Not Good: A&E Violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act Letting Phil Robertson Go

[JimBowie1958]

Uh- well your video doesn't make that point. In fact Phil didn't speak at all.

Again Becki my question is -- where is your evidence that anyone was fired for their religious beliefs?

Phil Robertson thinks he was fired for quoting scriptures that banned the practice of sodomy, adultery, and sex between men as well as sex between women for thousands of years on six continents, to be exact.

I provided a newscast that discussed Mr. Robertson's statements about why he thought he was fired from A and E. That's as good as it's going to get, and I'm not going to watch an A and E channel again for any reason, including watching Duck Dynasty if they continue on that channel.

Since that is future in nature, I have no sculpted-in-concrete "proof," but I am reasonably literate, and I see no purpose in engaging in a "that's not good enough proof" debate since I have no pony in this show except what I read in my Bible and what I believe to be right and correct behavior in my heart for me.

Your video only had a third-party celebrity news piece about the controversy. ...

Lol, while you do have some grasp of the obvious, you don't seem all that capable in recognizing it when others do as well, retard.

 

[JoeB131]

"...a new brand of intolerance is rising from certain gay activists hell-bent on bullying Christians into suppressing their core beliefs — or else. They are also showcasing their own narrow-mindedness by judging a man’s entire life through the narrow prism of their own agenda. "

A&E?s Duck Dynasty Dilemma | National Review Online

Once again- Witch-Burning and Slavery used to be Christian Core Beliefs, until someone had the good sense to call them on it.

The same with Homophobia. We are looking at the last desperate gasp of the homophobes, wondering why they are looked down upon like the misogynist and the racist...

The explosion of Duck Dynasy merchandise on the shelves over the last few days before Christmas seems to indicate a less gruesome fate in store for those who denounce homosexuality.

Also, I do not think we're talking about homophobes.

Phobia = Fear.

Nobody's afraid of Prancing Folk.

This is more like contempt and revulsion and disgust at work.

the fact you are using words like "Prancing" tells me you live in horrid fear.

Should also point out a lot of those folks grabbing up Dick Dynasty merchandise are probably grabbing it because they know the show is going to be cancelled soon, and will become collector items.

But quick question, what is your source of "revulsion".

They are based on two things.

The Bible says your Sky Man says it's bad.

You think it's icky. (When two dudes are doing it. Most of them have girl on girl porn.)

 

[Katzndogz]

Uh- well your video doesn't make that point. In fact Phil didn't speak at all.

Again Becki my question is -- where is your evidence that anyone was fired for their religious beliefs?

Phil Robertson thinks he was fired for quoting scriptures that banned the practice of sodomy, adultery, and sex between men as well as sex between women for thousands of years on six continents, to be exact.

I provided a newscast that discussed Mr. Robertson's statements about why he thought he was fired from A and E. That's as good as it's going to get, and I'm not going to watch an A and E channel again for any reason, including watching Duck Dynasty if they continue on that channel.

Since that is future in nature, I have no sculpted-in-concrete "proof," but I am reasonably literate, and I see no purpose in engaging in a "that's not good enough proof" debate since I have no pony in this show except what I read in my Bible and what I believe to be right and correct behavior in my heart for me.

First, the cast member wasn’t ‘fired,’ he was suspended pursuant to the morals clause of his contract.

Second, the ignorance and hate concerning gay Americans expressed by the cast member had nothing to do with Christian dogma or doctrine, where homosexuals were compared to terrorists and criminals – this hate and ignorance is repugnant to the fundamental principles of our Republic and the cast member was rebuked accordingly and appropriately.

Last, private society is at liberty to admonish the speech and actions it considers inappropriate, where this admonishment does not constitute a ‘violation’ of free speech or religions expression, as such restrictions apply only to public sector governing entities, not private citizens or private society as a whole.

So far, no one has proven what the contract says, that it has a morals clause at all, the exact wording of this specific morals clause or the A&E was relying on the morals clause when they suspended Robertson.
Please post the contract signed by Phil Robertson and A&E so that we all can see what the morals clause says.

