Anti-PC people making a mistake on the Duck Dynasty story

[tinydancer]

NO ONE violated Robertson's religion. I AM A SOUTHERN BAPTIST!
SPEECH is not protected under ANY law in America against the discipline of an employer.
You people are dumb as they come.
This is too easy!

No problem. Ease on down. Something is up.

 

[Gadawg73]

koshergirl hates the truth and anyone that states it.
All she has are insults and false accusations.

 

[Gadawg73]

NO ONE violated Robertson's religion. I AM A SOUTHERN BAPTIST!
SPEECH is not protected under ANY law in America against the discipline of an employer.
You people are dumb as they come.
This is too easy!

I'll bet you drunk dial too. Your friends and acquaintances must love it when you go on a bender, you crazy old coot.

Keep it coming girl. Your lies are revealing.
You know I am right so all you have left are lies and more lies.
Why do you blame me that you are ugly and unhappy with a drunk husband?

 

[koshergrl]

 

[koshergrl]

 

[koshergrl]

 

[koshergrl]

WTH was this one all about, dawgie:

 

[koshergrl]

The important thing is that you have fun:

 

[9thIDdoc]

"The issue is a matter of right and wrong. Ethics and morality. The right of people, who are not treading on the rights of others, to their thoughts, ideas, opinions, and convictions"

Exactly. Mr. Robinson had every right have his opinions without being maliciously liabled because of them.

LOL, this is hilarious!
Where was anyone "liabled"?

Actually, I would rather admit that my spelling sucks than that I don't understand that libel is against the law even aside from being nasty.

 

[Gadawg73]

"The issue is a matter of right and wrong. Ethics and morality. The right of people, who are not treading on the rights of others, to their thoughts, ideas, opinions, and convictions"

Exactly. Mr. Robinson had every right have his opinions without being maliciously liabled because of them.

LOL, this is hilarious!
Where was anyone "liabled"?

Actually, I would rather admit that my spelling sucks than that I don't understand that libel is against the law even aside from being nasty.

Libel is a civil wrong and not against the criminal law.
Try again.

 

[Bfgrn]

Perfect name (beagle) for the pile you just left...everyone watch where you're walking...LOL

Childish.

Also a violation of the forum rules.
Report him.

The tolerance of authoritarians...LOL

 

[tinydancer]

What the heck is going on here?

 

[Plasmaball]

What I find crazy is that Phil couldn't just say "I prefer vaginas". That's what this is all about. He was just saying he preferred *****.

Frankly I found it refreshing as a woman. I'm not going down easy that we hit the point where a man of mine has to go "well I love my wife's ***** but out of political correctness I guess I could love a guys ass"

THAT IS JUST NOT GOING TO HAPPEN IN MY WORLD. This will not happen.

Who stopped him from saying "I prefer vaginas"?
Where is that person that stopped him?
They do not exist.
How are you so easily manipulated and conned?

because she has the mind of a child. Nobody is saying these things.

 

[Plasmaball]

Something isn't right.

yes you are here..

 

[Plasmaball]

What the heck is going on here?

youve once again drank to much meds.

 

[Knightfall]

Sin has NO merit ANYWHERE in the law or the rights of any citizen.

Right. I never said anything to the contrary. I'm just pointing out that Phil Robertson never said homosexuality is the same as beastality in any way other than that they are both sins. He said they are similar in that one way whereas saying that they are the same implies a similarity in every way.

People "Screaming" is discrimination?

Uh, no, if he was fired for quoting scripture and answering questions about his faith in an interview, that would be discrimination.

But it didn't happen.

But there are a lot of people who thought it should have. and IF it had, that would have been discrimination.

Capice?

Wrong 100%.
The 1st Amendment protects YOU from the GOVERNMENT limiting your religious speech
NOT YOUR EMPLOYER.
Come back next time when you have an understanding of The Constitution.
Because as of now you are 100% ignorant of it.

KosherGril said it would be discrimination to fire someone for their religious beliefs, and she is right. She didn't say it would be illegal which, as far as I know, it is not.

As far as I'm concerned, an employer should have the right to discriminate against Christians or anybody else. If somebody wants to hire exclusively Native American, Buddhist, Communist transsexuals in wheelchairs, that's his right. However, the matters of what is a person's rights and what is morally right are two different questions.
Actually, no. You'll note I referenced discrimination, in re: the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title VII: employment discrimination.

I'll give you a second to catch up.[/QUOTE]

I stand corrected. Thanks for the info.

I still think private employers should be able to hire people on whatever basis they choose, however.

Wrong again.
The Civil Rights Act does not protect your SPEECH from the discipline of your employer.
Sorry you are still as stupid now as ever.

