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

[orogenicman]

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.​

You might want to check the state laws on that. Most states allow marriage without parental consent at age 18, but if the person has parental consent, he/she can marry at a much younger age. When I married I was 19 and I had to have parental consent here in KY. So take your 'southern' comment and shove it.

Marriageable age - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I don't know of a single state that allows an 18 year old to have sex with a 14 year old. Do you?

 

[Edgetho]

I lived through the 60s.

As an adult.

I watched it, I marveled at the New Age Radicals demanding Free Speech and I even (almost) respected the guys, and a few numbskull females, that had the word "FUCK" tattooed on their foreheads.

Grace Slick, Janis, Jimi, the SDS, Bill Ayers' group the Weathermen, Joni Mitchell, Judy Collins, all the protest songs, all the preaching and asking and begging and demanding Free Speech.

Because, the truth is, during the "Red Scare" Free Speech took a beating. Hollywood got scared, J Edgar was running rough-shod over anybody and everybody he didn't like and McCarthyism was fresh in everybody's minds.

I was there. I was in Boston as an adult listening to, talking to and observing the shakers and movers involved in it.

All this bullshit about "can" A&E fire Phil R is just that -- Bullshit.

For the purposes of this post, I'll concede they can. But that's not the question we need answered

The real question is "SHOULD" A&E have fired Phil R.

Before you answer that, think about this.....

Know what happened to the Free Speech crowd of the 60s?

They came to power.

Now that they have power, they don't seem to be all that interested in 'Free Speech' anymore, huh?

Funny how that works....

 

[JoeB131]

Edgey, I think you are a bit confused here.

The "Free Speech" crowd did fire Phil the Homophobe. The Left didn't. GLAAD didn't. GLAAD merely asked A&E if they stood behind him.

Phil the HOmophobe was fired by a big corporation that simply didn't want the controversy of having him on TV, because other big corporations that buy air time didn't want their products associated with him.

And usually, when a big corporation moves a factory to China or busts up a union or fires an employee because he runs up too many medical bills, you guys are all for it, and if someone objects, you start screaming about "Freedom", because Freedom is the ability of those with money to abuse those without it.

So really, aren't you for the "Freedom" of A&E to make a business decision with their property?

 

[JoeB131]

"...A&E just wanted to instantly distance itself from the comments to protect its ass."

If GLAAD is around you should probably use at least two layers of duct tape for ass protection.

Because anal sex is soooooo scary to you guys.

so why is anal sex your preferred choice of sexual relations ? ? ? ? ?

Never tried it. Not into dudes, and never met a chick who wanted to do that.

But here's the thing. 38% of straight couples HAVE tried anal sex. 99% of straight couples have engaged fellatio and cunnilingus. So as much as you all think those things are icky...

What you really have a problem with is people of the same sex doing them.

 

[Edgetho]

Edgey, I think you are a bit confused here.

The "Free Speech" crowd did fire Phil the Homophobe. The Left didn't. GLAAD didn't. GLAAD merely asked A&E if they stood behind him.

Phil the HOmophobe was fired by a big corporation that simply didn't want the controversy of having him on TV, because other big corporations that buy air time didn't want their products associated with him.

And usually, when a big corporation moves a factory to China or busts up a union or fires an employee because he runs up too many medical bills, you guys are all for it, and if someone objects, you start screaming about "Freedom", because Freedom is the ability of those with money to abuse those without it.

So really, aren't you for the "Freedom" of A&E to make a business decision with their property?

Oliver Wendell Holmes.

Think about it

 

[zeke]

Because anal sex is soooooo scary to you guys.

so why is anal sex your preferred choice of sexual relations ? ? ? ? ?

Never tried it. Not into dudes, and never met a chick who wanted to do that.

But here's the thing. 38% of straight couples HAVE tried anal sex. 99% of straight couples have engaged fellatio and cunnilingus. So as much as you all think those things are icky...

What you really have a problem with is people of the same sex doing them.

Not so sure about that Joe. Seems to me that the biggest haters of gay people are those "straight" people that are actually attracted to the same sex. And they use their hatred to convince themselves that they don't REALLY want to have sex with someone of the same sex.

They actually HATE themselves for the way they feel much more than they hate the gay people.

Right edge? You hates you some gay people. Right? Wildman, want to comment?

 

[thanatos144]

so why is anal sex your preferred choice of sexual relations ? ? ? ? ?

Never tried it. Not into dudes, and never met a chick who wanted to do that.

But here's the thing. 38% of straight couples HAVE tried anal sex. 99% of straight couples have engaged fellatio and cunnilingus. So as much as you all think those things are icky...

