JoeB131
Diamond Member
Well, no, they'd probably sue under non-discrimination clauses.
I've known people who were fired for being gay. I've known people who were fired for getting sick.
Brothers Kicked Off HGTV Channel Over Anti-Gay Remarks.
- Thread starter protectionist
- Start date
Well, no, they'd probably sue under non-discrimination clauses.
I've known people who were fired for being gay. I've known people who were fired for getting sick.
JoeB131
Diamond Member
No, not really.
You see, here's the thing. Unlike racial discrimination, where you are likely to be comfortable in your bigotry without ever encountering someone from another race, you are far more likely to get the stink-eye from a gay person at Thanksgiving Dinner for being a homophobic bigot.
The tide has turned against you guys. Sorry, you are just going to learn to deal.
You're gonna "report" him because he embarrassed you?
You're flat wrong. HGTV is not the government, and nobody, Benhams or otherwise, has a "right" to their own forum on a specific TV show that is a private enterprise and investment in the free market. It's their investment, so it's their call as to who plays in their sandbox. Period, end of story, waiter, check please.
Codswallop.
The "right" (read: privilege) in question absolutely IS a TV show. HGTV has no power whatsoever, nor should it, to influence what anyone says outside their own production. But within their own production it IS their own production, which they invest in and design, therefore they get to say what's on it and who's on it.
Suppose you want to see a show about plumbing. Do you have the "right" to demand they devote their production to plumbing?? Do you have the "right" to force them to hire Joe the Plumber for that show?
OK then. Sheeeeeesh.
1. Another pretender. YOU KNOW why I'd report him.
2. Period, end of story, until you read the previous post about the Pruneyard vs Robins, SCOTUS case mentioned earlier. Oh, you didn't read it ? And that's why you now don't know what your talking about ? Well, NOT MY PROBLEM.
Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
3. The speech that HGTV objected to, WAS NOT WITHIN THEIR OWN PRODUCTION. It was years earlier, in a different time & place.
4. SHEEEEESHH!!!
1. No, I have no idea
2. I already read it the first time you dragged it in there. Has it somehow taken on relevance since then?
3. Again, irrelevant. See "morals clause". Nor is there any evidence HGTV "objected to" anything.
4. Agreed.
Those that choose to live in the sick abomination of sexual perversion! BEWARE!!!===
◄ Isaiah 5:20 ►
Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter.
The wages of sin is death and hell!
◄ Isaiah 5:20 ►
Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter.
The wages of sin is death and hell!
Silhouette
Gold Member
- Jul 15, 2013
- 25,815
- 1,942
- 265
Yes. And key to that observation is that people always forget that "LGBT" and "gay" is a description, an incomplete one, of deviant sexual behaviors acting "as-race". But properly, a cult is not a race, it's a religion. The trick of these folks in debate is to get you calling them "gay" as if that was an intrinsic state of being, "born that way" instead of a habit picked up along the way.
Let's all not make that mistake. And don't forget the poor polygamists and incest kinks that "LGBT" has strategically left off their menu for now..
Riiiight, because it's a "choice", right? Like being lefthanded. Just swat that left hand and make 'em write northpaw, the ******* deviants.
"Well I'm in puberty now, I have a choice; I can go for the opposite sex and fit right in with 'approved' society, or I can go gay and be persecuted, ostracized and isolated into an underground... yeah I'll go with The Gay, what's to lose?"
You're gonna "report" him because he embarrassed you?
You're flat wrong. HGTV is not the government, and nobody, Benhams or otherwise, has a "right" to their own forum on a specific TV show that is a private enterprise and investment in the free market. It's their investment, so it's their call as to who plays in their sandbox. Period, end of story, waiter, check please.
Codswallop.
The "right" (read: privilege) in question absolutely IS a TV show. HGTV has no power whatsoever, nor should it, to influence what anyone says outside their own production. But within their own production it IS their own production, which they invest in and design, therefore they get to say what's on it and who's on it.
Suppose you want to see a show about plumbing. Do you have the "right" to demand they devote their production to plumbing?? Do you have the "right" to force them to hire Joe the Plumber for that show?
OK then. Sheeeeeesh.
Following that line of logic, HGTV has an absolute right to control the content of their shows and prohibit any speech they disapprove of while appearing in any show on their network.
That's not what happened here. The network is punishing speech that occurred a year ago, not on any of their shows.
You're gonna "report" him because he embarrassed you?
