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

[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.

They don't have the power to stop magazines from publishing. They have the power to stop Phil from answering.

A&E knew the questions in advance. There isn't a magazine interview given that the publicist doesn't know what the questions are. The representative could have said you can't ask that question. If the question were asked without notification, the representative could have said "Don't answer that." What do you think these corporate reps are supposed to do? Why are they there? They are supposed to maintain control of the interview.

Fair warning -- get your blindfold on and start going because I'm about to destroy this silly drivel AGAIN....

>> 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

You can come out now, since we've posted this for at least the third time...

If the anonymous source is right, but still not a fact to really build such a case on.

People have won in court against an employer who fired them under a morality clause, so A+E could lose as well since no one can always predict what a jury will decide.

It's funny to watch you libtards argue against the plausibility of such a lawsuit since in a court anything can happen.

What cha 'fraid of, sissy boy? That you'll lose your mellow?


lol

 

[JimBowie1958]

Hard to see how, since a morality clause gives the Producer any remedy it deems appropriate. In this case A&E could have decided that publicly suspending him was enough, and excising his image was beyond what was necessary. Besides, the shows airing or about to air are already in the can.

Greta either didn't think this one through, or more likely considering who she works for, is baiting.

You buyin'?

I think a jury can always surprise you.

Well I think that's why a typical contract language always says, "the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action it deems appropriate, including but not limited to terminating the production of the program". Nothing in there says or suggests "if action A is taken then action B must follow". It specifically precludes that.

Plus again, the next season's already in the can. What are they gonna do -- blur out Phil Robertson's face digitally and bleep his audio? That would call more attention to him than doing nothing.

Hell I'm not even a lawyer and I figured this stuff out in ten seconds. A&E has real lawyers. And I guarantee they were consulted not only before this contract was drawn up but also before A&E took its action.

"At its sole discretion". Doesn't leave wiggle room.

And juries have been known to toss out the fine print in contracts and go by what thy think is fair.

Juries are unpredictable and almost random at times.

What I am trying to deduce is why this scares the shit out of so many libtards.

 

[Pogo]

They don't have the power to stop magazines from publishing. They have the power to stop Phil from answering.

A&E knew the questions in advance. There isn't a magazine interview given that the publicist doesn't know what the questions are. The representative could have said you can't ask that question. If the question were asked without notification, the representative could have said "Don't answer that." What do you think these corporate reps are supposed to do? Why are they there? They are supposed to maintain control of the interview.

Fair warning -- get your blindfold on and start going because I'm about to destroy this silly drivel AGAIN....

>> 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

You can come out now, since we've posted this for at least the third time...

If the anonymous source is right, but still not a fact to really build such a case on.

People have won in court against an employer who fired them under a morality clause, so A+E could lose as well since no one can always predict what a jury will decide.

It's funny to watch you libtards argue against the plausibility of such a lawsuit since in a court anything can happen.

What cha 'fraid of, sissy boy? That you'll lose your mellow?


lol

Anonymous? Uh - I already showed you where it's right in the GQ article, lead paragraph. Neither that story nor my article are "anonymous".

That has nothing to do with the morality clause though. You got your posts mixed up.

 

[Pogo]

I think a jury can always surprise you.

Well I think that's why a typical contract language always says, "the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action it deems appropriate, including but not limited to terminating the production of the program". Nothing in there says or suggests "if action A is taken then action B must follow". It specifically precludes that.

Plus again, the next season's already in the can. What are they gonna do -- blur out Phil Robertson's face digitally and bleep his audio? That would call more attention to him than doing nothing.

Hell I'm not even a lawyer and I figured this stuff out in ten seconds. A&E has real lawyers. And I guarantee they were consulted not only before this contract was drawn up but also before A&E took its action.

"At its sole discretion". Doesn't leave wiggle room.

And juries have been known to toss out the fine print in contracts and go by what thy think is fair.

