Facebook Conversation RE: Duck Dynasty

reply to post by darkbake


It's more than just a valid opinion, it's the right one. That sounds harsh but think about this: This is a company based decision based upon the image they want to project to the public along with whatever contractural obligations both party were under.

Contract is king. If I've learned anything in Law School it's that much. If it's in writing and it's not unconscionable or against public policy then it'll fly in most cases. There really is no first amendment issue here. Honestly, I'd defend the guy if there were one. I have a white supremacist friend who I defend all the time (as a black guy) because I do believe he has a point and a right to speak when he talks about the necessity of homogeneity in European nations.

This is a contractual decision and everyone, left and right, are reading too much into it. A&E decided for image over money. Let them suffer or benefit from the consequences just like Phil will suffer or benefit from the consequences of his speech.

And to those free speech knockers...it does not mean a freedom from consequence under private contracts or employment contracts. I don't understand why you all don't understand this.

So what about Paula Deen? Was anyone really surprised by her "scandal"?

I agree with Beezzer. Is "shouting down" a typical human trait? Or has the well been poisoned?

reply to post by TheOneElectric


Yes exactly Mr. Robertson is paying the price not for his opinion but in the way he chose to express it. I really do not believe that he is a truly hateful individual. But in his comments he has not shown any kind of consideration at all. Had he simply answered the question stating that he disagreed with homosexuality this wouldn't have even made the radar. A Christian in the Deep South would make that a given. Instead he put it as the root cause of every other sexual deviance and made a fool of himself.

reply to post by TheOneElectric


Can an employer fire an employee for stating that they believe that Allah will punish Christians as nonbelievers?

How would the EEOC rule on that?

reply to post by TheOneElectric


Well, if there is an opinion on the matter that I agree with, it would be yours because at least it is informed - so under your opinion and legal knowledge, someone could be fired for being on a Fox reality show if they expressed views that were too liberal?

And then there is the question, how consistent would the average citizen be on their opinions if that did happen?

butcherguy
reply to post by TheOneElectric

 

Can an employer fire an employee for stating that they believe that Allah will punish Christians as nonbelievers?

How would the EEOC rule on that?

I am actually worried about the discrimination laws for employees and customers becoming nonexistent. It is not an isolated incident, someone getting fired for having an opinion - and it is not just isolated to conservative opinions -

Over in Washington, there was a case where a long-standing customer of a flower shop, who happened to be gay, was denied service for their legal gay wedding because the owner of the flower shop did not agree with participating in it.

This is hilarious, see, you can tell it is not a gay issue at all for me, because I wrote an ATS post on this topic in support of the gay couple - I don't think that services or work should be denied to someone based on their personal beliefs.

reply to post by butcherguy


Depends on the contract. All employment is subject to employment contracts. I don't know the particular terms of certain employment contracts, but I am sure that there is are protections for religious speech of some sort. However, I am also sure that a lot of religious speech is pretty much barred from certain places, save for regional norms that are allowed to slide by corporate.

If I had it my way there would be none of that religious stuff at work save for some regions (I'd totally be fine with Christian things in the deep south...I live here so I guess its normal for me)...however, in large metropolitan areas that cater to many people I think that it should not be allowed. But again, I'm not KING TYRANT or God.

It's all about how private parties contract and how public policy (Gov) dictates what is and is not allowed in those contracts.

And no, that Allah nonsense is much like the other stuff...nonsense (it's actually one of the more dangerous versions of nonsense in contemporary history). I believe people should follow their own spiritual paths after they learn from the starter kits. But again, that's my opinion and has absolutely nothing to do with the thread.

My point for this thread --> Private Contractual agreements that /do not/ violate /public policy/ and are /not unconscionable/ in their application should be allowed to operate free from government, political, and popular intervention. Otherwise we can't have a nice modern market or legal protections for that nice modern market.

neo96
There is a historical president for reaction of Ducks comments.

Remember way back when to Nazi Germany and their book burning.

They got rid of anything they didn't like.

It is the exact same thing as book burning. Book burning was a way for the Nazis, the ruling party at the time, to burn information that was opposing their viewpoints. This is also "burning" information from the opposing viewpoint.

Although if you put it that way, this incident is fairly isolated in comparison and the guy was simply taken off the show - I like the perspective being given by TheOneElectric, I think it is the most valid opposition argument -

KeliOnyx
reply to post by TheOneElectric

 

A Christian in the Deep South would make that a given. Instead he put it as the root cause of every other sexual deviance and made a fool of himself.