You're flat wrong. HGTV is not the government, and nobody, Benhams or otherwise, has a "right" to their own forum on a specific TV show that is a private enterprise and investment in the free market. It's their investment, so it's their call as to who plays in their sandbox. Period, end of story, waiter, check please.
Codswallop.
The "right" (read: privilege) in question absolutely IS a TV show. HGTV has no power whatsoever, nor should it, to influence what anyone says outside their own production. But within their own production it IS their own production, which they invest in and design, therefore they get to say what's on it and who's on it.
Suppose you want to see a show about plumbing. Do you have the "right" to demand they devote their production to plumbing?? Do you have the "right" to force them to hire Joe the Plumber for that show?
OK then. Sheeeeeesh.
Following that line of logic, HGTV has an absolute right to control the content of their shows and prohibit any speech they disapprove of while appearing in any show on their network.
That's not what happened here. The network is punishing speech that occurred a year ago, not on any of their shows.
Are they really.
Where did they say that?
emilynghiem
Constitutionalist / Universalist
Dear Avatar: The brothers hold no ill will toward HGTV in keeping with Christian faith that God has a higher purpose and plan, and the point is to follow that, putting God first before Mammon.
I looked up the Benham Company website, and was impressed with their company ethics and philosophy of service to be a blessing to others.
http://benhambrothers.com/companies
So if this hadn't happened, maybe I would not have heard of them at a critical time.
Maybe we do need to re-prioritize as a Nation, separate the sheep from the goats,
and re-organize our resources around the companies and leaders who DO support
like values.
There is no conflict in separating out and organizing around the groups we align with.
If we all do this, we can get a lot more accomplished.
and QUIT wasting time, money and media resources fighting other groups.
Let's use this opportunity to organize resources and get good working solutions going that are sustainable.
Nobody can build in an unwelcome environment. But let's turn this situation around,
and start investing in building more communities based on these Brothers' commitment to serving others in a "sustainable way" that will break the cycle of poverty and end
the "victimhood" mentality that fuels bullying and creates dependence on govt.
Here is my letter below I sent by email last Friday, May 9.
I will send it to some pastoral leaders and ask them to issue a formal statement addressing other ministerial communities who have been silenced on this issue.
There was a whole coalition of African American Pastors http://caapus.org/ who stood up to Obama on the gay marriage issue, but where are they now? Why did the media never cover them?
http://www.whas11.com/news/local/Se...on-of-African-American-Pastors-258676201.html
This is an opportunity to unite in faith, and invest our own resources in growing sustainable communities, and quit fighting for resources we don't control. We can do plenty with the resources we do control!
===========================================
emilynghiem said:
Last edited:
It was an organized hit by an anti Christian group, through several anti Christian groups.
Meet The Liberal Network That Orchestrated The Hit On The Benham Brothers | The Daily Caller
It wasn't like HGTV decided on its own that this show would reflect badly on the HGTV network. They were bullied into it.
Meet The Liberal Network That Orchestrated The Hit On The Benham Brothers | The Daily Caller
It wasn't like HGTV decided on its own that this show would reflect badly on the HGTV network. They were bullied into it.
emilynghiem
Constitutionalist / Universalist
Yes and no.
Yes, some LGBT are spiritually born that way.
Some are made by man, by sexual abuse which can be healed
and the sexual behavior along with it (whether homosexual or heterosexual)
The LEGAL issue is NOT someone's sexuality which is private and outside govt jurisdiction.
The ISSUE is imposing terms on marriage (which is religious) that not all people believe in.
Both sides are guilty of doing this, where they disagree, but are abusing govt and law
to impose a BIAS. Marriage is spiritual or religious and not to be dictated by govt.
If we separate the spiritual/religious beliefs about marriage, and keep that private.
Then the legal issues concerning "civil contracts, custody and estates" can be kept secular,
neutral and under state jurisdiction.
Both sides are crossing the line by imposing terms on marriage that others don't believe in.
As for people being born or made gay, or choosing to follow karma or to resolve issues and be healed -- THAT is a spiritual/religious issue of people's paths in life, and govt has no jurisdiction to dictate, regulate or punish people for their internal spiritual process.
Only if they commit a crime or abuse of civil rights of others is it state jurisdiction.
If people have not committed any crime or abuse, and have not undergone due process,
they have equal protection not to be deprived of liberty, rights or freedoms.
If people on BOTH sides keep imposing on each other, keep abusing political or govt/legal authority to threaten the equal protection of other people's beliefs; then THOSE PEOPLE are equally guilty. So where is the DUE PROCESS to hold THOSE people accountable?