 

[Katzndogz]

Once again- Witch-Burning and Slavery used to be Christian Core Beliefs, until someone had the good sense to call them on it.

The same with Homophobia. We are looking at the last desperate gasp of the homophobes, wondering why they are looked down upon like the misogynist and the racist...

The explosion of Duck Dynasy merchandise on the shelves over the last few days before Christmas seems to indicate a less gruesome fate in store for those who denounce homosexuality.

Also, I do not think we're talking about homophobes.

Phobia = Fear.

Nobody's afraid of Prancing Folk.

This is more like contempt and revulsion and disgust at work.

the fact you are using words like "Prancing" tells me you live in horrid fear.

Should also point out a lot of those folks grabbing up Dick Dynasty merchandise are probably grabbing it because they know the show is going to be cancelled soon, and will become collector items.

But quick question, what is your source of "revulsion".

They are based on two things.

The Bible says your Sky Man says it's bad.

You think it's icky. (When two dudes are doing it. Most of them have girl on girl porn.)

The show will be over when the Robertson family tells A&E to go **** themselves. It sure won't be cancelled because it fell in the ratings. I would like to see the Robertsons tell A&E to go **** themselves. A&E will suffer tremendous financial losses, including the loss of network advertisers and I always like seeing some pervert experience the consequences of their own perverted behavior.

Do the "prancing elites" live in horrid fear? Is that why they chose that for their dancers? Gays live in horrid fear that they won't get to shake their dicks in the faces of children.

 

[Pogo]

Why do libtards think that pretending to be stupid as shit makes a rebuttal?

no, pogo, it only means you are a stupid ass.

Robertson quoted scripture paraphrased and got fired for it, since now the Gay Mafia is offended by quoting Bible passages that say screwing someone of the same sex is a sin.

Why do you think that an endless diarrhea of ad hominem is a rebuttal?
And to a question that wasn't even asked of you?

Here's an idea: why don't you just shut the **** up until you're spoken to?

Because you can be a good read here when you want to be.

You have had some pretty thought provoking posts in the pasts, though almost always wrong, but you keep doing these stupid posts that don't rate more than a thoughtless 'back at you' kind of nonsense.

Why?

It is plain to anyone following this topic that Robertson gave a paraphrased quotation of scripture and your response is to challenge that?

That is a ******* waste of time and it makes you look stupid.

You want to keep sucking up to the libtards on these boards, fine dude, that is your business, but I don't get it, and I will axe you why if I ******* want to, your sensitive little *****.

I don't know what the **** Robertson said; the poster implied something and I thought she was going to tell me. She didn't, so I don't really care. That's not what I'm here for. Again, this just in... none of that involves you. Who knew.

 

[Pogo]

Why do you think that an endless diarrhea of ad hominem is a rebuttal?
And to a question that wasn't even asked of you?

Here's an idea: why don't you just shut the **** up until you're spoken to?

Because as is the case with most conservatives, he has no objective facts or evidence in support of his position. Consequently all has left is personal attacks.

The fact is that Robertson quoted scripture, stupid ****. And that is the side I am on, so once again, you show yourself to be a fool in front of any neutral parties reading the thread.

But I guess you get paid by the post? Or you are a sock puppet for some libtard who doesn't want to post things that might shame him so much, so he uses a sock to do his stupid shit?

Moreover, the premise of this thread was proven as false pages ago, both with regard to the morals clause in the cast members’ contracts and the fact that the suspension does not constitute ‘termination.’

No nothing was proven false you idiot. I gave a link twice to people who have successfully sued in court despite having a morality clause in their ******* contract.

So go back to your bong and let the rest of the adults discuss the topic, OK retard?

Yup, he's got you pegged. Not that it's a secret.

He's also correct about suspension versus termination, and that the OP has been proven wanting. Title VII does not apply.

 

[Pogo]

Phil Robertson thinks he was fired for quoting scriptures that banned the practice of sodomy, adultery, and sex between men as well as sex between women for thousands of years on six continents, to be exact.

I provided a newscast that discussed Mr. Robertson's statements about why he thought he was fired from A and E. That's as good as it's going to get, and I'm not going to watch an A and E channel again for any reason, including watching Duck Dynasty if they continue on that channel.

