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

[JimBowie1958]

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.

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???

That is essentially circular and certainly nonsensical.

Lol it is not circular, since it isn't an argument, dude.

He is giving you axioms and definitions which cannot be considered circular or tautological because such things are not given as subject to proof or testing by their very nature.

Duh.

 

[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.

Rape murder stealing ALL in the bible now move along .

No, there have been laws against these all over the world and throughout time.

 

[JimBowie1958]

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.

Rape murder stealing ALL in the bible now move along .

No, there have been laws against these all over the world and throughout time.

How in the name of Reason does your statement plausibly contradict his?

And there have been societies that legalized murder, such as Nazi Germany and the Aztecs.

So what is your point?

 

[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.

Bullshit.

No top executives make decisions solely on the basis of profits, a myth long disproven to anyone that has to work with these numb skulls. Way far too often they make stupid decisions on the basis of resentment, faction, nepotism, hoping for sexual favors, etc.

They are human beings with all the attendant weaknesses and most often playing with fortunes they themselves did not create and this causes them to be lacking in confidence and ridden with guilt for having something that they did not earn without a lot of help from friends, family and others.

Yes, capitalism isn't pure.

BUT, that is the primary motivator for publicly held corporations. And, there is nothing to suggest this decision by A&E was based on anything else.

 

[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.

Then you are an ignorant fool.

Christian ecclesiastical law mimicked OT law, and English common law took much of its formation and process from Ecclesiastical law.

You do grasp how US law is derived from English common law? or are you as ignorant on that topic as well?

Look at the features of US law that I listed. Those are the central foundation of law in the US, and those features are not topics related to anything in the Bible.

I agree that our system developed over time in a context that included Christianity.

But, the features in our law are a secular response. They are NOT some sort of refined version of Leviticus.

 

[thanatos144]

Rape murder stealing ALL in the bible now move along .

No, there have been laws against these all over the world and throughout time.

How in the name of Reason does your statement plausibly contradict his?

And there have been societies that legalized murder, such as Nazi Germany and the Aztecs.

So what is your point?

Dont forget the USA we legalized infanticide.

 

[JimBowie1958]

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

Bullshit.

No top executives make decisions solely on the basis of profits, a myth long disproven to anyone that has to work with these numb skulls. Way far too often they make stupid decisions on the basis of resentment, faction, nepotism, hoping for sexual favors, etc.

They are human beings with all the attendant weaknesses and most often playing with fortunes they themselves did not create and this causes them to be lacking in confidence and ridden with guilt for having something that they did not earn without a lot of help from friends, family and others.

Yes, capitalism isn't pure.

BUT, that is the primary motivator for publicly held corporations. And, there is nothing to suggest this decision by A&E was based on anything else.

Yes, there is, since nothing Phil said outraged a broad section of the public, not at all. In fact the biggest demographics agree with Phil, so how was it controversial? I guess they will fire people for saying they don't believe in polygamy if a Muslim group says it is proof of anti-Muslim bigotry? And don't laugh they have already don this overseas.

That fringe groups like GLAAD complain about anything is irrelevant as they represent no one but a small group of people that pose A+E no financial harm.

They gave in because the execs reflexively do this to avoid legal costs, and offending their country club buddies.

That is not sufficient reason to fire an employee who is only expressing their religious beliefs OFF THE JOB.

 

[GreenBean]

Even from a purely legalistic point of view, this whole thing could be taken before a jury and won, and I have given cases where plaintiffs have won against employers using morality clauses in their contracts.

That tactic, I believe, only works if you are supported by the Liberal Machine -ACLU or other Soros mechanisms

I would like to see it work for the conservatives - do you know of any instances of successful litigation where a conservative plaintiff prevailed ?

 

[JimBowie1958]

No, there have been laws against these all over the world and throughout time.

How in the name of Reason does your statement plausibly contradict his?

And there have been societies that legalized murder, such as Nazi Germany and the Aztecs.

So what is your point?

Dont forget the USA we legalized infanticide.

We have shed enough blood to make the Aztecs and Nazis envious, true.

I often wonder how God can ignore our sins and not owe Sodom an apology.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Even from a purely legalistic point of view, this whole thing could be taken before a jury and won, and I have given cases where plaintiffs have won against employers using morality clauses in their contracts.

That tactic, I believe, only works if you are supported by the Liberal Machine -ACLU or other Soros mechanisms

I would like to see it work for the conservatives - do you know of any instances of successful litigation where a conservative plaintiff prevailed ?

I personally know of two, but they never went to court. The employee was rehired and the other time the company stopped their disciplinary action.

I don't know if any cases that might have a link.

I do know that the courts have ruled to protect Christian religious practices from government regulations and where employees have won against morality clauses.

I wold imagine a good team of lawyers could patch enough case law together to win before a jury in say Mississippi and other conservative bastions. I wouldn't bother in places like New York or San Fransisco, which will probably require Christians to sew a cross to their jackets in the near future.

 

[thanatos144]

How in the name of Reason does your statement plausibly contradict his?

And there have been societies that legalized murder, such as Nazi Germany and the Aztecs.

So what is your point?

Dont forget the USA we legalized infanticide.

We have shed enough blood to make the Aztecs and Nazis envious, true.

I often wonder how God can ignore our sins and not owe Sodom an apology.

Because unlike Sodom we have more then just one family that believes in his word.

 

[JimBowie1958]

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.

Then you are an ignorant fool.

Christian ecclesiastical law mimicked OT law, and English common law took much of its formation and process from Ecclesiastical law.

You do grasp how US law is derived from English common law? or are you as ignorant on that topic as well?

