Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
So what you saying is you have no evidence showing your right where as I do seeing as they tried to fire him for stating his religious beliefs.....You lose.Phil was never in danger from being fired for being a Christian. He's been a Christian for years - correct?
Phil was suspended because he made comments that were interpreted as hateful and thus caused a public uproar. Key word is "interpreted". I don't believe Phil said anything hateful - personally - but other individuals interpreted his words as such and threatened the health of the network.
When you have a multimillion dollar company, it's smart to protect yourself at times of controversy (lol) and this is exactly what A&E did.
Not sure what you folks are whining about.
Lets talk like adults, if that's a possibility for you....
Read this article.
"We're also told that the contracts have morality clauses that give the network the right to get rid of cast members -- but the others still have to keep the show running."
All evidence is pointing towards Phil having a morality clause in his contract. Multiple news sources (including Fox above) have confirmed this. A morality clause effectively states that if the public's opinion turns on you, the network has a right to fire you.
AGAIN, Phil wasn't suspended for his religious beliefs, he was suspended because he potentially violated his contract due to stirring a negative controversy. He is in showbusiness, and these sorts of agreements are commonplace.
Phil can say and do whatever he wants with regards to gay people, black people, bestiality, etc and will not be arrested. This is a wonderful thing, as it is "freedom of speech".
However, the discussion at hand is about a private contract between A&E and Phil R. A&E hired him so that he can make their network look good and make money. When Phil says something of a controversial nature, and attracts negativity towards himself and the network, he may no longer be doing the job he was hired for and thus A&E has the right to protect itself by suspending Phil.
This isn't about morals, religion, etc, it's about CONTROVERSY. If GLAAD had not stirred up things, and people didn't get genuinely upset, Phil would have never of been suspended. This is a key. Again, I don't commend GLAAD from creating a controversy, but you can't simply deny that it generated thousands of facebook posts, thousands of blog comments, news stories, writeups, you name it regarding Phil's comments. AND this may be a breach of contract for a public representative.
.
I'm not a fan of Pat Robertson at all. But GLAAD sure made him look good in this. The guy is in fact extremely intolerant of anyone who thinks differently than he does. It's impressive that the left so completely outdid him on that. As for your points, I took the op to be tongue in cheek, and my posts were likewise.
Hey, I'm not defending GLAAD here in the least and I never claimed that they used truthful or honest tactics to kickstart this mediastorm off.
My point - which should be taken as completely neutral - is that GLAAD did in fact kickstart a controversy that ended up spreading on its own accord, organically sometime later. GLAAD accomplished the task they set out to do (at least initially). Jim is trying to deny that there ever was a controversy and I'm saying it's absurd to say that. My facebook wall was blown up with Phil Roberston bullshit for about 2 days straight.
And because of that controversy (which may or may not be based on valid evidence or facts), Phil may have been in violation of his contract which supposedly has a section that basically says "don't stir up public opinion against yourself or we can fire you".
I got it.. cheers.
lol, no, you don't get it if you thank anyone but Pogo is the troll.
Here is the post that started your exchange:
They can fire for any reason they come up with that is not based on race, religion, or gender. It's the law. They would have a hard time proving/claiming it was because of a morality clause.
Firing someone for expressing their faith 1) off the job, 2) in private off the record, 3) relating to essential values of that faith is to fire them for their religion.
Even from a purely legalistic point of view, this whole thing could be taken before a jury and won, and I have given cases where plaintiffs have won against employers using morality clauses in their contracts.
Shame you cant see the plain facts and just don't get it, dude.
You lying dishonest hack sack of shit. Here you are admitting the morality clause process after bending over backward to try to pretend it doesn't exist. Go fuck yourself, dishonest hack.
And trust me, Brownie's a lot smarter than you think he is, and certainly smarter than you. As are most life forms on the planet.
I'm not a fan of Pat Robertson at all. But GLAAD sure made him look good in this. The guy is in fact extremely intolerant of anyone who thinks differently than he does. It's impressive that the left so completely outdid him on that. As for your points, I took the op to be tongue in cheek, and my posts were likewise.
Hey, I'm not defending GLAAD here in the least and I never claimed that they used truthful or honest tactics to kickstart this mediastorm off.
My point - which should be taken as completely neutral - is that GLAAD did in fact kickstart a controversy that ended up spreading on its own accord, organically sometime later. GLAAD accomplished the task they set out to do (at least initially). Jim is trying to deny that there ever was a controversy and I'm saying it's absurd to say that. My facebook wall was blown up with Phil Roberston bullshit for about 2 days straight.