So in your view, you cannot be discriminated against for having a religion, but you can be discriminated against if you say anything about your religion. Would you also say that you cannot be discriminated against for your age, but you cannot say anything about your age or you cannot be discriminated for your sex, but you cannot say anything about your sex?

 

[9thIDdoc]

LOL, this is hilarious!
Where was anyone "liabled"?

Actually, I would rather admit that my spelling sucks than that I don't understand that libel is against the law even aside from being nasty.

Libel is a civil wrong and not against the criminal law.
Try again.

So...you think civil law is not law?
As long as we're on the subject of your lack of comprehension you might also try to note that I have not, and do not, make any claim that A&E or GQ (whatever that is) have done anything illegal or reprehensible. Phil Robertson was in fact libeled by people falsely claiming that he is a homophobe or racist. That clear things up any?

 

[beagle9]

this summed it all up for me

Mellisa Harris Perry's Panel Shows Bigotry, Not the Robertsons - YouTube

Wow, I bet the libs are wanting badly to tar and feather this cat, and send him away quickly to Siberia or something, but if they even try it I would stand up for this cat just like I would for Phil or anyone else that recognizes what has been going on forever and a day now in a lot of these things.

However, there is still racism to found in all places within our society, and it can be found in every walk of life upon this earth, so everyone just needs to know it when they see it, and it's best to not think for one second that it resides in a person's skin color, but rather it resides only in a persons actions, and in their speak when found being directly involved in it . It's an old game to keep stereo typing people by their color, but now that is vanishing faster than a speeding bullet hopefully, and this cat is proof that the stereo typical skin color racist thing, is fast becoming more and more of a thing that is only to be found way off in a distant past, otherwise within the context of the nations history only, and not as a continued reality. It is getting way on better these days I hope, because people are way on smarter than they were before on these sorts of things, and they aren't being fooled as often as they were in the past. Good video I thought.

 

[Gadawg73]

Sin has NO merit ANYWHERE in the law or the rights of any citizen.

Right. I never said anything to the contrary. I'm just pointing out that Phil Robertson never said homosexuality is the same as beastality in any way other than that they are both sins. He said they are similar in that one way whereas saying that they are the same implies a similarity in every way.

Wrong 100%.
The 1st Amendment protects YOU from the GOVERNMENT limiting your religious speech
NOT YOUR EMPLOYER.
Come back next time when you have an understanding of The Constitution.
Because as of now you are 100% ignorant of it.

KosherGril said it would be discrimination to fire someone for their religious beliefs, and she is right. She didn't say it would be illegal which, as far as I know, it is not.

As far as I'm concerned, an employer should have the right to discriminate against Christians or anybody else. If somebody wants to hire exclusively Native American, Buddhist, Communist transsexuals in wheelchairs, that's his right. However, the matters of what is a person's rights and what is morally right are two different questions.
Actually, no. You'll note I referenced discrimination, in re: the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title VII: employment discrimination.

I'll give you a second to catch up.

I stand corrected. Thanks for the info.

I still think private employers should be able to hire people on whatever basis they choose, however.

Wrong again.
The Civil Rights Act does not protect your SPEECH from the discipline of your employer.
Sorry you are still as stupid now as ever.

So in your view, you cannot be discriminated against for having a religion, but you can be discriminated against if you say anything about your religion. Would you also say that you cannot be discriminated against for your age, but you cannot say anything about your age or you cannot be discriminated for your sex, but you cannot say anything about your sex?[/QUOTE]

What I say does not matter.
The law is SPEECH, be it religious or otherwise is protected ONLY from THE GOVERNMENT limiting it.
NO ONE ELSE.
Speech is NOT religion. BELIEFS spoken are not religion.
ONE PRACTICES their religion by worshiping.
The practice of one's religion can not be discriminated against. NOT speech.
It is often said the 1st Amendment is misunderstood.
NO ONE stopped Robertson from saying a damn thing and I would be the first one out there protecting his rights.

 

[Gadawg73]

Actually, I would rather admit that my spelling sucks than that I don't understand that libel is against the law even aside from being nasty.

Libel is a civil wrong and not against the criminal law.
Try again.

So...you think civil law is not law?
As long as we're on the subject of your lack of comprehension you might also try to note that I have not, and do not, make any claim that A&E or GQ (whatever that is) have done anything illegal or reprehensible. Phil Robertson was in fact libeled by people falsely claiming that he is a homophobe or racist. That clear things up any?

Nah, I do not "comprehend" the difference between civil and criminal law.
I have only investigated over 5000 cases of the both of them.
Robertson is a public figure. He was not libeled in any way under the civil laws of libel in this country.
Get back to us after you have assisted in a case of libel. Ever heard of Richard Jewel? That name ring a bell? Go look into that case and see what experience one would gain working on that case.