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

[koshergrl]

Well I was convinced ages ago. This is beating a dead horse.

 

[JimBowie1958]

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.

That is a bullshit lie. Show me where he did that. He said homesexuality is a sin and listed a bunch of sins. He never said bestiality and homosexuality are the same thing or anything of that sort, idiot.

There were a great deal of people who were genuinely offended and upset at A&E; this can be very, very bad for business.

Tough shit cum-breath.

As I mentioned before, Phil was not suspended "because he was a Christian". He was instead suspended because he stirred up negative controversy.

He didn't stir up anything, GLAAD did as they protested a Christian expressing their faith.

That is religious discrimination any way you slice it, moron.

 

[Pogo]

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.

Uh- really. And where do I do that? Quote me, by all means.

Read much? Apparently not. What I did was explain how A&E has a basis to suspend its castmembers. That apparently is inconvenient for your revisionists but there's nothing you can do about it; it's standard entertainment contracting. It IS how it works, like it or lump it.

You on the other hand flatly declared there isn't one. And once again .... your evidence is where?

 

[JimBowie1958]

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.

So where is the Robertsons morality clause Phil violated, dumbass liar?

 

[RKMBrown]

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.

lol Sorry I did not know I was talking to a mentally handicapped person.

 

[JimBowie1958]

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.

Uh- really. And where do I do that? Quote me, by all means.

Read much? Apparently not. What I did was explain how A&E has a basis to suspend its castmembers. That apparently is inconvenient for your revisionists but there's nothing you can do about it; it's standard entertainment contracting. It IS how it works, like it or lump it.

You on the other hand flatly declared there isn't one. And once again .... your evidence is where?

Retard, she cant prove a negative. If you claim the morality clause exists, then prove it. She does not have to disprove anything you have not first proven yourself, idiot lying ass hat.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Well I was convinced ages ago. This is beating a dead horse.

Yeah, but you know what will happen, the libtards will come in and make a bunch of unchallenged comments that they will claim means the conservative gave up and walked away.

That is the way these lying bastards work; lie, deceive and spin till no one else can be bothered then claim victory.

 

[JimBowie1958]

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.

lol Sorry I did not know I was talking to a mentally handicapped person.

Well, now you know.

 

[Pogo]

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.

So where is the Robertsons morality clause Phil violated, dumbass liar?

That would be in the offices of A&E and the individual Robertsons, dumbass liar.

Want to know who's buried in Grant's tomb next?

 

[Pogo]

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.

Uh- really. And where do I do that? Quote me, by all means.

Read much? Apparently not. What I did was explain how A&E has a basis to suspend its castmembers. That apparently is inconvenient for your revisionists but there's nothing you can do about it; it's standard entertainment contracting. It IS how it works, like it or lump it.

You on the other hand flatly declared there isn't one. And once again .... your evidence is where?

Retard, she cant prove a negative. If you claim the morality clause exists, then prove it. She does not have to disprove anything you have not first proven yourself, idiot lying ass hat.

Retard, she CLAIMED the negative. Therefore she's gotta come up with a complete contract that's missing a morality clause. What she did come up with is crickets.

As usual.

 

[KevinWestern]

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.

That is a bullshit lie. Show me where he did that. He said homesexuality is a sin and listed a bunch of sins. He never said bestiality and homosexuality are the same thing or anything of that sort, idiot.

There were a great deal of people who were genuinely offended and upset at A&E; this can be very, very bad for business.

Tough shit cum-breath.

As I mentioned before, Phil was not suspended "because he was a Christian". He was instead suspended because he stirred up negative controversy.

He didn't stir up anything, GLAAD did as they protested a Christian expressing their faith.

That is religious discrimination any way you slice it, moron.

Two things. I mentioned on multiple occasions that it doesn't matter whether or not the controversy is valid or invalid; what matters is that there existed a real life controversy.

It's written into just about every actor/athlete/PR spokesperson's contract that if public opinion turns against you, the company has a right to part ways. I know this because I work in advertising and deal with these sort of contracts all the time. He stirred controversy, Jim. It may have started from GLAAD pushing the issue, but the blogs picked up on it and a great deal of people were genuinely upset as a result. This is bad for business and A&E aught to have the right to protect its business.

