Duck Dynasty's Phil Robertson: The Latest Victim of the PC Police

AshleyD
I have a question: Is this a possible discrimination case? He was essentially fired for his Christian views.

I'm just curious. Earlier in this thread I stated it was not a legal issue but am not so sure now after reading more about it and thought I'd ask.

No, as there are plenty of Christians who are ok with gays. If it was a universally accepted rule and custom you might have a point. But, there are many states where religion is not protected class.

reply to post by TownCryer


Yelling fire in a crowded theater creates a direct hazard to public safety and is a criminal offense, to distinguish from a free expression of speech.

That is where the National Socialist Party vs. the Village of Skokie comes in to play. That was a case of extreme offense to a community largely made up of those most likely to BE offended for why their town was chosen as the site of the march in the first place.

In the end, principle over even this level of offense was found to hold superior and the offended had to endure this level of hate parading down their Main Street. The Constitutional principles guide all facets of society, so whether that case directly and literally translates to the positions of people here or not, it shows the level the nation once felt tolerance had to be extended ...and even the worst speech defended. I think defense is 100% right, too.

When any speech is intimidated out of sight, then all speech is up for grabs subject to the definition of those doing the intimidating. In this case, A&E was intimidated to throwing someone right off a show based around the entire family.

It'll be interesting how that works out as current stories today have A&E talking like the family will go on, unphased. (not likely, IMO)

Barbara Walter's end of the year show last night makes sense now. The Duck Dynasty folks were on as one of the top 10 most fascinating people. Phil did not show up. When Barbara asked about it saying he went duck hunting instead, his wife made the comment that when they started this show they all had an agreement, if the show changed who they were or tried to separate them the would end it immediately. Now I understand why that was so important for her to say.

He never misrepresented himself, ever. Had they ever read the bible, then they would have known his answer before they asked.

To make money off a man because he believes in the bible then banish him because he spoke the words in it, is a very dangerous game to play with Christians.

Hope A&E made enough off them to last a life time, because I do believe they just hung themselves. Most Christians will not financially support anyone who banishes "the word"

I'd like to see the lot of them tell A&E to take a hike and just stop the money train dead in its tracks. They can certainly afford to do it.

reply to post by grey580


Just because they put a disclaimer up doesn't change the fact that people will stop watching the show. People don't watch the show because it's on A&E. They watch it for the characters. If the viewers are offended and morally opposed by one of the major characters they're going to stop watching. All A&E is doing is protecting it's bottom line. This isn't a freedom of speech matter. It's a clear cut example of capitalism at work.

reply to post by AshleyD


If it is of any help,, he would have too Quote "Legal President",built upon legal president,,regarding the Law on the Treatment of Christians,,within the Kingdom,,maybe starting with Charlamane,,with his Victory over all the false Roman Religions/gods./Pagan Beliefs.
Too establish Christianity as the Stardard of God.

Then maybe ,,onto the Magna Carta,,granting, Right too a Jury by one's Peers.
Which would mean 12 Chritians** ( **Should be Christian's ) on the jury,,or Barons/Nobles.

but alas it would be the more recent , Law of the People,, the American Supreme Court,,,which would have final say.

Maybe Justice Stevens,,might be interested?

antonia
No, as there are plenty of Christians who are ok with gays. If it was a universally accepted rule and custom you might have a point. But, there are many states where religion is not protected class.

This isn't about being okay with gays or not, its whether one will revere them or not.

Refusing to pretend that what gay males do for 'sex' is anything other than repulsive is a thought crime.

Be as gay as you like, but don't expect me to adore homosexuality.

Restricted
I'd like to see the lot of them tell A&E to take a hike and just stop the money train dead in its tracks. They can certainly afford to do it.

I'd love to see them just take it to a Net broadcast they had 100% editorial control over. I'll bet the filming might be a little rougher but content would be better and I wouldn't miss a show.

Wrabbit2000

Restricted
I'd like to see the lot of them tell A&E to take a hike and just stop the money train dead in its tracks. They can certainly afford to do it.

I'd love to see them just take it to a Net broadcast they had 100% editorial control over. I'll bet the filming might be a little rougher but content would be better and I wouldn't miss a show.

I don't watch it, so I'm not invested.

Has everyone forgoten,, ther a family,,,u think they won't be letting all the "audience", know what "they",, think of the decision too, muzzle a Robertson??? lol

can't wait for Sy,,,,, ur # 1 , Sy,,,
u have too look after the family now,,,,

u can do it,

I think I should shed light on the topic of free speech for a moment, since people seem to be bringing it up for whatever reason.

Phil never was censored, or silenced the interview and articles went through no problem. This didn't take place while on A&E property, so they would have had no jurisdiction to silence him in the first place. A&E said that they were disappointed in what he had said, and took him off the show. But they never actually infringed on his words.

This was a product of cause and effect, or consequences. Not free speech.

A&E didn't like what he said, and they don't exactly want people thinking that's how their network operates. Since this could effect their business, and change their reputation to their devoted viewers. Phil may have said what he wanted, but there is no constitutional guarantee that protects people from the outcomes.

If I bully someone (verbally) to the point of suicide. I was enacting my free speech. However, I am not free from the legal action that will most likely follow for my actions.

If I joke about having a bomb in my suitcase at an airport, and get arrested. I may have had the right to speak and tell jokes, but that does not free me from the mentioning of a threat.

If I call up 911 and give them a bogus emergency, and get arrested for it. I may have had the right to speak whatever words I wanted and give the story I wanted. But that does not protect me from the fraud I had just commit.