What you really have a problem with is people of the same sex doing them.

Not so sure about that Joe. Seems to me that the biggest haters of gay people are those "straight" people that are actually attracted to the same sex. And they use their hatred to convince themselves that they don't REALLY want to have sex with someone of the same sex.

They actually HATE themselves for the way they feel much more than they hate the gay people.

Right edge? You hates you some gay people. Right? Wildman, want to comment?

Lol what bullshit. First you use hate generally and second say all want to be cock suckers who don't agree with the homosexual agenda? Get over yourself Nancy

tapatalk post

 

[rightwinger]

I lived through the 60s.

As an adult.

I watched it, I marveled at the New Age Radicals demanding Free Speech and I even (almost) respected the guys, and a few numbskull females, that had the word "FUCK" tattooed on their foreheads.

Grace Slick, Janis, Jimi, the SDS, Bill Ayers' group the Weathermen, Joni Mitchell, Judy Collins, all the protest songs, all the preaching and asking and begging and demanding Free Speech.

Because, the truth is, during the "Red Scare" Free Speech took a beating. Hollywood got scared, J Edgar was running rough-shod over anybody and everybody he didn't like and McCarthyism was fresh in everybody's minds.

I was there. I was in Boston as an adult listening to, talking to and observing the shakers and movers involved in it.

All this bullshit about "can" A&E fire Phil R is just that -- Bullshit.

For the purposes of this post, I'll concede they can. But that's not the question we need answered

The real question is "SHOULD" A&E have fired Phil R.

Before you answer that, think about this.....

Know what happened to the Free Speech crowd of the 60s?

They came to power.

Now that they have power, they don't seem to be all that interested in 'Free Speech' anymore, huh?

Funny how that works....

You misread the "Free Speech" movement of the 60s

I remember the 60s. Blacks were openly called ****** or boy

Those "Free Speech" protesters openly spoke out against racist speech. It became no longer publicly acceptable to use racist speech

 

[Gadawg73]

Now to address the issue of tolerance.

In your view, who showed more intolerance? GLAAD and A&E or Phil Robertson?

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.

sorry, but its the left that is trying to create a demon out of a guy who was simply stating his beliefs.

Totally agree with that also.
They have wrongly painted Robertson as George Zimmerman with a ZZ Top beard.
Both sides are fucked in this Fuck a Duck First Blood drama.
But Quack sales are through the roof.
Two wrongs do not make a right.
But this is still NOT a freedom of speech issue and never was.

 

[Gadawg73]

Better yet:

(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; 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’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.

"religion"
That means they can not fire or discipline him for being a Baptist.
There are NO free speech protections in this that YOU posted that protects the free speech of an employee from the employer trying to limit them.
NONE.
Again, real slow for y o u:

The First Amendment and ALL the laws of this land ON FREE SPEECH, protects you, me, Phil Robertson, EVERYONE from the government limiting your speech, NOT YOUR EMPLOYER OR ANYONE ELSE, religious or otherwise.

That is THE LAW, religious SPEECH is not protected free speech UNLESS the government tries to limit it.
An employer CAN LEGALLY try to limit your, my, Robertson's OR ANYONE'S speech and that is NOT against any law be it religious speech or any speech.
YOU and NO ONE has ANY legal remedies against your EMPLOYER attempting to limit your speech be it religious or any other speech.

No matter how hard you spin it that is THE LAW.

 

[Sunshine]

Better yet:

(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; 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’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.

"religion"
That means they can not fire or discipline him for being a Baptist.
There are NO free speech protections in this that YOU posted that protects the free speech of an employee from the employer trying to limit them.
NONE.
Again, real slow for y o u:

The First Amendment and ALL the laws of this land ON FREE SPEECH, protects you, me, Phil Robertson, EVERYONE from the government limiting your speech, NOT YOUR EMPLOYER OR ANYONE ELSE, religious or otherwise.

That is THE LAW, religious SPEECH is not protected free speech UNLESS the government tries to limit it.
An employer CAN LEGALLY try to limit your, my, Robertson's OR ANYONE'S speech and that is NOT against any law be it religious speech or any speech.
YOU and NO ONE has ANY legal remedies against your EMPLOYER attempting to limit your speech be it religious or any other speech.

No matter how hard you spin it that is THE LAW.

If the employer is open for business to he public, they are subject to the same 'public policies' that the government is subject to. They cannot discriminate, based on color, age, religion, or nationality.

 

[thanatos144]

Better yet:

(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; 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’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.