Look at the features of US law that I listed. Those are the central foundation of law in the US, and those features are not topics related to anything in the Bible.

I agree that our system developed over time in a context that included Christianity.

But, the features in our law are a secular response. They are NOT some sort of refined version of Leviticus.

True, they are an evolved version, sir, and they are inspired by the NT if not the OT as well.

Were it not for the Biblical teachings of morality, legal rights and the concept that the law stands above the king himself we would never have had a Magna Charta nor a Declaration of Independence both of which make direct reference to God.

Charter of Liberties - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[JimBowie1958]

Dont forget the USA we legalized infanticide.

We have shed enough blood to make the Aztecs and Nazis envious, true.

I often wonder how God can ignore our sins and not owe Sodom an apology.

Because unlike Sodom we have more then just one family that believes in his word.

True, but God still has taken the lives of those who loved Him, but did wrong due to ignorance, like the man who steadied the Ark as it was brought to Jerusalem's Temple.

Intentions are grande and all, but sometimes God will let the Rhine freeze over just because we shouldn't always rely on contrivance and His mercy.

 

[thanatos144]

We have shed enough blood to make the Aztecs and Nazis envious, true.

I often wonder how God can ignore our sins and not owe Sodom an apology.

Because unlike Sodom we have more then just one family that believes in his word.

True, but God still has taken the lives of those who loved Him, but did wrong due to ignorance, like the man who steadied the Ark as it was brought to Jerusalem's Temple.

Intentions are grande and all, but sometimes God will let the Rhine freeze over just because we shouldn't always rely on contrivance and His mercy.

That was also before he gave us Jesus

 

[JimBowie1958]

Because unlike Sodom we have more then just one family that believes in his word.

True, but God still has taken the lives of those who loved Him, but did wrong due to ignorance, like the man who steadied the Ark as it was brought to Jerusalem's Temple.

Intentions are grande and all, but sometimes God will let the Rhine freeze over just because we shouldn't always rely on contrivance and His mercy.

That was also before he gave us Jesus

While I agree with the sentiments, He did freeze the Rhine River exposing the whole of Western Christendom to German invaders well after Jesus died and rose.

 

[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.

If you fire someone for their religion it is against the law.

Phil was never in danger from being fired for being a Christian. He's been a Christian for years - correct?

Phil was suspended because he made comments that were interpreted as hateful and thus caused a public uproar. Key word is "interpreted". I don't believe Phil said anything hateful - personally - but other individuals interpreted his words as such and this threatened the health of the network. This discussion is about stirring unwanted controversy, which is sometimes a breach of contract.

When you have a multimillion dollar company, it's smart to protect yourself at times of controversy (lol) and this is exactly what A&E did.

Not sure what you folks are whining about.

 

[thanatos144]

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.

If you fire someone for their religion it is against the law.

Phil was never in danger from being fired for being a Christian. He's been a Christian for years - correct?

Phil was suspended because he made comments that were interpreted as hateful and thus caused a public uproar. Key word is "interpreted". I don't believe Phil said anything hateful - personally - but other individuals interpreted his words as such and threatened the health of the network.

When you have a multimillion dollar company, it's smart to protect yourself at times of controversy (lol) and this is exactly what A&E did.

Not sure what you folks are whining about.

So what you saying is you have no evidence showing your right where as I do seeing as they tried to fire him for stating his religious beliefs.....You lose.

 

[KevinWestern]

If you fire someone for their religion it is against the law.

Phil was never in danger from being fired for being a Christian. He's been a Christian for years - correct?

Phil was suspended because he made comments that were interpreted as hateful and thus caused a public uproar. Key word is "interpreted". I don't believe Phil said anything hateful - personally - but other individuals interpreted his words as such and threatened the health of the network.

When you have a multimillion dollar company, it's smart to protect yourself at times of controversy (lol) and this is exactly what A&E did.

Not sure what you folks are whining about.

So what you saying is you have no evidence showing your right where as I do seeing as they tried to fire him for stating his religious beliefs.....You lose.

Lets talk like adults, if that's a possibility for you....

Read this article.

"We're also told that the contracts have morality clauses that give the network the right to get rid of cast members -- but the others still have to keep the show running."

All evidence is pointing towards Phil having a morality clause in his contract. Multiple news sources (including Fox above) have confirmed this. A morality clause effectively states that if the public's opinion turns on you, the network has a right to fire you.

AGAIN, Phil wasn't suspended for his religious beliefs, he was suspended because he potentially violated his contract due to stirring a negative controversy. He is in showbusiness, and these sorts of agreements are commonplace.

 

[JimBowie1958]

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.

If you fire someone for their religion it is against the law.

Phil was never in danger from being fired for being a Christian. He's been a Christian for years - correct?

Phil was suspended because he made comments that were interpreted as hateful and thus caused a public uproar. Key word is "interpreted". I don't believe Phil said anything hateful - personally - but other individuals interpreted his words as such and this threatened the health of the network. This discussion is about stirring unwanted controversy, which is sometimes a breach of contract.

When you have a multimillion dollar company, it's smart to protect yourself at times of controversy (lol) and this is exactly what A&E did.

Not sure what you folks are whining about.

We are upset that Phil was canned for quoting the Bible all because militant gays wanted him punished.

Phil said nothing controversial. He got targeted by GLAAD because Phil stated the TRUTH.

 

[kaz]

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 individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.


That’s what discrimination is. It's law.

That clause does not apply to Christians or Jews, it replies to other religions. Furthermore, it is not a weapon to be used on liberals, it's a weapon to be used by liberals. It also doesn't apply to hate speech, which by definition is liberal speech.