t really possible.
&#8220;If A&E wants the Robertsons to make money for the channel by being authentic, then at some point A&E has to accept that reality stars will be real human beings,&#8221; McCall added. &#8220;If A&E didn&#8217;t like the Robertsons as they are, then why did they give them a weekly platform?&#8221;

'Duck Dynasty' backlash spotlights an uneasy reality in TV industry » The Commercial Appeal

 

[koshergrl]

And in the comment section:

"Speaking to GQ magazine, he also said African-Americans weren&#8217;t treated badly in Louisiana during Jim Crow." [quote from the article]


"He didn't say that in the GQ article. That's the liberal leftist media giving it their spin. What he said was:
&#8220;I never, with my eyes, saw the mistreatment of any black person. Not once. "

Yup. But because the left is prejudiced, they take that to be a prejudicial statement that NO blacks were mistreated.

He didn't say that. He didn't even imply it. Progressives are just racist liars.

'Duck Dynasty' backlash spotlights an uneasy reality in TV industry » The Commercial Appeal

 

[Edgetho]

And in the comment section:

"Speaking to GQ magazine, he also said African-Americans weren’t treated badly in Louisiana during Jim Crow." [quote from the article]


"He didn't say that in the GQ article. That's the liberal leftist media giving it their spin. What he said was:
“I never, with my eyes, saw the mistreatment of any black person. Not once. "

Yup. But because the left is prejudiced, they take that to be a prejudicial statement that NO blacks were mistreated.

He didn't say that. He didn't even imply it. Progressives are just racist liars.

'Duck Dynasty' backlash spotlights an uneasy reality in TV industry » The Commercial Appeal

dimocraps are lying scum.

All of them

 

[koshergrl]

I know.

Here's another good article:

"Robertson&#8217;s remarks were met with indignation. A&E swiftly suspended Robertson with the justification that &#8220;His personal views in no way reflect those of A&E Networks, who have always been strong supporters and champions of the LGBT community.&#8221; This seems obvious given that the show is about Robertson&#8217;s family and not about the families of A&E executives and those who write their press releases.

"Furthermore, Robertson, in making his comments, did not claim to represent A&E. As even the most casual viewer of the show can tell you, he claims to be a follower of Jesus Christ. As such, is anyone really surprised to discover that the Duck Dynasty star is opposed to homosexuality on moral grounds? Apparently, the brass at A&E found it astonishing. Perhaps they should put down GQ and watch their own programming.

"What Robertson said is not inconsistent with a Christianity that sees the Bible as a source of Divine authority and inspiration.

"Or maybe they want to avoid an uncomfortable truth: that Robertson wasn&#8217;t expressing &#8220;his personal views,&#8221; but principles that are intrinsic to his religion. You see, Robertson didn&#8217;t simply attack and disparage the sexual preferences of a minority, as Alec Baldwin recently did in a hateful rant. No, Robertson&#8217;s opinion&#8212;couched as it was in scriptural references that suggest he not only owns a Bible, but also reads it&#8212;reflects the teaching and practice of historic Christianity and, by extension, the opinion of a sizable portion of the American public. Indeed, according to a June 2013 Pew Research Center survey, roughly half (45 percent) of Americans polled said they believe homosexual actions are a &#8220;sin.&#8221;

"In an apparent effort to convince this demographic that homosexual actions are not sinful, GLAAD spokesperson Wilson Cruz said Robertson&#8217;s views are not Christian. The strategy here seems to be &#8220;divide and conquer&#8221;&#8212;separate Robertson from his religion and let public opinion do the rest. The theologians at GLAAD will have to do better, because what Robertson said is not inconsistent with a Christianity that sees the Bible as a source of Divine authority and inspiration&#8212;and Louisiana gun-toting evangelicals are not the only ones who embrace that Christianity. On the contrary, Cruz&#8217;s statement appears naive when one considers that Pope Francis, Time Magazine&#8217;s Person of the Year for 2013, has previously called gay marriage the work of the devil and &#8220;a total rejection of God&#8217;s law engraved on our hearts.&#8221; Judging by Thursday&#8217;s precedent, A&E would fire the pope. And if his public statements on the subject are to be believed, the President of the United States would also receive a pink slip prior to his change of heart in May of last year."

