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

[beagle9]

The Pope wants to make progress with every individual. Robertson wants to drive off those he thinks God doesn't like. The result is a significant difference in approach between the Pope and Robertson. And, that has nothing to do with Catholicism. Every Christian religious leader is interested in saving souls for Christ, not in driving people away.

Phil ain't out to save everybody else, and he didn't claim to be that person, that is the job for the pope or preachers and/or etc. Phil just answered some questions that were asked of him, and that is all nothing more and nothing less.

Let's say some guy is a Christian and is thus interested in saving souls for Christ. Is he likely to accomplish that through the Robertson approach of bigotry, hateful and really downright stupid remarks? Or would this person be more successful by following the Pope's approach of inviting all comers and expressing God's message of salvation without the bigotry and stupidity?

Outside of the proper settings, savings souls through educating people or attempting to save souls by being accepting of anything and anyone can be a tricky, and also sometimes very dangerous business. One has to be set up to do this sort of thing, and not attempt to be doing this sort of thing on ones own.

What I mean by this, is you wouldn't invite a total stranger into your home around your family, otherwise thinking that you might could save this person from themselves, and why is this one wonders ? It's because the next thing you know all sorts of evils could come about to you and worse your family by such a dangerous move on your own.

The catch here is that Robertson is just plain too stupid for words. His very comments label his whole belief system on the subject as just plain ignorant. He even says so, in his disgusting gutter-speak. As an ambassador for Christ, he is not just a loser, but an example of one of the more significant problems faced by the church today.

Says who you ? Like I said Phil is not out to do the job of the pope, but if he is asked his position on life, and he is specifically asked certain questions, then he will answer those questions the way in which he believes, now for those who don't like it, then they need to go and see the idiot who asked Phil these questions for whom already new the answers that Phil was going to give him when asked. He was the one exposing the issue to the nation, but undoubtedly he was the spokesperson for all these weird groups out there, and they were all after Phil or why wouldn't they go after the one who exposed them in this way ?

 

[beagle9]

So, Christians should't tell anyone what a sin is lest they offend sinners?

That makes no sense.

We don't make laws against sin. We don't consider notions of sin as justification for state sponsored discrimination. And, you'll have to admit that Robertson's disgusting descriptions of his own lack of understanding are highly unlikely to be attractive to those who are same sex oriented.

So, what's being accomplished?

To steal and kill is sin, and it says it right there in the Bible, but you say we don't make laws against sin in this nation ? Are you too stupid for words maybe ?

 

[JimBowie1958]

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.

I didn't say Robertson contradicted the Pope - I said he didn't follow the Pope's direction on the issue.

And why should he? He is not Catholic.

The Pope wants to make progress with every individual. Robertson wants to drive off those he thinks God doesn't like.

No, I think you misread both men. Both want to draw as many people to God's Truth as is possible. Both would agree that homosexual behavior is a sin and that that sin if not repented from will keep one from the kingdom of God. The difference in the public perception is that the Pope made an allowance for the penitent homosexual who is genuinely in search of God, and Phil was merely listing a long line of sins that separate us from God.

The result is a significant difference in approach between the Pope and Robertson. And, that has nothing to do with Catholicism. Every Christian religious leader is interested in saving souls for Christ, not in driving people away.

'Drawing them to Christ' also means drawing them to a moral standard that Christ taught, and that does NOT include active homosexual behavior. I must be given up in repentance first.

Let's say some guy is a Christian and is thus interested in saving souls for Christ. Is he likely to accomplish that through the Robertson approach of bigotry, hateful and really downright stupid remarks? Or would this person be more successful by following the Pope's approach of inviting all comers and expressing God's message of salvation without the bigotry and stupidity?

Identifying what are sins is not hateful nor is it bigoted. It is one of the kindest things a person can say if you think about it.

And calling people to Christ while ignoring the sins that separate them from Christ is never going to work anyway.

The catch here is that Robertson is just plain too stupid for words. His very comments label his whole belief system on the subject as just plain ignorant.

Yeah, 'lets not be judgmental, but evangelicals are stupid ignorant bigots.'
roflmao

He even says so, in his disgusting gutter-speak. As an ambassador for Christ, he is not just a loser, but an example of one of the more significant problems faced by the church today.

I don't think Phil is an ambassador for Christ, but just another sinner who is trying to share what the parameters are and why he knows he is a sinner.

But you do seem to be pretty hateful toward him and other Christians who respect the authority of the first chapter of Romans.

