Not Good: A&E Violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act Letting Phil Robertson Go

[Pogo]

What, exactly, do you think he violated of this theoretical "morality clause"..and which of his statements do you think violated it?

Again, I don't know A&E's rationale and I haven't seen whatever statements they might be referring to. Nor do I think there's a way to find out, nor do I care, nor is it my business. I don't work for A&E; happily I've never sunk that low. I've seen various restatements here of "evil" and "bestiality" in these 79 hundred threads but haven't seen the originals. Nor do I need to; it's not my place to judge them. Once again, all I did here was 'splain how a morality clause works.

But based on their original press release, something in them thar statements brought the network under an unfavorable light (which of course affects their ad revenue), which is why they have the grounds to do what they did and it's not a "free speech" issue.

Basically I've been explaining how one particular standard clause in an entertainment contract works. And that makes me a gay communist gun guy. Or whatever.

 

[koshergrl]

So you've got nothing.

Next.

 

[Pogo]

Title VII is not applicable at all.

You are a Christian. We don't hire Christians. That's a Title VII violation.
We hired you, then saw you go into a Church. You're fired. That's a Title VII violation.
You said something in Church that we don't like. You're fired. That's a violation.
You said something in a GQ interview we don't like. That is NOT a violation.

Title VII prohibits discrimination based on status not action. There is nothing intrinsically Christian about giving an interview to GQ. There is no obligation of Christians to give interviews to magazines. They are not practicing their faith by giving magazine interviews. Not understanding Title VII has resulted in enormous confusion. Many black people think it's some protection against being fired at all for any reason. Steve made the same mistake.

I hope this somewhat clears up the misunderstanding.

Yeah, basically that. Who's "Steve"?

As exampled before, if A&E hired Robertson, and everything was rolling along, and then one day Phil ups and declares "I'm turning to Jainism" and A&E then says, "we don't like Jainism; you're fired", then you'd have a religious discrim case. But nothing like that took place; Phil Robertson's religion now is the same as it was when he was hired. Does not apply.

 

[koshergrl]

No shit.

So exactly why did you try to derail the thread with ridiculous garbage about morality clauses?

 

[Pogo]

Hey jagoff...
This is YOUR post...
"You know damn well current contracts aren't posted online. Is yours?

Why does anyone need to "prove" it anyway? What are you, freaking Scotland Yard now? It's the logical explanation involving a standard contract feature that's been in entertainment clauses since the 1920s. Your burden is to prove Robertson is working under the exception.

Good luck with that."

Now, are going to deny you stated the burden of proof is that others dredge up proof that something is NOT there?
Fuck me?..
No...Fuck YOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
You LOSE. You get NOTHING. Good DAY, sir.
Hey beer spittle. I was born during the day. Not yesterday.
For a former teacher, you sure aren't all that smart.

Should I continue mocking the sheer stupidity here?
It would be mean.

Ah, what the fuck.

I'm not a teacher, dipshit. I've never claimed to be a teacher in my life, dipshit. Somebody who is a teacher might be what you need to teach you to read, dipshit. And when they've done that dipshit, ask them to go over the difference between leaving the burden of proof and "demanding".

Dipshit.

The burden of proof is on you to prove #1, that Robertson signed a morality clause that restricts his religious adherence and freedom of speech regarding his religion, and #2, that he actually said anything that is in violation of said alleged morality clause.

You haven't done it. It is the quintessential straw man.

NNNNNnnnope, it ain't. Because I haven't made any such claim.

Now clean this straw up off the floor.

 

[koshergrl]

The straw is yours. Stuff it back in your pants.

 

[koshergrl]

So..to recap:

Robertson has been preaching and sharing his views of the Bible for years...on his shows, in books, in church, and in interviews.

GQ interviewed him and he shared scripture.

The homo lobby objected mightily....and after initially "suspending" him during a period of time when everybody was already suspended, A&E said they expected everything to resume normally when they started shooting again in January.

Enter leftist weirdoes, like NYC...who claimed that it's hate speech of ROBERTSON'S, and not religious testimony, that needs to be silenced..towards that end he provides a bunch of fake quotes gleaned from a youtube release of 05/2013.

Enter Pogo, the Idiot, who spends days insisting that there's a morality clause somewhere that Robertson is in violation of..despite the fact that he won't actually state what it is that Robertson has said that would VIOLATE the imaginary morality clause, and he can in no way confirm that there actually IS a morality clause in the first place. When it becomes obvious that the morality clause *argument* is going nowhere, Pogo brilliantly declares that references to the morality clause are a STRAW MAN, lolol...

