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

[Pogo]

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.

No, I'm sure they didn't. Who suggested they would have?
"Very very very quiet"?? Why would you hear daily news bulletins from A&E? When did you get this before?

There's no story here. All that's left of this is residual blogosphere fart. Like these remaining 618 threads.

 

[JoeB131]

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.

A&E will still be around long after the Robertson family has gone back to inbreeding.

 

[koshergrl]

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.

No, I'm sure they didn't. Who suggested they would have?
"Very very very quiet"?? Why would you hear daily news bulletins from A&E? When did you get this before?

There's no story here. All that's left of this is residual blogosphere fart. Like these remaining 618 threads.

YOU suggested it, repeatedly, you disingenuous moron:

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

 

[Pogo]

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.

No, I'm sure they didn't. Who suggested they would have?
"Very very very quiet"?? Why would you hear daily news bulletins from A&E? When did you get this before?

There's no story here. All that's left of this is residual blogosphere fart. Like these remaining 618 threads.

YOU suggested it, repeatedly, you disingenuous moron:

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

And nothing in a morals clause refers to anyone talking about their faith. Does not apply.

Holy shhhhhit.

 

[koshergrl]

The MORAL objection, according to the leftist extremists, is to his discussion of the Bible...

Trust me, there is nothing in his contract that prevents him from sharing scripture.

 

[koshergrl]

What you are trying, ineptly, to say is that Robertson has a SPECIAL morals clause, that can be applied against his comments about Scripture.

But that's not what the typical morals clause does. If he violated this alleged (and imaginary) morals clause, it would have to specifically state that he not opine regarding his faith, God, or religion.

We know it doesn't exist because his entire series is dependent upon those things, and because we know very well they aren't stupid enough to have ever signed that sort of agreement.

 

[Pogo]

The MORAL objection, according to the leftist extremists, is to his discussion of the Bible...

Trust me, there is nothing in his contract that prevents him from sharing scripture.

No, I'm sure there isn't.

..... So?

I don't know or care what the leftist extremist objection is. Haven't read it. All I've done here is seek to explain and illustrate the employer's position. And point out how that does not qualify as either a "First Amendment speech issue", a "First Amendment religion issue" or a Title VII violation.

 

[Pogo]

What you are trying, ineptly, to say is that Robertson has a SPECIAL morals clause, that can be applied against his comments about Scripture.

But that's not what the typical morals clause does. If he violated this alleged (and imaginary) morals clause, it would have to specifically state that he not opine regarding his faith, God, or religion.

We know it doesn't exist because his entire series is dependent upon those things, and because we know very well they aren't stupid enough to have ever signed that sort of agreement.

Not trying to say that at all. I don't maintain that Robertson was suspended for quoting scripture; that's your strawman. I don't know (or again, care) what A&E's rationale was. I don't think you do either unless you work there fairly high up.

No, morality clauses don't refer to faith or scripture. Again, typical language:

>> >> "If 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. <<

Nothing in there about anyone's religion, directly or indirectly.

 

[koshergrl]

What, exactly, do you think he violated of this theoretical "morality clause"..and which of his statements do you think violated it?

 

[koshergrl]

So funny you should reference "straw men", again showing the leftist penchant for accusing others of what they are actively engaged in.

The only "straw man" in this discussion is the one you've created with the fictitious "morality clause".

 

[thereisnospoon]

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.

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.

Hey jagoff...
This is YOUR post...
"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."

Now, are going to deny you stated the burden of proof is that others dredge up proof that something is NOT there?
**** me?..
No...**** YOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
You LOSE. You get NOTHING. Good DAY, sir.
Hey beer spittle. I was born during the day. Not yesterday.
For a former teacher, you sure aren't all that smart.

 

[thereisnospoon]

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.

A&E will still be around long after the Robertson family has gone back to inbreeding.

Inbreeding? You are 4th generation inbred. Nobody as stupid as you could possibly belong to a gene pool larger than what exists in the town where Deliverance was filmed.

 

[thereisnospoon]

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.

A&E will still be around long after the Robertson family has gone back to inbreeding.

Ya know what's satisfying? Knowing how much you will seethe over the fact that the Robertson family will always have 5,000 times as much income as you will make in your entire miserable life.

 

[Howey]

Looks like Phil might own A&E after all this is over. Specifically, A&E violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.


Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964:

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), which prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. SEC. 2000e-2. [Section 703]

(a) Employer practices

It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer -

(1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.


That’s what discrimination is. It's law.

a. He wasn't fired. He was suspended.

b. It had nothing to do with religion. He was suspended because he said some idiotic comments that made his employer look bad.

c. Employers have the right to do whatever they want (isn't that what you guys always claim?)

 

[Pogo]

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.

Hey jagoff...
This is YOUR post...
"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."

Now, are going to deny you stated the burden of proof is that others dredge up proof that something is NOT there?
**** me?..
No...**** YOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
You LOSE. You get NOTHING. Good DAY, sir.
Hey beer spittle. I was born during the day. Not yesterday.
For a former teacher, you sure aren't all that smart.

Should I continue mocking the sheer stupidity here?
It would be mean.

Ah, what the ****.

I'm not a teacher, dipshit. I've never claimed to be a teacher in my life, dipshit. Somebody who is a teacher might be what you need to teach you to read, dipshit. And when they've done that dipshit, ask them to go over the difference between leaving the burden of proof and "demanding".

Dipshit.

 

[JoeB131]

The MORAL objection, according to the leftist extremists, is to his discussion of the Bible...

Trust me, there is nothing in his contract that prevents him from sharing scripture.

and if he just quoted scripture, he probably wouldn't have gotten into trouble.

It's all the other stuff he said that got him into trouble.

 

[koshergrl]

Looks like Phil might own A&E after all this is over. Specifically, A&E violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.


Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964:

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), which prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. SEC. 2000e-2. [Section 703]

(a) Employer practices

It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer -

(1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.


That’s what discrimination is. It's law.

a. He wasn't fired. He was suspended.

b. It had nothing to do with religion. He was suspended because he said some idiotic comments that made his employer look bad.

c. Employers have the right to do whatever they want (isn't that what you guys always claim?)

Really. Provide us with the quotes of the *idiotic statements that make his employer look bad*.

 

[Katzndogz]

Title VII is not applicable at all.

You are a Christian. We don't hire Christians. That's a Title VII violation.
We hired you, then saw you go into a Church. You're fired. That's a Title VII violation.
You said something in Church that we don't like. You're fired. That's a violation.
You said something in a GQ interview we don't like. That is NOT a violation.

Title VII prohibits discrimination based on status not action. There is nothing intrinsically Christian about giving an interview to GQ. There is no obligation of Christians to give interviews to magazines. They are not practicing their faith by giving magazine interviews. Not understanding Title VII has resulted in enormous confusion. Many black people think it's some protection against being fired at all for any reason. Steve made the same mistake.

I hope this somewhat clears up the misunderstanding.

 

[koshergrl]

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.

Hey jagoff...
This is YOUR post...
"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."

Now, are going to deny you stated the burden of proof is that others dredge up proof that something is NOT there?
**** me?..
No...**** YOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
You LOSE. You get NOTHING. Good DAY, sir.
Hey beer spittle. I was born during the day. Not yesterday.
For a former teacher, you sure aren't all that smart.

Should I continue mocking the sheer stupidity here?
It would be mean.

Ah, what the ****.

I'm not a teacher, dipshit. I've never claimed to be a teacher in my life, dipshit. Somebody who is a teacher might be what you need to teach you to read, dipshit. And when they've done that dipshit, ask them to go over the difference between leaving the burden of proof and "demanding".

Dipshit.

The burden of proof is on you to prove #1, that Robertson signed a morality clause that restricts his religious adherence and freedom of speech regarding his religion, and #2, that he actually said anything that is in violation of said alleged morality clause.

You haven't done it. It is the quintessential straw man.

 

[koshergrl]

What's even funnier is these fascist dildoes keep referring to the horrible things Robertson said, and how this has nothing whatever to do with religion..

But they refuse to actually SAY what it is he said that was offensive.

Because they know that the OFFENSIVE parts of his speech are all BIBLICAL REFERENCES.

NYC did attempt to actually assign him some statements he never made, but that was lame and didn't work out too well.

So guys, what is it that he said that was offensive again, and tell us again that it has nothing to do with religion?

And what specifically did he do that would *violate* the pretend morality clause? (That apparently wasn't violated any of the other times he preached or shared the word via book or broadcast)...?