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

[Pogo]

A&E did not violate anything. They didn't fire Robertson for what he IS but what he SAID. IF there is a morality clause, and we can only assume that there is since no one here has seen it, that clause is inapplicable and void as the statements had approval (evidenced by the network's failure to object at the time) from the network.

Wtf does "failure to object at the time" mean?

You're suggesting that A&E not only has a morality clause but has the power to stop other people's magazines from publishing? This makes no sense.

 

[JimBowie1958]

He's entitled to his opinion.

People are entitled to respond to his opinion.

See how that works?

The OP (and those who agree with it) approaches it from another angle though, and show the inability of those conservatives to differentiate between behavior and identity.

Repeating the same inaccuracy does not make it fact.

It's not inaccurate.

So proclaims the goddess of hystery! None shall challenge her unsupported assertion lest they be damned to be considered unPC!

roflmao

 

[JimBowie1958]

A&E did not violate anything. They didn't fire Robertson for what he IS but what he SAID. IF there is a morality clause, and we can only assume that there is since no one here has seen it, that clause is inapplicable and void as the statements had approval (evidenced by the network's failure to object at the time) from the network.

Wtf does "failure to object at the time" mean?

You're suggesting that A&E not only has a morality clause but has the power to stop other people's magazines from publishing? This makes no sense.

A+E knew everything the fags at GQ were doing and could have tried to intervene to stop the story as so often happens in that corrupt industry.

You pretending to not grasp that only illustrates how stupid you can be when you want to.

 

[JimBowie1958]

a Gay Amercian...is that a special class of people?

Where's the box on the census that you check for that?

are you homosexual Amercian
Straight american
brown American
etc

Glad American...
Moody American...
Bitchy American...
Sublime American...



Of course most people would fit into:

Apathetic American

Far few than a week ago, bumpkin.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Phil wasn't let go because of his religion

He was let go for acting like a bigoted asshole

Bullshit....The fact is A&E management was aware of the content of the interview months ago.
If quoting the Bible is a form of bigotry, we are doomed as a nation.
Oh, to you 'bigot' is just a label the throw around like a wad of mud, hoping it sticks to those you've deemed 'enemy'..

He didn't get in trouble for quoting the bible. He got in trouble for equating homosexuality to bestiality and saying that pre civil rights blacks were happy to have no rights.,

Again, you lie like a little crack whore bitch.

Robertson did not compare homosexuality to bestiality though he would have been justified to do so, IMO. They are both perversions.

What he did say is that both are a sin along with several other things. There was never a direct comparison, and so what if he did?

Eat shit, bastard.

 

[mudwhistle]

A&E did not violate anything. They didn't fire Robertson for what he IS but what he SAID. IF there is a morality clause, and we can only assume that there is since no one here has seen it, that clause is inapplicable and void as the statements had approval (evidenced by the network's failure to object at the time) from the network.

Wtf does "failure to object at the time" mean?

You're suggesting that A&E not only has a morality clause but has the power to stop other people's magazines from publishing? This makes no sense.

According to reports A&E was present during the interview. They could have immediately intervened but chose not to.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Once again conservatives show they don't understand the difference between behavior and identity.

And once again you demonstrate your cluelessness.

The Identity Politics era is coming to an end, bitch. It is nothing but racism from the other perspective and inherently wrong.

Maybe one day you and your fellow fascists will wake up to that fact, but I don't care.

 

[Pogo]

A&E did not violate anything. They didn't fire Robertson for what he IS but what he SAID. IF there is a morality clause, and we can only assume that there is since no one here has seen it, that clause is inapplicable and void as the statements had approval (evidenced by the network's failure to object at the time) from the network.

Wtf does "failure to object at the time" mean?

You're suggesting that A&E not only has a morality clause but has the power to stop other people's magazines from publishing? This makes no sense.

According to reports A&E was present during the interview. They could have immediately intervened but chose not to.

Not during the ATV ride they weren't. From the article I posted on this A&E found out about the content the same way everybody else did -- when the mag came out.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Once again conservatives show they don't understand the difference between behavior and identity.

Nope...and every single one of them believe they should have the right to fire me, not for my behaviors, but my identity as a gay American.

And Robertson has an identity as a Christian American that is no less legit simply because you fascists wont give it any credit, fucktard.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Nope...and every single one of them believe they should have the right to fire me, not for my behaviors, but my identity as a gay American.

There's no difference.

Being Gay is a behaviour, not an identity. Being monogamous is a behaviour. It's not like once you become Gay you're issued a special status for tax purposes.

Are you only a heterosexual when you are actually screwing?

Is a Christian American only a Christian American when they are quoting the Bible?