Anyway. What were we saying?

 

[Pogo]

So..to recap:

Robertson has been preaching and sharing his views of the Bible for years...on his shows, in books, in church, and in interviews.

GQ interviewed him and he shared scripture.

The homo lobby objected mightily....and after initially "suspending" him during a period of time when everybody was already suspended, A&E said they expected everything to resume normally when they started shooting again in January.

Enter leftist weirdoes, like NYC...who claimed that it's hate speech of ROBERTSON'S, and not religious testimony, that needs to be silenced..towards that end he provides a bunch of fake quotes gleaned from a youtube release of 05/2013.

Enter Pogo, the Idiot, who spends days insisting that there's a morality clause somewhere that Robertson is in violation of..despite the fact that he won't actually state what it is that Robertson has said that would VIOLATE the imaginary morality clause, and he can in no way confirm that there actually IS a morality clause in the first place. When it becomes obvious that the morality clause *argument* is going nowhere, Pogo brilliantly declares that references to the morality clause are a STRAW MAN, lolol...

Anyway. What were we saying?

Apparently Reverse-Rumplestiltskin is here, spinning gold into straw.

Once again for the slow readers -- I cannot declare what Robertson is "in violation of". I'm not privy to that language. And besides, that's a subjective decision for the employer. You'd have to ask them. All I did was point out where the basis would be. As did many others, already linked. And you freaks foam at the mouth to insist the naked emperor is wearing clothes.

Your strawman is conveniently color coded above in an appropriate shit brown. As the saying goes....

-- tissue?

 

[Katzndogz]

Title VII is not applicable at all.

You are a Christian. We don't hire Christians. That's a Title VII violation.
We hired you, then saw you go into a Church. You're fired. That's a Title VII violation.
You said something in Church that we don't like. You're fired. That's a violation.
You said something in a GQ interview we don't like. That is NOT a violation.

Title VII prohibits discrimination based on status not action. There is nothing intrinsically Christian about giving an interview to GQ. There is no obligation of Christians to give interviews to magazines. They are not practicing their faith by giving magazine interviews. Not understanding Title VII has resulted in enormous confusion. Many black people think it's some protection against being fired at all for any reason. Steve made the same mistake.

I hope this somewhat clears up the misunderstanding.

Yeah, basically that. Who's "Steve"?

As exampled before, if A&E hired Robertson, and everything was rolling along, and then one day Phil ups and declares "I'm turning to Jainism" and A&E then says, "we don't like Jainism; you're fired", then you'd have a religious discrim case. But nothing like that took place; Phil Robertson's religion now is the same as it was when he was hired. Does not apply.

Exactly. Neither does any morality clause because A&E really had no reason to suspend him in the first place. Now they got their knuckles rapped big time.

 

[Pogo]

Title VII is not applicable at all.

You are a Christian. We don't hire Christians. That's a Title VII violation.
We hired you, then saw you go into a Church. You're fired. That's a Title VII violation.
You said something in Church that we don't like. You're fired. That's a violation.
You said something in a GQ interview we don't like. That is NOT a violation.

Title VII prohibits discrimination based on status not action. There is nothing intrinsically Christian about giving an interview to GQ. There is no obligation of Christians to give interviews to magazines. They are not practicing their faith by giving magazine interviews. Not understanding Title VII has resulted in enormous confusion. Many black people think it's some protection against being fired at all for any reason. Steve made the same mistake.

I hope this somewhat clears up the misunderstanding.

Yeah, basically that. Who's "Steve"?

As exampled before, if A&E hired Robertson, and everything was rolling along, and then one day Phil ups and declares "I'm turning to Jainism" and A&E then says, "we don't like Jainism; you're fired", then you'd have a religious discrim case. But nothing like that took place; Phil Robertson's religion now is the same as it was when he was hired. Does not apply.

Exactly. Neither does any morality clause because A&E really had no reason to suspend him in the first place. Now they got their knuckles rapped big time.

Morality clauses are intentionally vague. They (the Producer/employer) decide whether they have a reason, not us. To paraphrase somebody, we never, ever judge how someone else enforces their own contract that we're not a part of. That’s the Employer’s job.

 

[thanatos144]

What, exactly, do you think he violated of this theoretical "morality clause"..and which of his statements do you think violated it?

Again, I don't know A&E's rationale and I haven't seen whatever statements they might be referring to. Nor do I think there's a way to find out, nor do I care, nor is it my business. I don't work for A&E; happily I've never sunk that low. I've seen various restatements here of "evil" and "bestiality" in these 79 hundred threads but haven't seen the originals. Nor do I need to; it's not my place to judge them. Once again, all I did here was 'splain how a morality clause works.

