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

[thereisnospoon]

Sorry but you're wrong. He was let go for his religious views on homosexuality.

If he had said.......the Bible says homosexuality is wrong and I believe it is wrong, he would not be having these problems

Saying......what is the deal with gays and ass *******? Wouldn't they rather have a *****?

Or comparing it to bestiality

Or saying Jim Crow wasn't so bad

Isn't in the bible

Correct.

Unless of course Christians want to make the argument that their religious dogma teaches that homosexuals should be placed in the same category as terrorists and prostitutes, and that support of segregation comports with those same teachings.

Let us know.

yeah right. Not going there...Your side has lost this one. You just let it go.

 

[jknowgood]

If he had said.......the Bible says homosexuality is wrong and I believe it is wrong, he would not be having these problems

Saying......what is the deal with gays and ass *******? Wouldn't they rather have a *****?

Or comparing it to bestiality

Or saying Jim Crow wasn't so bad

Isn't in the bible

Again, he DID NOT COMPARE IT TO BESTIALITY. Can't you guys READ or are you really that ******* dense??? He said bestiality because it is in with A LIST OF SINS according to his belief and which is stated in the bible.

ARRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGG

There are a lot of sins listed in the bible

But for some odd reason, conservatives always seem to mention bestiality and pedophilia when discussing homosexuality

Coincidence I guess

Sounds like an pedofile supporter your kind are sick.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Phil wasn't let go because of his religion

He was let go for acting like a bigoted asshole

Bullshit....The fact is A&E management was aware of the content of the interview months ago.
If quoting the Bible is a form of bigotry, we are doomed as a nation.
Oh, to you 'bigot' is just a label the throw around like a wad of mud, hoping it sticks to those you've deemed 'enemy'..

Where exactly does the bible sanction segregation and compare homosexuals to terrorists?

Robertson wasn’t suspended for his religion, he was suspended due to his hate and ignorance, as the network was at liberty to do.

 

[mudwhistle]

Phil wasn't let go because of his religion

He was let go for acting like a bigoted asshole

Bullshit....The fact is A&E management was aware of the content of the interview months ago.
If quoting the Bible is a form of bigotry, we are doomed as a nation.
Oh, to you 'bigot' is just a label the throw around like a wad of mud, hoping it sticks to those you've deemed 'enemy'..

Where exactly does the bible sanction segregation and compare homosexuals to terrorists?

Robertson wasn’t suspended for his religion, he was suspended due to his hate and ignorance, as the network was at liberty to do.

Nothing he said was hateful, and it's clear he isn't ignorant.

You folks on the left need to learn to be more tolerant.

 

[JimBowie1958]

I hope they sue Glaad out of existence too

Couldn't happen to a nastier bunch of people

Oh, hell yeah!

 

[JimBowie1958]

If he had said.......the Bible says homosexuality is wrong and I believe it is wrong, he would not be having these problems

Saying......what is the deal with gays and ass *******? Wouldn't they rather have a *****?

Or comparing it to bestiality

Or saying Jim Crow wasn't so bad

Isn't in the bible

Correct.

Unless of course Christians want to make the argument that their religious dogma teaches that homosexuals should be placed in the same category as terrorists and prostitutes, and that support of segregation comports with those same teachings.

Let us know.

yeah right. Not going there...Your side has lost this one. You just let it go.

N o, no, no, no! They need to keep arguing over it and keep the controversy going strong and make EVERYONE sick of these fascist GLAAD bastards.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Do you idiots really think that a company as big as A&E doesn't have a bunch of lawyers who went through his contract before they made their announcement to make sure that the suspension was legal?

I mean, ******* seriously, this isn't some little mom-and-pop outfit who has a half-assed lawyer on retainer. A&E probably has in-house counsel who read through his contract and made sure that it was kosher before they pulled the trigger on the suspension. Assuming as much really isn't rocket science.

I can say with a high degree of certainty this was more a financial issue than a legal issue.
It would come as no surprise of the A&E bean counters weighed in on this and gave management the go code.
The bean counters could not have anticipated the huge swell of backlash against this decision.

 

[PredFan]

Meh, idk if he has a civil rights case, I kinda doubt it, but I hope that A&E get ripped a new one by the loss of revenue.

 

[mudwhistle]

A&E violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Actually not.

