30
   

So Saying That Folks Should Follow Christian Morals is NOW A Firing Offense

 
 
BillRM
 
  -4  
Thu 2 Jan, 2014 03:49 pm
@engineer,
Quote:
Does a claim of religion really trump everyone else's ability to call hate speech what it is? I'll say it again: If you support Robertson's freedom to spew hatred then you should support everyone else's freedom to spew hatred back


First I personally think that anyone who give any credit to the bible as having any connection to the real universe are fools however we are not talking about answering Phil with either insults or reason but instead mounting an attack on his livelihood for expressing his religious beliefs base on the bible.

That is simply dead wrong under my moral system and it would seems not a small percent of the rest of the population even including those who like me have zero belief in the bible or the Christian religion.
spendius
 
  1  
Thu 2 Jan, 2014 04:10 pm
@spendius,
From what little I have seen about this row I would say that Robertson is either a fool or a wily customer.

hawkeye10
 
  -1  
Thu 2 Jan, 2014 04:29 pm
@spendius,
spendius wrote:

From what little I have seen about this row I would say that Robertson is either a fool or a wily customer.


I vote wily....
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  5  
Thu 2 Jan, 2014 04:37 pm
@coldjoint,
coldjoint wrote:

Quote:
I agree with the bible cj. You are fool and need to learn sense.


First, I never said that. Second, for you to say that agreeing with some of the ideas in the Bible is foolish does not have much thought behind it.



Are you saying the bible is wrong? How dare you attack me for agreeing with the bible cj? If you go back and look at my post I even quoted the part of the bible that I agree with.
wmwcjr
 
  -1  
Thu 2 Jan, 2014 04:40 pm
@BillRM,
BillRM wrote:
. . . we are not talking about answering Phil with either insults or reason but instead mounting an attack on his livelihood for expressing his religious beliefs base on the bible.


At the risk of offending certain A2K members with whom I've had pleasant exchanges, I must say, given your antipathy towards religious faith, that I'm quite impressed with your stance regarding Robertson. You clearly are taking a principled stand; namely, that of defending free speech regardless of whether you agree or disagree with the individual who is the subject of the controversy. You deserve a "thumbs up"! Smile Cool (For the record, I've found most of Robertson's comments to be dumb or offensive; and I'm a Christian! But I don't favor attacking someone's livelihood. Especially in this bad economy!)

As you know, the free speech issue frequently cuts both ways. I've posted a link below to an article pertaining to a specific case in which someone actually lost his job over his right to speak out. You might be interested. IMO it's a fascinating read.

http://deadspin.com/i-was-an-nfl-player-until-i-was-fired-by-two-cowards-an-1493208214
firefly
 
  4  
Thu 2 Jan, 2014 04:52 pm
@BillRM,
Quote:
however we are not talking about answering Phil with either insults or reason but instead mounting an attack on his livelihood for expressing his religious beliefs base on the bible.

Suppose Phil were a fundamentalist Muslim, and he publicly condemned and defamed all Christians in the way that he condemns homosexuals. Would you honestly expect an American employer to retain him, simply because he was voicing statements about "infidels" according to his religious beliefs?

What might have threatened Robertson's livelihood was his hate speech and bigotry, not his religious views. It's perfectly all right for him to feel that homosexuality, and adultery, and pre-marital sex, are all wrong. He doesn't have to personally accept any of those things. But when he starts mounting vicious verbal attacks on the characters of the people who engage in any of those behaviors, he crosses a line that's really not acceptable to most employers, because he's generating and promoting hatred toward entire groups, including their other employees. And there is no reason for any employer to be accepting of his bigotry because he claims it's part of his religion.

It was Robertson who threatened his own livelihood by exposing his bigotry. Mel Gibson did the same. White supremacists also claim to be guided by their Christian religious views too, and if Robertson voiced white supremacist views, as an expression of his religion, he'd be threatening his livelihood as well.