"religion"
That means they can not fire or discipline him for being a Baptist.
There are NO free speech protections in this that YOU posted that protects the free speech of an employee from the employer trying to limit them.
NONE.
Again, real slow for y o u:

The First Amendment and ALL the laws of this land ON FREE SPEECH, protects you, me, Phil Robertson, EVERYONE from the government limiting your speech, NOT YOUR EMPLOYER OR ANYONE ELSE, religious or otherwise.

That is THE LAW, religious SPEECH is not protected free speech UNLESS the government tries to limit it.
An employer CAN LEGALLY try to limit your, my, Robertson's OR ANYONE'S speech and that is NOT against any law be it religious speech or any speech.
YOU and NO ONE has ANY legal remedies against your EMPLOYER attempting to limit your speech be it religious or any other speech.

No matter how hard you spin it that is THE LAW.

Speech is only free if it is speech you approve huh? Well fuck that

tapatalk post

 

[Gadawg73]

Better yet:

(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; 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’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.

"religion"
That means they can not fire or discipline him for being a Baptist.
There are NO free speech protections in this that YOU posted that protects the free speech of an employee from the employer trying to limit them.
NONE.
Again, real slow for y o u:

The First Amendment and ALL the laws of this land ON FREE SPEECH, protects you, me, Phil Robertson, EVERYONE from the government limiting your speech, NOT YOUR EMPLOYER OR ANYONE ELSE, religious or otherwise.

That is THE LAW, religious SPEECH is not protected free speech UNLESS the government tries to limit it.
An employer CAN LEGALLY try to limit your, my, Robertson's OR ANYONE'S speech and that is NOT against any law be it religious speech or any speech.
YOU and NO ONE has ANY legal remedies against your EMPLOYER attempting to limit your speech be it religious or any other speech.

No matter how hard you spin it that is THE LAW.

If the employer is open for business to he public, they are subject to the same 'public policies' that the government is subject to. They cannot discriminate, based on color, age, religion, or nationality.

What employer is never open for business?
That makes no sense.
An employer CAN AT ANY TIME try to limit THE SPEECH, be it religious or otherwise of their employers and that is LEGAL be religious speech or not.
They can not discriminate against people because of their RELIGION which is far different than what their speech is.
The First Amendment protects you from the government limiting your religious or ANY speech, NOT your employer.
Religious speech is not an exception to the 1st Amendment.
It is often said that most people do not understand what the 1st Amendment protects.
Religious speech is NEVER UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES protected unless GOVERNMENT tries to limit it.
Understand now?

 

[RKMBrown]

Better yet:

(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; 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’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.

"religion"
That means they can not fire or discipline him for being a Baptist.
There are NO free speech protections in this that YOU posted that protects the free speech of an employee from the employer trying to limit them.
NONE.
Again, real slow for y o u:

The First Amendment and ALL the laws of this land ON FREE SPEECH, protects you, me, Phil Robertson, EVERYONE from the government limiting your speech, NOT YOUR EMPLOYER OR ANYONE ELSE, religious or otherwise.

That is THE LAW, religious SPEECH is not protected free speech UNLESS the government tries to limit it.
An employer CAN LEGALLY try to limit your, my, Robertson's OR ANYONE'S speech and that is NOT against any law be it religious speech or any speech.
YOU and NO ONE has ANY legal remedies against your EMPLOYER attempting to limit your speech be it religious or any other speech.

No matter how hard you spin it that is THE LAW.

If the employer is open for business to he public, they are subject to the same 'public policies' that the government is subject to. They cannot discriminate, based on color, age, religion, or nationality.

I have to agree with Sunshine on this one. They essentially suspended him because of his religion. His personal comments had nothing to do with A&E. Though I doubt he would sue them, I'm pretty sure what A&E did to him is against said civil rights law.

 

[Gadawg73]

Better yet:

(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; 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’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.

"religion"
That means they can not fire or discipline him for being a Baptist.
There are NO free speech protections in this that YOU posted that protects the free speech of an employee from the employer trying to limit them.
NONE.
Again, real slow for y o u:

The First Amendment and ALL the laws of this land ON FREE SPEECH, protects you, me, Phil Robertson, EVERYONE from the government limiting your speech, NOT YOUR EMPLOYER OR ANYONE ELSE, religious or otherwise.

That is THE LAW, religious SPEECH is not protected free speech UNLESS the government tries to limit it.
An employer CAN LEGALLY try to limit your, my, Robertson's OR ANYONE'S speech and that is NOT against any law be it religious speech or any speech.
YOU and NO ONE has ANY legal remedies against your EMPLOYER attempting to limit your speech be it religious or any other speech.