The rest of your comment makes no sense. Robertson made some stupid and bigoted remarks and he's highly likely to pay for that, as the entertainment industry doesn't always reward bigotry.

Yeah, the Gay Mafia is a firm practitioner of the politics of personal destruction, and they will do to Phil what the leftwing fascists have been trying to do to George Zimmerman.

Why should anyone be upset about that? That is how our system has worked from the beginning.

Oh, I don't know things like freedom of speech, opposing fascists like you, and generally cleaning the human race of degenerates like yourself seem fairly good solid reason to me.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Do you idiots really think that a company as big as A&E doesn't have a bunch of lawyers who went through his contract before they made their announcement to make sure that the suspension was legal?

I mean, fucking seriously, this isn't some little mom-and-pop outfit who has a half-assed lawyer on retainer. A&E probably has in-house counsel who read through his contract and made sure that it was kosher before they pulled the trigger on the suspension. Assuming as much really isn't rocket science.

Yes, because big companies with rafts of lawyers on retainer NEVER make mistakes and lose lawsuits.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Do you idiots really think that a company as big as A&E doesn't have a bunch of lawyers who went through his contract before they made their announcement to make sure that the suspension was legal?...

That's a very good question. Lawyers make mistakes, too, and can't see every angle from which they can be attacked. All it takes is missing one weak-spot that the other side can find, and... whammo!

And any lawyer will tell you how much depends on which judge - or jury, when that's the case - you get.

 

[WillReadmore]

The Pope wants to make progress with every individual. Robertson wants to drive off those he thinks God doesn't like. The result is a significant difference in approach between the Pope and Robertson. And, that has nothing to do with Catholicism. Every Christian religious leader is interested in saving souls for Christ, not in driving people away.

Phil ain't out to save everybody else, and he didn't claim to be that person, that is the job for the pope or preachers and/or etc. Phil just answered some questions that were asked of him, and that is all nothing more and nothing less.

Let's say some guy is a Christian and is thus interested in saving souls for Christ. Is he likely to accomplish that through the Robertson approach of bigotry, hateful and really downright stupid remarks? Or would this person be more successful by following the Pope's approach of inviting all comers and expressing God's message of salvation without the bigotry and stupidity?

Outside of the proper settings, savings souls through educating people or attempting to save souls by being accepting of anything and anyone can be a tricky, and also sometimes very dangerous business. One has to be set up to do this sort of thing, and not attempt to be doing this sort of thing on ones own.

What I mean by this, is you wouldn't invite a total stranger into your home around your family, otherwise thinking that you might could save this person from themselves, and why is this one wonders ? It's because the next thing you know all sorts of evils could come about to you and worse your family by such a dangerous move on your own.

The catch here is that Robertson is just plain too stupid for words. His very comments label his whole belief system on the subject as just plain ignorant. He even says so, in his disgusting gutter-speak. As an ambassador for Christ, he is not just a loser, but an example of one of the more significant problems faced by the church today.

Says who you ? Like I said Phil is not out to do the job of the pope, but if he is asked his position on life, and he is specifically asked certain questions, then he will answer those questions the way in which he believes, now for those who don't like it, then they need to go and see the idiot who asked Phil these questions for whom already new the answers that Phil was going to give him when asked. He was the one exposing the issue to the nation, but undoubtedly he was the spokesperson for all these weird groups out there, and they were all after Phil or why wouldn't they go after the one who exposed them in this way ?

Yes - my point being that nothing was going to be accomplished by Robertson's disgusting rant.

And, no, Robertson is fully responsible for what Robertson says, regardless of what someone asked him. Plus, the interviewer clearly does have an objective that was met.

 

[WillReadmore]

So, Christians should't tell anyone what a sin is lest they offend sinners?

That makes no sense.

We don't make laws against sin. We don't consider notions of sin as justification for state sponsored discrimination. And, you'll have to admit that Robertson's disgusting descriptions of his own lack of understanding are highly unlikely to be attractive to those who are same sex oriented.

So, what's being accomplished?

To steal and kill is sin, and it says it right there in the Bible, but you say we don't make laws against sin in this nation ? Are you too stupid for words maybe ?

Stealing and killing are proscribed by law, but that doesn't mean it has anything to do with sin.

Look at the 10-C. Look at the "seven deadly sins" - not even ONE of which is illegal. Look at it the other way around - there are laws against insider trading and all sorts of other stuff that isn't a sin.

Whether an act is a sin has no bearing on whether it is illegal. It would be preposterous for legislators to even ask that question.