Since that is future in nature, I have no sculpted-in-concrete "proof," but I am reasonably literate, and I see no purpose in engaging in a "that's not good enough proof" debate since I have no pony in this show except what I read in my Bible and what I believe to be right and correct behavior in my heart for me.

Your video only had a third-party celebrity news piece about the controversy. ...

Lol, while you do have some grasp of the obvious, you don't seem all that capable in recognizing it when others do as well, retard.

Once again for the slow: I heard a third party giving a third party sum-up with a couple of quick captions. I heard nothing from the source himself. That's not evidence of diddly.

You may bow down and genuflect before everything a TV talking head tells you; I need something with more meat on it. Different strokes.

 

[Pogo]

Phil Robertson thinks he was fired for quoting scriptures that banned the practice of sodomy, adultery, and sex between men as well as sex between women for thousands of years on six continents, to be exact.

I provided a newscast that discussed Mr. Robertson's statements about why he thought he was fired from A and E. That's as good as it's going to get, and I'm not going to watch an A and E channel again for any reason, including watching Duck Dynasty if they continue on that channel.

Since that is future in nature, I have no sculpted-in-concrete "proof," but I am reasonably literate, and I see no purpose in engaging in a "that's not good enough proof" debate since I have no pony in this show except what I read in my Bible and what I believe to be right and correct behavior in my heart for me.

First, the cast member wasn’t ‘fired,’ he was suspended pursuant to the morals clause of his contract.

Second, the ignorance and hate concerning gay Americans expressed by the cast member had nothing to do with Christian dogma or doctrine, where homosexuals were compared to terrorists and criminals – this hate and ignorance is repugnant to the fundamental principles of our Republic and the cast member was rebuked accordingly and appropriately.

Last, private society is at liberty to admonish the speech and actions it considers inappropriate, where this admonishment does not constitute a ‘violation’ of free speech or religions expression, as such restrictions apply only to public sector governing entities, not private citizens or private society as a whole.

So far, no one has proven what the contract says, that it has a morals clause at all, the exact wording of this specific morals clause or the A&E was relying on the morals clause when they suspended Robertson.
Please post the contract signed by Phil Robertson and A&E so that we all can see what the morals clause says.

You know damn well current contracts aren't posted online. Is yours?

Why does anyone need to "prove" it anyway? What are you, freaking Scotland Yard now? It's the logical explanation involving a standard contract feature that's been in entertainment clauses since the 1920s. Your burden is to prove Robertson is working under the exception.

Good luck with that.

 

[Pogo]

The explosion of Duck Dynasy merchandise on the shelves over the last few days before Christmas seems to indicate a less gruesome fate in store for those who denounce homosexuality.

Also, I do not think we're talking about homophobes.

Phobia = Fear.

Nobody's afraid of Prancing Folk.

This is more like contempt and revulsion and disgust at work.

the fact you are using words like "Prancing" tells me you live in horrid fear.

Should also point out a lot of those folks grabbing up Dick Dynasty merchandise are probably grabbing it because they know the show is going to be cancelled soon, and will become collector items.

But quick question, what is your source of "revulsion".

They are based on two things.

The Bible says your Sky Man says it's bad.

You think it's icky. (When two dudes are doing it. Most of them have girl on girl porn.)

The show will be over when the Robertson family tells A&E to go **** themselves. It sure won't be cancelled because it fell in the ratings. I would like to see the Robertsons tell A&E to go **** themselves. A&E will suffer tremendous financial losses, including the loss of network advertisers and I always like seeing some pervert experience the consequences of their own perverted behavior.

Nope. Highly doubtful. A&E and its production company Gurney and the Robertsons are all under contract. That will run or somebody will have to pony up considerable cash to get out of it. Not likely. As for advertisers, that's the whole reason they took the action they did in the first place --- to appease the advertisers. That's where the money comes from, and that's who calls the shots. Always.

I mean conspiracy comics are fun and all but get a grip.

 

[koshergrl]

You're much more blase about it than A&E are.

They're shitting bricks.

