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

[Kondor3]

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.

Exactly right.

Virtually all European Law (including English Law) can be traced back a combination of Roman Law and Germanic-Frankish (Salic/Salian) Law and Church (Canon) Law.

And the Laws of the United States, the UK, the Commonwealth, are all based upon English Law, with local evolutions and adaptations and developments tossed into the mix.

Again, that includes Church (Canon) Law, as that was developed in the period 400-800 AD (CE), and beyond, long before the Reformation of the 16th and 17th centuries, when there was one Church in the West (the Roman Catholic) and when its Law was often the only Law governing a village or township or county or duchy, etc., during the centuries after the fall of the Western Empire.

Hell, that old Canon Law survived the Reformation within the realm of various Protestant denominations, to some extent or another, intact, or after alterations, or both - and that modified Canon Law, upheld by various Protestant denominations, continues to influence much of the public and lawmakers in our own country to the present day.

Early modern-era (from the 1400s-ish and beyond) SECULAR law was crafted with the msot careful attention to compliance with CANON law (with all of its moral and spiritual implications) and much of that 'conformity' may still be seen today in the cornerstones and foundation-pieces of codified European law and legal systems.

There is far more of the ancient Canon Law of the Church (and, therefore, ages-old morality issues and resolutions and judgments) embedded within the Laws of the United States - on a philosophical and metaphorical level - than most of us would find believable without giving the matter some serious thought.

Most of our law of times-past, and most of our law in the present day, and most of our law in-future, have very deep roots in Morality, whether that is immediately recognizable to the viewer or not.

That was a very good catch, and a highly accurate observation, IMHO.

 

[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?

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?

Since the show was supposed to be about religion, and the spokesperson is in conflict with said religion it's ok to discriminate. Sort of like it's ok for the NAACP to discriminate against whites. However, if the show/network is not about religion and the person made it clear his comments were his particular views, then it's not ok to fire someone for their religion. The civil rights laws state that you can't discriminate regarding employment based on religion.

 

[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.

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?

I think it would be illegal discrimination on the basis of religion unless he was supposed to represent a Christian point of view, but at least all freedom loving people who cherish the right of free speech and freedom of religion should go to the Muslim man's defense and demand he be put back on unless something serious was done by him to harm another person, commit slander ,etc.

 

[Pogo]

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?'






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?

I think it would be illegal discrimination on the basis of religion unless he was supposed to represent a Christian point of view, but at least all freedom loving people who cherish the right of free speech and freedom of religion should go to the Muslim man's defense and demand he be put back on unless something serious was done by him to harm another person, commit slander ,etc.

This is all irrelevant, because nobody was fired on account of his religion. Phil Robertson was suspended for embarrassing his employer which is why TV producers work with morality clauses.

That's all there was to it. Get the fuck over it. It's a television show.

 

[Katzndogz]

And they had to reinstate him because............

 

[KevinWestern]

I think it would be illegal discrimination on the basis of religion unless he was supposed to represent a Christian point of view, but at least all freedom loving people who cherish the right of free speech and freedom of religion should go to the Muslim man's defense and demand he be put back on unless something serious was done by him to harm another person, commit slander ,etc.

Really? Despite the negative controversy the openly Muslim host is stirring up, the Christian network does not have the right to do anything? That sounds pretty darn silly, Jim.

This is not a "freedom of speech" discussion. Phil is not going to be arrested, and the government is not going to bust into his house with troops dressed in black to drag him away to the Ministry of Love; the man is free to do what he wants as far as I'm concerned. He is allowed to freely express himself.

This is instead a discussion about whether or not A&E has the right to fire a TV representative for bringing unwanted negative attention towards their company. Phil is hired to make money and bolster the strength of the network; when he is ceasing to do this, A&E aught to have the option to fire him.

 

[RKMBrown]

I think it would be illegal discrimination on the basis of religion unless he was supposed to represent a Christian point of view, but at least all freedom loving people who cherish the right of free speech and freedom of religion should go to the Muslim man's defense and demand he be put back on unless something serious was done by him to harm another person, commit slander ,etc.

Really? Despite the negative controversy the openly Muslim host is stirring up, the Christian network does not have the right to do anything? That sounds pretty darn silly, Jim.

This is not a "freedom of speech" discussion. Phil is not going to be arrested, and the government is not going to bust into his house with troops dressed in black to drag him away to the Ministry of Love; the man is free to do what he wants as far as I'm concerned. He is allowed to freely express himself.

This is instead a discussion about whether or not A&E has the right to fire a TV representative for bringing unwanted negative attention towards their company. Phil is hired to make money and bolster the strength of the network; when he is ceasing to do this, A&E aught to have the option to fire him.

They can fire for any reason they come up with that is not based on race, religion, or gender. It's the law. They would have a hard time proving/claiming it was because of a morality clause.