Juries are unpredictable and almost random at times.

What I am trying to deduce is why this scares the shit out of so many libtards.

Contracts are neither unpredictable nor random. A contract is binding; it's not up to a jury to determine a party is "guilty" or "not guilty" of following a contract.

I don't know who "libtards" are but all I'm doing is continually re-explaining the same things over and over to the unwashed who keep bringing it up after it's been explained so... if the shoe fits, nomsayin'....

 

[Pogo]

A&E is safe.

Everybody knows that "religion" bit in the law doesn't apply to Christians.

Doesn't apply to this event, that's for sure.

 

[thereisnospoon]

This thread is indeed a complete failure, where Robertson’s recourse would be a contract violation claim, not a civil rights violation claim, in that the former would be invalid due to the morals clause, and the latter invalid because there was no ‘religious discrimination.’

Here's where your amateur legal theory goes off the rails...
You stated..."the cast member was suspended because he made false, hateful, and ignorant statements concerning gays and African-Americans that didn’t comport with the networks policies, having nothing to do with Christian doctrine or dogma."...
That is an OPINION based on YOUR views. One cannot have their employment placed in jeopardy over a political viewpoint. Nor can a contract be terminated or altered based on same. Your theory subscribes to the notion that a person can be placed in jeopardy because another person's feelings got hurt.
Look, as this thing progresses, it is clear A&E and the liberal establishment went the wrong way and over reacted. The management of A&E and the left are now paying the price for their lack of self control.
Anyway one looks at this issue, it is a loser for GLAAD, A&E and the lib pundits who got themselves all lathered up about it.
Your side took one in the shorts on this one.
The best course of action would be for you and your lefty buddies to move on to the next cause.

One's contract can indeed be terminated for: >> "If at any time while Artist is rendering or obligated to render on-camera services for the program hereunder, Artist is involved in any situation or occurrence which subjects Artist to public scandal, disrepute, widespread contempt, public ridicule, [or which is widely deemed by members of the general public, to embarrass, offend, insult or denigrate individuals or groups,] or that will tend to shock, insult or offend the community or public morals or decency or prejudice the Producer in general, then Producer shall have the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action it deems appropriate, including but not limited to terminating the production of the program." <<

Danth declares victory while drowning in legal quicksand. I love it.

Ok....Provide a link to that..
BTW, that clause is so vague, it reaches the level of absurdity to the affect that I would gather that no agent would permit their client to ever sign a contract with that clause contained within.

Finally...Nobody cares. In this case being right is immaterial.
The people have spoken. They are pissed off at A&E, GLAAD( whatever) and all the other knee jerk PC libs..
This thing back fired and that's that.

 

[Pogo]

Here's where your amateur legal theory goes off the rails...
You stated..."the cast member was suspended because he made false, hateful, and ignorant statements concerning gays and African-Americans that didn&#8217;t comport with the networks policies, having nothing to do with Christian doctrine or dogma."...
That is an OPINION based on YOUR views. One cannot have their employment placed in jeopardy over a political viewpoint. Nor can a contract be terminated or altered based on same. Your theory subscribes to the notion that a person can be placed in jeopardy because another person's feelings got hurt.
Look, as this thing progresses, it is clear A&E and the liberal establishment went the wrong way and over reacted. The management of A&E and the left are now paying the price for their lack of self control.
Anyway one looks at this issue, it is a loser for GLAAD, A&E and the lib pundits who got themselves all lathered up about it.
Your side took one in the shorts on this one.
The best course of action would be for you and your lefty buddies to move on to the next cause.

One's contract can indeed be terminated for: >> "If at any time while Artist is rendering or obligated to render on-camera services for the program hereunder, Artist is involved in any situation or occurrence which subjects Artist to public scandal, disrepute, widespread contempt, public ridicule, [or which is widely deemed by members of the general public, to embarrass, offend, insult or denigrate individuals or groups,] or that will tend to shock, insult or offend the community or public morals or decency or prejudice the Producer in general, then Producer shall have the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action it deems appropriate, including but not limited to terminating the production of the program." <<

Danth declares victory while drowning in legal quicksand. I love it.