Meanwhile:

"
Facts About Religious Discrimination

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of l964 prohibits employers from discriminating against individuals because of their religion in hiring, firing, and other terms and conditions of employment. The Act also requires employers to reasonably accommodate the religious practices of an employee or prospective employee"

Facts About Religious Discrimination

 

[Pogo]

You're much more blase about it than A&E are.

They're shitting bricks.

Meanwhile:

"
Facts About Religious Discrimination

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of l964 prohibits employers from discriminating against individuals because of their religion in hiring, firing, and other terms and conditions of employment. The Act also requires employers to reasonably accommodate the religious practices of an employee or prospective employee"

Facts About Religious Discrimination

Link to A&E's toilet or no bricks.

Meanwhile ...
"as needed" labor/independent contractor...
morality clause...
not fired...
no basis for religious discrimination in the first place even without 1, 2 and 3.

Other than that... solid case.

 

[koshergrl]

Good grief, you are a complete moron. For that we have an irrefutably solid case.

Obviously you're just going to keep carping the same trite, tired, and completely irrelevant garbage until the end, when you find out there is no morality clause, and that Robertson did absolutely nothing in conflict with his contract....

BTW, he had an A&E bigwig WITH HIM at the interview, nitwit.

 

[Pogo]

Good grief, you are a complete moron. For that we have an irrefutably solid case.

Obviously you're just going to keep carping the same trite, tired, and completely irrelevant garbage until the end, when you find out there is no morality clause, and that Robertson did absolutely nothing in conflict with his contract....

BTW, he had an A&E bigwig WITH HIM at the interview, nitwit.

Yeah - except when he didn't. Like ... in the ATV. Read the article. Right at the beginning.

And yeah I'm sure Phil Robertson of all people is the first guy on a "reality" show to work without a morals clause.

Whatever...

 

[thereisnospoon]

First, the cast member wasn’t ‘fired,’ he was suspended pursuant to the morals clause of his contract.

Second, the ignorance and hate concerning gay Americans expressed by the cast member had nothing to do with Christian dogma or doctrine, where homosexuals were compared to terrorists and criminals – this hate and ignorance is repugnant to the fundamental principles of our Republic and the cast member was rebuked accordingly and appropriately.

Last, private society is at liberty to admonish the speech and actions it considers inappropriate, where this admonishment does not constitute a ‘violation’ of free speech or religions expression, as such restrictions apply only to public sector governing entities, not private citizens or private society as a whole.

So far, no one has proven what the contract says, that it has a morals clause at all, the exact wording of this specific morals clause or the A&E was relying on the morals clause when they suspended Robertson.
Please post the contract signed by Phil Robertson and A&E so that we all can see what the morals clause says.

You know damn well current contracts aren't posted online. Is yours?

Why does anyone need to "prove" it anyway? What are you, freaking Scotland Yard now? It's the logical explanation involving a standard contract feature that's been in entertainment clauses since the 1920s. Your burden is to prove Robertson is working under the exception.

Good luck with that.

There a re few posters who've literally quoted the alleged morals clause in the contract.
Yet, none of you have been able to produce so much as one word of the contract.
Therefore it does not exist. Or if it does, since NONE of you has ever seen it, then it is hearsay.
And no, it's not a logical explanation of any kind. It's an assumption on your part.
You stated there is no need to prove the existence of the morals clause. Then you claim it the OP must prove that it DOES NOT exist. No. we don't prove negatives here.
You simply ASSUME there is a morals clause.
Then you double down and state these things have been part of every entertainment contract since the 1920's....WHAT?!!!!!!!
Anyway, whether there is or is not a morals clause, it is immaterial. Mr Robertson did nothing amoral.
You libs have taken the spin and run with it.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Good grief, you are a complete moron. For that we have an irrefutably solid case.

Obviously you're just going to keep carping the same trite, tired, and completely irrelevant garbage until the end, when you find out there is no morality clause, and that Robertson did absolutely nothing in conflict with his contract....

BTW, he had an A&E bigwig WITH HIM at the interview, nitwit.

Yeah - except when he didn't. Like ... in the ATV. Read the article. Right at the beginning.

