'Duck Dynasty' Under Fire Following Star's Incendiary Anti-Gay Remarks

[blackhawk]

I'm growing a bread in support of Phil.

I tend to bake bread myself.

Beards are pretty cool though my wife loves mine.

Note to self don't drink and post at the same time.

 

[thanatos144]

I was more offended at how boring he was...didn't stick around long enough to get to the homophobic part if there was any there.

I will translate this liberal post for you all. It says I don't need proof to hate I'm a liberal

tapatalk post

I have more than 1 thing to do today and couldn't wait for Jethro to finish whatever he started; sorry.

More of that tolerance from you

tapatalk post

 

[martybegan]

No one hates gays. Repeating your lie isn't going to make it true.

And you complete disrespect to a good and honorable man just shows us how much you hate everything that is good and decent in this world.

leave it to the left wing reactionaries ot try to make this an issue about gays. it's an issue of frre speech and right to your own personal opinion

I'm going by another thread on this, but isn't this about an employer's right to hire and fire and set its own terms of employment?

Free speech? The First Amendment applies to the government, not to a employment contract two parties enter into voluntarily. Nobody's free speech is squelched outside of that contract.

yes, but it still doesnt make the basic gutlessness A&E and other media outlets show when squawked at by pressure groups right.

The only outrage here is on the part of GLAAD and thier media fellow travellers.

 

[thanatos144]

No one hates gays. Repeating your lie isn't going to make it true.

And you complete disrespect to a good and honorable man just shows us how much you hate everything that is good and decent in this world.

leave it to the left wing reactionaries ot try to make this an issue about gays. it's an issue of frre speech and right to your own personal opinion

I'm going by another thread on this, but isn't this about an employer's right to hire and fire and set its own terms of employment?

Free speech? The First Amendment applies to the government, not to a employment contract two parties enter into voluntarily. Nobody's free speech is squelched outside of that contract.

Nobody is talking about civil actions all we are talking about is that A&E made a stupid decision that will most likely cost them in the end

tapatalk post

 

[Pogo]

leave it to the left wing reactionaries ot try to make this an issue about gays. it's an issue of frre speech and right to your own personal opinion

I'm going by another thread on this, but isn't this about an employer's right to hire and fire and set its own terms of employment?

Free speech? The First Amendment applies to the government, not to a employment contract two parties enter into voluntarily. Nobody's free speech is squelched outside of that contract.

yes, but it still doesnt make the basic gutlessness A&E and other media outlets show when squawked at by pressure groups right.

The only outrage here is on the part of GLAAD and thier media fellow travellers.

A&E is a business, is it not? And they make business decisions, do they not? That means they do so based on their bottom line.

As was pointed out in the other thread, a television show is constructing and selling illusions. The actors are hired to create those illusions under a contract, and anything the actor does that may either undermine that illusion or put their channel in a bad light (since a given TV show is inextricably linked with its network) can be grounds for vacating that contract. Which usually includes a 'morals' clause that says just that.

Again, this is basically Paula Deen again. So what?

 

[martybegan]

I'm going by another thread on this, but isn't this about an employer's right to hire and fire and set its own terms of employment?

Free speech? The First Amendment applies to the government, not to a employment contract two parties enter into voluntarily. Nobody's free speech is squelched outside of that contract.

yes, but it still doesnt make the basic gutlessness A&E and other media outlets show when squawked at by pressure groups right.

The only outrage here is on the part of GLAAD and thier media fellow travellers.

A&E is a business, is it not? And they make business decisions, do they not? That means based on their bottom line,

As was pointed out in the other thread, a television show is constructing and selling illusions. The actors are hired to create those illusions under a contract, and anything the actor does that may either undermine that illusion or put their channel in a bad light (since a given TV show is inextricably linked with its network) can be grounds for vacating that contract. Which usually includes a 'morals' clause that says just that.

Again, this is basically Paula Deen again. So what?

What happened to Paula is just as bad, or even worse than this, considering she was punted over something she said decades ago.