That is an interesting distinction and observation here -

Also, I'd like to apologize to everyone in this thread if I was overbearing and or abrasive. It wasn't my intention to come off like that. Everyone have a good evening.

reply to post by TheOneElectric


As previously stated in other threads, A&E has every freedom to do what they did. I consider it cowardly, but that's just my opinion.

What drew A&E to do it was the introduction of criticism by GLAAD.

KeliOnyx
reply to post by TheOneElectric

 

Yes exactly Mr. Robertson is paying the price not for his opinion but in the way he chose to express it. I really do not believe that he is a truly hateful individual.

Except, his opinion was taken out of context and placed into a story in which he did not give; if one reads the whole interview.

He expressed his views, why is that being held against him?

reply to post by TheOneElectric


Not to be a stickler....but not all employment is determined by contract. In Texas, it is very unusual to work under contract, unless you are a contractor (freelance, work for yourself hawking your skills to the highest bidder). Such is the "right to work" state.

In the state of Texas, you would absolutely win an unemployment hearing for being termed for speaking about religion while not on the clock. In a court of law....i have no idea. I have no context for that, but suspect that you could fire them for whatever reason you wanted to, short of actually discriminating against their religion, etc (by firing them for being a Muslim, instead of for speaking about allah to others away from work on your off time).

You are free to say what you like, and I will yell and scream to protect that freedom ... unless I don't like what you say, and then I will work my ass off to censor you.

Now, this isn't just about the TV company, but all the groups who "protect the rights of others" asking for him to be censored and then being glad that he was.

ownbestenemy

KeliOnyx
reply to post by TheOneElectric

 

Yes exactly Mr. Robertson is paying the price not for his opinion but in the way he chose to express it. I really do not believe that he is a truly hateful individual.

Except, his opinion was taken out of context and placed into a story in which he did not give; if one reads the whole interview.

He expressed his views, why is that being held against him?

And in what context is it ok to declare homosexuality as the root cause of bestiality and every other deviance from the norm? This is what has landed him in this situation. Had he just simply said he thought it was wrong and he disagreed with it this would be an entirely different discussion, instead he took it to a whole different level with his comments.

Personally I think A&E jumped the gun a little bit on this. But in today's atmosphere I can hardly blame them for looking out for their brand.

KeliOnyxAnd in what context is it ok to declare homosexuality as the root cause of bestiality and every other deviance from the norm? This is what has landed him in this situation. Had he just simply said he thought it was wrong and he disagreed with it this would be an entirely different discussion, instead he took it to a whole different level with his comments.

He didn't. If that is what you took away from his comments then your reading comprehension needs work. He said what you claim would be an "entirely different discussion".

He used it as an example of something sinful, and then expanded upon that and gave other examples of what is sinful. He never said homosexuality was the root cause, never. So do you now find what he said acceptable?

Has anybody thought that maybe A&E dont like his opinion, that maybe some there are offended by the comments, that maybe they dont want there reputation damaged by people thinking they might support these types of ideas?

Yes he can say what he likes, he was given free speech, his comments were published in the media.
This is not a free speech issue.

The fact is this kind of old fashioned idea that homosexulaity is a sin, is just that old fashioned, i would guess the majotiry of people think his comments silly, and the company just want to make sure people dont think they support it.

reply to post by WilsonWilson


Have you thought that "rights" groups who only fight for rights they "like" aren't really rights groups at all? Yes, A&E has every right to do this, the problem is when supposed "rights" groups only want free speech that promotes their agenda, and they want speech that they don't agree with to be silenced.

THAT is the problem. You are either for or against free speech, it's no longer free when you can only say what someone else agrees with.

reply to post by OccamsRazor04


He did in fact do that. It is your reading comprehension that needs work apparently.

“Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men,”

Morph being the keyword here. He clearly has set the root for sexual deviance as homosexuality. You can deny, deny and deny it until you are blue in the face but that is exactly what he did. I don't get why people are running to this professional liars defense anyway. The whole bearded fool schtick is just that schtick. A blatant ripoff of the Beverly Hillbillies the only difference being the Beverly Hillbillies was actually entertaining. In fact I wouldn't doubt that the bearded liars cooked this whole thing up knowing their 15 minutes was just about up.

reply to post by KeliOnyx


If you are serious then I don't know what to say to you. If you think he means homosexuality is the ROOT of all sin there is no helping you. It's very clear he does not mean this.