And yeah I'm sure Phil Robertson of all people is the first guy on a "reality" show to work without a morals clause.

Whatever...

Ahh...The old "whatever" defense.

 

[Pogo]

So far, no one has proven what the contract says, that it has a morals clause at all, the exact wording of this specific morals clause or the A&E was relying on the morals clause when they suspended Robertson.
Please post the contract signed by Phil Robertson and A&E so that we all can see what the morals clause says.

You know damn well current contracts aren't posted online. Is yours?

Why does anyone need to "prove" it anyway? What are you, freaking Scotland Yard now? It's the logical explanation involving a standard contract feature that's been in entertainment clauses since the 1920s. Your burden is to prove Robertson is working under the exception.

Good luck with that.

There a re few posters who've literally quoted the alleged morals clause in the contract.
Yet, none of you have been able to produce so much as one word of the contract.
Therefore it does not exist. Or if it does, since NONE of you has ever seen it, then it is hearsay.
And no, it's not a logical explanation of any kind. It's an assumption on your part.
You stated there is no need to prove the existence of the morals clause. Then you claim it the OP must prove that it DOES NOT exist. No. we don't prove negatives here.
You simply ASSUME there is a morals clause.
Then you double down and state these things have been part of every entertainment contract since the 1920's....WHAT?!!!!!!!
Anyway, whether there is or is not a morals clause, it is immaterial. Mr Robertson did nothing amoral.
You libs have taken the spin and run with it.

Summa y'all need to double down on acting stupid lessons. Intentionally conflating the adjective "moral" with the legal term "morality clause"? Not selling.

And yes, it is SOP. I've posted this many times before but here's another chance to ignore it -- a sample reality show TV contract -- not a current one and not one with anyone's name on it, because not everything in the world is on the ******* internet.

Duh.

You'll find the morals clause in Paragraph 13, page 15. Same place it was the first seven times you pretended not to see it.

While you're at it, ignore this...
And this...
And this...
And this...
And this... (good thoughtful piece here btw)
And this...

ALL of which refer to the show's morality clause (sometimes called morals clause or ethics clause)

Or you could just go to Google and find your own. Read 'em and weep; not even Fox Noise tries to play this dumb.

Once you've finished going over all that you can come back and continue to tell yourself that it's just me sitting here making it up, in your self-delusory philippic.

And give yourself an award, yammer yammer.



Here's an interesting entry from one of the comments sections on that search:

>> I taught school in GA for 33 years. GA is a right-to-work-state and one in which no public employee can bargain collectively for anything, for any reason. Every year I signed a contract that contained a morals clause, so you&#8217;re right&#8211;employers have the right to fire your behind if you breach the morals clause in an employment contract. P.Robertson isn&#8217;t being punished by the federal, state, or local government for what he said. It was A&E&#8217;s decision to suspend his appearance on DD. I read today that A&E had warned him about saying some things, but he didn&#8217;t listen. This is not a Left/Right issue or a democrat/liberal v. republican/conservative issue, and it&#8217;s not a free speech issue. I find it ironic that the party of personal responsibility and law and order can&#8217;t grasp the fact that the reason P.R. was suspended was because he violated the terms of his employment contract with A&E. I think some on the right are using this issue to demonize those who don&#8217;t agree with them. <<

 

[thereisnospoon]

You know damn well current contracts aren't posted online. Is yours?

Why does anyone need to "prove" it anyway? What are you, freaking Scotland Yard now? It's the logical explanation involving a standard contract feature that's been in entertainment clauses since the 1920s. Your burden is to prove Robertson is working under the exception.

Good luck with that.

There a re few posters who've literally quoted the alleged morals clause in the contract.
Yet, none of you have been able to produce so much as one word of the contract.
Therefore it does not exist. Or if it does, since NONE of you has ever seen it, then it is hearsay.
And no, it's not a logical explanation of any kind. It's an assumption on your part.
You stated there is no need to prove the existence of the morals clause. Then you claim it the OP must prove that it DOES NOT exist. No. we don't prove negatives here.
You simply ASSUME there is a morals clause.
Then you double down and state these things have been part of every entertainment contract since the 1920's....WHAT?!!!!!!!
Anyway, whether there is or is not a morals clause, it is immaterial. Mr Robertson did nothing amoral.
You libs have taken the spin and run with it.

