- Joined
- Mar 20, 2012
- Messages
- 22,707
- Reaction score
- 9,469
- Location
- okla-freakin-homa
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Progressive
Are you saying that A&E did not react to pressure from GLAAD, and HRC to suspend Phil Robertson?
Ever hear of the law of unintended consequences? It very can rise up so easily and bit one in the butt very quickly. An example here, the Republicans shut down the government to defund the ACA. The unintended consequences as the shut actually helped the ACA law itself. The GaP between those who favored the ACA to opposed was 14-19 points advantage oppose prior to the shutdown. After the shutdown that gap narrowed to 4-10 points.
In other words the Republicans thought the people would back them in their attempt to defund the ACA, the reverse is what happened. Sort of like with Mr. Duck here, GLAAD thought by bringing this to the attention of the viewership of TV reality programs that it would cut into the audience of Mr. Duck. But what it has done is bring that show to the attention of quite a lot of people who never bothered to watch it and now it has piqued their interests. So hence all this publicity will probably bring the show higher ratings than before. An unexpected bonanza for both A&E and Mr. Duck.
Your ASSuming A&E didn't want to suspend Phil but only pressure from GLAAD 'forced' them to.
I believe that is as incorrect.
Ofcourse you do. wouldn't be the first time liberals let their ideology get in the way of sound business practice.
pretending that homophobia is biblically accepted does not provide the speaker safe haven for making bigoted statements
Believing that homosexuality is morally wrong, is a known biblical belief, and saying so isn’t necessarily homophobic, nor even bigoted. However, yes, the 1st Amendment was meant to protect the right to say things that others might find controversial or offensive, especially when it's a moral opinion. And therefore his being fired for such should fall within a violation of discrimination laws under the Civil Rights Act, Title VII which expressly forbids discrimination based on religious belief.
Believing that homosexuality is morally wrong, is a known biblical belief, and saying so isn’t necessarily homophobic, nor even bigoted. However, yes, the 1st Amendment was meant to protect the right to say things that others might find controversial or offensive, especially when it's a moral opinion. And therefore his being fired for such should fall within a violation of discrimination laws under the Civil Rights Act, Title VII which expressly forbids discrimination based on religious belief.
Oh, so you have proof that Robertson reached out to WBC? And if not, I'll assume you are just going down this road to smear. Pathetic.
If a company is paying a person with media exposure, they are well within their rights to cease the business relationship if the person makes public statements that can affect the bottom line of the company/business/firm/organization. I am assuming there was a contingency in place (contractually) that protects the network from first amendment suits.
Just saying some more fellow bigots if Rpbertson likes it or not are coming to his aid.
Apparently they're so worried about their bottom line that they're running Duck Dynasty marathons.
More likely, firing the guy is instant controversy and publicity and they're going to milk it for all the cash it brings in. I would be astonished if they didn't rehire him, possibly after some sort of apology.
They are the ones picketing in favor of him..Nonsense.
So what....Everyone knows that family's church of a few people hates gays and believe that the existence of gay people/activity causes war and disasters.
Never said they serve as examples, just that they are protesting in favor of him.How often are they to serve as examples of anything?
Believing that homosexuality is morally wrong, is a known biblical belief, and saying so isn’t necessarily homophobic, nor even bigoted. However, yes, the 1st Amendment was meant to protect the right to say things that others might find controversial or offensive, especially when it's a moral opinion. And therefore his being fired for such should fall within a violation of discrimination laws under the Civil Rights Act, Title VII which expressly forbids discrimination based on religious belief.
Believing that homosexuality is morally wrong, is a known biblical belief, and saying so isn’t necessarily homophobic, nor even bigoted. However, yes, the 1st Amendment was meant to protect the right to say things that others might find controversial or offensive, especially when it's a moral opinion. And therefore his being fired for such should fall within a violation of discrimination laws under the Civil Rights Act, Title VII which expressly forbids discrimination based on religious belief.
It is bigoted and homophobic, but he has the right to say it. And he did. No prevented him. No civil rights have been violated. Remember, others have the right to react to what said. No law makes any hire him. Nor keep him hired.
If a company is paying a person with media exposure, they are well within their rights to cease the business relationship if the person makes public statements that can affect the bottom line of the company/business/firm/organization. I am assuming there was a contingency in place (contractually) that protects the network from first amendment suits.
What if Duck Dynasty dude was tired of doing the show and intentionally did this to get out of an ironclad contract?
yes, the bible advocates slavery ... and any variety of killing, among the odd things espoused
that does not mean the civil rights act is going to protect you on religious grounds because you acted on the endorsements of the bible and took slaves and stoned those who the bible says deserve stoning
The difference here is that a non-violent moral opinion was given. Not an act of taking slaves, killing, or even condoning it.
At least he is getting some support from some fellow bigots!
Westboro Baptist Church to picket A&E in support of ‘Duck Dynasty’ star Phil Robertson | The Raw Story
No civil rights have been violated. Remember, others have the right to react to what said. No law makes any hire him. Nor keep him hired.
The details of any contract are a big factor of course, but even still, to say that expressing ones religious moral opinions in an interview published by an unrelated company affects the bottom line (and therefore justify termination) would be as much a violation of the Civil Rights Act Title VII, as claiming the same thing regarding a person who makes a public statement about being gay or lesbian, and being fired for it.
By this logic, any person who publicly states they are gay may be fired for the same reason.
yes, the bible advocates slavery ... and any variety of killing, among the odd things espoused
that does not mean the civil rights act is going to protect you on religious grounds because you acted on the endorsements of the bible and took slaves and stoned those who the bible says deserve stoning
but good luck with overcoming this suspension by a civil rights suit. a certain loser
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?