And the sort of remarks that Robertson makes about homosexuals threatens their ability to make a living, since he views, not only their sexual behaviors, but their characters, in despicable terms, and the sort of thinking he promotes has real life negative consequences for them because his message is also that they are untrustworthy, and engage "in all manner of evil" and homosexuals have suffered as the result of discriminatory employment practices in the past, so they have every reason to be outraged when they are defamed in this way, because they know what the consequences can be if they remain silent .

No one protesting Robertson's remarks "mounted an attack on his livelihood"--advocacy groups, very understandably, registered their offense at his remarks, but none, that I am aware of, demanded that he be fired. They simply asked to meet with A & E. On the other hand, the faith-based organizations supporting Robertson mounted an organized campaign against A & E, with threats of attacking the livelihood of his employer, by boycotting the network, or it's advertisers, if they chose to fire him.

Robertson has a right to his religious beliefs, but he has no right to have a reality TV show.



coldjoint
 
  -4  
Thu 2 Jan, 2014 04:58 pm
@firefly,
Quote:
Suppose Phil were a fundamentalist Muslim, and he publicly condemned and defamed all Christians in the way that he condemns homosexuals. Would you honestly expect an American employer to retain him, simply because he was voicing statements about "infidels" according to his religious beliefs?


People like that are working for the DHS.
And yes the employer does keep them. Pride in America is just not cool, is it?

0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Thu 2 Jan, 2014 06:01 pm
@parados,
Quote:
If you go back and look at my post I even quoted the part of the bible that I agree with.


Was it that "joints of the thighs" bit in Solomon's song? Or the "cluster of grapes" one. Or the other one?
izzythepush
 
  1  
Thu 2 Jan, 2014 06:07 pm
@spendius,
Talking of grapes, Merry Christmas.
http://www.vizartwork.co.uk/ekmps/shops/vizartwork/images/cimg1664.jpg
0 Replies
 
engineer
 
  5  
Thu 2 Jan, 2014 06:20 pm
@BillRM,
BillRM wrote:

First I personally think that anyone who give any credit to the bible as having any connection to the real universe are fools however we are not talking about answering Phil with either insults or reason but instead mounting an attack on his livelihood for expressing his religious beliefs base on the bible.

That is simply dead wrong under my moral system and it would seems not a small percent of the rest of the population even including those who like me have zero belief in the bible or the Christian religion.

Yet people who follow Robertson's example have been attacking the livelihood of homosexuals for decades. You support his right to speech which justifies vilification of homosexuals (including loss of jobs) but Phil should be handled with kid gloves? To me that is the rub. Just a couple of years ago Replacements Limited was targeted by the Christian community for daring to say the NC marriage amendment was wrong. Interesting quote from that article:
Quote:
Andrew Spainhour, Replacement’s general counsel and a member of the steering committee that organized opposition to the amendment, tried to recruit other businesses. “I had a lot of phone calls and e-mails that weren’t returned,” he said. “If I did have a conversation, they’d say, ‘Gosh, we can’t do this, we can’t go out on a limb.’ There’s a tremendous amount of fear.”

Fear. Fear of Christians attacking for rejecting a state constitutional amendment codifying bigotry. Do you think Phil is scared because a vocal minority is trying to get him fired? I think not. I think Robertson can say what he wants but so can his detractors, including calling for his firing. Let's be clear. Gays have been fired for no other reason than being gay. I went to look for articles supporting that statement but there were so many I decided to just post the google link. As long as people like Robertson call homosexuals "evil", implicitly supporting their firing, I don't have any problem with them supporting his termination. If you want to censor their response to Robertson, then you should want to censor him as well. It's all censorship or all free speech. The idea that he can speak freely but they have to hold their fire doesn't work for me.
spendius
 
