Duck Dynasty star indefinitely suspended for anti-gay remarks - right move or PC run amok?

[dust1n]

1. Yes, they have the right to fire him. I never disputed that.

2. He was essentially punished for speaking his mind based on his beliefs. That is an attack on his First Amendment rights.

3. They "punished" him both for his religious outlook and for speaking it aloud.

Where in the first Amendment does it say that one is protected from being fired from their employer for their opinion?

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

2. He was essentially punished for speaking his mind based on his beliefs. That is an attack on his First Amendment rights.

3. They "punished" him both for his religious outlook and for speaking it aloud.

As I mentioned earlier, he is in no danger of being arrested.

The 1st Amendment is the US government giving up its right to punish us for our speech, isn't it?

 

[Pine]

Where in the first Amendment does it say that one is protected from being fired from their employer for their opinion?

Show me where I said that. I said no such thing.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Show me where I said that.

You seem to have said it, whether you meant to do that or not.

If you're not claiming that his 1st-Amendment rights were violated by his firing, then how exactly were his 1st-Amendment rights violated?

 

[Penumbra]

What's missing here is that you can't force people to think the way you do. The brain doesn't work that way. You can paint them into a corner and get them to parrot your mantra, but unless they personally embrace a belief it ain't gonna happen.

The gays will have to accept that some people have an aversion to their lifestyle. Not everyone is going to show them the love and there's nothing wrong with that. THAT is normal.

Your posts on this are not correct or consistent.

The company didn't force him to think the way they do. They just let him go because they didn't want to associate with him. He can go on being the same as he is now, on his own time.

Robertson has specific religious beliefs and he freely expressed them and was attacked for it. That is an assault on his First Amendment rights to freedom of religion and speech.

Everybody seems to think the First doesn't apply here, but it does. We are free to speak our minds in this country and no special interest group has the right to silence us because they don't like what we say. They can disagree all they want, but they can't silence us.

I don't care if they fire him. He's covered.

No, it's not an assault on his First Amendment rights. The First Amendment doesn't protect him from being fired from other people for expressing his religion- it protects him from the government when expressing himself. Absolutely nobody is legally blocking his free speech; they're just taking back the microphone that they own in the first place.

The closest thing that would protect someone from getting fired from a business for their religion are anti-discrimination laws. They have limits, though. For example, if there is a homosexual and a Christian at work, in a state where both are protected by anti-discrimination laws, then the homosexual cannot be fired for being a homosexual and the Christian cannot be fired for being Christian. But if the Christian causes a problem in the workplace by harassing the homosexual, she or he can be fired.

And contracts like this are even more flexible than employee contracts. Like, a spokesperson for a diet plan can be removed from her position if she or he gains a lot of weight. This man is a public figure with a contract, he said some things that he is legally free to say, and then the consequences for saying those things was for the company to decide suspend him, which does appear legal. And the consequence for that is feedback from public figures and fans of the show.

1. Yes, they have the right to fire him. I never disputed that.

2. He was essentially punished for speaking his mind based on his beliefs. That is an attack on his First Amendment rights.

3. They "punished" him both for his religious outlook and for speaking it aloud.

This isn't coherent. You're saying they had the right to fire him (it was actually a suspension) but then claiming it was an attack on his First Amendment rights, which contradicts your earlier statement because if it was actually an attack on his rights, they wouldn't be able to do that. All they did, was basically suspend him which looks like it's permanent unless they cave from fan pressure. They didn't attack his actual rights or his freedom to express himself at all.

 

[Ouroboros]

Robertson has specific religious beliefs and he freely expressed them and was attacked for it. That is an assault on his First Amendment rights to freedom of religion and speech.

He got physically attacked? I didn't know that. Free speech doesn't cover any physical retribution or altercations, but it does cover speech in text, oral, and so on. If people only responded with their opposing views, they were covered under free speech as well, but if there assaults on his body, yeah, agree, that's an assault on his rights. I can't find any article that he was physical abused though. When did it happen? Or are you just referring to him being suspended from the show? Well, that's not an assault on free speech in this case. We heard clearly, loud, and well what he wanted to say. In fact, it's been shoved in our face a la free speech extreme. Forced to hear is the opposite to being oppressed speech.

 

[Uberpod]

Bottom line: Pine is pining away because these beliefs, that she actually owns and believes are good, can receive negative consequences when expressed publically. She wants special privileges when it comes to her beliefs. She would be fine with the fact that open homosexuals can receive consequences because of it.

 

[Uberpod]

This was a WRONG move by A&E but NOT PC run amok! His remarks were despicable and should be criticized by A&E. But, this is about a reality show afterall. He is not a talk show host or spokesman. He is a moron who entertains morons. He is ripe for lampooning!! Let him show his shallow values out in the open.

 

[Me Myself]

1. Yes, they have the right to fire him. I never disputed that.

2. He was essentially punished for speaking his mind based on his beliefs. That is an attack on his First Amendment rights.

3. They "punished" him both for his religious outlook and for speaking it aloud.

A punishment would need to be with the intention of correctg or inspiring guilt.

I doubt they had any of those in mind. I am sure they were simple thinking on the ratings.

So no, I doubt he was punished.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Robertson has specific religious beliefs and he freely expressed them and was attacked for it. That is an assault on his First Amendment rights to freedom of religion and speech.

No. Not in any way was it an infringement upon his Constitutional rights. Our right to freedom of speech or religious freedom doesn't give us any guarantee to be able to slander groups of people without any repercussions.