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 wasn’t 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 didn’t comport with the networks policies, having nothing to do with Christian doctrine or dogma.

The cast member wasn’t suspended because the network doesn’t want to be associated with Christians, the cast member was suspended because the network doesn’t 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.

They can can him and also they can be sued for it.

If this goes before a jury A&E would lose.

 

[thereisnospoon]

You cant possibly be this stupid right? Morality clause?

Ahh. See what happens...Libs suddenly forget about the landmark legislation they rely on applies to everyone.
Mr Robertson did not violate any morality clause. So as long as no individual is harmed, expressing one's religious beliefs is unimpeachable.
Nice try though..
You just want to see the Robertson family taken down. Jealous are we?

Ah. Let me guess. You have no clue what a "morality clause" is, nor have you read the 23 times it's been posted.

Yawn.

keep guessing.

 

[mudwhistle]

Ahh. See what happens...Libs suddenly forget about the landmark legislation they rely on applies to everyone.
Mr Robertson did not violate any morality clause. So as long as no individual is harmed, expressing one's religious beliefs is unimpeachable.
Nice try though..
You just want to see the Robertson family taken down. Jealous are we?

Ah. Let me guess. You have no clue what a "morality clause" is, nor have you read the 23 times it's been posted.

Yawn.

keep guessing.

I guess it's who gets to decide what is moral that matters, right?

If buggering your buddy is supposed to be moral you'd have a point Pogo. But seeing as how it's a sin and up until last year was what most Democrats said was immoral, including Obama, I don't think you have a leg to stand on.

 

[tinydancer]

Ah. Let me guess. You have no clue what a "morality clause" is, nor have you read the 23 times it's been posted.

Yawn.

keep guessing.

I guess it's who gets to decide what is moral that matters, right?

If buggering your buddy is supposed to be moral you'd have a point Pogo. But seeing as how it's a sin and up until last year was what most Democrats said was immoral, including Obama, I don't think you have a leg to stand on.

If buggery is your buddy. Oh lord almighty I almost passed out at that one..

I almost passed out at that one. ok ok we have to talk...................omg!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Pogo]

Ah. Let me guess. You have no clue what a "morality clause" is, nor have you read the 23 times it's been posted.

Yawn.

keep guessing.

I guess it's who gets to decide what is moral that matters, right?

If buggering your buddy is supposed to be moral you'd have a point Pogo. But seeing as how it's a sin and up until last year was what most Democrats said was immoral, including Obama, I don't think you have a leg to stand on.

Both you guys missed this every time it went by? Really?

Okay...
"Morality clause" has little to do with being 'moral' per se, at least to those outside the contract. It basically signs away the Artist's soul to the Producer.

Here's a sample that's been posted for days ...

>> "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."

Here's an entire contract for an Artist (actor) on a simlar "reality" type show -- see paragraph 13, page 15...

Here's a similar event someone else posted, same issue...

- and here's an industry publication story about the instant case:

>> TheWrap spoke to multiple legal experts who said that, if Robertson’s contract contained a morals clause — as if often the case with on-air talent — than the reality TV star has little in the way of legal recourse.

Often, such morals clauses note that, if talents speaks or acts in a way that insults or denigrates people, the producer reserves the right to suspend or terminate that talent.

And typically, defining such language or actions is left to the discretion of the studio — basically, “if we say it is so, it is.” Tough to mount a legal argument against that.

&#8220;My guess is that they [suspended Robertson] on the basis of a morality clause,&#8221; one entertainment attorney told TheWrap on Wednesday. &#8220;Once you sign a reality show contract, they own you.&#8221; <<

That's what a morality clause is.
Basically A&E (or any television show) is selling an illusion. That's what TV is made of. And the producers of that illusion protect their property in this way. If some Artist within the creation of that illusion fails to sync with the illusion they want, they retain the right to discontinue the arrangement, at their sole discretion. That's a condition of employment, not citizenship, so Phil Robertson (or anyone else) still has every right to say or believe what he likes -- but he doesn't have a right to a job. It's a voluntary contract that both parties agree to before they go in.

So yes, who gets to decide what's moral IS crucial. And that would be the Producer, who's creating and managing that image on their TV screen. So I'm afraid all this "religious rights" BS is just that. As is the OP's fantasy of Title VII Civil Rights.