 

[koshergrl]

Ah Poto and the nonsensical 'morality clauses' diversionary tactic again, lol.

Robertson wasn't any more suspended than anyone else who was on hiaitus waiting for shooting to resume. Cuz there was no applicable morality clause, and A&E isn't about to dump their golden egg laying goose. Americans love him.

 

[KevinWestern]

I think it would be illegal discrimination on the basis of religion unless he was supposed to represent a Christian point of view, but at least all freedom loving people who cherish the right of free speech and freedom of religion should go to the Muslim man's defense and demand he be put back on unless something serious was done by him to harm another person, commit slander ,etc.

Really? Despite the negative controversy the openly Muslim host is stirring up, the Christian network does not have the right to do anything? That sounds pretty darn silly, Jim.

This is not a "freedom of speech" discussion. Phil is not going to be arrested, and the government is not going to bust into his house with troops dressed in black to drag him away to the Ministry of Love; the man is free to do what he wants as far as I'm concerned. He is allowed to freely express himself.

This is instead a discussion about whether or not A&E has the right to fire a TV representative for bringing unwanted negative attention towards their company. Phil is hired to make money and bolster the strength of the network; when he is ceasing to do this, A&E aught to have the option to fire him.

They can fire for any reason they come up with that is not based on race, religion, or gender. It's the law.

He wasn't fired for being a Christian - Jim - he's been one since the inception of the show. He was (on the brink) of being fired because he was stirring up negative controversy towards A&E in an interview that certainly didn't have to take place. There's a huge difference.

Was Phil suspended because he said he "loved Jesus"? Or that he believed that "Jesus" was the son of God?

Phil was suspended because he made some remarks about how having "sex with an anus" was gross. The crudeness of those remarks (especially when he sort of paired homosexuality and bestiality in the same category) offended a great deal of people and (in turn) threatened the well being of the company. Please let's not stretch this into a "Christian" thing, because it's not.

 

[Pogo]

I think it would be illegal discrimination on the basis of religion unless he was supposed to represent a Christian point of view, but at least all freedom loving people who cherish the right of free speech and freedom of religion should go to the Muslim man's defense and demand he be put back on unless something serious was done by him to harm another person, commit slander ,etc.

Really? Despite the negative controversy the openly Muslim host is stirring up, the Christian network does not have the right to do anything? That sounds pretty darn silly, Jim.

This is not a "freedom of speech" discussion. Phil is not going to be arrested, and the government is not going to bust into his house with troops dressed in black to drag him away to the Ministry of Love; the man is free to do what he wants as far as I'm concerned. He is allowed to freely express himself.

This is instead a discussion about whether or not A&E has the right to fire a TV representative for bringing unwanted negative attention towards their company. Phil is hired to make money and bolster the strength of the network; when he is ceasing to do this, A&E aught to have the option to fire him.

They can fire for any reason they come up with that is not based on race, religion, or gender. It's the law. They would have a hard time proving/claiming it was because of a morality clause.

Two sentences that contradict each other.
It ain't "because of" a morality clause; it's because of public perception (read: advertiser concerns). The morality clause is the contractual provision where they reserve the right to do it.

 

[Pogo]

Ah Poto and the nonsensical 'morality clauses' diversionary tactic again, lol.

Robertson wasn't any more suspended than anyone else who was on hiaitus waiting for shooting to resume. Cuz there was no applicable morality clause, and A&E isn't about to dump their golden egg laying goose. Americans love him.

And your evidence is ...................... where again?

 

[Kondor3]

And they had to reinstate him because............

Indeed...

This isn't about Phil or A&E, in the final analysis...

This is about mainstream America dealing the Gay-Lobby a noteworthy second public-relations defeat...

Hard on the heels of their first noteworthy public-relations defeat last year, in connection with Chick-Fil-A...

This is about turning corners and changing times...

And it becoming increasingly evident that the recent-years string of Gay-Lobby public-relations successes may have come to an end...

 

[koshergrl]

Ah Poto and the nonsensical 'morality clauses' diversionary tactic again, lol.

Robertson wasn't any more suspended than anyone else who was on hiaitus waiting for shooting to resume. Cuz there was no applicable morality clause, and A&E isn't about to dump their golden egg laying goose. Americans love him.

And your evidence is ...................... where again?

It's your specious claim, skippy. You haven't backed it up or even come close to convincing ANYBODY that a morality clause is applicable, or even exists in this case. . You lose by default.

 

[KevinWestern]

And they had to reinstate him because............

Indeed...

This isn't about Phil or A&E, in the final analysis...

This is about mainstream America dealing the Gay-Lobby a noteworthy second public-relations defeat...

Hard on the heels of their first noteworthy public-relations defeat last year, in connection with Chick-Fil-A...

