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

[Gadawg73]

I doubt Robertson's a SAG member as a castmember of a TV show which is a finite term. Most likely an IC. SAG would only pertain to fulltime employees of A&E.

Wrong, my daughter is a SAG member and has been in numerous TV shows and the movie The Blind Side.
And she has never been a full time employee of any TV show.
Even if he is not a SAG member the contracts are all the same the networks use. We see them all the time. All the same form contract they all use.

What do you mean 'wrong'? You just affirmed what I said.

You stated SAG would only pertain to full time people.
And that is false.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

I was just thinking of this this morning...we're expected to be tolerant and SUPPORTIVE of depraved behavior that we teach our children to say no to...yet they think that people should be locked up, or at least chased back into their houses, if they dare to utter anything faith based.

We're supposed to fund abortions, and wait patiently in our cars for gay parades to pass....but how DARE we think we have the right to openly adhere to our faith or..horrors...actually share scripture.

You're not dealing with rational people, KG.

We're talking liberals.... And I'm serious when I call them the scum of the Earth.

They really are. Stupid, incapable of independent thought (you don't really think they're voicing they're own opinions, do you?), stubborn, backward, over-educated imbeciles (I'm talking about a person with a double-digit IQ and a four year BA)...

Just libturds. They're sick *****.

NONE of this shit was necessary. None of it.

All A&E had to do was put out a Statement that read something like:

"While we disagree vehemently with Mr Robertson's words and feelings, we recognize his right to believe how he wishes. A&E will continue to support gay butt-sex fags and lezbo carpet munching dykes. And cross-dressing weirdos and perverts and child molesting pedophiles. Mostly because that's what makes up the majority of Hollywood"

That's all they had to do. But nope, they decided to act tough.

And I think they get their heads ripped off in this mess.

Be interesting to read up on the "Powers That Be" inside A&E.

I doubt you'd be surprised at what you find

How's that search for A&E's legal basis to sue going there, Jimmy Olsen?
Or are you just "stupid, incapable of independent thought"?

Still waiting...

He doesn't have the time. None of them do.

They're still trying to show that DD fart had his First Amendment rights denied.

 

[KevinWestern]

[MENTION=36318]Edgetho[/MENTION] - are you aware of something called the "Morality Clause"? Goes like this...

MORALITY CLAUSE FOR FILMS - Universal Will Cancel Engagements of Actors Who Forfeit Respect. - Article - NYTimes.com

How many times I gotta tell you stupid fuckers this....?

Contracts DO NOT trump the law.

You CAN NOT change the law by Contract.

God DAMN but you people are ******* stupid.

The question is..... Can A&E show that what Phil Robertson said was NOT protected speech.

I don't think they'll test it.

I predict A&E will be forced, by the rest of the DISGUSTING FILTH in the LSM, to fold or make such an incredible deal that this thing never goes to Court.

Can you imagine what would come out in 'discovery'?

Wow! the DISGUSTING FILTH in the LSM is scared shitless of a case like this making the rounds in the Court system.

Phil is not going to win the case. And he shouldn't.

Companies aught to have the right to fire a public spokesperson who draws unnecessary and negative attention to the company or brand that hires him/her. It's not about religion, it's about controversy. Companies (generally) DON'T WANT CONTROVERSY because it's unpredictable and bad for business.

How the **** is a company supposed to protect itself from such a large investment?

 

[Iceman]

How is wanting to protect your property rights PC?
That is what this is all about, the image that A & E wants to have is one of inclusion.
That is their right to protect their investment and has nothing to do with PC crowd.
If it is politically correct to give gays and lesbians the respect they deserve then so be it.

Phil Robertson doesn't threaten the property rights of A&E. That is a foolish thing to say.

What is PC is caving to insensitive homosexuals who don't care about the show, and never watched the show. They merely want to enforce conformity of thought.

I don't think the left will get what they want in this regard. Their show will continue to make money through merchandise and probably get a new tv deal. The left has been terrible at boycotts recently. I think their effort to enforce conformity of thought will fail.

A & E believed he did. Ratings going down is what this is all about.
The show is their property and they have a right to punish any employee they want that the believe lowers their ratings and/or image.
Hate to tell you this but a smart business owner does not want folks that they employ badmouthing gay folk.
Gay folk are customers. That is what this is all about. Customers buy the products the advertisers sell on Duck Dynasty. A & E charges millions to run an ad on their show.
A & E owns the rights to Duck Dynasty. They call the shots.

No they didn't. Loss prevention(though it is very debatable that continuing the show would have lost them money, knowing failed attempts by the left and gay lobby in the past, they would have increased their profits sticking with them) and social pressure from a lobby do not equate to a loss of property rights. I don't think you understand what property rights mean.