 

[WillReadmore]

Yeah, 'lets not be judgmental, but evangelicals are stupid ignorant bigots.'
roflmao

Don't be so sensitive. Robertson claims to be ignorant on LGBT issues, and he's is right about that. I'm just noting that.

I wasn't talking about evangelicals in general.

But, I'll have to say that both the evangelical preachers in my extended family certainly are at least as ignorant on the subject as Robertson claims to be.

 

[Cecilie1200]

a Gay Amercian...is that a special class of people?

Where's the box on the census that you check for that?

are you homosexual Amercian
Straight american
brown American
etc

God, don't give them ideas, or we'll see THAT on the next census form.

 

[WillReadmore]

I didn't say Robertson contradicted the Pope - I said he didn't follow the Pope's direction on the issue.

And why should he? He is not Catholic.


No, I think you misread both men. Both want to draw as many people to God's Truth as is possible. Both would agree that homosexual behavior is a sin and that that sin if not repented from will keep one from the kingdom of God. The difference in the public perception is that the Pope made an allowance for the penitent homosexual who is genuinely in search of God, and Phil was merely listing a long line of sins that separate us from God.

[...]
Yeah, 'lets not be judgmental, but evangelicals are stupid ignorant bigots.'
roflmao

I don't think Phil is an ambassador for Christ, but just another sinner who is trying to share what the parameters are and why he knows he is a sinner.

But you do seem to be pretty hateful toward him and other Christians who respect the authority of the first chapter of Romans.

Why should anyone be upset about that? That is how our system has worked from the beginning.

Oh, I don't know things like freedom of speech, opposing fascists like you, and generally cleaning the human race of degenerates like yourself seem fairly good solid reason to me.

No, the Pope said "who am I to judge."

I pointed to the Pope as a Christian man of God who has a direction different than that of Robertson.

Robertson's nonsense isn't designed to convince anyone of anything. He says more about himself than about anyone else - describing his own predilections and his own lack of understanding.

I said nothing about evangelicals in general.

Nobody has opposed Robertson's right to free speech as far as I know.

 

[emilynghiem]

Phil wasn't let go because of his religion

Sorry but you're wrong. He was let go for his religious views on homosexuality.

I think it is ONE THING to "have" or "espouse" certain views, for which a person should not be discriminated against.

But ANOTHER THING to STATE these in a venue where political/religious views are against company policy (such as through company emails, or in press releases/statements made in direct relation with the company that does not represent itself that way).

I agree that no one should be discriminated against for HAVING certain views per se.

But do believe companies have the right to enforce polices against stating personal political or religious views in public, where it is in conflict with company policy or image to be neutral.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Yeah, 'lets not be judgmental, but evangelicals are stupid ignorant bigots.'
roflmao

Don't be so sensitive. Robertson claims to be ignorant on LGBT issues, and he's is right about that. I'm just noting that.

I wasn't talking about evangelicals in general.

But, I'll have to say that both the evangelical preachers in my extended family certainly are at least as ignorant on the subject as Robertson claims to be.

Do you have a link to this statement by Robertson so we can see the context, Mr Tulip?

 

[JimBowie1958]

Phil wasn't let go because of his religion

Sorry but you're wrong. He was let go for his religious views on homosexuality.

I think it is ONE THING to "have" or "espouse" certain views, for which a person should not be discriminated against.

But ANOTHER THING to STATE these in a venue where political/religious views are against company policy (such as through company emails, or in press releases/statements made in direct relation with the company that does not represent itself that way).

I agree that no one should be discriminated against for HAVING certain views per se.

But do believe companies have the right to enforce polices against stating personal political or religious views in public, where it is in conflict with company policy or image to be neutral.

But what if the company policies themselves are discriminatory? Then the defense 'we are following company policy' is no defense at all.

A company could have a policy that fires Jewish people from saying anything that offends Christians, then fire an employee for saying the think Jesus was not the Messiah. Just because it would be enforcing company policy doesn't make it morally right or legal.

The relevant question becomes 'Why would a company have a policy that denies people the right to say Jesus was not the Messiah?'

In regards to Robertson the question would be 'Why does quoting the Bible offend the people at A+E?'

 

[KevinWestern]

Here's the thing, I support A&E's right to do whatever they want with Phil following his comments. He stirred a controversy and some negativity against himself and the network, and I think (when it comes to showbiz) those are grounds to let someone go. As we know, they ultimately decided to keep him. So, with that said what's there to discuss at this point?