And because of that controversy (which may or may not be based on valid evidence or facts), Phil may have been in violation of his contract which supposedly has a section that basically says "don't stir up public opinion against yourself or we can fire you".
Bowie lives in his own world, a delusional cesspool fed by the river of de Nial.
If you fire someone for their religion it is against the law.
Phil was never in danger from being fired for being a Christian. He's been a Christian for years - correct?
Phil was suspended because he made comments that were interpreted as hateful and thus caused a public uproar. Key word is "interpreted". I don't believe Phil said anything hateful - personally - but other individuals interpreted his words as such and this threatened the health of the network. This discussion is about stirring unwanted controversy, which is sometimes a breach of contract.
When you have a multimillion dollar company, it's smart to protect yourself at times of controversy (lol) and this is exactly what A&E did.
Not sure what you folks are whining about.
Correct, way before A&E came along -- which means they hired him with exactly the same religion he has now, and that hasn't changed, so there (again) goes that stupid argument.
Had they hired him a while ago, and then last week Phil up and says "I'm converting to Shinto" and A&E then says, "we don't like Shinto, you're fired", THEN you have a case. Without something like that all we have is a hair-on-fire Paranoia comic book.
Not Good: A&E Violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act Letting Phil Robertson Go
Not Good: A&E Violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act Letting Phil Robertson Go
lol - love the thread title...
Its amusing how conservatives continue to bump this failed thread, displaying the ignorance and stupidity common to most on the right.
Not Good: A&E Violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act Letting Phil Robertson Go
lol - love the thread title...
It’s amusing how conservatives continue to bump this failed thread, displaying the ignorance and stupidity common to most on the right.
Actually not.A&E violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
First, a review would need to be conducted to determine if indeed the relationship between the network and the cast member actually constitutes an employer/employee relationship subject to Title VII protection.
But assuming such a relationship existed, the cast member wasnt suspended because he was a Christian, the cast member was suspended because he made false, hateful, and ignorant statements concerning gays and African-Americans that didnt comport with the networks policies, having nothing to do with Christian doctrine or dogma.
The cast member wasnt suspended because the network doesnt want to be associated with Christians, the cast member was suspended because the network doesnt want to be associated with hateful bigots and racists, which is perfectly legitimate grounds for a suspension.
Exactly. Neither Robertson nor any other actor hired for a series could likely be classified as a salaried "employee". Not to mention anybody on a show like this signs a contract that has a morality clause in it, which basically means any time the Producer sees Talent not living up to the image, for whatever reason, they can can him.
This thread's a complete failure.
Not Good: A&E Violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act Letting Phil Robertson Go
lol - love the thread title...
Its amusing how conservatives continue to bump this failed thread, displaying the ignorance and stupidity common to most on the right.
Indeed - while some are at least perceptive enough to know when to flee, a couple of others just keep digging themselves deeper, apparently bent on digging to China.
Remember China -- where Jeep was "moving to"...?
IF there was a morality clause, IF there was, it didn't mean much did it?
IF there was a morality clause, IF there was, it didn't mean much did it?
IF there was a morality clause, IF there was, it didn't mean much did it?
Apparently, A&E decided that Phil didn't violate their morality clause when faced with the loss of their money.
A&E has never once mentioned anything about a so-called morality clause, nor have they fired Robertson.
Pogo operates under the delusion that GLAAD and the anti-Christian loons represent the majority of Duck Dynasty viewers, and A&E audience.
Not Good: A&E Violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act Letting Phil Robertson Go
lol - love the thread title...
Its amusing how conservatives continue to bump this failed thread, displaying the ignorance and stupidity common to most on the right.
Indeed - while some are at least perceptive enough to know when to flee, a couple of others just keep digging themselves deeper, apparently bent on digging to China.
Remember China -- where Jeep was "moving to"...?
A&E has never once mentioned anything about a so-called morality clause, nor have they fired Robertson.
Not to the public they haven't. Why would they? It's only relevant to them and their client. Nobody else needs to know. And it wouldn't serve the Illusion, which is always what TV is selling. We're expected to believe we're watching real people and not the product of a director with a film crew.
Neither A&E nor any other TV network notifies the public of its contractual clauses.
But check me on that -- tape the show and freeze-frame the credit roll. Maybe it's in there.
(/sarc)
