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

[TemplarKormac]

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.

Your lack of rebuttal is glaring.

 

[LoneLaugher]

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.

Your lack of rebuttal is glaring.

Is it really needed? Others have explained it to you completely in this thread. Why waste the bandwidth?

 

[Freewill]

Here is my hope, the family walks off the job. Their show has to be the biggest hit for A&E, ever.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Your argument falls short.

Your lack of rebuttal is glaring.

Is it really needed? Others have explained it to you completely in this thread. Why waste the bandwidth?

Why? Because you made the assertion, LL, so therefore the burden of proof lies with you. Laziness is unacceptable.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Your lack of rebuttal is glaring.

Is it really needed? Others have explained it to you completely in this thread. Why waste the bandwidth?

Why? Because you made the assertion, LL, so therefore the burden of proof lies with you. Laziness is unacceptable.

Say what?

 

[JakeStarkey]

The burdens have been met.

This is a business dispute (contract), and A&E's right as an employer supercedes an employee's right to make it look "bad" publicly.

 

[Sunshine]

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.

But people ARE being forced to tolerate it. This is a case in point. You will tolerate it or you will lose your livelihood.

 

[Sunshine]

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.

I don't watch DD, but this little tempest has caught my interest. I'm not sure what he said and perhaps I should look it up. If he targeted a particular person, he likely has no chance of winning anything. However, if he just stated an opinion or that this is what his religious persuasion believes, he may have some chance. But you must bear in mind what has taken over our media before you bet the rent in either direction.

 

[Sunshine]

I like the way that the Christians treated Joseph Smith for stating his religious views. It cost him his life.

So you are cool with the massacres he perpetrated.

 

[Wacky Quacky]

The burdens have been met.

This is a business dispute (contract), and A&E's right as an employer supercedes an employee's right to make it look "bad" publicly.

I wish more people would understand this point.

This isn't the gay and lesbian community vs Phil. Or the government vs Phil. Or the constitution vs Phil. This is solely between Phil and A&E.

 

[Freewill]

A&E can do whatever they want within contractual agreements. Did this hurt them, not in the least. Regardless of what some people would have us believe most people don't give a crap if you are gay or what Phil thinks of gays.

So as A&E has the right to suspend Phil we the people who are in the vast majority have the right to call A&E and to boycott A&E for their stupid political correctness. Hell the liberal left said NOTHING when Letterman smeared Palin's daughter for no damn reason, they said NOTHING and letterman suffered NOTHING.

 

[Sunshine]

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

Have you read his contract?

You can't limit a person's Constitutional Rights by contract. Can't do it.

If you work for me and part of the contract says I can fire you for going to a certain Church, guess what?

The whole contract is shit. Unenforceable.

If I work for you and you put a clause in the contract that says you can shoot me with a gun if I break Company rules and you do it... Guess what?

You're going to prison for the rest of your life.

Contracts are only as enforceable as the law allows. And the law doesn't allow for limiting a person's freedom of religion and freedom of speech OFF the job.

Well, actually you can. If someone signs away a right then they no longer have that right. Example, if you buy house in a neighborhood that has a covenant that runs with the land, or the homeowner's association does not allow flags, then you are not free to express yourself by flying a flag, even if it is the American flag. That one has been tested in court.

You can sign away any right you have, even the right to an attorney if you are accused of a crime. And the police will try to get you to do just that.

 

[Plasmaball]

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.

I don't watch DD, but this little tempest has caught my interest. I'm not sure what he said and perhaps I should look it up. If he targeted a particular person, he likely has no chance of winning anything. However, if he just stated an opinion or that this is what his religious persuasion believes, he may have some chance. But you must bear in mind what has taken over our media before you bet the rent in either direction.

So you dont know therefore you give an opinion...ok...you are stupid.

 

[bodecea]

I like the way that the Christians treated Joseph Smith for stating his religious views. It cost him his life.

So you are cool with the massacres he perpetrated.

What massacres?

 

[Sunshine]

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.

That is only partly correct. Posting on this forum is a matter of contract. Before someone posts, they agree to abide by the rules.

But any business that is open to the public is governed by 'public policy.' That means you cannot discriminate based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. And even a forum would have a problem with that. However, a person CAN sign away his right to many things including his freedom of expression.

 

[LoneLaugher]

A&E can do whatever they want within contractual agreements. Did this hurt them, not in the least. Regardless of what the fudge packer's union would have us believe most people don't give a crap if you are gay or what Phil thinks of gays.

So as A&E has the right to suspend Phil we the people who are in the vast majority have the right to call A&E and to boycott A&E for their stupid political correctness. Hell the liberal left said NOTHING when Letterman smeared Palin's daughter for no damn reason, they said NOTHING and letterman suffered NOTHING.

Wa....wa....wa....WaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaH!

 

[Sunshine]

One thing I learned in law school is that juries are crazy. They are also stupid. I would not want my life in the hands of 12 people who were too stupid to get out of jury duty.

 

[Pheonixops]

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.

LOL, too funny! I don't watch Duck Dynasty; I disagree with his statement regarding the sentiments of the Black people he allegedly dealt with, and I disagree with his sentiments regarding homosexuality. I also disagree with his suspension from the show.

Martin Bashir was pretty much forced to resign from his show because of the remarks he made, I disagree with their decision as well. A&E is not a government entity, they are a privately owned business as far as I know and if they don't like his statements, it is their right to be able to do what they are doing now. Aren't supportive of business? Do you not think that a private entity should be able to suspend or fire a person who represents them if they don't like what they are representing?

Aren't you in favor of people and groups like GLAAD being able to use their First Amendment rights to speak out against what Robertson said? I'm pretty sure that you may have been in favor of some of the conservatives speaking out against Bashir and what he said, right?

 

[LoneLaugher]

One thing I learned in law school is that juries are crazy. They are also stupid. I would not want my life in the hands of 12 people who were too stupid to get out of jury duty.

You learned that in law school, huh?

 

[Darkwind]

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-fucking 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.

Has his being fired from this network forced him to be silent or caused him to stop worshiping his religion?

No one has a right to a job, and this network can determine its own reputation.

I think they could as easily just put out a statement that this persons views are his and do not reflect the network's. They could then have kept a popular show and saved some face.

Now they will end up paying a price for a poor business choice.