No matter how hard you spin it that is THE LAW.

Speech is only free if it is speech you approve huh? Well fuck that

tapatalk post

More spin.
Sorry you do not understand The Constitution.
The law is only the government is banned from limiting your speech, not your employer.
Something about The Constitution and THE LAW.
An interesting document. I suggest you read it.

 

[Sunshine]

"religion"
That means they can not fire or discipline him for being a Baptist.
There are NO free speech protections in this that YOU posted that protects the free speech of an employee from the employer trying to limit them.
NONE.
Again, real slow for y o u:

The First Amendment and ALL the laws of this land ON FREE SPEECH, protects you, me, Phil Robertson, EVERYONE from the government limiting your speech, NOT YOUR EMPLOYER OR ANYONE ELSE, religious or otherwise.

That is THE LAW, religious SPEECH is not protected free speech UNLESS the government tries to limit it.
An employer CAN LEGALLY try to limit your, my, Robertson's OR ANYONE'S speech and that is NOT against any law be it religious speech or any speech.
YOU and NO ONE has ANY legal remedies against your EMPLOYER attempting to limit your speech be it religious or any other speech.

No matter how hard you spin it that is THE LAW.

If the employer is open for business to he public, they are subject to the same 'public policies' that the government is subject to. They cannot discriminate, based on color, age, religion, or nationality.

What employer is never open for business?
That makes no sense.
An employer CAN AT ANY TIME try to limit THE SPEECH, be it religious or otherwise of their employers and that is LEGAL be religious speech or not.
They can not discriminate against people because of their RELIGION which is far different than what their speech is.
The First Amendment protects you from the government limiting your religious or ANY speech, NOT your employer.
Religious speech is not an exception to the 1st Amendment.
It is often said that most people do not understand what the 1st Amendment protects.
Religious speech is NEVER UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES protected unless GOVERNMENT tries to limit it.
Understand now?

'TO THE PUBLIC' I said if them employer is open for business 'TO THE PUBLIC' then public policy applies. Not all businesses are open to the public.

 

[Gadawg73]

Plus where has ANYONE stopped Robertson from speaking in all of this?
No one has and they can't.
But his employer can take actions to attempt to limit his speech and that is 100% legal.
Sorry you good folks have been conned once again by media same as media conned a segment of the dumb masses into believing George Zimmerman stalked Trayvon Martin.
Do not listen to media. Go with what the facts are.
And the facts are Robertson's rights have not been violated in any way.
He can say what he wants to and A & E can discipline him any way they want to legally.
This is not a free speech issue no matter how you spin it.

 

[Gadawg73]

If the employer is open for business to he public, they are subject to the same 'public policies' that the government is subject to. They cannot discriminate, based on color, age, religion, or nationality.

What employer is never open for business?
That makes no sense.
An employer CAN AT ANY TIME try to limit THE SPEECH, be it religious or otherwise of their employers and that is LEGAL be religious speech or not.
They can not discriminate against people because of their RELIGION which is far different than what their speech is.
The First Amendment protects you from the government limiting your religious or ANY speech, NOT your employer.
Religious speech is not an exception to the 1st Amendment.
It is often said that most people do not understand what the 1st Amendment protects.
Religious speech is NEVER UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES protected unless GOVERNMENT tries to limit it.
Understand now?

'TO THE PUBLIC' I said if them employer is open for business 'TO THE PUBLIC' then public policy applies. Not all businesses are open to the public.

That has nothing to do with this whatsoever.
An employer no matter if they are open to the public or not can legally attempt to restrict and limit the speech of their employees.
The 1st Amendment makes no distinction whatsoever as to whether a business is open to the public or not on free speech.

 

[Gadawg73]

Amazing the ignorance of the 1st Amendment here.

 

[thanatos144]

Plus where has ANYONE stopped Robertson from speaking in all of this?
No one has and they can't.
But his employer can take actions to attempt to limit his speech and that is 100% legal.
Sorry you good folks have been conned once again by media same as media conned a segment of the dumb masses into believing George Zimmerman stalked Trayvon Martin.
Do not listen to media. Go with what the facts are.
And the facts are Robertson's rights have not been violated in any way.
He can say what he wants to and A & E can discipline him any way they want to legally.
This is not a free speech issue no matter how you spin it.

What the hell do you think you're trying to do right now? Just because someone says you're probably c*** is a sin does not mean they should be silenced

tapatalk post