The Genuine Conflict Being Ignored in the Duck Dynasty Debate - Larry Alex Taunton - The Atlantic

 

[koshergrl]

"A&E, GLAAD, and their supporters have responded with disingenuous expressions of shock and horror. And it matters that it's disingenuous, because if they actually acknowledged that there is a genuine conflict between orthodox Christianity and homosexual sex (along with several forms of heterosexual sex) they would have to confront head-on the fact that calling for a boycott or pressuring for Robertson's suspension tells orthodox Christians that their religion is no longer acceptable, and that&#8217;s not a very politically correct thing to do. Right now, they are trying to weasel out of it by characterizing Robertson as a backwoods bigot who takes his moral cues from Deliverance rather than from a straightforward reading of the Bible and the historic teachings of the Christian religion.
Speaking on the issue of tolerance, mega-church pastor and bestselling author Rick Warren observed:

'Our culture has accepted two huge lies. The first is that if you disagree with someone&#8217;s lifestyle, you must fear them or hate them. The second is that to love someone means you agree with everything they believe or do. Both are nonsense. You don&#8217;t have to compromise convictions to be compassionate.'"

The Genuine Conflict Being Ignored in the Duck Dynasty Debate - Larry Alex Taunton - The Atlantic
​

 

[koshergrl]

"The message A&E&#8217;s decision sends is that the network will not tolerate someone who conscientiously objects to homosexuality on religious grounds. The implication of that message is that 45 percent of Americans should, in principle, be prepared either to sacrifice their jobs or recant their beliefs and endorse a lifestyle to which they are opposed, conscience be damned. To the extent that we embrace that implication, in television and in other American industries, we're also embracing an identity as a nation that forces conformity while calling it tolerance."

Bingo.

The Genuine Conflict Being Ignored in the Duck Dynasty Debate - Larry Alex Taunton - The Atlantic

 

[Katzndogz]

Phil Robertson is my age. I grew up in the same era. I never saw any black people mistreated either. I saw lots of black homes with mothers and fathers. I saw lots of black babies in the arms of mothers and fathers. I played with these kids without ever a thought of a drive by shooting.

It might be heresy to say it today but they were happier. They had big loving families presided over by the most powerful people in the world, Grandma. The role of the black Grandma is the most understated role in American History. If a woman was left alone to raise her children she was widowed. Black men did not abandon their families. When there was such a death, the Church rallied like a little army and never let that support go.

Of course black people were happy. Not all the time. They had failures and disappointment. The had faith, family and a whole lot of pride. All of which was traded for a welfare check.

 

[koshergrl]

Well the homo bloc has determined that not a single one could have been happy back then, if they were not receiving welfare checks, and if they went to church.

To imply otherwise is hate speech.

Which is why they claim that his statement that the families he knew personally didn't complain to him, and were in the same boat that he was, must be SILENCED! And held up as an example of HATE SPEECH! Cuz the truth is HATE, dontcha know.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

You mean people like you?

Earth to luddly..you aren't one of the really intelligent people. When you laugh, it's generally inappropriate, mean spirited cackling. You miss the real jokes, and you laugh at things that aren't funny.

Thank goodness, the majority of American citizens aren't like that. The majority of American citizens appreciate other American citizens who embrace American values, and are great examples of the success that those values engender.

You are an extremist yahoo. The majority isn't laughing at these guys. They love them because they know people, and admire people, just like them. Because they are admirable, and they are successful. You are the weakest link...not the Robertsons. We laugh at you.

Too chicken shit to reply to what I said to you -

Obviously, you STILL have not actually read the First Amendment because, as usual, you are STILL wrong.

No one took any rights away from this admitted child molester.

 

[koshergrl]

Pudly's gone off the deep end again.

 

[Pogo]

We're not talking about M.A.S.H here. While this is a popular show, from what I understand, it has a targeted market.

And that market is made up of people that think just like Phil Robertson does.

Like I said, I've never seen the first episode. And I also think judging gays so harshly is wrong.

But the fact is, a lot of people that watch that show have the same, exact attitudes towards sex that PR does.

Advertisers target market as well. I doubt you see a lot of Ads for Mercedes on the show. Maybe a few for tractors, but not too many for expensive perfumes or designer clothing.

Then there's the local markets....

A&E screwed the pooch. And they're gonna pay.

The DD gang? They're gonna make out like bandits. Another Network will snap them up for a big, fat contract in a heartbeat if they can. If A&E lets them out of their last year.

Which is what I think happens to avoid a lawsuit.

Targeted market or not, the target just got a lot bigger from all this buzz, regardless whether that buzz is warranted. Buzz creates ratings. Whatever you're wishing for in terms of TV failures, your perpetuation of the buzz is feeding the opposite effect.

