You know, it's interesting how everyone latched on to the homosexuality, but nobody has said a word, a PEEP about something else Phil Robertson mentioned in the same interview. And that would be his casual approval of Jim Crow-era racism.
At best, that statement is ignorant and tone-deaf. At *best.* It ignores the reality of black life pre-Jim Crow--of course no African-American was going to cross a white person, do you know what would happen? I have to wonder if people would be nearly as up in arms about this casual racism as they are about the anti-gay remarks. (Personally, I expected the latter and am dismayed by the former.) And, seriously, where does Phil Robertson think the Blues came from, anyway?
And, as far as I'm concerned, it's an employer-employee issue governed by a contract none of us happen to be privy to (although I have been told the contract likely had a non-disparagement clause where Robertson was required to not do things that might bring the "Duck Dynasty" brand into disrepute). I CAN tell you what would happen at MY job if I were to say the same things Phil Robertson did. I would be in for so much HR counseling it would be coming out of my ears--if I wasn't canned immediately because I live in an at-will employment state.
Finally, it's been stated already but I'm going to say it again: this is not a free speech or First Amendment issue. The First Amendment only applies to government, not to business or private life. Sarah Palin and Bobby Jindal may have been or currently are governors, but they don't understand this fundamental Constitutional jurisprudence that the First Amendment doesn't apply to business. A&E can do what it wants...what can happen afterwards is people can boycott their show and their advertisers, but this is not, I repeat, NOT a government action.
I thought it was illegal to fire someone for their personal views. Unless it is in his contract.
__________________
Those who say it cannot be done should not interrupt the people doing it. ~Chinese Proverb
When I was young and clever, I wanted to change the world. Now that I am older and wiser, I strive to change myself. ~
Finally, it's been stated already but I'm going to say it again: this is not a free speech or First Amendment issue. The First Amendment only applies to government, not to business or private life. Sarah Palin and Bobby Jindal may have been or currently are governors, but they don't understand this fundamental Constitutional jurisprudence that the First Amendment doesn't apply to business. A&E can do what it wants...what can happen afterwards is people can boycott their show and their advertisers, but this is not, I repeat, NOT a government action.
Correct. While the Bill of Rights was originally written for the government, the 14th amendment expanded it to state and local governments, and the SCOTUS has broadly included the first amendment in it's decisions regarding business and private life.
That aside, while some believe it's not a free speech issue, they cannot argue against it being a violation of the Civil Rights Act, which safeguards against religious discrimination. Suspending or firing someone because of their personal opinion is discrimination, plain and simple.
Last edited by n david; 12-20-2013 at 10:43 AM.
Reason: Accidently put "Wrong" when should have written "Correct."
That aside, while some believe it's not a free speech issue, they cannot argue against it being a violation of the Civil Rights Act, which safeguards against religious discrimination. Suspending or firing someone because of their personal opinion is discrimination, plain and simple.
Again, it would depend on what the Robertsons' contract says. If my friend is correct and there's a non-disparagement clause, then A&E may be able to put Phil Robertson on hiatus. It's possible that Robertson could overcome that with a showing of animus towards religion (which is a protected class, like race, sex and pregnancy).
However, I've seen those cases and it's got to be REALLY REALLY SUPER-EVIDENT that there was discrimination on the basis of religion. We're not talking a one-off thing, we're talking "you will lose your job if you (for example) don't practice Scientology" and it happens over and over. I'm using that as an example because there was an article about it just yesterday where a Florida chiropractor settled with the EEOC because he was forcing his employees to study Scientology.
I'd also note that a lot of discrimination is perfectly legal. In an at-will employment state (which I believe Louisiana is), an employer can fire you for any reason or no reason at all (outside of the protected classes just mentioned). So if your employer didn't like the fact that you parked in the vice president's covered parking spot at work or put your lunch on top of his in the communal refrigerator in the break room, or just thought your giggle was inappropriate, in an at-will state, he can fire you. No reason required. I suspect that Phil Robertson's contract gives him far more protection than the average at-will employee.
And, as someone mentioned, it might just be a way of drumming up ratings. Who knows? These people are devious in the ways of seeking publicity.
Correct. While the Bill of Rights was originally written for the government, the 14th amendment expanded it to state and local governments, and the SCOTUS has broadly included the first amendment in it's decisions regarding business and private life.
That aside, while some believe it's not a free speech issue, they cannot argue against it being a violation of the Civil Rights Act, which safeguards against religious discrimination. Suspending or firing someone because of their personal opinion is discrimination, plain and simple.
However, there are many employers who would fire you for publicly pronouncing your beliefs in the manner Phil did. I'm NOT agreeing with the stance that A & E took; however, it was within their right to do so. Many companies have policies that state what a person can and cannot state publicly about their beliefs.
__________________ For I know the thoughts that I think toward you, says the LORD, thoughts of peace and not of evil, to give you a future and a hope. Jeremiah 29:11
I haven't read the entire thread yet; however, this comment caught my attention. Yes - the Civil Rights Act - however, you better be very careful how this is used. It can come back to haunt churches and non-profit groups if things are not done correctly. Believe me I know.... Every church, private school, non-profit 501(c)3 organization needs to be in contact with Christian Law Association and find out just exactly how statements of ministry, handbooks, policy guidelines, etc etc should be worded to prevent future lawsuits and backlash. Preventative measures will take care of lots of things!!!!