Simple cause and effect people. You say something I don't like, and I avoid you. A business has a employee that says something they don't like, you will be fired. But they never actually took away your ability to speak.

As I said earlier in this thread, I challenge any of you to go into work tomorrow, and say the most outrageous and disgusting things to your coworkers and your bosses/managers. And let's see how long your free speech will keep your job security. The fact is, you have your right to opinion. But those around you are not guaranteed to tolerate it. And you may see an unfavorable outcome from the words that you had spoken.

Wrabbit2000

Restricted
I'd like to see the lot of them tell A&E to take a hike and just stop the money train dead in its tracks. They can certainly afford to do it.

I'd love to see them just take it to a Net broadcast they had 100% editorial control over. I'll bet the filming might be a little rougher but content would be better and I wouldn't miss a show.

I just worked on a pilot for A&E about men and women who fight forest fires. I think this was a socially relevant and worthy project. For those that want to boycott A&E, it's your loss. I am astonished by the ignorance displayed by those that think they know how the entertainment industry works. I have lost so much respect for those I once thought knew how to deny ignorance but proved it's mainly about ideology and bullying those they disagree with.

reply to post by Lingweenie


the following quote used as a justification????



"If I bully someone (verbally) to the point of suicide. I was enacting my free speech."

i hope u don't think that if "killed with words",,don't count,,???
unless ive miss read your thoughts.

reply to post by antonia

No, as there are plenty of Christians who are ok with gays. If it was a universally accepted rule and custom you might have a point. But, there are many states where religion is not protected class.

I'm not sure how that would be an issue.

Racial discrimination cases are not thrown out just because 'some people of that race are not racist.'

And besides, Phil himself said he has no problem with homosexuals.

I doubt the Duck Dynasty group gives a toss enough to sue but it does seem like they have grounds for it if they wanted to. Depending on the state where A&E headquarters.

reply to post by olaru12


So, if you know so much about it, start a thread and educate us.

reply to post by TheWrightWing


Phil equated homosexuallity with Beastiallity, (sp?). THAT'S the stupid thing he said. Then, he went on to talk about his impressions of the racial climate in the 60's. THAT'S the other stupid thig he said. Phil, and you, and I all have the right to say whatever we want, in most cases, (see my earlier example regarding yelling, 'Fire!', in a crowded movie theater). And, the rest of the world has the right to react to whatever someone says. You say something offensive, you're going to offend some people. It's a pretty easy equation. THINK what you want / watch what you SAY.

reply to post by Mamatus


Let me clear up one misconception. The church that they attend is NOT a 'holy roller' church. Just because someone makes their religious beliefs known does not make them holy rollers. Have you ever been to a Church Of Christ (the church that the Robertson's attend)? I grew up in the Church of Christ. No such thing as a holy rolling Church of Christ. They are very calm services. No shouting. No jumping up and down. They usually don't even play instrumental music during services. They do not fall down and foam at the mouth nor do they handle snakes. They do not believe in speaking in tongues. So I would suggest people do a little research before labeling all Christians with a broad brush.

Oh and btw I'm a lesbian and although I have been told I am living in sin, I have never had a member of the Church of Christ tell me I'm going to hell. What I saw was Phil listing SEVERAL things he considers sinful. He did not focus on gays. He has a right to his opinion and what I am seeing is the crowd that is all inclusive "we accept everyone" being quite vindictive. "We accept everyone .... unless you disagree with us." How hypocritical can the 'open minded' be?

Phil Robertson will probably release a sex tape which will resurrect his career.

olaru12

Wrabbit2000

Restricted
I'd like to see the lot of them tell A&E to take a hike and just stop the money train dead in its tracks. They can certainly afford to do it.

I'd love to see them just take it to a Net broadcast they had 100% editorial control over. I'll bet the filming might be a little rougher but content would be better and I wouldn't miss a show.

I just worked on a pilot for A&E about men and women who fight forest fires. I think this was a socially relevant and worthy project. For those that want to boycott A&E, it's your loss. I am astonished by the ignorance displayed by those that think they know how the entertainment industry works. I have lost so much respect for those I once thought knew how to deny ignorance but proved it's mainly about ideology.

edit on 19-12-2013 by olaru12 because: (no reason given)

That strikes me as a little uncalled for but that's expressing my opinion of course. I wouldn't call anyone on either side of this debate ignorant, since it's all about opinions from start to finish. Not much here for hard facts of any kind, to be ignorant about.

Having said that, I'm not sure I'm clear what the inner workings of the entertainment industry have to do with forming an opinion on this? A short time ago I read a few stories on this topic on the net for what is being reported in the last couple hours as fresh and it's being reported very clearly as specific pressure from interest groups outraged by Phil's opinion.

Now that's coming from inside the entertainment industry for sources and I'm not supplying a particular one because they are just too common, everywhere at the moment. CNN and Fox seem to be running blips on the TV side off and on all day.

*** ...and while we're all focused on this, I wonder what real bad news is happening somewhere in the world? It just occurred to me, this is a dandy distraction, all questions of merit aside.

reply to post by XxNightAngelusxX

XxNightAngelusxX
Explain the difference, maybe...?

Speaking freely is what we all do when we express our opinions. Free Speech, as outlined in the constitution, protects us from congress making laws about what we can and cannot say. The law was not, in any way, involved in this story. The man was not arrested. His Free Speech is intact. Speaking freely in the public realm can and does have consequences. The man is still free to express his opinion. Just not on A&E.