Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Unless those little arrows mean little more than the passage of time, that's almost all nonsense.OT law --->>> Christian ecclesiastical law --->>>> English Common Law ---->>>> US legal code
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.
They reinstated him because they thought that would be the most financially profitable direction for the corporation.And they had to reinstate him because............
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?
Now you trying to pass blame on to others? Your pathetic.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?
A&E caused the wide spread controversy when they suspended Phil otherwise is was a small group of Nancys and Butches screaming about a man stating what was a sin that he learned from the Bible."...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)
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.
Rape murder stealing ALL in the bible now move along .Unless those little arrows mean little more than the passage of time, that's almost all nonsense.OT law --->>> Christian ecclesiastical law --->>>> English Common Law ---->>>> US legal code
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
"...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)
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".
Looks like Phil might own A&E after all this is over. Specifically, A&E violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964:
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), which prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. SEC. 2000e-2. [Section 703]
(a) Employer practices
It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer -
(1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individuals race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.
Thats what discrimination is. It's law.
Of course you know I mean Funny as in Ha-Ha
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.
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.
Looks like Phil might own A&E after all this is over. Specifically, A&E violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964:
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), which prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. SEC. 2000e-2. [Section 703]
(a) Employer practices
It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer -
(1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individuals race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.
Thats what discrimination is. It's law.
LMAO - Steve , I like you, your funny !
Uhhh.... I hope that post wasn't intended to be serious ??
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.
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.
Laws of man came from God if they were created in the spirit of God, but bad laws weren't created in the spirit of God, so they didn't come from God???Unless those little arrows mean little more than the passage of time, that's almost all nonsense.OT law --->>> Christian ecclesiastical law --->>>> English Common Law ---->>>> US legal code
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.