Ok....Provide a link to that..
BTW, that clause is so vague, it reaches the level of absurdity to the affect that I would gather that no agent would permit their client to ever sign a contract with that clause contained within.

Finally...Nobody cares. In this case being right is immaterial.
The people have spoken. They are pissed off at A&E, GLAAD( whatever) and all the other knee jerk PC libs..
This thing back fired and that's that.

So...... first half of the post wants a link, second half says it's "immaterial".
You're officially lost, dood. But feel free to look up the first five times I linked it while you were busy snorting lines of Oblivious Dust.

And trust me, they sign it. It's been SOP for 90 years. It works like this: "I have a TV network and I'll hire you to star in my new series. You have to play by my rules."
You either sign it my way, or I go find somebody else to build a TV show around.

 

[gallantwarrior]

A&E violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Actually not.

First, a review would need to be conducted to determine if indeed the relationship between the network and the cast member actually constitutes an employer/employee relationship subject to Title VII protection.

But assuming such a relationship existed, the cast member wasn’t suspended because he was a Christian, the cast member was suspended because he made false, hateful, and ignorant statements concerning gays and African-Americans that didn’t comport with the networks policies, having nothing to do with Christian doctrine or dogma.

The cast member wasn’t suspended because the network doesn’t want to be associated with Christians, the cast member was suspended because the network doesn’t want to be associated with hateful bigots and racists, which is perfectly legitimate grounds for a suspension.

blah-blah-blah-blah...

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Well I think that's why a typical contract language always says, "the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action it deems appropriate, including but not limited to terminating the production of the program". Nothing in there says or suggests "if action A is taken then action B must follow". It specifically precludes that.

Plus again, the next season's already in the can. What are they gonna do -- blur out Phil Robertson's face digitally and bleep his audio? That would call more attention to him than doing nothing.

Hell I'm not even a lawyer and I figured this stuff out in ten seconds. A&E has real lawyers. And I guarantee they were consulted not only before this contract was drawn up but also before A&E took its action.

"At its sole discretion". Doesn't leave wiggle room.

And juries have been known to toss out the fine print in contracts and go by what thy think is fair.

Juries are unpredictable and almost random at times.

What I am trying to deduce is why this scares the shit out of so many libtards.

Contracts are neither unpredictable nor random. A contract is binding; it's not up to a jury to determine a party is "guilty" or "not guilty" of following a contract.

I don't know who "libtards" are but all I'm doing is continually re-explaining the same things over and over to the unwashed who keep bringing it up after it's been explained so... if the shoe fits, nomsayin'....

Which corresponds with the conservative tactic of repeating a lie often enough in the hope it’s perceived to be true.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Sustren made the point tonight that if A+E has suspended Phil for a morals clause violation, while still using his image in their show, that would give grounds to suggest that there is in fact no offense, and no moral clause violation, r else they would not have continued to air him in the marathons.

That is interesting to think about.

If someone has truly caused brand damage, then why keep airing his performances?

A jury might see that as an invalidation of the morals clause.

Hard to see how, since a morality clause gives the Producer any remedy it deems appropriate. In this case A&E could have decided that publicly suspending him was enough, and excising his image was beyond what was necessary. Besides, the shows airing or about to air are already in the can.

Greta either didn't think this one through, or more likely considering who she works for, is baiting.

You buyin'?

I think a jury can always surprise you.

What’s not surprising is the ignorance of most conservatives.

Not only is the suspension not actionable under Title VII, but the cast members agreed to morality clauses to allow the network to do just that:

According to Beverly Hills-based entertainment attorney Julian Chan, each show participant is generally under a separate deal when it comes to these types of contracts. So each family member could be subject to a breach of contract claim regardless of what happens to anyone else on the show, no matter what his or her role.