What A&E did is perfectly legal, and really really stupid and gutless. I have a feeling the duck people will be taking thier show elsewhere, and A&E can feel an nice and tolerant with a hole to fill in thier lineup.

Its also ironic that they are surprised that a bunch of rednecks think like a bunch of rednecks.

 

[Pogo]

yes, but it still doesnt make the basic gutlessness A&E and other media outlets show when squawked at by pressure groups right.

The only outrage here is on the part of GLAAD and thier media fellow travellers.

A&E is a business, is it not? And they make business decisions, do they not? That means based on their bottom line,

As was pointed out in the other thread, a television show is constructing and selling illusions. The actors are hired to create those illusions under a contract, and anything the actor does that may either undermine that illusion or put their channel in a bad light (since a given TV show is inextricably linked with its network) can be grounds for vacating that contract. Which usually includes a 'morals' clause that says just that.

Again, this is basically Paula Deen again. So what?

What happened to Paula is just as bad, or even worse than this, considering she was punted over something she said decades ago.

What A&E did is perfectly legal, and really really stupid and gutless. I have a feeling the duck people will be taking thier show elsewhere, and A&E can feel an nice and tolerant with a hole to fill in thier lineup.

Its also ironic that they are surprised that a bunch of rednecks think like a bunch of rednecks.

No I don't think that's accurate. Deen's contract renewal was declined due to a lawsuit by a former employee that was in the court system at the time. Whatever that comment was came out in a deposition related to that lawsuit. Again, what the Artist does that might reflect on the Producer is always grounds for termination, or in Deen's case a simple non-renewal.

Sure the Ducknecks can take their "product" (if we can suspend reality long enough to consider what they do any kind of 'product') elsewhere. But they're still going to be subject to the same kind of contract. This is how the business works.

A typical "morals clause" reads thus:
>> f at any time while Artist is rendering or obligated to render on-camera services for the program hereunder, Artist is involved in any situation or occurrence which subjects Artist to public scandal, disrepute, widespread contempt, public ridicule, [or which is widely deemed by members of the general public, to embarrass, offend, insult or denigrate individuals or groups,] or that will tend to shock, insult or offend the community or public morals or decency or prejudice the Producer in general, then Producer shall have the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action it deems appropriate, including but not limited to terminating the production of the program. <<

Or here's a whole similar contract to what the Duckers would have signed. See paragraph 13 on page 15. See also section 8(b) and throughout, which makes it clear the Artist signs away all aspects of their "image", including who else they can(not) work for and what they can't do as long as they represent the illusion the Producer hires them for.

Deen btw, although a different kind of program, would presumably have had a similar clause in her contract.

This is TV, folks. Not reality.

 

[Katzndogz]

PredFan was absolutely right in the OP. Fox did some digging and far from having only two completed episodes as A&E had first claimed, all but ONE episode was complete. Phil is in all of them but one.

Just gotta correct the record. I thought that it was only two episodes and was wrong.

 

[thanatos144]

A&E is a business, is it not? And they make business decisions, do they not? That means based on their bottom line,

As was pointed out in the other thread, a television show is constructing and selling illusions. The actors are hired to create those illusions under a contract, and anything the actor does that may either undermine that illusion or put their channel in a bad light (since a given TV show is inextricably linked with its network) can be grounds for vacating that contract. Which usually includes a 'morals' clause that says just that.

Again, this is basically Paula Deen again. So what?

What happened to Paula is just as bad, or even worse than this, considering she was punted over something she said decades ago.

What A&E did is perfectly legal, and really really stupid and gutless. I have a feeling the duck people will be taking thier show elsewhere, and A&E can feel an nice and tolerant with a hole to fill in thier lineup.

Its also ironic that they are surprised that a bunch of rednecks think like a bunch of rednecks.

No I don't think that's accurate. Deen's contract renewal was declined due to a lawsuit by a former employee that was in the court system at the time. Whatever that comment was came out in a deposition related to that lawsuit. Again, what the Artist does that might reflect on the Producer is always grounds for termination, or in Deen's case a simple non-renewal.