But based on their original press release, something in them thar statements brought the network under an unfavorable light (which of course affects their ad revenue), which is why they have the grounds to do what they did and it's not a "free speech" issue.

Basically I've been explaining how one particular standard clause in an entertainment contract works. And that makes me a gay communist gun guy. Or whatever.

All you did was act like you knew something while talking out of your ass and all we did was point out you were full of shit

tapatalk post

 

[Katzndogz]

The existence or non existence of a moraliy clause had nothing to do with anything that went on between Robertson and A&E.

I told you what was going to happen. A&E had to find a way out of the mess they created. They could not do it gracefully. They had to just drop it. They will offer some lame PSAs. No one is fooled. There was no way that network was going to win this one. The big rock landing on them was of course the advertisers. Those advertisers did not threaten to pull advertising from DD. Everyone thought they would. It didn't happen. What did happen is the advertisers said that if DD went, they would pull all network advertising.

 

[Pogo]

The existence or non existence of a moraliy clause had nothing to do with anything that went on between Robertson and A&E.

I told you what was going to happen. A&E had to find a way out of the mess they created. They could not do it gracefully. They had to just drop it. They will offer some lame PSAs. No one is fooled. There was no way that network was going to win this one. The big rock landing on them was of course the advertisers. Those advertisers did not threaten to pull advertising from DD. Everyone thought they would. It didn't happen. What did happen is the advertisers said that if DD went, they would pull all network advertising.

Horseshit.


Number one, the existence of a morality clause is exactly what would have given them a basis to suspend (or fire) Phil Robertson. Always was, and still is. And number two, I've told ignorami like you throughout this fake kerfuffle that no show was going nowhere, that life would go on and that the show would carry on gathering more lemmi... I mean audience than ever.

And while I was doing this your other ignorami were wailing and gnashing teeth about the other Robertsons bailing out in soliarity, about them jumping to some other network, about a people's movement to boycott a fucking reality TV show of all vital things, about A&E going down in flames. I told you none of that comic book conspiracy crap would happen, and I was right about all of it.

It's all on the record. Deal with it.

 

[JimBowie1958]

The existence or non existence of a moraliy clause had nothing to do with anything that went on between Robertson and A&E.

I told you what was going to happen. A&E had to find a way out of the mess they created. They could not do it gracefully. They had to just drop it. They will offer some lame PSAs. No one is fooled. There was no way that network was going to win this one. The big rock landing on them was of course the advertisers. Those advertisers did not threaten to pull advertising from DD. Everyone thought they would. It didn't happen. What did happen is the advertisers said that if DD went, they would pull all network advertising.

Horseshit.


Number one, the existence of a morality clause is exactly what would have given them a basis to suspend (or fire) Phil Robertson. Always was, and still is. And number two, I've told ignorami like you throughout this fake kerfuffle that no show was going nowhere, that life would go on and that the show would carry on gathering more lemmi... I mean audience than ever.

And while I was doing this your other ignorami were wailing and gnashing teeth about the other Robertsons bailing out in soliarity, about them jumping to some other network, about a people's movement to boycott a fucking reality TV show of all vital things, about A&E going down in flames. I told you none of that comic book conspiracy crap would happen, and I was right about all of it.

It's all on the record. Deal with it.

Lol, you act like no one can just go back through the thread and look at all you asinine posturings as though you knew what the hell you were talking about.

You were wrong. The Robertsons held all the advantages, and GLAAD is a lame ass fascist organization that relied on the presumption of public support for their legal beagle terrorism. 'Kiss our ass or we will sue!' wont work so well for GLAAD and similar racist groups in the future.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Your video only had a third-party celebrity news piece about the controversy. ...

Lol, while you do have some grasp of the obvious, you don't seem all that capable in recognizing it when others do as well, retard.

Once again for the slow: I heard a third party giving a third party sum-up with a couple of quick captions. I heard nothing from the source himself. That's not evidence of diddly.

You may bow down and genuflect before everything a TV talking head tells you; I need something with more meat on it. Different strokes.

A&E Welcomes Phil Robertson Back to 'Duck Dynasty'

A&E Welcomes Phil Robertson Back to 'Duck Dynasty'

UPDATED: GLAAD and IStandWithPhil.com issue statements after the network says the reality patriarch -- whose anti-gay remarks prompted an "indefinite hiatus" for the star -- will remain on the series.