This is about turning corners and changing times...

What it comes down to is that a great deal of Americans (apparently) don't like it when someone categorizes homosexuality and bestiality as one in the same. There were a great deal of people who were genuinely offended and upset at A&E; this can be very, very bad for business.

As I mentioned before, Phil was not suspended "because he was a Christian". He was instead suspended because he stirred up negative controversy. Public representatives of companies or brands can't just say or do whatever the fuck they want under the protection of "religious freedom".

If that was the case I should be able to just sit here at my desk and scream "praise Allah" at the top of my lungs every 5 minutes and not have to worry about termination. Do you support that too?

 

[Pogo]

Ah Poto and the nonsensical 'morality clauses' diversionary tactic again, lol.

Robertson wasn't any more suspended than anyone else who was on hiaitus waiting for shooting to resume. Cuz there was no applicable morality clause, and A&E isn't about to dump their golden egg laying goose. Americans love him.

And your evidence is ...................... where again?

It's your specious claim, skippy. You haven't backed it up or even come close to convincing ANYBODY that a morality clause is applicable, or even exists in this case. . You lose by default.

No, it's your specious claim, Skippy. See the bolded part. You declared it doesn't exist -- so where's your evidence?

Wassamatta? Can't answer?

 

[Kondor3]

"...What it comes down to is that Americans don't like it when someone categorizes homosexuality and bestiality in the same category..."

Based upon opinion polls and the veritable explosion of Duck Merchandise inventories and sales just prior to Christmas...

It's patently obvious that far more Americans sided with Phil than not; in whole or in part.

There's still hope for this country, after all.

 

[JimBowie1958]

I think it would be illegal discrimination on the basis of religion unless he was supposed to represent a Christian point of view, but at least all freedom loving people who cherish the right of free speech and freedom of religion should go to the Muslim man's defense and demand he be put back on unless something serious was done by him to harm another person, commit slander ,etc.

Really? Despite the negative controversy the openly Muslim host is stirring up, the Christian network does not have the right to do anything? That sounds pretty darn silly, Jim.

This is not a "freedom of speech" discussion. Phil is not going to be arrested, and the government is not going to bust into his house with troops dressed in black to drag him away to the Ministry of Love; the man is free to do what he wants as far as I'm concerned. He is allowed to freely express himself.

This is instead a discussion about whether or not A&E has the right to fire a TV representative for bringing unwanted negative attention towards their company. Phil is hired to make money and bolster the strength of the network; when he is ceasing to do this, A&E aught to have the option to fire him.

You can spin it any way you want but a business does not have the right to discriminate on the basis of religion and when an employee expresses their religion, thus identifying that religion, they should be considered protected by the antidiscrimination laws if those are to mean anything other than a legal pretext for the left to harass businesses they dislike while firing the people they dislike.

What kind of example would you give where a business could not fire a person for actions that reveal their religion?

And how do you use a morality clause to fire people for quoting the Holy Book itself?

You are being ridiculous or legalistic, take your pick.

 

[koshergrl]

And your evidence is ...................... where again?

It's your specious claim, skippy. You haven't backed it up or even come close to convincing ANYBODY that a morality clause is applicable, or even exists in this case. . You lose by default.

No, it's your specious claim, Skippy. See the bolded part. You declared it doesn't exist -- so where's your evidence?

Wassamatta? Can't answer?

You declare it does exist...but have provided no evidence.

Therefore your claim that his so-called *suspension* was due to a violation of a morality clause is specious.

Everybody has called you on it. You're starting to look as pathetic as duhs at this point. I'm reminded of her insistence over the course of days and who knows how many posts that the Bronze Age lasted until the Renaissance.

 

[JimBowie1958]

"...What it comes down to is that Americans don't like it when someone categorizes homosexuality and bestiality in the same category..."

Based upon opinion polls and the veritable explosion of Duck Merchandise inventories and sales just prior to Christmas...

It's patently obvious that far more Americans sided with Phil than not; in whole or in part.

There's still hope for this country, after all.

Yes, the whole episode is very encouraging, no wonder the libtards are shrieking, 'Ignore the man behind the curtain!'

 

[JimBowie1958]

It's your specious claim, skippy. You haven't backed it up or even come close to convincing ANYBODY that a morality clause is applicable, or even exists in this case. . You lose by default.

No, it's your specious claim, Skippy. See the bolded part. You declared it doesn't exist -- so where's your evidence?

Wassamatta? Can't answer?

You declare it does exist...but have provided no evidence.

Therefore your claim that his so-called *suspension* was due to a violation of a morality clause is specious.

Everybody has called you on it. You're starting to look as pathetic as duhs at this point. I'm reminded of her insistence over the course of days and who knows how many posts that the Bronze Age lasted until the Renaissance.

Pogo is simply looking like the idiot he truly is.