Sure the Ducknecks can take their "product" (if we can suspend reality long enough to consider what they do any kind of 'product') elsewhere. But they're still going to be subject to the same kind of contract. This is how the business works.

A typical "morals clause" reads thus:
>> f at any time while Artist is rendering or obligated to render on-camera services for the program hereunder, Artist is involved in any situation or occurrence which subjects Artist to public scandal, disrepute, widespread contempt, public ridicule, [or which is widely deemed by members of the general public, to embarrass, offend, insult or denigrate individuals or groups,] or that will tend to shock, insult or offend the community or public morals or decency or prejudice the Producer in general, then Producer shall have the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action it deems appropriate, including but not limited to terminating the production of the program. <<

Or here's a whole similar contract to what the Duckers would have signed. See paragraph 13 on page 15. See also section 8(b) and throughout, which makes it clear the Artist signs away all aspects of their "image", including who else they can(not) work for and what they can't do as long as they represent the illusion the Producer hires them for.

Deen btw, although a different kind of program, would presumably have had a similar clause in her contract.

This is TV, folks. Not reality.

Holy s*** your corporatist

tapatalk post

 

[martybegan]

A&E is a business, is it not? And they make business decisions, do they not? That means based on their bottom line,

As was pointed out in the other thread, a television show is constructing and selling illusions. The actors are hired to create those illusions under a contract, and anything the actor does that may either undermine that illusion or put their channel in a bad light (since a given TV show is inextricably linked with its network) can be grounds for vacating that contract. Which usually includes a 'morals' clause that says just that.

Again, this is basically Paula Deen again. So what?

What happened to Paula is just as bad, or even worse than this, considering she was punted over something she said decades ago.

What A&E did is perfectly legal, and really really stupid and gutless. I have a feeling the duck people will be taking thier show elsewhere, and A&E can feel an nice and tolerant with a hole to fill in thier lineup.

Its also ironic that they are surprised that a bunch of rednecks think like a bunch of rednecks.

No I don't think that's accurate. Deen's contract renewal was declined due to a lawsuit by a former employee that was in the court system at the time. Whatever that comment was came out in a deposition related to that lawsuit. Again, what the Artist does that might reflect on the Producer is always grounds for termination, or in Deen's case a simple non-renewal.

Sure the Ducknecks can take their "product" (if we can suspend reality long enough to consider what they do any kind of 'product') elsewhere. But they're still going to be subject to the same kind of contract. This is how the business works.

A typical "morals clause" reads thus:
>> f at any time while Artist is rendering or obligated to render on-camera services for the program hereunder, Artist is involved in any situation or occurrence which subjects Artist to public scandal, disrepute, widespread contempt, public ridicule, [or which is widely deemed by members of the general public, to embarrass, offend, insult or denigrate individuals or groups,] or that will tend to shock, insult or offend the community or public morals or decency or prejudice the Producer in general, then Producer shall have the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action it deems appropriate, including but not limited to terminating the production of the program. <<

Or here's a whole similar contract to what the Duckers would have signed. See paragraph 13 on page 15. See also section 8(b) and throughout, which makes it clear the Artist signs away all aspects of their "image", including who else they can(not) work for and what they can't do as long as they represent the illusion the Producer hires them for.

Deen btw, although a different kind of program, would presumably have had a similar clause in her contract.

This is TV, folks. Not reality.

and again, they have the LEGAL ability to do that, what I am calling them out on is thier actions to proceed with non-renewal/suspending/firing whatever.

There wasnt enough time for real anger to develop over the comments, GLAAD went all butthurt and BOOM he was "suspended." The angst of a few people who cant stand the fact that some people disapprove of thier lifestlye should not be enough to force a company to kowtow to thier wishes.

 

[Papageorgio]

No one hates gays. Repeating your lie isn't going to make it true.

And you complete disrespect to a good and honorable man just shows us how much you hate everything that is good and decent in this world.

leave it to the left wing reactionaries ot try to make this an issue about gays. it's an issue of frre speech and right to your own personal opinion

I'm going by another thread on this, but isn't this about an employer's right to hire and fire and set its own terms of employment?