And QUIT punishing everyone else by imposing biased laws or ruling that favor one side!
I do agree there is a problem comparing LGBT/equal human rights with the Black movement for civil rights. The Civil Rights movement was successful in uniting people where it applied to ALL people, of different classes and denominations. The Black Power movements fail by pitting "Blacks against Whites" and creating division and opposition.
The LGBT movement for "equal rights" leaves out the beliefs of other people, so it is not universally inclusive as Dr. King led people to unite and not be separated by fear.
The successful version of this movement would probably be more along the lines of
EQUAL INCLUSION
or POLITICAL EQUALITY
which could be promoted to defend and protect ALL people of ALL views and beliefs.
That is what I would like to see come out of this campaign.
The same way Civil Rights was promoted by Dr. King to be INCLUSIVE NOT DIVISIVE,
the Equal Inclusion or Political Equality principle should be UNIVERSAL not one-sided.
Yes, some LGBT are spiritually born that way.
Some are made by man, by sexual abuse which can be healed
and the sexual behavior along with it (whether homosexual or heterosexual)
The LEGAL issue is NOT someone's sexuality which is private and outside govt jurisdiction.
The ISSUE is imposing terms on marriage (which is religious) that not all people believe in.
Both sides are guilty of doing this, where they disagree, but are abusing govt and law
to impose a BIAS. Marriage is spiritual or religious and not to be dictated by govt.
If we separate the spiritual/religious beliefs about marriage, and keep that private.
Then the legal issues concerning "civil contracts, custody and estates" can be kept secular,
neutral and under state jurisdiction.
Both sides are crossing the line by imposing terms on marriage that others don't believe in.
As for people being born or made gay, or choosing to follow karma or to resolve issues and be healed -- THAT is a spiritual/religious issue of people's paths in life, and govt has no jurisdiction to dictate, regulate or punish people for their internal spiritual process.
Only if they commit a crime or abuse of civil rights of others is it state jurisdiction.
If people have not committed any crime or abuse, and have not undergone due process,
they have equal protection not to be deprived of liberty, rights or freedoms.
If people on BOTH sides keep imposing on each other, keep abusing political or govt/legal authority to threaten the equal protection of other people's beliefs; then THOSE PEOPLE are equally guilty. So where is the DUE PROCESS to hold THOSE people accountable?
And QUIT punishing everyone else by imposing biased laws or ruling that favor one side!
I do agree there is a problem comparing LGBT/equal human rights with the Black movement for civil rights. The Civil Rights movement was successful in uniting people where it applied to ALL people, of different classes and denominations. The Black Power movements fail by pitting "Blacks against Whites" and creating division and opposition.
The LGBT movement for "equal rights" leaves out the beliefs of other people, so it is not universally inclusive as Dr. King led people to unite and not be separated by fear.
The successful version of this movement would probably be more along the lines of
EQUAL INCLUSION
or POLITICAL EQUALITY
which could be promoted to defend and protect ALL people of ALL views and beliefs.
That is what I would like to see come out of this campaign.
The same way Civil Rights was promoted by Dr. King to be INCLUSIVE NOT DIVISIVE,
the Equal Inclusion or Political Equality principle should be UNIVERSAL not one-sided.
Papageorgio
The Ultimate Winner
Were you in on why they were let go or is this employee speculation?
Papageorgio
The Ultimate Winner
You're gonna "report" him because he embarrassed you?
You're flat wrong. HGTV is not the government, and nobody, Benhams or otherwise, has a "right" to their own forum on a specific TV show that is a private enterprise and investment in the free market. It's their investment, so it's their call as to who plays in their sandbox. Period, end of story, waiter, check please.
Codswallop.
The "right" (read: privilege) in question absolutely IS a TV show. HGTV has no power whatsoever, nor should it, to influence what anyone says outside their own production. But within their own production it IS their own production, which they invest in and design, therefore they get to say what's on it and who's on it.
Suppose you want to see a show about plumbing. Do you have the "right" to demand they devote their production to plumbing?? Do you have the "right" to force them to hire Joe the Plumber for that show?
OK then. Sheeeeeesh.
Following that line of logic, HGTV has an absolute right to control the content of their shows and prohibit any speech they disapprove of while appearing in any show on their network.
That's not what happened here. The network is punishing speech that occurred a year ago, not on any of their shows.
It is well within the right of a network to hire and fire whoever they want.