Summa y'all need to double down on acting stupid lessons. Intentionally conflating the adjective "moral" with the legal term "morality clause"? Not selling.

And yes, it is SOP. I've posted this many times before but here's another chance to ignore it -- a sample reality show TV contract -- not a current one and not one with anyone's name on it, because not everything in the world is on the ******* internet.

Duh.

You'll find the morals clause in Paragraph 13, page 15. Same place it was the first seven times you pretended not to see it.

While you're at it, ignore this...
And this...
And this...
And this...
And this... (good thoughtful piece here btw)
And this...

ALL of which refer to the show's morality clause (sometimes called morals clause or ethics clause)

Or you could just go to Google and find your own. Read 'em and weep; not even Fox Noise tries to play this dumb.

Once you've finished going over all that you can come back and continue to tell yourself that it's just me sitting here making it up, in your self-delusory philippic.

And give yourself an award, yammer yammer.



Here's an interesting entry from one of the comments sections on that search:

>> I taught school in GA for 33 years. GA is a right-to-work-state and one in which no public employee can bargain collectively for anything, for any reason. Every year I signed a contract that contained a morals clause, so you’re right–employers have the right to fire your behind if you breach the morals clause in an employment contract. P.Robertson isn’t being punished by the federal, state, or local government for what he said. It was A&E’s decision to suspend his appearance on DD. I read today that A&E had warned him about saying some things, but he didn’t listen. This is not a Left/Right issue or a democrat/liberal v. republican/conservative issue, and it’s not a free speech issue. I find it ironic that the party of personal responsibility and law and order can’t grasp the fact that the reason P.R. was suspended was because he violated the terms of his employment contract with A&E. I think some on the right are using this issue to demonize those who don’t agree with them. <<

Still does not answer your demand that other prove that Robertson did NOT have a morals clause in HIS contract.
You can post all the samples and examples of other instances all you like. It still does not change the fact that with your harping on this morals issue, which is irrelevant, even exists.
Just because you claim former teacher status means nothing. ALL workers and employers in Georgia are bound by Right to Work laws. So why are you divulging your former career? That gains you no additional mileage here.
"You read today"....Sure. Why not post what you read?
Anyway, that's old news. There were several instances when the family was seen praying before eating a meal or other activity and the prayer ended with "In Jesus' name we pray. Amen.
The A&E executives wanted the family to stop using "In Jesus' name"....The family refused and asked why. The Execs said they were concerned about "offending" non Christian viewers. Horseshit. A&E was foisting their anti Christian point of view.
That pissed them off. And now they found a way to use the Robertson family's religion against them. And it is a total FAIL...
Morals clause.
Ok, mr research...go to lexus nexus or other website for attorneys and find under contract law the meaning of the term "unconscionable"...
Report back here.

 

[koshergrl]

Good grief, you are a complete moron. For that we have an irrefutably solid case.

Obviously you're just going to keep carping the same trite, tired, and completely irrelevant garbage until the end, when you find out there is no morality clause, and that Robertson did absolutely nothing in conflict with his contract....

BTW, he had an A&E bigwig WITH HIM at the interview, nitwit.

Yeah - except when he didn't. Like ... in the ATV. Read the article. Right at the beginning.

And yeah I'm sure Phil Robertson of all people is the first guy on a "reality" show to work without a morals clause.

Whatever...

Ahh...The old "whatever" defense.

Lol..

Trust me, the Robertson's didn't sign anything that stipulated that they not talk about their faith.

Ever.

And I'm sure they had attorneys look it over for that express purpose.

Which is why A&E is keeping very, very, very quiet and hoping this will just all blow over.

 

[Katzndogz]

Now that it is over with A&E's unconditional surrender we can pretty much understand that the network realized how impossible their position was. No doubt part of the reason was to appease advertisers. The advertisers threatened to pull the entirety of their network advertising if Phil Robertson was suspended. That alone might be 80 million dollars a year network loss.

