Freedom of Religious Opinion? Not If You're Phil Robertson

[LoneLaugher]

Yeah. I've lost jobs opening my big mouth also. No biggie.

Actually, you've never lost your job for stating your religious opinions. Big difference there, mister.

On the job, your employer can fire you for running your mouth.

Off the job?

Big lawsuit coming. REAL big.

Love to be an Attorney and land that one. A first year law student could win that case.

Roll over and spread your legs, A&E. You're about to find out what a butt-******* is like

You are brilliant.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Who is stopping him from expressing his point of view. What you don't get and others like you is that there maybe consequences.

and we have decided that such consequences should extend to the Left.

Copy of an e-mail I just sent to cnn.com I hope everyone will feel free to use it as a template.

>'Duck Dynasty' Drama: Battle Lines Drawn Over Phil Robertson Suspension | Yahoo TV - Yahoo TV

Between Piers Morgan's views on the 2nd Amendment and his hateful comments about the P. Robertson, I am DONE with your network. Since it has become vogue to wage "war" when speech is heard that people don't approve of, I have decided that I will watch tonight, so I can ensure I've gotten a comprehensive list of your sponsors, and then will be informing them that I won't buy their products as long as they advertise on your network and will send such notifications out once a week until Morgan is no longer a part of your programming. <

And of course the idiot collossass Piers Morgan chimes in with this:

Just as the 2nd Amendment shouldn't protect assault rifle devotees, so the 1st Amendment shouldn't protect vile bigots

What a moron...

 

[theDoctorisIn]

I don't support A&E's suspension of Phil Robertson.

But pretending it's a Constitutional issue is pretty dumb. I don't see any mention of private companies in the First Amendment.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

When Congress passes a law that "suspends" Phil Robertson, then you'd have a First Amendment issue. Otherwise, not so much.

 

[bodecea]

Old news, hon. Two threads are already going on about this.

Just two?

 

[bodecea]

It is a business issue, employer and employee, not a 1st Amendment issue.

That's a fact.

Ever heard of wrongful termination?

I bet A&E will be hearing about it real soon.

I'm thinking in the $100 Million range.

And they WILL lose. Count on it.

You don't think that there was a contract between the Robertsons and A&E that stated that the Robertsons were not to say or do anything that was detrimental to the network?

 

[bodecea]

Yeah. I've lost jobs opening my big mouth also. No biggie.

Actually, you've never lost your job for stating your religious opinions. Big difference there, mister.

On the job, your employer can fire you for running your mouth.

Off the job?

Big lawsuit coming. REAL big.

Love to be an Attorney and land that one. A first year law student could win that case.

Roll over and spread your legs, A&E. You're about to find out what a butt-******* is like

Wanna bet?

 

[bodecea]

On the job, your employer can fire you for running your mouth.

Off the job?

Big lawsuit coming. REAL big.

Love to be an Attorney and land that one. A first year law student could win that case.

Roll over and spread your legs, A&E. You're about to find out what a butt-******* is like

So you think you know this without reading his contract with A&E?

Anything that breaches his right to free speech and religion is unconstitutional.

When was he arrested?

 

[NYcarbineer]

I know some of you watch Duck Dynasty and probably heard that Phil Robertson was suspended by A&E for his opinion on homosexuality. He had the gall to quote 1 Corinthians 6:9 and express himself openly about his opposition to gay marriage. Groups like GLAAD came out in support of the suspension. Don't you find it odd that people like Martin Bashir get a pass for their intolerance toward conservative women, but people like Phil Robertson are being targeted for their beliefs?

Should TV Networks silence religious speech for the political sensibilities of others? As most of you were aware, Chick-Fil-A came under similar scrutiny by gay rights organizations for its views on homosexuality last year. The response from the public was overwhelming, as the restaurant experienced booming profits from the ordeal. Suffice it to say, ratings for the show may experience similar results.

Should Phil Robertson be suspended for his comments in GQ? Or should he be allowed to express himself as he is allowed to by the the First Amendment? My personal opinion here is that no TV network should be allowed to censor a man for expressing his religious beliefs.

There have been many instances of people or businesses being targeted for their religious beliefs, all for being "intolerant." Isn't it strange that you can be allowed to be homosexual, but not a person of faith? The real intolerance here, is of those who cannot accept that others aren't forced to tolerate their way of life or their practices. If you are any freedom loving American; Democrat, Republican or Libertarian, you should be disturbed by this recent turn of events.

Your argument falls short.

Martin Bashir might disagree.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The only disgrace in all of this is that A & E still has the word 'arts' in its title.

 

[RandallFlagg]

I don't support A&E's suspension of Phil Robertson.

But pretending it's a Constitutional issue is pretty dumb. I don't see any mention of private companies in the First Amendment.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

When Congress passes a law that "suspends" Phil Robertson, then you'd have a First Amendment issue. Otherwise, not so much.

I don't necessarily see the "Free Speech" issue either; However, we tolerate Miley Cyrus and her "antics" in the name of free speech yet, when a person of faith expresses their beliefs - it suddenly is the end of the world (at least to butt burglars) and considered "offensive".


Personally, I'll take what Phil Robertson said any day of the week (primarily because I agree with the man) over the twerking, semi-pornographic stylings of a child such as Miley Cyrus. If, in the mind of the butt burglars, what Robertson said is "atrocious" then seeing that 18 year old ***** undulate and gyrate on national television is a national disgrace.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

On the job, your employer can fire you for running your mouth.

Off the job?