I ASK FOR THE SECOND TIME; should I be allowed to shout "praise allah" at the top of my lungs every five minutes in my office and expect to encounter zero consequences? If I get down on my knees and start praying to "Jesus" in the middle of an important business meeting should I also be shielded from termination because I'm simply "expressing my religious freedom"?

Please answer those questions.

And "cum breath"? How about you grow the fuck up and act like a person your age.

 

[Pogo]

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.

lol Sorry I did not know I was talking to a mentally handicapped person.

He's irrelevant. Just a troll.

What part don't you understand?

 

[koshergrl]

Uh- really. And where do I do that? Quote me, by all means.

Read much? Apparently not. What I did was explain how A&E has a basis to suspend its castmembers. That apparently is inconvenient for your revisionists but there's nothing you can do about it; it's standard entertainment contracting. It IS how it works, like it or lump it.

You on the other hand flatly declared there isn't one. And once again .... your evidence is where?

Retard, she cant prove a negative. If you claim the morality clause exists, then prove it. She does not have to disprove anything you have not first proven yourself, idiot lying ass hat.

Retard, she CLAIMED the negative. Therefore she's gotta come up with a complete contract that's missing a morality clause. What she did come up with is crickets.

As usual.

No, I challenged your idiotic assertion, which you cannot support.

That's the way it works. You lose.

 

[Pogo]

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.

That is a bullshit lie. Show me where he did that. He said homesexuality is a sin and listed a bunch of sins. He never said bestiality and homosexuality are the same thing or anything of that sort, idiot.



Tough shit cum-breath.

As I mentioned before, Phil was not suspended "because he was a Christian". He was instead suspended because he stirred up negative controversy.

He didn't stir up anything, GLAAD did as they protested a Christian expressing their faith.

That is religious discrimination any way you slice it, moron.

Two things. I mentioned on multiple occasions that it doesn't matter whether or not the controversy is valid or invalid; what matters is that there existed a real life controversy.

It's written into just about every actor/athlete/PR spokesperson's contract that if public opinion turns against you, the company has a right to part ways. I know this because I work in advertising and deal with these sort of contracts all the time. He stirred controversy, Jim. It may have started from GLAAD pushing the issue, but the blogs picked up on it and a great deal of people were genuinely upset as a result. This is bad for business and A&E aught to have the right to protect its business.

I ASK FOR THE SECOND TIME; should I be allowed to shout "praise allah" at the top of my lungs every five minutes in my office and expect to encounter zero consequences? If I get down on my knees and start praying to "Jesus" in the middle of an important business meeting should I also be shielded from termination because I'm simply "expressing my religious freedom"?

Please answer those questions.

And "cum breath"? How about you grow the fuck up and act like a person your age.

Exactly right on all counts. And they can't stand that. The response is "cum breath". Along with "moron", "idiot", "dumbass" and "liar".

Debating Pee Wee Herman.

 

[JimBowie1958]

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.

So where is the Robertsons morality clause Phil violated, dumbass liar?

That would be in the offices of A&E and the individual Robertsons, dumbass liar.

Want to know who's buried in Grant's tomb next?

No one is buried in Grant's tomb, idiot.

And if you don't have access to the morality clause in the Robertsons contract then you are telling lies when you say you know what is in it.

So shut the fuck up, whore.

 

[Pogo]

Retard, she cant prove a negative. If you claim the morality clause exists, then prove it. She does not have to disprove anything you have not first proven yourself, idiot lying ass hat.

Retard, she CLAIMED the negative. Therefore she's gotta come up with a complete contract that's missing a morality clause. What she did come up with is crickets.

As usual.

No, I challenged your idiotic assertion, which you cannot support.

That's the way it works. You lose.

Wrong. You asserted that no morality clause exists, and also asserted that I asserted one does. You can't prove either one.

[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CXiifFBHj5g"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CXiifFBHj5g[/ame]

 

[JimBowie1958]

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.

That is a bullshit lie. Show me where he did that. He said homesexuality is a sin and listed a bunch of sins. He never said bestiality and homosexuality are the same thing or anything of that sort, idiot.