Phil Robertson, the patriarch of A&E's Duck Dynasty clan who was suspended from his hit reality series on Dec. 18 following some incendiary comments about gay people, won't be put on hiatus after all.

The network and the Robertson family announced Friday that Phil will still be part of the series -- and since he didn't miss any filming, his temporary suspension will have no effect on the upcoming fifth season.

An A&E statement to The Hollywood Reporter read:

As a global media content company, A+E Networks' core values are centered around creativity, inclusion and mutual respect. We believe it is a privilege for our brands to be invited into people's homes, and we operate with a strong sense of integrity and deep commitment to these principles.

That is why we reacted so quickly and strongly to a recent interview with Phil Robertson. While Phil's comments made in the interview reflect his personal views based on his own beliefs and his own personal journey, he and his family have publicly stated they regret the "coarse language" he used and the misinterpretation of his core beliefs based only on the article. He also made it clear he would "never incite or encourage hate." We at A+E Networks expressed our disappointment with his statements in the article and reiterate that they are not views we hold.

But Duck Dynasty is not a show about one man's views. It resonates with a large audience because it is a show about family … a family that America has come to love. As you might have seen in many episodes, they come together to reflect and pray for unity, tolerance and forgiveness. These are three values that we at A+E Networks also feel strongly about.

So after discussions with the Robertson family, as well as consulting with numerous advocacy groups, A&E has decided to resume filming Duck Dynasty later this spring with the entire Robertson family.

Yeah, A+E caved all because of the goodness in their own hearts, lol.

You provided no evidence of your statements, that A+E held the upper hand, that there was public outrage, that Phil Robertson had no standing in a Title VII case, etc.

You were just blowing your opinion as fact, roflmao.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Because as is the case with most conservatives, he has no objective facts or evidence in support of his position. Consequently all has left is personal attacks.

The fact is that Robertson quoted scripture, stupid ****. And that is the side I am on, so once again, you show yourself to be a fool in front of any neutral parties reading the thread.

But I guess you get paid by the post? Or you are a sock puppet for some libtard who doesn't want to post things that might shame him so much, so he uses a sock to do his stupid shit?

Moreover, the premise of this thread was proven as false pages ago, both with regard to the morals clause in the cast members’ contracts and the fact that the suspension does not constitute ‘termination.’

No nothing was proven false you idiot. I gave a link twice to people who have successfully sued in court despite having a morality clause in their fucking contract.

So go back to your bong and let the rest of the adults discuss the topic, OK retard?

Yup, he's got you pegged. Not that it's a secret.

He's also correct about suspension versus termination, and that the OP has been proven wanting. Title VII does not apply.

That is nothing more than your opinion, Sir Blows A lot.

 

[Pogo]

The existence or non existence of a moraliy clause had nothing to do with anything that went on between Robertson and A&E.

I told you what was going to happen. A&E had to find a way out of the mess they created. They could not do it gracefully. They had to just drop it. They will offer some lame PSAs. No one is fooled. There was no way that network was going to win this one. The big rock landing on them was of course the advertisers. Those advertisers did not threaten to pull advertising from DD. Everyone thought they would. It didn't happen. What did happen is the advertisers said that if DD went, they would pull all network advertising.

Horseshit.


Number one, the existence of a morality clause is exactly what would have given them a basis to suspend (or fire) Phil Robertson. Always was, and still is. And number two, I've told ignorami like you throughout this fake kerfuffle that no show was going nowhere, that life would go on and that the show would carry on gathering more lemmi... I mean audience than ever.

And while I was doing this your other ignorami were wailing and gnashing teeth about the other Robertsons bailing out in soliarity, about them jumping to some other network, about a people's movement to boycott a fucking reality TV show of all vital things, about A&E going down in flames. I told you none of that comic book conspiracy crap would happen, and I was right about all of it.

It's all on the record. Deal with it.

Lol, you act like no one can just go back through the thread and look at all you asinine posturings as though you knew what the hell you were talking about.

You were wrong. The Robertsons held all the advantages, and GLAAD is a lame ass fascist organization that relied on the presumption of public support for their legal beagle terrorism. 'Kiss our ass or we will sue!' wont work so well for GLAAD and similar racist groups in the future.

I "act" just the opposite. The record fully supports me. They won't dare bring it up, because they'll bury themselves in their own posts. Bank on it.

The Robertsons are under contracts, which both prevents them from embarrassing A&E without repercussions, and from walking away from the show, either collectively or individually. Again, as I said before, nothing will be different in next month's shows from the last season. Except all this fake kerfuffle will make both A&E and the Robertsons even more money than they were making before. As I also said -- who played who?