The network is being intolerant however it is their right as a private entity. They have a right to do what they feel is in the best interest of their network. Bill Maher was fired for what he said on ABC, ABC had every right to fire Maher.
protectionist
Diamond Member
- Oct 20, 2013
- 62,017
- 22,052
- 2,250
- Thread starter
- #356
This is not the slightest bit surprising. Nowadays, queers (along with Islamists) are the 2 most fascist, intolerant groups in America, who absolutely demand to have THEIR way, no matter what.
protectionist
Diamond Member
- Oct 20, 2013
- 62,017
- 22,052
- 2,250
- Thread starter
- #357
You're gonna "report" him because he embarrassed you?
You're flat wrong. HGTV is not the government, and nobody, Benhams or otherwise, has a "right" to their own forum on a specific TV show that is a private enterprise and investment in the free market. It's their investment, so it's their call as to who plays in their sandbox. Period, end of story, waiter, check please.
Codswallop.
The "right" (read: privilege) in question absolutely IS a TV show. HGTV has no power whatsoever, nor should it, to influence what anyone says outside their own production. But within their own production it IS their own production, which they invest in and design, therefore they get to say what's on it and who's on it.
Suppose you want to see a show about plumbing. Do you have the "right" to demand they devote their production to plumbing?? Do you have the "right" to force them to hire Joe the Plumber for that show?
OK then. Sheeeeeesh.
1. Another pretender. YOU KNOW why I'd report him.
2. Period, end of story, until you read the previous post about the Pruneyard vs Robins, SCOTUS case mentioned earlier. Oh, you didn't read it ? And that's why you now don't know what your talking about ? Well, NOT MY PROBLEM.
Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
3. The speech that HGTV objected to, WAS NOT WITHIN THEIR OWN PRODUCTION. It was years earlier, in a different time & place.
4. SHEEEEESHH!!!
1. No, I have no idea
2. I already read it the first time you dragged it in there. Has it somehow taken on relevance since then?
3. Again, irrelevant. See "morals clause". Nor is there any evidence HGTV "objected to" anything.
4. Agreed.
1. YOU KNOW.
2. Then you're either lying, or incredibly stupid.
3. Not irrelevant. You said the objected-to speech was within their own production. It wasn't. And of course HGTV objected to it. Or at least that's what they said.
4. Sheeeesh!!
Last edited:
protectionist
Diamond Member
- Oct 20, 2013
- 62,017
- 22,052
- 2,250
- Thread starter
- #358
NONSENSE! Future SCOTUS's can simply overrule the past judgement of last year. And if elections go the way they seem to be headed, that's exactly what will happen.
Today's "tide" could easily be just a temporary glitch along the way.
Absolute BULLSHIT. I posted no such thing. Let's see it.
On the contrary, I just called out the statement that "the network is punishing speech that occurred a year ago, not on any of their shows". Because that's not what they said at all, nor did the Benhams say that. You'll notice that callout got no response. Because there isn't any.
Indeed the third post I made in this thread quoted the brothers -- from the OP video itself --- explicitly saying they were NOT let go for reasons of their faith. "They never said that" was their phrase. So how do you get "within their own production"?
So you want to put words in my mouth that are the direct opposite of what I posted, and then talk "lying" huh? So no, HGTV did not say that, the Benhams did not say that, and I did not say that. YOU said that.
And furthermore, direct contradiction is right there in the post you quoted. I bolded it into red so that even your sorry ass could read it.
What the **** is it with you losers who think you can just make shit up and get away with it?
Last edited:
protectionist
Diamond Member
- Oct 20, 2013
- 62,017
- 22,052
- 2,250
- Thread starter
- #360
1. The report would have been for REPEATED harassment (regardless of any effect on me)
2. Pruneyard is comparable. In both cases a private company took action against people by virtue of their speech, and the SCOTUS ruled their state law prohibited them from doing that.
3. Got a shred of evidence that "the Speech that HGTV objected to, would have had negative impact on their business." ? If so, let's hear it.
4. Sheeeesh!!
Similar threads
New Topics
-
-
Israel has exposed it's depravity, fascism and evil to the world- Started by MarcATL
- Replies: 6
-
Iryna Zarutska’s Savage Murderer Decarlos Brown Jr. Found “Incompetent To Stand Trial”
- Started by 1srelluc
- Replies: 6
-
VIDEO: Why does 🇷🇺 ivan push another ⚰️🇷🇺 ivan from a trench ?- Started by Litwin
- Replies: 0
-