Yes! My Pastor has the church board reviewing the bylaws right now. He attended a church leadership conference and there was a portion dedicated both to tax and financial info and also bylaws. If your church bylaws aren't specific in your belief on marriage, it should be! We're currently updating ours in order to try to prevent any possible lawsuit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sweet Pea
However, there are many employers who would fire you for publicly pronouncing your beliefs in the manner Phil did. I'm NOT agreeing with the stance that A & E took; however, it was within their right to do so. Many companies have policies that state what a person can and cannot state publicly about their beliefs.
I work for a major bank, and they don't have any policy like that. In fact, I don't recall any employer I've worked with that has a list of what you can or cannot say publicly as a private individual.
What's said on the show is one thing, what's said when asked a question in an interview is something else, IMO.
You know, it's interesting how everyone latched on to the homosexuality, but nobody has said a word, a PEEP about something else Phil Robertson mentioned in the same interview. And that would be his casual approval of Jim Crow-era racism.
He was not approving of anything.
A person usually sees what he is looking for, Phil was not looking for racism, that is why he did not see it. Racism did not affect Phil that is why he did not felt it.
In the new political correct world, any disapproval of Obama is considered racism, which is a bunch of nonsense.
__________________
**Original Matthew 28:19 Restored**
A person usually sees what he is looking for, Phil was not looking for racism, that is why he did not see it. Racism did not affect Phil that is why he did not felt it.
That's my impression, too. I tend to take him at his word, on this.
Quote:
In the new political correct world, any disapproval of Obama is considered racism, which is a bunch of nonsense.
There may be some with that opinion. I haven't seen it, that I can recall. But yes, it's nonsense.
Now, I wouldn't be surprised if there is a statistical correlation between racism and disapproval of Obama. In fact, it would surprise the me to find many racists that don't disapprove! But thinking that isn't the same as considering that any disapproval of Obama is racism, or is because of racism. I hope you can see the difference.
__________________
Hebrews 13:23 Know ye that our brother Timothy is set at liberty
You know, it's interesting how everyone latched on to the homosexuality, but nobody has said a word, a PEEP about something else Phil Robertson mentioned in the same interview. And that would be his casual approval of Jim Crow-era racism....
The media didn't "latch" onto this because they know they would have to take his statements out of context. He was describing his personal experience as "white trash", being on the same socio-economic level as the black community when he was a young man. He said the black people he worked with in the cotton fields seemed happy and weren't singing the blues; he didn't state, nor did he even imply, that he approves of racism. If anything, those statements imply that he felt like he fit in with the black community at that time, and further serve to illustrate his own "suck it up and don't whine" pragmatic mentality. Even the liberal MSM knew better than to run with that story.
__________________
"God, send me anywhere, only go with me. Lay any burden on me, only sustain me. And sever any tie in my heart except the tie that binds my heart to Yours."
--David Livingstone
"To see no being, not God’s or any, but you also go thither,
To see no possession but you may possess it—enjoying all without labor or purchase—
abstracting the feast, yet not abstracting one particle of it;…."
--Walt Whitman, Leaves of Grass, Song of the Open Road
The media didn't "latch" onto this because they know they would have to take his statements out of context. He was describing his personal experience as "white trash", being on the same socio-economic level as the black community when he was a young man. He said the black people he worked with in the cotton fields seemed happy and weren't singing the blues; he didn't state, nor did he even imply, that he approves of racism. If anything, those statements imply that he felt like he fit in with the black community at that time, and further serve to illustrate his own "suck it up and don't whine" pragmatic mentality. Even the liberal MSM knew better than to run with that story.
This part of the GQ interview has been covered by every MSM outlet I have seen. Haven't checked them all, and I'm not inclined to, but CNN, Huffington Post and MSNBC all have it. The evil-liberal-MSM card is tired of being played, if you ask me.
__________________
Hebrews 13:23 Know ye that our brother Timothy is set at liberty
This part of the GQ interview has been covered by every MSM outlet I have seen. Haven't checked them all, and I'm not inclined to, but CNN, Huffington Post and MSNBC all have it. The evil-liberal-MSM card is tired of being played, if you ask me.
The mainstream media is extremely liberal, and I plan to keep playing that card until they're more balanced, which will probably be a cold day in hell. FYI, I don't like FoxNews either, because they are just as biased the other direction AND they are often sloppy in their reporting.
By "mainstream", I mean ABC, CBS and NBC. I haven't seen anything on their webpages or broadcasts about the "racist" remarks, although it's possible I missed it. I certainly wasn't major headlines, or I would have noticed. Those are the three I check on a regular basis. MSNBC is as liberal as Fox is conservative, and they don't count as mainstream, IMO. CNN counts, so I guess you have one of the four. Huffington post? Mainstream?
__________________
"God, send me anywhere, only go with me. Lay any burden on me, only sustain me. And sever any tie in my heart except the tie that binds my heart to Yours."
--David Livingstone
"To see no being, not God’s or any, but you also go thither,
To see no possession but you may possess it—enjoying all without labor or purchase—
abstracting the feast, yet not abstracting one particle of it;…."
--Walt Whitman, Leaves of Grass, Song of the Open Road
Hybrid Mode