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.

?Duck Dynasty? family members contractually bound to A&E, source says | Fox News

And the show isn’t going anywhere:

According to CNN Senior Media Correspondent Brian Stelter, conventional wisdom in the industry holds that this current disagreement between A&E and the family will resolve itself in time, in part because the two sides benefit so much from being in business with the other. A person with close ties to A&E noted that the Robertson family is under contract, thereby reducing the chances that the family will show up on another channel anytime soon.

Network quiet as 'Duck Dynasty' boycott continues - CNN.com

 

[Politico]

It is hilarious how obsessed you folks are over a thought some guy who lives in a swamp had.

 

[freedombecki]

Phil wasn't let go because of his religion

He was let go for acting like a bigoted asshole

All Phil did was quote the Good Book. That's as religious as one can get.

And you just called someone who quoted the Bible as a "bigoted asshole." The trouble with adopting the Democrat Party as the decider of who's good and who's not, look at their base. They're using lies rather than fact, promoting politicians who lie, cheat, steal, with emphasis on the lying, to fool simple working people into voting for them, not realizing their freedoms are slipping under the door along with all their personal money in the form of taxes as in being taxed to death, and yes, even beyond death. The Democrats are so greedy in their covetousness of other people's money, they went after people's inheritances, which destroys small businesses being passed to children who worked all their lives often without wages to keep the family business going, now, destitution creeps in when the government takes the lion's share first from death taxes when their parents pass away.

It's a disgrace.

When you vote Democrat, you vote for killing the middle class. The only people who can survive this push for wealth by Democrats is very, very large businesses who collaborate in electing and re-electing democrats into the offices to join the Old Liars Club.

 

[JoeB131]

Phil wasn't let go because of his religion

He was let go for acting like a bigoted asshole

All Phil did was quote the Good Book. That's as religious as one can get.

And you just called someone who quoted the Bible as a "bigoted asshole." The trouble with adopting the Democrat Party as the decider of who's good and who's not, look at their base. They're using lies rather than fact, promoting politicians who lie, cheat, steal, with emphasis on the lying, to fool simple working people into voting for them, not realizing their freedoms are slipping under the door along with all their personal money in the form of taxes as in being taxed to death, and yes, even beyond death. The Democrats are so greedy in their covetousness of other people's money, they went after people's inheritances, which destroys small businesses being passed to children who worked all their lives often without wages to keep the family business going, now, destitution creeps in when the government takes the lion's share first from death taxes when their parents pass away.

It's a disgrace.

When you vote Democrat, you vote for killing the middle class. The only people who can survive this push for wealth by Democrats is very, very large businesses who collaborate in electing and re-electing democrats into the offices to join the Old Liars Club.

Dumbass, the middle class is not being killed by the Democrats making the rich pay their fair share.

The middle class was killed by the Free Trade, right to work, at-will employment reverses of everything working people spent the first half of the 20th century fighting for, and a lot of you dumbasses fell for it.

Also, you really don't understand how inheritence taxes work.

 

[rightwinger]

Phil wasn't let go because of his religion

He was let go for acting like a bigoted asshole

All Phil did was quote the Good Book. That's as religious as one can get.

And you just called someone who quoted the Bible as a "bigoted asshole." The trouble with adopting the Democrat Party as the decider of who's good and who's not, look at their base. They're using lies rather than fact, promoting politicians who lie, cheat, steal, with emphasis on the lying, to fool simple working people into voting for them, not realizing their freedoms are slipping under the door along with all their personal money in the form of taxes as in being taxed to death, and yes, even beyond death. The Democrats are so greedy in their covetousness of other people's money, they went after people's inheritances, which destroys small businesses being passed to children who worked all their lives often without wages to keep the family business going, now, destitution creeps in when the government takes the lion's share first from death taxes when their parents pass away.

