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

[KevinWestern]

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.



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.



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



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



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



Not by doing anything illegal, Einstein.




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.



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.

LOL. Alright Jim, you got me. I'm a "disgusting baboon" because I believe a company should have the right to fire a public spokesperson who's drawing negative attention to the brand? Really sound logic there bub. You are like a child.

It was a real controversy. Real, organic individuals were upset by Phil's comments. I'm not saying I was upset (personally), I'm just saying there were people in enough numbers (people unrelated to GLAAD) that read the comments on blogs, postings, and whatnot and were upset. I saw numerous facebook postings where people either went off on Phil or defended him. How the controversy grew (ie a GLAAD push) is irrelevant; what is relevant is that the controversy did indeed grow.

Why is this important? Because A&E (like most other neutral TV networks) does not want controversy because it's unpredictable and bad for business. Phil was not suspended because he was a Christian. To say that is incredibly dishonest.

 

[Pogo]

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.

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.

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

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

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

Not by doing anything illegal, Einstein.

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.

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.

 

[koshergrl]

"...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."

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

 

[koshergrl]

I don't see any references to a moronality clause. In fact, except from popo, I haven't heard a reference to one during this whole debacle.

 

[KevinWestern]

"...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."

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

Translation of A&E's comments:

"Despite the widespread controversy caused by Phil's comments, we have decided to welcome him back due to the fact that he makes us Shitloads of Money. That is what we at A&E feel strongly about"

(come on we all know this is the truth)

 

[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, 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

So when a demonstrated cricketeering bullshit artist declares something exists, it exists. When I challenge her to show it, I'm a "liar".

 

[koshergrl]

"...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."

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

Translation of A&E's comments:

"Despite the widespread controversy caused by Phil's comments, we have decided to welcome him back due to the fact that he makes us Shitloads of Money. That is what we at A&E feel strongly about"

(come on we all know this is the truth)

"And he perfectly represents our values."

 

[KevinWestern]

I don't see any references to a moronality clause. In fact, except from popo, I haven't heard a reference to one during this whole debacle.

Here's a good article.

Again, I have nothing against Christianity or Phil. I just want to drive through the point that A&E had a right to terminate him if they wanted to. Apparently that viewpoint warrants being called "cum breath" by some of the more loving Christians out there on the board.

 

[koshergrl]

They don't have a right to terminate him for the things he said in the GQ article, however.

 

[RKMBrown]

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?

I got it.. cheers.

 

[Pogo]

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.

Yeah I'm afraid you do. You made the claim that there isn't one. Now you can't prove it. Maybe you should have engaged brain before posting.

Me, I don't need to "prove" squat. I explained how a morality clause works. So did KevinWestern just now; so did TheDoctorIsIn and several others. So did at least six links I posted, and who knows how many others. That it works that way is a fact. Like it or lump it.

The claim that it doesn't exist, well the burden of proof is on you. We're still waiting on that.

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

You're the only one who's made a claim, therefore you're the only one with a burden.

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

That I agree with. So grow up.

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.

Well then maybe you shouldn't have claimed flying ability. Now look where you are.

 

[Pogo]

"...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."

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

Translation of A&E's comments:

"Despite the widespread controversy caused by Phil's comments, we have decided to welcome him back due to the fact that he makes us Shitloads of Money. That is what we at A&E feel strongly about"

(come on we all know this is the truth)

Of course. Advertiser concern drove both the suspension and the suspension of that suspension. Money knows no principles.

 

[Pogo]

I don't see any references to a moronality clause. In fact, except from popo, I haven't heard a reference to one during this whole debacle.

Here's a good article.

Again, I have nothing against Christianity or Phil. I just want to drive through the point that A&E had a right to terminate him if they wanted to. Apparently that viewpoint warrants being called "cum breath" by some of the more loving Christians out there on the board.

Odd thing to say, since I posted half a dozen links in one post specifically about this, including the one you just linked... I guess the operative phrase is "I haven't heard"

 

[KevinWestern]

They don't have a right to terminate him for the things he said in the GQ article, however.

Why?

Again, can a host of a Christian TV show get let go after making comments about how "Allah is the one and only almighty" and his plans to convert to Islam? Or would the Christian TV show just have to lose millions of dollars because they can't "violate his right to religious expression"?

 

[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?

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

You aren't listening. I didn't say Robertson said anything about the state sponsored discrimination that we have going on right now.

And, you may share your opinion of sin with Robertson, but that doesn't mean Christians all agree, nor does it mean that we should write a law about it.

 

[WillReadmore]

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

Unless those little arrows mean little more than the passage of time, that's almost all nonsense.

The important features of our law have no vestige in the Bible. Personal rights? Habeas corpus? Free speech? Separation of powers? A constitution? Democracy? Capitalism? Equality (vs. even slavery)?

These have nothing to do with the Bible. Jesus had very little to say about laws of man.

 

[WillReadmore]

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

They reinstated him because they thought that would be the most financially profitable direction for the corporation.

 

[beagle9]

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.

Nope, nope, nope, nope.

What happened to "disclaimers", and why didn't A&E quickly use one ? It could have aired at the bottom of the screen during the next airing of the show. That's all that was needed, and Phil should have never been suspended due to outside pressures on that network. Period!

 

[beagle9]

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

Unless those little arrows mean little more than the passage of time, that's almost all nonsense.

The important features of our law have no vestige in the Bible. Personal rights? Habeas corpus? Free speech? Separation of powers? A constitution? Democracy? Capitalism? Equality (vs. even slavery)?

These have nothing to do with the Bible. Jesus had very little to say about laws of man.

Now your going to speak to us for Jesus eh ? Well since you are attempting to tell us something about Jesus and his thinking back then, I will say this next - Jesus had no need to say anything about the laws of man, and why was this you suppose ? It was because he knew where those laws came from for the most part.

Yes he knew that they came from his father who is up above, and because of this he had no need to say anything because the laws of man (not all laws of course), were good ones if created in the spirit of God himself.

Now laws that do not come from the father above, and this be it not in thought of (or) as were not written in the spirit of God himself, and so they were instead contrived out of a wicked and evil heart, well they would be quickly subjected to his opinions if asked also I would imagine. They may even be condemned by him if he saw that they were bad laws that harmed man instead of done good by him.

He would of course rebuke them if they did not represent the true spirit of God, and therefore were of sin contrived out of deception and spitefulness in which to hurt man with instead.

He is the same to this very day as he was back then, and it is all the same in this life still, and this is according to the author of that which is good from up on high, and so in regards to the one who is above in which we all know so well, and that has been therefore written about as well in which we have learned about in our short history upon this earth, the same still applies.

 

[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.

Nope, nope, nope, nope.

What happened to "disclaimers", and why didn't A&E quickly use one ? It could have aired at the bottom of the screen during the next airing of the show. That's all that was needed, and Phil should have never been suspended due to outside pressures on that network. Period!

A&E is Phil's employer and had the right to suspend him after he ran his mouth and got a great deal of America upset at both him and the network.

The suspension was simply a "show" that they did not endorse his comments, and I feel like it was a wholly appropriate move to protect their brand (which is not traditionally known for controversy). I suspect the network wanted to remain neutral on controversial issues like gay marriage, etc.

It's not your decision to make, it's A&E's.