No one is saying they don't have the right to fire them, I don't think you understand the criticism. People are criticizing an agitating and pernicious minority and their effect of creating an heightened level of political correctness in the mainstream culture.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

[MENTION=36318]Edgetho[/MENTION] - are you aware of something called the "Morality Clause"? Goes like this...

MORALITY CLAUSE FOR FILMS - Universal Will Cancel Engagements of Actors Who Forfeit Respect. - Article - NYTimes.com

How many times I gotta tell you stupid fuckers this....?

Contracts DO NOT trump the law.

You CAN NOT change the law by Contract.

God DAMN but you people are ******* stupid.

The question is..... Can A&E show that what Phil Robertson said was NOT protected speech.

I don't think they'll test it.

I predict A&E will be forced, by the rest of the DISGUSTING FILTH in the LSM, to fold or make such an incredible deal that this thing never goes to Court.

Can you imagine what would come out in 'discovery'?

Wow! the DISGUSTING FILTH in the LSM is scared shitless of a case like this making the rounds in the Court system.

EXACTLY how is it protected?

You'll spout the same garbage because you still do not understand what the First Amendment says and what it means.

 

[Gadawg73]

[MENTION=36318]Edgetho[/MENTION] - are you aware of something called the "Morality Clause"? Goes like this...

MORALITY CLAUSE FOR FILMS - Universal Will Cancel Engagements of Actors Who Forfeit Respect. - Article - NYTimes.com

How many times I gotta tell you stupid fuckers this....?

Contracts DO NOT trump the law.

You CAN NOT change the law by Contract.

God DAMN but you people are ******* stupid.

The question is..... Can A&E show that what Phil Robertson said was NOT protected speech.

I don't think they'll test it.

I predict A&E will be forced, by the rest of the DISGUSTING FILTH in the LSM, to fold or make such an incredible deal that this thing never goes to Court.

Can you imagine what would come out in 'discovery'?

Wow! the DISGUSTING FILTH in the LSM is scared shitless of a case like this making the rounds in the Court system.

First you have to explain HOW the law APPLIES.
And you can't because it doesn't.
And ypu call us stupid.
Sorry Moe, you lose. The law is very clear as the law clearly states that religious free speech is ONLY protected against the government attempting to limit it.
Not employers.
Get over it. Something about The Constitution.
An interesting document I suggest you try reading.

 

[Edgetho]

Wrong, my daughter is a SAG member and has been in numerous TV shows and the movie The Blind Side.
And she has never been a full time employee of any TV show.
Even if he is not a SAG member the contracts are all the same the networks use. We see them all the time. All the same form contract they all use.

What do you mean 'wrong'? You just affirmed what I said.

You stated SAG would only pertain to full time people.
And that is false.

And you are right. That is completely false. Absolutely and irrevocably false.

 

[Pogo]

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.

Damnit, Templar I thought you were better than this.

Would you protest Hobby Lobby firing a Public Relations executive after he/she came out as a Satanist and made a bunch of comments in a national magazine on how he/she supports free and wild sex with multiple partners and denounces God and every Christian who has ever walked this planet?

I would totally support the firing. As a PR exec that person is the public face of the company and if he/she is openly denouncing what the company stands for than I think that's more than enough valid reason to can his/her ass. Don't you?

TK has since abandoned his position as erroneous.
You might say he's the "whom" in the phrase "whom said"

Yet the thread goes on. Bizarre.

 

[KevinWestern]

Phil Robertson doesn't threaten the property rights of A&E. That is a foolish thing to say.

What is PC is caving to insensitive homosexuals who don't care about the show, and never watched the show. They merely want to enforce conformity of thought.

I don't think the left will get what they want in this regard. Their show will continue to make money through merchandise and probably get a new tv deal. The left has been terrible at boycotts recently. I think their effort to enforce conformity of thought will fail.

A & E believed he did. Ratings going down is what this is all about.
The show is their property and they have a right to punish any employee they want that the believe lowers their ratings and/or image.
Hate to tell you this but a smart business owner does not want folks that they employ badmouthing gay folk.
Gay folk are customers. That is what this is all about. Customers buy the products the advertisers sell on Duck Dynasty. A & E charges millions to run an ad on their show.
A & E owns the rights to Duck Dynasty. They call the shots.

No they didn't. Loss prevention(though it is very debatable that continuing the show would have lost them money, knowing failed attempts by the left and gay lobby in the past, they would have increased their profits sticking with them) and social pressure from a lobby do not equate to a loss of property rights. I don't think you understand what property rights mean.