Big lawsuit coming. REAL big.

Love to be an Attorney and land that one. A first year law student could win that case.

Roll over and spread your legs, A&E. You're about to find out what a butt-******* is like

So you think you know this without reading his contract with A&E?

Anything that breaches his right to free speech and religion is unconstitutional.

Only if the government is doing it. This isn't complicated.

For example, it's not a First Amendment violation to ban people from this message board for things they post.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

I don't support A&E's suspension of Phil Robertson.

But pretending it's a Constitutional issue is pretty dumb. I don't see any mention of private companies in the First Amendment.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

When Congress passes a law that "suspends" Phil Robertson, then you'd have a First Amendment issue. Otherwise, not so much.

I don't necessarily see the "Free Speech" issue either; However, we tolerate Miley Cyrus and her "antics" in the name of free speech yet, when a person of faith expresses their beliefs - it suddenly is the end of the world (at least to butt burglars) and considered "offensive".


Personally, I'll take what Phil Robertson said any day of the week (primarily because I agree with the man) over the twerking, semi-pornographic stylings of a child such as Miley Cyrus. If, in the mind of the butt burglars, what Robertson said is "atrocious" then seeing that 18 year old ***** undulate and gyrate on national television is a national disgrace.

No one is stopping you from organizing a boycott of Miley Cyrus.

 

[Gracie]

I just read this in one of the commentaries...thought I would spread it along:

I would like to remind everyone, the "Duck Dynasty" store is run and owned by A&E. If you are going to buy Robertson family merchandise, please make sure you buy it from Duck Commander so that A&E does not get a cut.

 

[edthecynic]

I know some of you watch Duck Dynasty and probably heard that Phil Robertson was suspended by A&E for his opinion on homosexuality. He had the gall to quote 1 Corinthians 6:9 and express himself openly about his opposition to gay marriage. Groups like GLAAD came out in support of the suspension. Don't you find it odd that people like Martin Bashir get a pass for their intolerance toward conservative women, but people like Phil Robertson are being targeted for their beliefs?

Should TV Networks silence religious speech for the political sensibilities of others? As most of you were aware, Chick-Fil-A came under similar scrutiny by gay rights organizations for its views on homosexuality last year. The response from the public was overwhelming, as the restaurant experienced booming profits from the ordeal. Suffice it to say, ratings for the show may experience similar results.

Should Phil Robertson be suspended for his comments in GQ? Or should he be allowed to express himself as he is allowed to by the the First Amendment? My personal opinion here is that no TV network should be allowed to censor a man for expressing his religious beliefs.

There have been many instances of people or businesses being targeted for their religious beliefs, all for being "intolerant." Isn't it strange that you can be allowed to be homosexual, but not a person of faith? The real intolerance here, is of those who cannot accept that others aren't forced to tolerate their way of life or their practices. If you are any freedom loving American; Democrat, Republican or Libertarian, you should be disturbed by this recent turn of events.

Bigots should be allowed to spew all the biblical hate it takes to make themselves feel superior to others. By the same token, a private business should also be allowed to decide how they want to be represented. And finally offended groups should be allowed to voice their objections also.

Can't we all just get along?

 

[JakeStarkey]

The Duck has no grounds for action against A&E: quite the opposite.

 

[Luissa]

I know some of you watch Duck Dynasty and probably heard that Phil Robertson was suspended by A&E for his opinion on homosexuality. He had the gall to quote 1 Corinthians 6:9 and express himself openly about his opposition to gay marriage. Groups like GLAAD came out in support of the suspension. Don't you find it odd that people like Martin Bashir get a pass for their intolerance toward conservative women, but people like Phil Robertson are being targeted for their beliefs?

Should TV Networks silence religious speech for the political sensibilities of others? As most of you were aware, Chick-Fil-A came under similar scrutiny by gay rights organizations for its views on homosexuality last year. The response from the public was overwhelming, as the restaurant experienced booming profits from the ordeal. Suffice it to say, ratings for the show may experience similar results.

Should Phil Robertson be suspended for his comments in GQ? Or should he be allowed to express himself as he is allowed to by the the First Amendment? My personal opinion here is that no TV network should be allowed to censor a man for expressing his religious beliefs.

There have been many instances of people or businesses being targeted for their religious beliefs, all for being "intolerant." Isn't it strange that you can be allowed to be homosexual, but not a person of faith? The real intolerance here, is of those who cannot accept that others aren't forced to tolerate their way of life or their practices. If you are any freedom loving American; Democrat, Republican or Libertarian, you should be disturbed by this recent turn of events.

The part you and others don't understand. He has the right to voice his opinion and A&E has the right to fire him.
Plus my biggest problem was with what he said about African Americans living under Jim Crow.
The first Amendment protects him from the government infringing on his rights, not him keeping his job.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Luissa]

So you think you know this without reading his contract with A&E?

Anything that breaches his right to free speech and religion is unconstitutional.

Only if the government is doing it. This isn't complicated.



For example, it's not a First Amendment violation to ban people from this message board for things they post.

Shhhh! Don't make sense.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Plasmaball]

Have to love selective outrage.

 

[Gadawg73]

Enough with ducks, camo and ZZ Top wannabe beards already.
This dude has 80 million dollars in the bank that his employer paid him to be on their show.
If your employer tells you to shut the **** up you shut the **** up if you want to make more tens of millions.

And that is exactly what he is doing. A real man would have told A & E to kiss his ass.

 

[deltex1]

The fags and the neeeeegroes are well represented...who will speak for us drunkards?????