It's a disgrace.

When you vote Democrat, you vote for killing the middle class. The only people who can survive this push for wealth by Democrats is very, very large businesses who collaborate in electing and re-electing democrats into the offices to join the Old Liars Club.

Where in the godd book does it say....What is the deal with gays and anal sex? I mean, if given the choice, wouldn't you rather have a vagina?

Where does it equate honosexuality and bestiality?

Where does it say that Jim Crow was not that big a deal?

You and Phil must have a different bible than the rest of us?

 

[Seawytch]

Phil wasn't let go because of his religion

He was let go for acting like a bigoted asshole

All Phil did was quote the Good Book. That's as religious as one can get.

And you just called someone who quoted the Bible as a "bigoted asshole." The trouble with adopting the Democrat Party as the decider of who's good and who's not, look at their base. They're using lies rather than fact, promoting politicians who lie, cheat, steal, with emphasis on the lying, to fool simple working people into voting for them, not realizing their freedoms are slipping under the door along with all their personal money in the form of taxes as in being taxed to death, and yes, even beyond death. The Democrats are so greedy in their covetousness of other people's money, they went after people's inheritances, which destroys small businesses being passed to children who worked all their lives often without wages to keep the family business going, now, destitution creeps in when the government takes the lion's share first from death taxes when their parents pass away.

It's a disgrace.

When you vote Democrat, you vote for killing the middle class. The only people who can survive this push for wealth by Democrats is very, very large businesses who collaborate in electing and re-electing democrats into the offices to join the Old Liars Club.

Yes I do call people who try to use the bible to justify their bigotry bigots. They are bigots. They are just as bigoted as the people that used the bible to justify slavery, segregation and anti miscegenation laws.

 

[rightwinger]

Phil wasn't let go because of his religion

He was let go for acting like a bigoted asshole

All Phil did was quote the Good Book. That's as religious as one can get.

And you just called someone who quoted the Bible as a "bigoted asshole." The trouble with adopting the Democrat Party as the decider of who's good and who's not, look at their base. They're using lies rather than fact, promoting politicians who lie, cheat, steal, with emphasis on the lying, to fool simple working people into voting for them, not realizing their freedoms are slipping under the door along with all their personal money in the form of taxes as in being taxed to death, and yes, even beyond death. The Democrats are so greedy in their covetousness of other people's money, they went after people's inheritances, which destroys small businesses being passed to children who worked all their lives often without wages to keep the family business going, now, destitution creeps in when the government takes the lion's share first from death taxes when their parents pass away.

It's a disgrace.

When you vote Democrat, you vote for killing the middle class. The only people who can survive this push for wealth by Democrats is very, very large businesses who collaborate in electing and re-electing democrats into the offices to join the Old Liars Club.

Yes I do call people who try to use the bible to justify their bigotry bigots. They are bigots. They are just as bigoted as the people that used the bible to justify slavery, segregation and anti miscegenation laws.

I have yet to see a single person condemn Robertson for his references to the bible.

He got in trouble for his hatred and ignorance which he exhibited in his statements about Jim Crow, anal sex and bestiality

 

[Katzndogz]

Hard to see how, since a morality clause gives the Producer any remedy it deems appropriate. In this case A&E could have decided that publicly suspending him was enough, and excising his image was beyond what was necessary. Besides, the shows airing or about to air are already in the can.

Greta either didn't think this one through, or more likely considering who she works for, is baiting.

You buyin'?

I think a jury can always surprise you.

Well I think that's why a typical contract language always says, "the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action it deems appropriate, including but not limited to terminating the production of the program". Nothing in there says or suggests "if action A is taken then action B must follow". It specifically precludes that.

Plus again, the next season's already in the can. What are they gonna do -- blur out Phil Robertson's face digitally and bleep his audio? That would call more attention to him than doing nothing.