At the end of the day, the guy basically said that he "thinks that having sex with men is gross". As far as I can tell, he never said that he hates gays, or never wants to work with a gay person, or thinks gay people are evil. He simply said that he thought it was gross to think about having sex with another man. Did anyone actually expect him to say something different?

I just don't understand what all the f#$king hooplah is about..

 

[Cecilie1200]

We don't make laws against sin. We don't consider notions of sin as justification for state sponsored discrimination. And, you'll have to admit that Robertson's disgusting descriptions of his own lack of understanding are highly unlikely to be attractive to those who are same sex oriented.

So, what's being accomplished?

To steal and kill is sin, and it says it right there in the Bible, but you say we don't make laws against sin in this nation ? Are you too stupid for words maybe ?

Stealing and killing are proscribed by law, but that doesn't mean it has anything to do with sin.

Look at the 10-C. Look at the "seven deadly sins" - not even ONE of which is illegal. Look at it the other way around - there are laws against insider trading and all sorts of other stuff that isn't a sin.

Whether an act is a sin has no bearing on whether it is illegal. It would be preposterous for legislators to even ask that question.

I hate to break it to you, but many of our laws are based EXACTLY on that question, because they have existed since and come down to us from a time when virtually EVERYONE asked that question about pretty much everything. The fact that there are some sins which are not illegal is irrelevant to that fact.

Furthermore, all of our laws, whether people consciously think of it this way or not, are very much based on moral behavior. Even traffic laws are based on the simple morality most of us learn in kindergarten: share, take turns, be considerate.

Seems to me when society starts thinking there's a disconnect between these ideas, it ends up getting very bad, nonsensical laws . . . AND behaviors.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Here's the thing, I support A&E's right to do whatever they want with Phil following his comments. He stirred a controversy and some negativity against himself and the network, and I think (when it comes to showbiz) those are grounds to let someone go. As we know, they ultimately decided to keep him. So, with that said what's there to discuss at this point?

Maybe be this.....

But what if the company policies themselves are discriminatory? Then the defense 'we are following company policy' is no defense at all.

A company could have a policy that fires Jewish people from saying anything that offends Christians, then fire an employee for saying the think Jesus was not the Messiah. Just because it would be enforcing company policy doesn't make it morally right or legal.

The relevant question becomes 'Why would a company have a policy that denies people the right to say Jesus was not the Messiah?'

In regards to Robertson the question would be 'Why does quoting the Bible offend the people at A+E?'

At the end of the day, the guy basically said that he "thinks that having sex with men is gross". As far as I can tell, he never said that he hates gays, or never wants to work with a gay person, or thinks gay people are evil. He simply said that he thought it was gross to think about having sex with another man. Did anyone actually expect him to say something different?

I just don't understand what all the f#$king hooplah is about..

Let me paint you a picture then.

1) Phil says something he thinks is off the record to some pervs who work for GQ.

2) About 6 months go by with A+E saying nothing to Phil about the interview though they have access to the doc.

3) The document gets published and various pervs get mad at the labeling of their favorite past time being described as a sin, so they complain to GLAAD.

4) GLAAD calls up A+E and says they need to punish Phil and do various other things or else.

5) A+E reflexively caves in and suspends Phil for quoting the Bible and saying he doesn't like sodomy.

6) Phils suspension inflames millions of Christians across the country who get to see one of their favorites getting punished for quoting the Bible and essentiall the mere act of quoting the Bible branded as offensive hate speech.

7) Christians mobilize to show support for Phil and within 24 hours petitions with hundreds of thousands of names and Facebook pages supporting Phil get millions of likes.

8) A+E starts to realize that the Robertsons are independently wealthy and do not care if they lose money with the end of the TV show, but A+E is going to lose a huge chunk of their revenue stream.

9) A+E caves in and puts Phil back on the schedule.

10) Angels sing in heaven along with millions of American in celebration.

 

[Katzndogz]

So, Christians should't tell anyone what a sin is lest they offend sinners?

That makes no sense.

We don't make laws against sin. We don't consider notions of sin as justification for state sponsored discrimination. And, you'll have to admit that Robertson's disgusting descriptions of his own lack of understanding are highly unlikely to be attractive to those who are same sex oriented.

So, what's being accomplished?

No one, least of all Phil Robertson said anything about state sponsored discrimination. He was absolutely correct in his description of sin.

 

[JimBowie1958]

To steal and kill is sin, and it says it right there in the Bible, but you say we don't make laws against sin in this nation ? Are you too stupid for words maybe ?