 

[Pogo]

Actually not.

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 wasn’t 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 didn’t comport with the networks policies, having nothing to do with Christian doctrine or dogma.

The cast member wasn’t suspended because the network doesn’t want to be associated with Christians, the cast member was suspended because the network doesn’t 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.

They can can him and also they can be sued for it.

If this goes before a jury A&E would lose.

Nope. Wouldn't even show up in court. Has no basis.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

keep guessing.

I guess it's who gets to decide what is moral that matters, right?

If buggering your buddy is supposed to be moral you'd have a point Pogo. But seeing as how it's a sin and up until last year was what most Democrats said was immoral, including Obama, I don't think you have a leg to stand on.

Both you guys missed this every time it went by? Really?

Okay...
"Morality clause" has little to do with being 'moral' per se, at least to those outside the contract. It basically signs away the Artist's soul to the Producer.

Here's a sample that's been posted for days ...

>> "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."

Here's an entire contract for an Artist (actor) on a simlar "reality" type show -- see paragraph 13, page 15...

Here's a similar event someone else posted, same issue...

- and here's an industry publication story about the instant case:

>> TheWrap spoke to multiple legal experts who said that, if Robertson’s contract contained a morals clause — as if often the case with on-air talent — than the reality TV star has little in the way of legal recourse.

Often, such morals clauses note that, if talents speaks or acts in a way that insults or denigrates people, the producer reserves the right to suspend or terminate that talent.

And typically, defining such language or actions is left to the discretion of the studio — basically, “if we say it is so, it is.” Tough to mount a legal argument against that.

“My guess is that they [suspended Robertson] on the basis of a morality clause,” one entertainment attorney told TheWrap on Wednesday. “Once you sign a reality show contract, they own you.” <<

That's what a morality clause is.
Basically A&E (or any television show) is selling an illusion. That's what TV is made of. And the producers of that illusion protect their property in this way. If some Artist within the creation of that illusion fails to sync with the illusion they want, they retain the right to discontinue the arrangement, at their sole discretion. That's a condition of employment, not citizenship, so Phil Robertson (or anyone else) still has every right to say or believe what he likes -- but he doesn't have a right to a job. It's a voluntary contract that both parties agree to before they go in.

So yes, who gets to decide what's moral IS crucial. And that would be the Producer, who's creating and managing that image on their TV screen. So I'm afraid all this "religious rights" BS is just that. As is the OP's fantasy of Title VII Civil Rights.

True.

And of course if one doesn’t want to be subject to a morals clause, his lawyer should advise him to not sign the contract.

 

[tinydancer]

Actually not.

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 wasn’t 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 didn’t comport with the networks policies, having nothing to do with Christian doctrine or dogma.

The cast member wasn’t suspended because the network doesn’t want to be associated with Christians, the cast member was suspended because the network doesn’t 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.

They can can him and also they can be sued for it.

If this goes before a jury A&E would lose.

Oh this hurts.

Can they legally I am just going to leave it there. ......................

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

A&E violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Actually not.

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 wasn’t 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 didn’t comport with the networks policies, having nothing to do with Christian doctrine or dogma.

The cast member wasn’t suspended because the network doesn’t want to be associated with Christians, the cast member was suspended because the network doesn’t 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.

This thread is indeed a complete failure, where Robertson’s recourse would be a contract violation claim, not a civil rights violation claim, in that the former would be invalid due to the morals clause, and the latter invalid because there was no ‘religious discrimination.’

 

[Asclepias]

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.

They can can him and also they can be sued for it.

If this goes before a jury A&E would lose.

Nope. Wouldn't even show up in court. Has no basis.

Shows me what a lack of access to the legal system produces. I cant believe how ignorant some of these morons are.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Some advice to conservatives...

When talking about homosexuality, if you start rambling about bestiality and pedophilia, you will get into trouble every time........Don't do it

Now the Jim Crow era was pretty bad. Lynchings, bombing, terrorism. saying it was not so bad will get you in trouble every time....Don't do it

eat shit you stupid ****

 

[JimBowie1958]

Breaking: A&E Violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act Letting Phil Robertson Go

Are you retarded?

Why? You looking for a fellow retard friend? You need one.