Free speech? The First Amendment applies to the government, not to a employment contract two parties enter into voluntarily. Nobody's free speech is squelched outside of that contract.

MSNBC, FN and A&E have the right to hire an fire as they wish and then viewers have a right to boycott stations if they wish. Bashir's language about Palin was disgusting, the duck guy, his is just an opinion, no hate, just opinion, Martha Stewart was over nothing, however all three were fired. I wouldn't fire any of them but that is me.

You have a right to an opinion and employers have a right to hire and fire.

I don't really liked or watched any of the shows, however free publicity...can't beat that.

 

[Papageorgio]

What happened to Paula is just as bad, or even worse than this, considering she was punted over something she said decades ago.

What A&E did is perfectly legal, and really really stupid and gutless. I have a feeling the duck people will be taking thier show elsewhere, and A&E can feel an nice and tolerant with a hole to fill in thier lineup.

Its also ironic that they are surprised that a bunch of rednecks think like a bunch of rednecks.

No I don't think that's accurate. Deen's contract renewal was declined due to a lawsuit by a former employee that was in the court system at the time. Whatever that comment was came out in a deposition related to that lawsuit. Again, what the Artist does that might reflect on the Producer is always grounds for termination, or in Deen's case a simple non-renewal.

Sure the Ducknecks can take their "product" (if we can suspend reality long enough to consider what they do any kind of 'product') elsewhere. But they're still going to be subject to the same kind of contract. This is how the business works.

A typical "morals clause" reads thus:
>> f at any time while Artist is rendering or obligated to render on-camera services for the program hereunder, Artist is involved in any situation or occurrence which subjects Artist to public scandal, disrepute, widespread contempt, public ridicule, [or which is widely deemed by members of the general public, to embarrass, offend, insult or denigrate individuals or groups,] or that will tend to shock, insult or offend the community or public morals or decency or prejudice the Producer in general, then Producer shall have the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action it deems appropriate, including but not limited to terminating the production of the program. <<

Or here's a whole similar contract to what the Duckers would have signed. See paragraph 13 on page 15. See also section 8(b) and throughout, which makes it clear the Artist signs away all aspects of their "image", including who else they can(not) work for and what they can't do as long as they represent the illusion the Producer hires them for.

Deen btw, although a different kind of program, would presumably have had a similar clause in her contract.

This is TV, folks. Not reality.

and again, they have the LEGAL ability to do that, what I am calling them out on is thier actions to proceed with non-renewal/suspending/firing whatever.

There wasnt enough time for real anger to develop over the comments, GLAAD went all butthurt and BOOM he was "suspended." The angst of a few people who cant stand the fact that some people disapprove of thier lifestlye should not be enough to force a company to kowtow to thier wishes.

It shouldn't but it does and that is why celebs need to be smarter about what they say and who they say it to. You know damn well the guy interviewing them asked the questions to sell a magazines and anyone with a brain knew the response would garner controversy. The duck guy doesn't hate, he has an opinion, people that disagree with his opinion are showing hate.

 

[Pogo]

What happened to Paula is just as bad, or even worse than this, considering she was punted over something she said decades ago.

What A&E did is perfectly legal, and really really stupid and gutless. I have a feeling the duck people will be taking thier show elsewhere, and A&E can feel an nice and tolerant with a hole to fill in thier lineup.

Its also ironic that they are surprised that a bunch of rednecks think like a bunch of rednecks.

No I don't think that's accurate. Deen's contract renewal was declined due to a lawsuit by a former employee that was in the court system at the time. Whatever that comment was came out in a deposition related to that lawsuit. Again, what the Artist does that might reflect on the Producer is always grounds for termination, or in Deen's case a simple non-renewal.

Sure the Ducknecks can take their "product" (if we can suspend reality long enough to consider what they do any kind of 'product') elsewhere. But they're still going to be subject to the same kind of contract. This is how the business works.