Stealing and killing are proscribed by law, but that doesn't mean it has anything to do with sin.

Look at the 10-C. Look at the "seven deadly sins" - not even ONE of which is illegal. Look at it the other way around - there are laws against insider trading and all sorts of other stuff that isn't a sin.

Whether an act is a sin has no bearing on whether it is illegal. It would be preposterous for legislators to even ask that question.

I hate to break it to you, but many of our laws are based EXACTLY on that question, because they have existed since and come down to us from a time when virtually EVERYONE asked that question about pretty much everything. The fact that there are some sins which are not illegal is irrelevant to that fact.

Furthermore, all of our laws, whether people consciously think of it this way or not, are very much based on moral behavior. Even traffic laws are based on the simple morality most of us learn in kindergarten: share, take turns, be considerate.

Seems to me when society starts thinking there's a disconnect between these ideas, it ends up getting very bad, nonsensical laws . . . AND behaviors.

OT law --->>> Christian ecclesiastical law --->>>> English Common Law ---->>>> US legal code

 

[RKMBrown]

Here's the thing, I support A&E's right to do whatever they want with Phil following his comments. He stirred a controversy and some negativity against himself and the network, and I think (when it comes to showbiz) those are grounds to let someone go. As we know, they ultimately decided to keep him. So, with that said what's there to discuss at this point?

At the end of the day, the guy basically said that he "thinks that having sex with men is gross". As far as I can tell, he never said that he hates gays, or never wants to work with a gay person, or thinks gay people are evil. He simply said that he thought it was gross to think about having sex with another man. Did anyone actually expect him to say something different?

I just don't understand what all the f#$king hooplah is about..

Whenever one of the libtard media hitmen get a conservative to answer a gotcha question, the go to response is to plaster the response, out of context, around the globe and spike the football in the endzone. The more media attention the conservative is getting the more libtards you'll get trying to pile on the ball.

 

[KevinWestern]

Here's the thing, I support A&E's right to do whatever they want with Phil following his comments. He stirred a controversy and some negativity against himself and the network, and I think (when it comes to showbiz) those are grounds to let someone go. As we know, they ultimately decided to keep him. So, with that said what's there to discuss at this point?

Maybe be this.....

But what if the company policies themselves are discriminatory? Then the defense 'we are following company policy' is no defense at all.

A company could have a policy that fires Jewish people from saying anything that offends Christians, then fire an employee for saying the think Jesus was not the Messiah. Just because it would be enforcing company policy doesn't make it morally right or legal.

The relevant question becomes 'Why would a company have a policy that denies people the right to say Jesus was not the Messiah?'

In regards to Robertson the question would be 'Why does quoting the Bible offend the people at A+E?'

At the end of the day, the guy basically said that he "thinks that having sex with men is gross". As far as I can tell, he never said that he hates gays, or never wants to work with a gay person, or thinks gay people are evil. He simply said that he thought it was gross to think about having sex with another man. Did anyone actually expect him to say something different?

I just don't understand what all the f#$king hooplah is about..

Let me paint you a picture then.

1) Phil says something he thinks is off the record to some pervs who work for GQ.

2) About 6 months go by with A+E saying nothing to Phil about the interview though they have access to the doc.

3) The document gets published and various pervs get mad at the labeling of their favorite past time being described as a sin, so they complain to GLAAD.

4) GLAAD calls up A+E and says they need to punish Phil and do various other things or else.

5) A+E reflexively caves in and suspends Phil for quoting the Bible and saying he doesn't like sodomy.

6) Phils suspension inflames millions of Christians across the country who get to see one of their favorites getting punished for quoting the Bible and essentiall the mere act of quoting the Bible branded as offensive hate speech.

7) Christians mobilize to show support for Phil and within 24 hours petitions with hundreds of thousands of names and Facebook pages supporting Phil get millions of likes.

8) A+E starts to realize that the Robertsons are independently wealthy and do not care if they lose money with the end of the TV show, but A+E is going to lose a huge chunk of their revenue stream.

9) A+E caves in and puts Phil back on the schedule.

10) Angels sing in heaven along with millions of American in celebration.

Jim, A&E aught to have the right to protect itself.

If a Christian TV network hired a guy to head up their largest TV show, and that spokesperson later came out as a "Muslim" in the news and denounced the Bible, Jesus, and claimed that Muhammad is the only true prophet - should the Christian network have the right to fire or suspend?

Or would that be "discrimination" as well because the TV host should be able to say or do whatever he/she pleases and worry not about any consequences?