No one is saying they don't have the right to fire them, I don't think you understand the criticism. People are criticizing an agitating and pernicious minority and their effect of creating an heightened level of political correctness in the mainstream culture.

Iceman, I disgree with your last statement. Most of the people here (like Edge) are arguing it is in fact illegal for A&E to fire a public figure they hired who is drumming up unwanted controversy stating that it is his Constitutional right to do or say anything he pleases no matter how damaging that might be to the company.

I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with Phil comments, I'm just saying the company has the right to fire him if they want.

 

[Katzndogz]

[MENTION=36318]Edgetho[/MENTION] - are you aware of something called the "Morality Clause"? Goes like this...

MORALITY CLAUSE FOR FILMS - Universal Will Cancel Engagements of Actors Who Forfeit Respect. - Article - NYTimes.com

It has no effect on Phil Robertson who doesn't need the money or the show. Also, if you read the clause carefully it references loses the respect of the public. What of someone who GAINS the respect of the public like Phil Robertson has done.

This particular morality clause does not exactly support your point.

If A&E has a right to fire him for unwanted publicity, and they do. Does the family not also have a right to quit if the network is getting them unwanted publicity or portraying them in an unfavorable light?

Of course they do.

 

[Pogo]

[MENTION=36318]Edgetho[/MENTION] - are you aware of something called the "Morality Clause"? Goes like this...

MORALITY CLAUSE FOR FILMS - Universal Will Cancel Engagements of Actors Who Forfeit Respect. - Article - NYTimes.com

How many times I gotta tell you stupid fuckers this....?

Contracts DO NOT trump the law.

You CAN NOT change the law by Contract.

God DAMN but you people are ******* stupid.

The question is..... Can A&E show that what Phil Robertson said was NOT protected speech.

I don't think they'll test it.

I predict A&E will be forced, by the rest of the DISGUSTING FILTH in the LSM, to fold or make such an incredible deal that this thing never goes to Court.

Can you imagine what would come out in 'discovery'?

Wow! the DISGUSTING FILTH in the LSM is scared shitless of a case like this making the rounds in the Court system.

Phil is not going to win the case. And he shouldn't.

Companies aught to have the right to fire a public spokesperson who draws unnecessary and negative attention to the company or brand that hires him/her. It's not about religion, it's about controversy. Companies (generally) DON'T WANT CONTROVERSY because it's unpredictable and bad for business.

How the **** is a company supposed to protect itself from such a large investment?

Exactly. There IS no case to win or lose. A&E or any production company sells an illusion. That's what TV is made of. Since they invest in that illusion, they also protect it. That's what the morality clause is for. Anything that threatens that illusion, they retain the right to address any way they see fit.

Robertson has every right to his opinion and religion. What he doesn't have a right to is continued employment for A&E if the latter doesn't agree to it.

 

[Iceman]

Believing that homosexuality is an abnormal human condition is a manifestation of ignorance, stupidity, and hate – all of which you’re entitled to express.

Just as gay Americans are at liberty to admonish you for your ignorance, stupidity, and hate.

And private society will evaluate both positions and make a determination as to which is appropriate and which is not.

It is interesting how liberals are now free market libertarians when it comes to allowing a corporation to fire or suspend it's workers for stating their religious/moral or political views.

So I will pose a scenario to them. Let's say there was an employee for a major corporation, like Dow Chemical. This individual happened to be an Atheist. He goes on facebook(outside his work environment mind you), and criticizes Christmas, saying God is not real and Jesus is a myth. Dow Chemical finds out and fires him. Are you saying Dow Chemical has the right to fire someone for criticizing a religion?

its not a one way street here ... we liberals tried to pass a law that stop companies form not be able to fire someone at will or their point of view ... the republicans filibustered it ... what we have said, the corporation has the right to fire any one at will .. that's the law... we don't like it, but that's the law .. so the Answer to your question is
YES they have the right to fire them

So you don't think A&E should have the right to fire Phil Robertson for his views?

 

[Pogo]

[MENTION=36318]Edgetho[/MENTION] - are you aware of something called the "Morality Clause"? Goes like this...

MORALITY CLAUSE FOR FILMS - Universal Will Cancel Engagements of Actors Who Forfeit Respect. - Article - NYTimes.com

It has no effect on Phil Robertson who doesn't need the money or the show. Also, if you read the clause carefully it references loses the respect of the public. What of someone who GAINS the respect of the public like Phil Robertson has done.

This particular morality clause does not exactly support your point.

If A&E has a right to fire him for unwanted publicity, and they do. Does the family not also have a right to quit if the network is getting them unwanted publicity or portraying them in an unfavorable light?

