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

[thanatos144]

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.

Why do you assume he would want to bite you? He isnt a homosexual

 

[JimBowie1958]

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.

Which links in the ROBERTSON's contract morality clause did you have, liar?

You do not know for a fact that the Robertsons have such a clause, you just ASSume it because it is standard, but as has been demonstrated, the Robertsons are not typical, so you have no argument, dip-shit.

 

[JimBowie1958]

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

And did it?

No.

So bite me.

Why do you assume he would want to bite you? He isnt a homosexual

Sir Blows A lot just has these fantasies, but I don't want to go into that dreary barf-fest of a subject.

 

[JimBowie1958]

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.

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.

The onl monumental failure in all this is GLAAD, but you idiot libtards are a very close second building your arguments on morality clauses that you cannot document, using double standards that most reject, and in the end, even A+E proved you to be a bunch of idiot libtard evil minions, lol.

 

[Pogo]

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



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.

Which links in the ROBERTSON's contract morality clause did you have, liar?

You do not know for a fact that the Robertsons have such a clause, you just ASSume it because it is standard, but as has been demonstrated, the Robertsons are not typical, so you have no argument, dip-shit.

It's not "argument", dipshit. It's how the business works and it's the answer to the question "how can the Producer do this" or "why isn't this a Title VII infraction". The Robertsons are "typical" in the cesspool of "reality TV". Are the characters "untypical"? Of course they are. That's exactly why they'd have such a clause. You made the opposite argument from the one you think you made.

And btw absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. I've never seen your car but I can safely predict it's got a steering wheel. Duh.

 

[Pogo]

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.

The onl monumental failure in all this is GLAAD, but you idiot libtards are a very close second building your arguments on morality clauses that you cannot document, using double standards that most reject, and in the end, even A+E proved you to be a bunch of idiot libtard evil minions, lol.

Who the fuck is GLAAD?

This thread claimed the A&E company was in violation of Title VII. And we showed from the beginning why it was not. It started with a ridiculously ignorant premise based on emotional wishful thinking. And it blew up on its own launch pad.

Go learn to read.

 

[Katzndogz]

Too many people can read. And they read that you were full of crap from the beginning.

 

[Pogo]

Too many people can read. And they read that you were full of crap from the beginning.

Again, nothing I put out was refuted. And everything I predicted came to pass.

Tissue?

 

[thanatos144]

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.

Which links in the ROBERTSON's contract morality clause did you have, liar?

You do not know for a fact that the Robertsons have such a clause, you just ASSume it because it is standard, but as has been demonstrated, the Robertsons are not typical, so you have no argument, dip-shit.

It's not "argument", dipshit. It's how the business works and it's the answer to the question "how can the Producer do this" or "why isn't this a Title VII infraction". The Robertsons are "typical" in the cesspool of "reality TV". Are the characters "untypical"? Of course they are. That's exactly why they'd have such a clause. You made the opposite argument from the one you think you made.

And btw absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. I've never seen your car but I can safely predict it's got a steering wheel. Duh.

Still trying to spin the fact that you didn't know shit about their contract and lied huh?

 

[Pogo]

Which links in the ROBERTSON's contract morality clause did you have, liar?

You do not know for a fact that the Robertsons have such a clause, you just ASSume it because it is standard, but as has been demonstrated, the Robertsons are not typical, so you have no argument, dip-shit.

It's not "argument", dipshit. It's how the business works and it's the answer to the question "how can the Producer do this" or "why isn't this a Title VII infraction". The Robertsons are "typical" in the cesspool of "reality TV". Are the characters "untypical"? Of course they are. That's exactly why they'd have such a clause. You made the opposite argument from the one you think you made.

And btw absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. I've never seen your car but I can safely predict it's got a steering wheel. Duh.

Still trying to spin the fact that you didn't know shit about their contract and lied huh?

And this "lie" is .... where?




Exactly.

Dumbass.

 

[thanatos144]

It's not "argument", dipshit. It's how the business works and it's the answer to the question "how can the Producer do this" or "why isn't this a Title VII infraction". The Robertsons are "typical" in the cesspool of "reality TV". Are the characters "untypical"? Of course they are. That's exactly why they'd have such a clause. You made the opposite argument from the one you think you made.

And btw absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. I've never seen your car but I can safely predict it's got a steering wheel. Duh.

Still trying to spin the fact that you didn't know shit about their contract and lied huh?

And this "lie" is .... where?




Exactly.

Dumbass.

Everywhere in this and all threads about this issue.



Lying fuck

 

[Pogo]

Still trying to spin the fact that you didn't know shit about their contract and lied huh?

And this "lie" is .... where?




Exactly.

Dumbass.

Everywhere in this and all threads about this issue.

Lying fuck

So -- you can't figure out an answer.

Exactly.

 

[thanatos144]

And this "lie" is .... where?




Exactly.

Dumbass.

Everywhere in this and all threads about this issue.

Lying fuck

So -- you can't figure out an answer.

Exactly.

OH we ALL know where and how you lied. Show me the Robertson contracts again you dishonest Hack.

 

[JimBowie1958]

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.

Which links in the ROBERTSON's contract morality clause did you have, liar?

You do not know for a fact that the Robertsons have such a clause, you just ASSume it because it is standard, but as has been demonstrated, the Robertsons are not typical, so you have no argument, dip-shit.