Tough shit cum-breath.

As I mentioned before, Phil was not suspended "because he was a Christian". He was instead suspended because he stirred up negative controversy.

He didn't stir up anything, GLAAD did as they protested a Christian expressing their faith.

That is religious discrimination any way you slice it, moron.

Two things. I mentioned on multiple occasions that it doesn't matter whether or not the controversy is valid or invalid; what matters is that there existed a real life controversy.

Bullshit, that has not been demonstrated to have anything to do with the Robertsons contract as the morality clause is not known.

It's written into just about every actor/athlete/PR spokesperson's contract that if public opinion turns against you, the company has a right to part ways.

But you haven't proven it is in THIS one, retard.

I know this because I work in advertising and deal with these sort of contracts all the time.

Except that, no, really you don't know anything.

He stirred controversy, Jim.

No, he did not stir controversy, GLAAD did, idiot.

It may have started from GLAAD pushing the issue, but the blogs picked up on it and a great deal of people were genuinely upset as a result. This is bad for business and A&E aught to have the right to protect its business.

Not by doing anything illegal, Einstein.

I ASK FOR THE SECOND TIME; should I be allowed to shout "praise allah" at the top of my lungs every five minutes in my office and expect to encounter zero consequences?

If you are shouting every five minutes it wouldn't matter what you were shouting. You could be fired for the shouting itself if the comp-any thinks it appropriate, but Phil did no shouting and A+E knew what he said months prior to GLAAD stirring up a bunch of nonsense about it to punish Phil for saying homosexual behavior is sin.

If I get down on my knees and start praying to "Jesus" in the middle of an important business meeting should I also be shielded from termination because I'm simply "expressing my religious freedom"?

Of course not, but then again, Phil did not do anything of the sort; you are comparing apples and oranges.

Please answer those questions.

Sure there you go, now why not answer my questions?

And "cum breath"? How about you grow the fuck up and act like a person your age.

No. Disgusting baboons like you just make me want to vomit.

Fuck you and the godamned horse you rode in on, whore.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Retard, she CLAIMED the negative. Therefore she's gotta come up with a complete contract that's missing a morality clause. What she did come up with is crickets.

As usual.

No, I challenged your idiotic assertion, which you cannot support.

That's the way it works. You lose.

Wrong. You asserted that no morality clause exists, and also asserted that I asserted one does. You can't prove either one.

You are such a stupid liar.

The burden of proof is on you, not her, lying retard.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Uh- really. And where do I do that? Quote me, by all means.

Read much? Apparently not. What I did was explain how A&E has a basis to suspend its castmembers. That apparently is inconvenient for your revisionists but there's nothing you can do about it; it's standard entertainment contracting. It IS how it works, like it or lump it.

You on the other hand flatly declared there isn't one. And once again .... your evidence is where?

Retard, she cant prove a negative. If you claim the morality clause exists, then prove it. She does not have to disprove anything you have not first proven yourself, idiot lying ass hat.

Retard, she CLAIMED the negative. Therefore she's gotta come up with a complete contract that's missing a morality clause. What she did come up with is crickets.

As usual.

No, you lying jack ass. She said, "You declare it does exist...but have provided no evidence."

She is pointing out that you have not proven your claim and therefore there is no evidence to believe the morality clause says anything if it is even there.

roflmao

 

[koshergrl]

No, I challenged your ridiculous argument (repeated ad nauseum) that it was because of a morality clause that P. Robertson was suspended.

It's a story made up out of whole cloth. You cannot confirm that he even signed a morality clause, you cannot confirm that he violated the so-called morality clause, and in fact..he isn't even suspended, so the whole non point is just an exercise in futility (and stupidity) on your part.

I don't have to PROVE there's no morality clause as you have never proven there is one, or that his dismissal had ANYTHING to do with a morality clause.

The onus is on you to support your stupid claim. You haven't done it.

It's like being in grade school all over again.

It isn't debate when one person says "I can fly!" and the other person says "No you can't!" and then the first person says "Prove I can't!" as if that somehow is evidence that they CAN fly.

If you say you can fly, you either prove it, or your statement is considered false. Nobody has to *prove* you can't fly...you're standing right there, it's obvious.