 

[JimBowie1958]

I don't know why conservatives have so much trouble with this

If when talking about homosexuality, you start babbling about bestiality or pedophilia.....you are going to catch hell for it

When talking about Jim Crow, if you start waxing nostalgic about the good ole days.....you are going to catch hell for it

Of course. The bestiality folks don't have the kind of lobbyists that Gays have.

And even among Gays transsexuals get a bum rap.

The pedophiles are gaining strength, but they still have a long way to go before they can gain recognition as fine, upstanding Americans.

Rednecks are still going strong

You say that like it's a bad thing you hateful bastard.

llol

 

[JimBowie1958]

Phil wasn't let go because of his religion

He was let go for acting like a bigoted asshole

that is impossible, you libertards have the bigoted asshole category all to yourselves, a monopoly it is so obvious with every post you all make.

Not me...its YOU

Best you could come up with huh?

Compared to your trash its golden.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Nor do liberals know the difference between action and opinion. You act as if his opinion hurt gay people. Well according to the gays that revolted against GLAAD for their role in this debacle, it didn't.

He's entitled to his opinion.

People are entitled to respond to his opinion.

See how that works?

The OP (and those who agree with it) approaches it from another angle though, and show the inability of those conservatives to differentiate between behavior and identity.

I'm sure if a gay person lost their job for acting to gay, you would feel the same way?

Yeah but they would never admit it if too obviously inconsistent.

 

[Pogo]

Wtf does "failure to object at the time" mean?

You're suggesting that A&E not only has a morality clause but has the power to stop other people's magazines from publishing? This makes no sense.

According to reports A&E was present during the interview. They could have immediately intervened but chose not to.

Not during the ATV ride they weren't. From the article I posted on this A&E found out about the content the same way everybody else did -- when the mag came out.

[MENTION=20102]mudwhistle[/MENTION]
Here's that article from another thread, since posters here insist on creating 4800 threads on the same topic in a bizarre attempt to rewrite reality by volume:

Came across this and passing on for what it's worth; make of it what you will...

>>In one of a plethora of posts about the fallout to Phil Robertson’s now infamous anti-gay remarks to a GQ reporter, TMZ, ironically, struck upon a key nuance to the situation that other publications have entirely missed: Where was Roberton’s PR counsel when the notorious interview happened? The publicist supporting Robertson was missing in action when the infamous anti-gay statements went down.

Which points to one of the most fundamental aspects of PR 101: when a reporter is present, you are always on the record. Always. On. The. Record.

Phil Robertson’s now famous interview with the GQ reporter took place in several phases. The network’s publicist attended, in accordance with A&E’s rigid PR policy, TMZ says—but when Robertson and the reporter hopped onto ATVs, the publicist didn’t come along for the ride. Bingo. Opportunity knocked, the reporter took advantage of the casual setting to ask a personal question, and out popped the offending remarks.

Surely the Duck Dynasty team has received ample media training and counsel over the course of their hugely successful series, and yes, Phil Robertson is a bona fide adult who can and should be held accountable for his statements.

But had his PR counsel stayed by his side, the attentiveness could have changed history in two ways: 1) A reporter is far less likely to ask the out-of-left-field question with PR counsel standing by, and 2) Whether it took a kick in the shin, a dirty look or an outright interruption, PR counsel could have prevented the ad hoc statement from ever happening or could have at least softened the impact with a quick retraction, a follow up remark, or an apology on the spot. As it was, the PR counselor (and the network) learned of the statement in the worst possible way–along with the rest of the world, when the interview went to print.

As a career PR lead, I believe this nuance is critical. As unacceptable as Robertson’s crass remark may have been, could the knowledge that it was a casual remark he made in the midst of a seemingly social ATV ride make a difference? It might. Or it might not. Robertson is entitled to his personal opinions, but if TMZ’s reporting of the circumstance is accurate, it seems clear he never intended to issue the blunt statement for print. (However, an apology is still in order for the rudeness and insensitivity of the comments, even if they were made in a social setting and may possibly have been intended in jest.)

Time will tell. But Robertson (and his PR counsel) have reinforced a basic lesson in public relations in the hardest possible way.

Off-the-cuff remarks are on the record. << -- How Phil Robertson's PR Team Let Him Down

 

[JimBowie1958]

Wtf does "failure to object at the time" mean?

You're suggesting that A&E not only has a morality clause but has the power to stop other people's magazines from publishing? This makes no sense.

According to reports A&E was present during the interview. They could have immediately intervened but chose not to.

Not during the ATV ride they weren't. From the article I posted on this A&E found out about the content the same way everybody else did -- when the mag came out.

lol, bullshit, unless it was apart of a set up. These legal beagls don't let random shit happen, dumbass.