A typical "morals clause" reads thus:
>> f at any time while Artist is rendering or obligated to render on-camera services for the program hereunder, Artist is involved in any situation or occurrence which subjects Artist to public scandal, disrepute, widespread contempt, public ridicule, [or which is widely deemed by members of the general public, to embarrass, offend, insult or denigrate individuals or groups,] or that will tend to shock, insult or offend the community or public morals or decency or prejudice the Producer in general, then Producer shall have the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action it deems appropriate, including but not limited to terminating the production of the program. <<

Or here's a whole similar contract to what the Duckers would have signed. See paragraph 13 on page 15. See also section 8(b) and throughout, which makes it clear the Artist signs away all aspects of their "image", including who else they can(not) work for and what they can't do as long as they represent the illusion the Producer hires them for.

Deen btw, although a different kind of program, would presumably have had a similar clause in her contract.

This is TV, folks. Not reality.

Holy s*** your corporatist

tapatalk post

Uh yeah. That's what everybody who's seen my posting calls me -- "corporatist"

 

[Againsheila]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fk5VmM4pRhM

So, IMO A&E should have known who and what they signed up.

More at the link.

Duck Dynasty star Phil Robertson appears to verbally attack gay people in newly emerged video - NY Daily News

I've heard the first few minutes, but I doubt that I can stick it out for the long haul. I have a tough time with his mindset.

I was more offended at how boring he was...didn't stick around long enough to get to the homophobic part if there was any there.

I couldn't get past (It's 2010 AD). Still, I support his right to give whatever speech he wants.

 

[Againsheila]

yes, but it still doesnt make the basic gutlessness A&E and other media outlets show when squawked at by pressure groups right.

The only outrage here is on the part of GLAAD and thier media fellow travellers.

A&E is a business, is it not? And they make business decisions, do they not? That means based on their bottom line,

As was pointed out in the other thread, a television show is constructing and selling illusions. The actors are hired to create those illusions under a contract, and anything the actor does that may either undermine that illusion or put their channel in a bad light (since a given TV show is inextricably linked with its network) can be grounds for vacating that contract. Which usually includes a 'morals' clause that says just that.

Again, this is basically Paula Deen again. So what?

What happened to Paula is just as bad, or even worse than this, considering she was punted over something she said decades ago.

What A&E did is perfectly legal, and really really stupid and gutless. I have a feeling the duck people will be taking thier show elsewhere, and A&E can feel an nice and tolerant with a hole to fill in thier lineup.

Its also ironic that they are surprised that a bunch of rednecks think like a bunch of rednecks.

That's what gets me. This is a 67 year old guy from backwoods Louisiana. What do you think he thinks? If you don't want to know, don't ask.

 

[asaratis]

A&E is a business, is it not? And they make business decisions, do they not? That means based on their bottom line,

As was pointed out in the other thread, a television show is constructing and selling illusions. The actors are hired to create those illusions under a contract, and anything the actor does that may either undermine that illusion or put their channel in a bad light (since a given TV show is inextricably linked with its network) can be grounds for vacating that contract. Which usually includes a 'morals' clause that says just that.

Again, this is basically Paula Deen again. So what?

What happened to Paula is just as bad, or even worse than this, considering she was punted over something she said decades ago.

What A&E did is perfectly legal, and really really stupid and gutless. I have a feeling the duck people will be taking thier show elsewhere, and A&E can feel an nice and tolerant with a hole to fill in thier lineup.

Its also ironic that they are surprised that a bunch of rednecks think like a bunch of rednecks.

That's what gets me. This is a 67 year old guy from backwoods Louisiana. What do you think he thinks? If you don't want to know, don't ask.

Oh shut up. Phil was the first string quarterback at college with Terry Bradshaw at second string. Had Phil not liked duck hunting more than football, Terry Bradshaw might never have become famous. Just because someone lives outside the city and talks with a drawl doesn't mean they're any dumber than you about religion.

 

[Againsheila]

What happened to Paula is just as bad, or even worse than this, considering she was punted over something she said decades ago.

What A&E did is perfectly legal, and really really stupid and gutless. I have a feeling the duck people will be taking thier show elsewhere, and A&E can feel an nice and tolerant with a hole to fill in thier lineup.