Hell I'm not even a lawyer and I figured this stuff out in ten seconds. A&E has real lawyers. And I guarantee they were consulted not only before this contract was drawn up but also before A&E took its action.

"At its sole discretion". Doesn't leave wiggle room.

To lawyers there is always wiggle room. If these kinds of controversies were cut and dried, there would be no contract disputes at all.

 

[Katzndogz]

All Phil did was quote the Good Book. That's as religious as one can get.

And you just called someone who quoted the Bible as a "bigoted asshole." The trouble with adopting the Democrat Party as the decider of who's good and who's not, look at their base. They're using lies rather than fact, promoting politicians who lie, cheat, steal, with emphasis on the lying, to fool simple working people into voting for them, not realizing their freedoms are slipping under the door along with all their personal money in the form of taxes as in being taxed to death, and yes, even beyond death. The Democrats are so greedy in their covetousness of other people's money, they went after people's inheritances, which destroys small businesses being passed to children who worked all their lives often without wages to keep the family business going, now, destitution creeps in when the government takes the lion's share first from death taxes when their parents pass away.

It's a disgrace.

When you vote Democrat, you vote for killing the middle class. The only people who can survive this push for wealth by Democrats is very, very large businesses who collaborate in electing and re-electing democrats into the offices to join the Old Liars Club.

Yes I do call people who try to use the bible to justify their bigotry bigots. They are bigots. They are just as bigoted as the people that used the bible to justify slavery, segregation and anti miscegenation laws.

I have yet to see a single person condemn Robertson for his references to the bible.

He got in trouble for his hatred and ignorance which he exhibited in his statements about Jim Crow, anal sex and bestiality

He got in trouble with A&E. It might have been because the executive complaining was once a gay porn star. To the public, for the most part Robertson was CORRECT and said only what needed to be said.

 

[JimBowie1958]

It is hilarious how obsessed you folks are over a thought some guy who lives in a swamp had.

No, methinks the thought originated over thousands of years in various terrains, various different cultures but agreed on basic morality.

It is this confine of morality that is under attack by fascists like GLAAD who want to subordinate EVERYTHING to the interests of Identity Politics; the new version of racism in our time.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Phil wasn't let go because of his religion

He was let go for acting like a bigoted asshole

All Phil did was quote the Good Book. That's as religious as one can get.

And you just called someone who quoted the Bible as a "bigoted asshole." The trouble with adopting the Democrat Party as the decider of who's good and who's not, look at their base. They're using lies rather than fact, promoting politicians who lie, cheat, steal, with emphasis on the lying, to fool simple working people into voting for them, not realizing their freedoms are slipping under the door along with all their personal money in the form of taxes as in being taxed to death, and yes, even beyond death. The Democrats are so greedy in their covetousness of other people's money, they went after people's inheritances, which destroys small businesses being passed to children who worked all their lives often without wages to keep the family business going, now, destitution creeps in when the government takes the lion's share first from death taxes when their parents pass away.

It's a disgrace.

When you vote Democrat, you vote for killing the middle class. The only people who can survive this push for wealth by Democrats is very, very large businesses who collaborate in electing and re-electing democrats into the offices to join the Old Liars Club.

Yes I do call people who try to use the bible to justify their bigotry bigots. They are bigots. They are just as bigoted as the people that used the bible to justify slavery, segregation and anti miscegenation laws.

It is not bigotry to believe that a BEHAVIOR is morally wrong, and esthetically inferior to other behaviors. It is Identity ideology that says a person does not have the right to say anything critical about special protected identity groups, and they have used our laws and normal language to slip in their ideological bullshit into the publics normal views of fairness and bullying.

People are waking up to the subterfuge and how you fascists hide your amorality behind ambiguous terms and expressions.

The Bible is right, not your stupid bullshit ideology that justifies anything one of your Identity groups says or does, fascist, then goes after any who oppose using tactics of personal destruction to punish them.