Of course they do.

Only in fantasyland. Morality clauses are written by the network who puts up the investment. Not by the actor who's a nobody without the exposure of the TV network. Again, the entity that puts up the investment.

 

[KevinWestern]

[MENTION=36318]Edgetho[/MENTION] - are you aware of something called the "Morality Clause"? Goes like this...

MORALITY CLAUSE FOR FILMS - Universal Will Cancel Engagements of Actors Who Forfeit Respect. - Article - NYTimes.com

It has no effect on Phil Robertson who doesn't need the money or the show. Also, if you read the clause carefully it references loses the respect of the public. What of someone who GAINS the respect of the public like Phil Robertson has done.

This particular morality clause does not exactly support your point.

Katz- I'm not saying the firing will or will not have an effect on Phil. The guy has a successful show and if you ask me he should simply leave the network and start his own deal.

I HAVE NOTHING AGAINST PHIL, lol.

My point is the guy ran his mouth in an interview in a way that stirred up unpredictable and unwanted controversy and now A&E has a right to fire him if they wish. Most companies don't like controversy and do all they can to protect themselves from it. I guarantee you he signed something that said "if I stir up negative press, etc, the producers have a right to terminate me".

 

[TemplarKormac]

30 minutes later... 2 more pages... holy smokes.

 

[Pogo]

Explain.

.... Still waiting...

I see you've never sign a contract with morality clauses ... other wise you wouldn't have asked it ... in many contracts that you sign especially if you are representing a brand, in this case the A&E brand ... you have to follow their standards of broadcast ... one being you can't state your point of view before asking the company if you can ... that's standard... after all they are the ones that are getting you the money you want ... where you cause them to lose money, which this moron did, he knew he couldn't say what he said, but he said he'll do what he wants any way, which it got him removed from the show ... if the others feel the same way fine cancel the show ... there another one right down the corner ... ask charley scheen ... he got himself fired and he got another show right down the road... the thing is A&E own the show and everyone in it... so they would have to do something else... maybe start a religious show like the 700 club show ... call it the Phil Robertson racist club where he can spew his special kind of hate like pat does... I kow you'll watch it

Are you completely illiterate? I'm the guy who keeps bringing sample morality clauses in here. DUH. This question was for Edgetho. Learn to navigate quotes.

 

[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.

Damnit, Templar I thought you were better than this.

Would you protest Hobby Lobby firing a Public Relations executive after he/she came out as a Satanist and made a bunch of comments in a national magazine on how he/she supports free and wild sex with multiple partners and denounces God and every Christian who has ever walked this planet?

I would totally support the firing. As a PR exec that person is the public face of the company and if he/she is openly denouncing what the company stands for than I think that's more than enough valid reason to can his/her ass. Don't you?

TK has since abandoned his position as erroneous.
You might say he's the "whom" in the phrase "whom said"

Yet the thread goes on. Bizarre.

[MENTION=41527]Pogo[/MENTION]

Am I allowed to respond to him?

 

[The T]

30 minutes later... 2 more pages... holy smokes.

I came close to alerting you dude...

 

[Dutch]

What do you mean 'wrong'? You just affirmed what I said.

You stated SAG would only pertain to full time people.
And that is false.

And you are right. That is completely false. Absolutely and irrevocably false.

Even the con rag the Washington Times disagrees with you.


"First, we must examine the groups making these claims. They are conservatives, and most conservatives claim to be free-market supporters. I am also a conservative (more so a “conservatarian”), [B]but those making these claims are wrong, and their claims demonstrate an unclear understanding of the free-market."


"When Chick-fil-A’s CEO Dan Cathy made anti-gay comments, before donating to traditional marriage groups, conservatives criticized liberals who protested Chick-fil-A. “It’s a private business. Deal with it,” conservatives shouted."


"Do you support the free-market or not? Either you believe in private enterprise, or you believe that laws should govern the market. No ambiguous middle ground can exist here. Why? The very moment that one violates the underlying principle of free-market capitalism in pursuance of supporting individual values is the moment when the principle of economic liberty is destroyed. Moving forward, all with differing values will pursue law and government intervention in order to achieve these values."


"The lawful argument is simple. No one’s First Amendment rights were violated in this particular case. The Bill of Rights is applicable to laws passed by the federal government, and the federal government alone. The Bill of Rights was intended to keep the federal government from becoming too strong– not state governments and certainly not private businesses"

Phil Robertson and an American's Constitutional right to free speech | Washington Times Communities

 

[Iceman]

Looks like Phil Robertson is coming back for the next season. The Gay Lobby and Profession Left has failed, again.