And there is no "avoid a lawsuit" dance. I've defied you since yesterday to come up with a legal basis for a lawsuit, and you've got ... crickets.

Life in the comic books.

Dewd, I've posted at least 4, maybe 5 times in here covering Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

UNLAWFUL EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES
SEC. 2000e-2. [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&#8217;s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin; or

(2) to limit, segregate, or classify his employees or applicants for employment in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee, because of such individual&#8217;s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.

gimme a break already, sheesh

I know. It's amusing in a pathetic way to see you keep going to that well as if it's got any relation to anything.

Fact is A&E didn't fire Robertson for his choice of religion WHICH HASN'T CHANGED. Fact is they haven't fired him at all. So your strawman blows itself up on the launch pad, to mix a metaphor.

Now where's that legal basis? STILL waiting...

 

[Pogo]

And your point is?

We've known all along that a smaller and smaller percentage of the country is homophobic. That will probably not change.

What's their stand on child predators? They support him on that as well?

Call the cops if you think that's going on. Meanwhile, stop trying to hijack the thread and stop trying to paint anyone who defends his right to speak about his religion (when asked, no less) to support of child predation.

So lame.

I love how someone made the comment in here that they can get away with firing Phil R because of the "Morality Clause" in his contract.

Right.....

Phil quotes the Bible and A&E fires him under their morality clause.

Love to hear them explain that to a Judge.

I love how we can all post what that means in 18 different threads including direct contract language and doofuses like you continue to go

-- and then proceed to fall back on the "religious persecution" canard or the "free speech" canard or whatever the Duckhead canard of the day is...

 

[Pogo]

"
But the particular problem for the TV industry is that it&#8217;s trying to profit off the same cultural tensions it&#8217;s exploiting. That inevitably leads to problems such as the current one engulfing &#8220;Duck Dynasty.&#8221;

The reality programming trend in recent years has made stars out of everyone from bakers to pawnbrokers to catfish-wranglers. That these &#8220;authentic&#8221; people have opinions and values that don&#8217;t always jibe with those of the media elite in New York and Los Angeles isn&#8217;t surprising.

But it means that the executives and PR handlers have had to get very good at backpedaling away from uncomfortable realities. That&#8217;s most likely what is happening now on &#8220;Duck Dynasty.&#8221;

&#8220;A&E has been very careful in editing and presenting this family, being careful not to show any potential controversial views,&#8221; said Robert J. Thompson, professor of television and popular culture at Syracuse University. &#8220;But they can&#8217;t control what they say outside of the show.&#8221;

&#8220;Channels like A&E program &#8216;regular&#8217; people mostly to make curiosities out of them,&#8221; said Jeffrey McCall, a media studies professor at DePauw University. &#8220;The programmers want to manage every aspect of their &#8216;reality&#8217; commodities, but that isn&#8217;t really possible.

&#8220;If A&E wants the Robertsons to make money for the channel by being authentic, then at some point A&E has to accept that reality stars will be real human beings,&#8221; McCall added. &#8220;If A&E didn&#8217;t like the Robertsons as they are, then why did they give them a weekly platform?&#8221;

'Duck Dynasty' backlash spotlights an uneasy reality in TV industry » The Commercial Appeal

That's exactly what it's doing. Spot on. Playing loosely with characters, drawn by the prospect of a fast buck. A&E's been going down this murky path for the last decade.

I guarantee you when A&E was actually about arts and broadcasting plays and classical music and biographies it didn't have this kind of situation. Or image. Their chickens are home to roost. As they have sown, so they now reap.

 

[Pogo]

And in the comment section:

"Speaking to GQ magazine, he also said African-Americans weren&#8217;t treated badly in Louisiana during Jim Crow." [quote from the article]


"He didn't say that in the GQ article. That's the liberal leftist media giving it their spin. What he said was:
&#8220;I never, with my eyes, saw the mistreatment of any black person. Not once. "

Yup. But because the left is prejudiced, they take that to be a prejudicial statement that NO blacks were mistreated.

He didn't say that. He didn't even imply it. Progressives are just racist liars.

'Duck Dynasty' backlash spotlights an uneasy reality in TV industry » The Commercial Appeal

And yet, just a couple of posts later...

Of course black people were happy. Not all the time. They had failures and disappointment. The had faith, family and a whole lot of pride. All of which was traded for a welfare check.

Blanket statement ... meet Strawman. You two have a lot in common.

 

[koshergrl]

Yes, claiming he said anything racist or claimed that there was no abuse of blacks during Jim Crow was a strawman.

Glad you agree.