 

[JimBowie1958]

According to reports A&E was present during the interview. They could have immediately intervened but chose not to.

Not during the ATV ride they weren't. From the article I posted on this A&E found out about the content the same way everybody else did -- when the mag came out.

[MENTION=20102]mudwhistle[/MENTION]
Here's that article from another thread, since posters here insist on creating 4800 threads on the same topic in a bizarre attempt to rewrite reality by volume:

Came across this and passing on for what it's worth; make of it what you will...

>>In one of a plethora of posts about the fallout to Phil Robertson’s now infamous anti-gay remarks to a GQ reporter, TMZ, ironically, struck upon a key nuance to the situation that other publications have entirely missed: Where was Roberton’s PR counsel when the notorious interview happened? The publicist supporting Robertson was missing in action when the infamous anti-gay statements went down.

Which points to one of the most fundamental aspects of PR 101: when a reporter is present, you are always on the record. Always. On. The. Record.

Phil Robertson’s now famous interview with the GQ reporter took place in several phases. The network’s publicist attended, in accordance with A&E’s rigid PR policy, TMZ says—but when Robertson and the reporter hopped onto ATVs, the publicist didn’t come along for the ride. Bingo. Opportunity knocked, the reporter took advantage of the casual setting to ask a personal question, and out popped the offending remarks.

Surely the Duck Dynasty team has received ample media training and counsel over the course of their hugely successful series, and yes, Phil Robertson is a bona fide adult who can and should be held accountable for his statements.

But had his PR counsel stayed by his side, the attentiveness could have changed history in two ways: 1) A reporter is far less likely to ask the out-of-left-field question with PR counsel standing by, and 2) Whether it took a kick in the shin, a dirty look or an outright interruption, PR counsel could have prevented the ad hoc statement from ever happening or could have at least softened the impact with a quick retraction, a follow up remark, or an apology on the spot. As it was, the PR counselor (and the network) learned of the statement in the worst possible way–along with the rest of the world, when the interview went to print.

As a career PR lead, I believe this nuance is critical. As unacceptable as Robertson’s crass remark may have been, could the knowledge that it was a casual remark he made in the midst of a seemingly social ATV ride make a difference? It might. Or it might not. Robertson is entitled to his personal opinions, but if TMZ’s reporting of the circumstance is accurate, it seems clear he never intended to issue the blunt statement for print. (However, an apology is still in order for the rudeness and insensitivity of the comments, even if they were made in a social setting and may possibly have been intended in jest.)

Time will tell. But Robertson (and his PR counsel) have reinforced a basic lesson in public relations in the hardest possible way.

Off-the-cuff remarks are on the record. << -- How Phil Robertson's PR Team Let Him Down

Anonymous source from a blog don't count for shit, idiot.

Oh, I have a source that said that ...blah, blah, blah horse shit.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Lesbian Teacher Wins $170,000 Court Award From Cincinnati Archdiocese | Daily News | NCRegister.com

Lesbian Teacher Wins $170,000 Court Award From Cincinnati Archdiocese (3434)

Jury disregards morals clause in her employment contract, ruling she was wrongfully dismissed after becoming pregnant through artificial insemination.

CINCINNATI — The Archdiocese of Cincinnati has been ordered to pay more than $170,000 in back pay and damages to a former Catholic schoolteacher who sued the archdiocese for firing her after she became pregnant through artificial insemination.

The archdiocese said it was enforcing a morals clause in an employment contract that requires archdiocesan employees to “comply and act consistently in accordance with the stated philosophy and teachings of the Roman Catholic Church.”

However, Christa Dias and her attorney argued that the archdiocese violated her rights under federal pregnancy anti-discrimination laws when it fired her from her teaching job in October 2010. A jury agreed, finding for the plaintiff after a week-long trial in a federal court in Ohio.

On June 3, the jury — after deliberating for two days — awarded Dias $50,000 in back day, $21,000 in compensatory damages and $100,000 in punitive damages, said Dan Andriacco, the communications director for the Archdiocese of Cincinnati.

 

[Pogo]

According to reports A&E was present during the interview. They could have immediately intervened but chose not to.

Not during the ATV ride they weren't. From the article I posted on this A&E found out about the content the same way everybody else did -- when the mag came out.

lol, bullshit, unless it was apart of a set up. These legal beagls don't let random shit happen, dumbass.

I just re-posted the description of how it happened, dumbass.

 

[bodecea]

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.

Sure. Good story, bro.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Not during the ATV ride they weren't. From the article I posted on this A&E found out about the content the same way everybody else did -- when the mag came out.

lol, bullshit, unless it was apart of a set up. These legal beagls don't let random shit happen, dumbass.

I just re-posted the description of how it happened, dumbass.

According to an anonymous source, bullshit.