GLAAD, I have no idea who they even are. I'm not involved in that. No comment.

 

[Pogo]

Lol, while you do have some grasp of the obvious, you don't seem all that capable in recognizing it when others do as well, retard.

Once again for the slow: I heard a third party giving a third party sum-up with a couple of quick captions. I heard nothing from the source himself. That's not evidence of diddly.

You may bow down and genuflect before everything a TV talking head tells you; I need something with more meat on it. Different strokes.

A&E Welcomes Phil Robertson Back to 'Duck Dynasty'

A&E Welcomes Phil Robertson Back to 'Duck Dynasty'

UPDATED: GLAAD and IStandWithPhil.com issue statements after the network says the reality patriarch -- whose anti-gay remarks prompted an "indefinite hiatus" for the star -- will remain on the series.

Phil Robertson, the patriarch of A&E's Duck Dynasty clan who was suspended from his hit reality series on Dec. 18 following some incendiary comments about gay people, won't be put on hiatus after all.

The network and the Robertson family announced Friday that Phil will still be part of the series -- and since he didn't miss any filming, his temporary suspension will have no effect on the upcoming fifth season.

An A&E statement to The Hollywood Reporter read:

As a global media content company, A+E Networks' core values are centered around creativity, inclusion and mutual respect. We believe it is a privilege for our brands to be invited into people's homes, and we operate with a strong sense of integrity and deep commitment to these principles.

That is why we reacted so quickly and strongly to a recent interview with Phil Robertson. While Phil's comments made in the interview reflect his personal views based on his own beliefs and his own personal journey, he and his family have publicly stated they regret the "coarse language" he used and the misinterpretation of his core beliefs based only on the article. He also made it clear he would "never incite or encourage hate." We at A+E Networks expressed our disappointment with his statements in the article and reiterate that they are not views we hold.

But Duck Dynasty is not a show about one man's views. It resonates with a large audience because it is a show about family … a family that America has come to love. As you might have seen in many episodes, they come together to reflect and pray for unity, tolerance and forgiveness. These are three values that we at A+E Networks also feel strongly about.

So after discussions with the Robertson family, as well as consulting with numerous advocacy groups, A&E has decided to resume filming Duck Dynasty later this spring with the entire Robertson family.

Yeah, A+E caved all because of the goodness in their own hearts, lol.

You provided no evidence of your statements, that A+E held the upper hand, that there was public outrage, that Phil Robertson had no standing in a Title VII case, etc.

You were just blowing your opinion as fact, roflmao.

I provided at least a half dozen links this afternoon alone, every one of them about the morality clause. So go either (a) look 'em up or (b) fuck yourself.

 

[Pogo]

The fact is that Robertson quoted scripture, stupid ****. And that is the side I am on, so once again, you show yourself to be a fool in front of any neutral parties reading the thread.

But I guess you get paid by the post? Or you are a sock puppet for some libtard who doesn't want to post things that might shame him so much, so he uses a sock to do his stupid shit?



No nothing was proven false you idiot. I gave a link twice to people who have successfully sued in court despite having a morality clause in their fucking contract.

So go back to your bong and let the rest of the adults discuss the topic, OK retard?

Yup, he's got you pegged. Not that it's a secret.

He's also correct about suspension versus termination, and that the OP has been proven wanting. Title VII does not apply.

That is nothing more than your opinion, Sir Blows A lot.

And did it?

No.

So bite me.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Because as is the case with most conservatives, he has no objective facts or evidence in support of his position. Consequently all has left is personal attacks.

The fact is that Robertson quoted scripture, stupid ****. And that is the side I am on, so once again, you show yourself to be a fool in front of any neutral parties reading the thread.

But I guess you get paid by the post? Or you are a sock puppet for some libtard who doesn't want to post things that might shame him so much, so he uses a sock to do his stupid shit?

Moreover, the premise of this thread was proven as false pages ago, both with regard to the morals clause in the cast members’ contracts and the fact that the suspension does not constitute ‘termination.’

No nothing was proven false you idiot. I gave a link twice to people who have successfully sued in court despite having a morality clause in their fucking contract.

So go back to your bong and let the rest of the adults discuss the topic, OK retard?

Yup, he's got you pegged. Not that it's a secret.

He's also correct about suspension versus termination, and that the OP has been proven wanting. Title VII does not apply.

And it certainly doesn’t apply now with the cast member reinstated.

This thread was a monumental failure from the first post, and served only to showcase the stupidity of the OP and those who agree with him.