I always knew that A&E's lawyers were trying to find some way out. I never expected legal advice to be give up and run.

 

[Pogo]

There a re few posters who've literally quoted the alleged morals clause in the contract.
Yet, none of you have been able to produce so much as one word of the contract.
Therefore it does not exist. Or if it does, since NONE of you has ever seen it, then it is hearsay.
And no, it's not a logical explanation of any kind. It's an assumption on your part.
You stated there is no need to prove the existence of the morals clause. Then you claim it the OP must prove that it DOES NOT exist. No. we don't prove negatives here.
You simply ASSUME there is a morals clause.
Then you double down and state these things have been part of every entertainment contract since the 1920's....WHAT?!!!!!!!
Anyway, whether there is or is not a morals clause, it is immaterial. Mr Robertson did nothing amoral.
You libs have taken the spin and run with it.

Summa y'all need to double down on acting stupid lessons. Intentionally conflating the adjective "moral" with the legal term "morality clause"? Not selling.

And yes, it is SOP. I've posted this many times before but here's another chance to ignore it -- a sample reality show TV contract -- not a current one and not one with anyone's name on it, because not everything in the world is on the ******* internet.

Duh.

You'll find the morals clause in Paragraph 13, page 15. Same place it was the first seven times you pretended not to see it.

While you're at it, ignore this...
And this...
And this...
And this...
And this... (good thoughtful piece here btw)
And this...

ALL of which refer to the show's morality clause (sometimes called morals clause or ethics clause)

Or you could just go to Google and find your own. Read 'em and weep; not even Fox Noise tries to play this dumb.

Once you've finished going over all that you can come back and continue to tell yourself that it's just me sitting here making it up, in your self-delusory philippic.

And give yourself an award, yammer yammer.



Here's an interesting entry from one of the comments sections on that search:

>> I taught school in GA for 33 years. GA is a right-to-work-state and one in which no public employee can bargain collectively for anything, for any reason. Every year I signed a contract that contained a morals clause, so you&#8217;re right&#8211;employers have the right to fire your behind if you breach the morals clause in an employment contract. P.Robertson isn&#8217;t being punished by the federal, state, or local government for what he said. It was A&E&#8217;s decision to suspend his appearance on DD. I read today that A&E had warned him about saying some things, but he didn&#8217;t listen. This is not a Left/Right issue or a democrat/liberal v. republican/conservative issue, and it&#8217;s not a free speech issue. I find it ironic that the party of personal responsibility and law and order can&#8217;t grasp the fact that the reason P.R. was suspended was because he violated the terms of his employment contract with A&E. I think some on the right are using this issue to demonize those who don&#8217;t agree with them. <<

Still does not answer your demand that other prove that Robertson did NOT have a morals clause in HIS contract.
You can post all the samples and examples of other instances all you like. It still does not change the fact that with your harping on this morals issue, which is irrelevant, even exists.
Just because you claim former teacher status means nothing. ALL workers and employers in Georgia are bound by Right to Work laws. So why are you divulging your former career? That gains you no additional mileage here.
"You read today"....Sure. Why not post what you read?
Anyway, that's old news. There were several instances when the family was seen praying before eating a meal or other activity and the prayer ended with "In Jesus' name we pray. Amen.
The A&E executives wanted the family to stop using "In Jesus' name"....The family refused and asked why. The Execs said they were concerned about "offending" non Christian viewers. Horseshit. A&E was foisting their anti Christian point of view.
That pissed them off. And now they found a way to use the Robertson family's religion against them. And it is a total FAIL...
Morals clause.
Ok, mr research...go to lexus nexus or other website for attorneys and find under contract law the meaning of the term "unconscionable"...
Report back here.

Dood, what the **** bizarro planet are you reading on? I haven't "demanded" jack squat. YOU have. It's just not that friggin' important. I mean good Christ get a life.
I simply made available a ton of information for you not to read about what a morality clause is. Which you did.

And by the way as I already described, that's not my letter, so you're functionally illiterate. Not that that's any kind of news.

Screwball.

And hey, once you learn how to read, do your own research. Not my job.