Its also ironic that they are surprised that a bunch of rednecks think like a bunch of rednecks.

That's what gets me. This is a 67 year old guy from backwoods Louisiana. What do you think he thinks? If you don't want to know, don't ask.

Oh shut up. Phil was the first string quarterback at college with Terry Bradshaw at second string. Had Phil not liked duck hunting more than football, Terry Bradshaw might never have become famous. Just because someone lives outside the city and talks with a drawl doesn't mean they're any dumber than you about religion.

Never said he was dumb. Is it "backwoods" that you associate with the word dumb, or "Louisiana?"

 

[martybegan]

No I don't think that's accurate. Deen's contract renewal was declined due to a lawsuit by a former employee that was in the court system at the time. Whatever that comment was came out in a deposition related to that lawsuit. Again, what the Artist does that might reflect on the Producer is always grounds for termination, or in Deen's case a simple non-renewal.

Sure the Ducknecks can take their "product" (if we can suspend reality long enough to consider what they do any kind of 'product') elsewhere. But they're still going to be subject to the same kind of contract. This is how the business works.

A typical "morals clause" reads thus:
>> f at any time while Artist is rendering or obligated to render on-camera services for the program hereunder, Artist is involved in any situation or occurrence which subjects Artist to public scandal, disrepute, widespread contempt, public ridicule, [or which is widely deemed by members of the general public, to embarrass, offend, insult or denigrate individuals or groups,] or that will tend to shock, insult or offend the community or public morals or decency or prejudice the Producer in general, then Producer shall have the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action it deems appropriate, including but not limited to terminating the production of the program. <<

Or here's a whole similar contract to what the Duckers would have signed. See paragraph 13 on page 15. See also section 8(b) and throughout, which makes it clear the Artist signs away all aspects of their "image", including who else they can(not) work for and what they can't do as long as they represent the illusion the Producer hires them for.

Deen btw, although a different kind of program, would presumably have had a similar clause in her contract.

This is TV, folks. Not reality.

and again, they have the LEGAL ability to do that, what I am calling them out on is thier actions to proceed with non-renewal/suspending/firing whatever.

There wasnt enough time for real anger to develop over the comments, GLAAD went all butthurt and BOOM he was "suspended." The angst of a few people who cant stand the fact that some people disapprove of thier lifestlye should not be enough to force a company to kowtow to thier wishes.

It shouldn't but it does and that is why celebs need to be smarter about what they say and who they say it to. You know damn well the guy interviewing them asked the questions to sell a magazines and anyone with a brain knew the response would garner controversy. The duck guy doesn't hate, he has an opinion, people that disagree with his opinion are showing hate.

Protected classes can't show hate, don't you know that????

/sarcasm.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

He said something in a tasteless manner his boss didnt like. He got fired. Case closed. This is a free country but actions and words are not immune to a reaction.

I'm anti gay but if I had an employee that made VERY PUBLIC statements like this I would fire him and be within my right to do so.

If you don't like it write A&E or stop watching it. And for the record I've never seen this show so I have no opinion either way.

 

[martybegan]

leave it to the left wing reactionaries ot try to make this an issue about gays. it's an issue of frre speech and right to your own personal opinion

I'm going by another thread on this, but isn't this about an employer's right to hire and fire and set its own terms of employment?

Free speech? The First Amendment applies to the government, not to a employment contract two parties enter into voluntarily. Nobody's free speech is squelched outside of that contract.

MSNBC, FN and A&E have the right to hire an fire as they wish and then viewers have a right to boycott stations if they wish. Bashir's language about Palin was disgusting, the duck guy, his is just an opinion, no hate, just opinion, Martha Stewart was over nothing, however all three were fired. I wouldn't fire any of them but that is me.

You have a right to an opinion and employers have a right to hire and fire.

I don't really liked or watched any of the shows, however free publicity...can't beat that.

Unless you are part of a protected class, then the employer has to go through hoops to get you canned without being sued for discrimination.