It's not "argument", dipshit. It's how the business works and it's the answer to the question "how can the Producer do this" or "why isn't this a Title VII infraction". The Robertsons are "typical" in the cesspool of "reality TV". Are the characters "untypical"? Of course they are. That's exactly why they'd have such a clause. You made the opposite argument from the one you think you made.

And btw absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. I've never seen your car but I can safely predict it's got a steering wheel. Duh.

That is right, your claims do not amount to an argument but your presented them as such, you fraud. And I do not care what causes you to consider the Robertons to be typical, I was speaking of their income and the income they provided to A+E, dumbass.

So even if they had the clause you refer to, you have not proven there is one and your views on what is best for A+E or whatever you are concerned with are irrelevant, you know-it-all fool.

 

[JimBowie1958]

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.

The onl monumental failure in all this is GLAAD, but you idiot libtards are a very close second building your arguments on morality clauses that you cannot document, using double standards that most reject, and in the end, even A+E proved you to be a bunch of idiot libtard evil minions, lol.

Who the fuck is GLAAD?

Lol, as if you don't know. You libtards keep thinking that your ignorance somehow proves something other than that you are ignoramuses. Why is that?

This thread claimed the A&E company was in violation of Title VII.

As it apparently is.

And we showed from the beginning why it was not.

You haven't shown anything other than your opinion to the contrary.

One could easily argue that A+E violated the anti=discrimination laws since they fired Phil for expressing his religious beliefs which amounts to firing him for his religion.

It started with a ridiculously ignorant premise based on emotional wishful thinking. And it blew up on its own launch pad.

Nothing blew up on the launch pad other than your attempt to bullshit everyone into thinking there is nothing to this, and there is, even if Robertson chooses to not pursue it.

A+E caved in and put Phil back on the show, so fuck off, fascist prick.

Go learn to read.

lol, that is your problem. You think everyone that disagrees with you is either stupid or evil and we both know that you are the one that is engaging in lies continually on these threads and none of your opponents, at least none I have seen.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Everywhere in this and all threads about this issue.

Lying fuck

So -- you can't figure out an answer.

Exactly.

OH we ALL know where and how you lied. Show me the Robertson contracts again you dishonest Hack.

But he will keep up with the lies...it's all he has.

Oh, and he negged me for pointing it out too, lol, stupid shithead.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Too many people can read. And they read that you were full of crap from the beginning.

Again, nothing I put out was refuted. And everything I predicted came to pass.

Tissue?

roflmao


Keep telling yourself that, ass hat.

 

[WillReadmore]

The Bible is right, not your stupid bullshit ideology that justifies anything one of your Identity groups says or does, fascist, then goes after any who oppose using tactics of personal destruction to punish them.

You and Robertson have an opinion about what the Bible says, and that opinion isn't shared by all Christians, obviously.

Your last sentence is a little confused, but I would apply it to the real damage that is done by discrimination against those who happen to be same sex oriented.

I'd point out that Robertson would have no problems today if he just followed the Pope's direction.

Does following the Pope's direction on this issue seem like too much of an imposition?

 

[Katzndogz]

The Bible is right, not your stupid bullshit ideology that justifies anything one of your Identity groups says or does, fascist, then goes after any who oppose using tactics of personal destruction to punish them.

You and Robertson have an opinion about what the Bible says, and that opinion isn't shared by all Christians, obviously.

Your last sentence is a little confused, but I would apply it to the real damage that is done by discrimination against those who happen to be same sex oriented.

I'd point out that Robertson would have no problems today if he just followed the Pope's direction.

Does following the Pope's direction on this issue seem like too much of an imposition?

Yes it is. No one aside from Catholics have any interest in what the Pope says. As a non Catholic, Phil Robertson need have no interest in following the Pope's direction. As a non Catholic myself, what the Pope says about anything doesn't have meaning for me.

 

[JimBowie1958]

The Bible is right, not your stupid bullshit ideology that justifies anything one of your Identity groups says or does, fascist, then goes after any who oppose using tactics of personal destruction to punish them.

You and Robertson have an opinion about what the Bible says, and that opinion isn't shared by all Christians, obviously.

Your last sentence is a little confused, but I would apply it to the real damage that is done by discrimination against those who happen to be same sex oriented.

I'd point out that Robertson would have no problems today if he just followed the Pope's direction.

Does following the Pope's direction on this issue seem like too much of an imposition?

Where do you believe that Roberts contradicts the Popes opinion? You do know Roberts is a Baptist, right?

Phil said he likes vagina and not ass hole, something I would guess the Pope has no opinion on, but would say that vagina is natural and a preference for screwing an asshole is disordered.

Phil did not say these things to offend anyone, he just said he cant understand why anyone would have that preference of colon entry, which is consistent with the new normal of homosexual identity, wouldn't it? Arent heterosexuals supposed to be so 'in' to their kind of sex they cant find other kinds of sex appealing? And to my knowledge there is no evidence Phil thought his words would be published since his PR guy was not present. He got suckered into believing a lying journalist about being off the record, apparently.

When Phil listed what he considered to be sins, I think the Pope would entirely agree; which ones would Pope Francis disagree with Phil on?

BTW, people that call themselves 'Christians' that do not agree with the first chapter of Romans are not Christian, period, and not an Obama period, lol.