Everybody seems to think the First doesn't apply here, but it does.

Of course it does, just not in the way you think- he exercised his right to free speech. Fine. And the network exercised their right as an employer to not be associated with an avowed bigot. Problem solved, no rights have been violated.

 

[Reverend Rick]

No. Not in any way was it an infringement upon his Constitutional rights. Our right to freedom of speech or religious freedom doesn't give us any guarantee to be able to slander groups of people without any repercussions.


Of course it does, just not in the way you think- he exercised his right to free speech. Fine. And the network exercised their right as an employer to not be associated with an avowed bigot. Problem solved, no rights have been violated.

I agree with this with one exception, are the PC people bigoted as well?

There is such a thing as anti-religious bigots as well right?

 

[Awoon]

I agree with this with one exception, are the PC people bigoted as well?

There is such a thing as anti-religious bigots as well right?

Sure there is. The problem is The Bible. Some Christian teachers (Phil Robertson) teach Paul as a literal fact regarding certain activities of "Church" members to also include "Non Church" members. Then some Christian teachers teach Paul and those activities as a taboo of idol worship, forced male on male rape violence having Nothing to do with the Homosexual activities of Loving couples in those relationships.

Christians according to Paul need to clean up their house first before condemning Non Christians and their houses.

 

[Ouroboros]

Here's another point I was thinking off.

Robertson signed a contract with A&E. A&E most likely (I'm quite certain of it) has some form of clause in the contract regarding hate speech. Disney, AT&T, Microsoft (in particular) and many other large companies, have similar clauses in the contract. I think there was some Microsoft employee that got fired some years ago for sending an email that contained religious stuff (can't remember exactly what it was). Some of them have zero tolerance policies about this. A&E probably not as harsh since the show does portray this family's religious views to some degree (they're blessing the food and praying and such). So, really, it was a breach of contract anything more than a question of free speech.

 

[Reverend Rick]

I think Paul was a homosexual and a liar. Is it OK to put those two in the same sentence?

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Here's another point I was thinking off.

Robertson signed a contract with A&E. A&E most likely (I'm quite certain of it) has some form of clause in the contract regarding hate speech. Disney, AT&T, Microsoft (in particular) and many other large companies, have similar clauses in the contract. I think there was some Microsoft employee that got fired some years ago for sending an email that contained religious stuff (can't remember exactly what it was). Some of them have zero tolerance policies about this. A&E probably not as harsh since the show does portray this family's religious views to some degree (they're blessing the food and praying and such). So, really, it was a breach of contract anything more than a question of free speech.

I think this is mostly true. I'm still suspicious of A&E at the moment, given that they were well aware of the nature of the Robertsons mannerisms and beliefs, and that they were enjoying record ratings due to riding on the family itself.

I dunno.

 

[Reverend Rick]

I think this is mostly true. I'm still suspicious of A&E at the moment, given that they were well aware of the nature of the Robertsons mannerisms and beliefs, and that they were enjoying record ratings due to riding on the family itself.

I dunno.

A&E had a problem with Phil praying in Jesus name and asked him to change that as well. Of course he refused and the network dealt with it.

They really are walking a thin line I believe. What Phil says off camera is not really A&E's business.

I do however believe they can run their network as they see fit though.

You watch and see if Phil is not back next filming season, I expect A&E to walk this back because of money before principle.

 

[sojourner]

Robertson has specific religious beliefs and he freely expressed them and was attacked for it. That is an assault on his First Amendment rights to freedom of religion and speech.

Everybody seems to think the First doesn't apply here, but it does. We are free to speak our minds in this country and no special interest group has the right to silence us because they don't like what we say. They can disagree all they want, but they can't silence us.

I don't care if they fire him. He's covered.

His First Amendment rights weren't squashed here. No one's throwing him in jail. The government isn't coming after him. He hasn't been fined. he can say what he wants, but he has to realize that there are consequences for saying what he wants. Are you gonna say that a guy's First Amendment rights were squashed because he walked into a bar in Harlem and yelled the "N" word??? No! actions have consequences.

If he's gonna be dumb enough to to spread hate speech, there will be consequences. It's got nothing to do with the First Amendment. It's got nothing to do with "special interest groups." It has to do with public decadency and the sense of the populace.

BTW, I suppose MLK was squashing the First Amendment rights of people in the south who insisted that blacks were less than human and didn't deserve to be treated fairly?

 

[sojourner]

1. Yes, they have the right to fire him. I never disputed that.

2. He was essentially punished for speaking his mind based on his beliefs. That is an attack on his First Amendment rights.

3. They "punished" him both for his religious outlook and for speaking it aloud.

No, they "punished" him for publicly dehumanizing a systemically-oppressed minority. As well he should have been.

 

[McBell]

No, they "punished" him for publicly dehumanizing a systemically-oppressed minority. As well he should have been.

People keep throwing around the word "punish" but I have not seen any.
Phil Robertson was suspended with pay.
Where is the "punishment"?

 

[Enai de a lukal]

I agree with this with one exception, are the PC people bigoted as well?

I'm not sure who exactly you're talking about, but if you mean the people calling for Robertson's suspension, or the execs at A and E who suspended him, then we have no reason to think they are. Opposition to ignorant intolerance is common sense, not bigotry.

There is such a thing as anti-religious bigots as well right?

Sure, but once again, opposing the sort of mindless homophobic venom Mr. Robertson was spewing doesn't constitute anti-religious bigotry.