  0  
Thu 2 Jan, 2014 06:28 pm
@engineer,
It's just a stunt to keep you all on the edge of your seats.
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  -1  
Thu 2 Jan, 2014 07:03 pm
Quote:
Duck Dynasty is critically important to A&E. How important? In 2013, Duck Dynasty comprised 29% of A&E’s primetime schedule but accounted for 44% of its primetime 25-54 demo Live+Same Day ratings points. That’s striking given that the network currently has fewer than 30 produced hours of Duck Dynasty to repeat across its primetime schedule – unlike, say, History with its bajillion hours of Pawn Stars. A&E keeps recycling its modest library of Duck Dynasty episodes, and those repeats continue to pull in strong ratings

http://tv.yahoo.com/news/duck-dynasty-family-launches-gun-line-no-fireworks-165457941.html

Old Phil had these cats by the balls and decided to squeeze...I do believe that is what happened. this was a PR event, engineered by the Red Neck.
Germlat
 
  2  
Thu 2 Jan, 2014 07:07 pm
@hawkeye10,
Or by a well defined sensationalistic scripted and cheap series!
0 Replies
 
firefly
 
  2  
Thu 2 Jan, 2014 07:59 pm
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
Old Phil had these cats by the balls and decided to squeeze...I do believe that is what happened. this was a PR event, engineered by the Red Neck.

To what end would he be squeezing those balls? What was he after?

The Robertsons renegotiated their contract with A & E--a multi-year contract--last August, so why would he suddenly decide to jeopardize it? The Robertsons held out for several months, over a salary dispute, before they signed that contract. That's when they had A & E by the balls, once they signed it, they no longer did.

Beside, there was an A & E rep sitting next to Robertson when he gave that GQ interview. So they knew what he was saying. Maybe they wanted him to say controversial and outrageous things to boost the show's ratings--they are the ones who really benefit by all the publicity for the Duck Dynasty show that his remarks generated, and they're the ones who benefit from all the Duck Dynasty merchandise sold, and they are the ones who directly benefit from the higher ratings the publicity likely generated. The Robertson clan's salary is set by their contract, and increased ratings won't change that for several years.

Either Phil and A & E both engineered this brouhaha, or A & E did it with GQ's help, but it makes little sense that Phil did it on his own, because he could have gotten fired. The rest of his family would still be bound by their contract with A & E, and, actually, Phil is not that big a part of the show, and his sons never said they wouldn't do the show without him.

And if Phil engineered this as a PR stunt, to hype up his other business interests, it means his main motivation is money, and that he intentionally made controversial remarks mainly to generate publicity, and this really has nothing to do with religion, it's about MONEY.

0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  -3  
Thu 2 Jan, 2014 08:46 pm
@engineer,
Quote:
Yet people who follow Robertson's example have been attacking the livelihood of homosexuals for decades. You support his right to speech which justifies vilification of homosexuals (including loss of jobs) but Phil should be handled with kid gloves?


I see very little to gain by claiming it ok to try to harm Phil livelihood due to what others with the same believes as Phil had in the past done to gays or anyone else for that matter.

If Phil had himself repeat himself had been found to had fired his employees due to them being gay then you would have real reasons to attack him and I would join in.

As it is GLAAD had rightly lost support for the gay right movement due to their very bad behaviors in my eyes and other eyes that is similar to the nonsense of the blacklisters of the 1950s.
RABEL222
 
  1  
Thu 2 Jan, 2014 08:51 pm
@firefly,
He isent using the King James version of the Bible. So he isent using the "proper" Bible.
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  0  
Thu 2 Jan, 2014 09:00 pm
@wmwcjr,
Quote:
I've posted a link below to an article pertaining to a specific case in which someone actually lost his job over his right to speak out. You might be interested. IMO it's a fascinating read.


It is a very interesting read and in my opinion he should had spoken out about his mistreatment within the team to the team management and owner with very special note of the taking all gays to an island and nuking that island comment by a coach.
firefly
 
  2  
Thu 2 Jan, 2014 09:22 pm
@BillRM,
Quote:
As it is GLAAD had rightly lost support for the gay right movement due to their very bad behaviors in my eyes and other eyes that is similar to the nonsense of the blacklisters of the 1950s.

Why don't you feel the same way about Faith Driven Consumers, who organized the protests and petitions against A & E and threatened to boycott the network, and it's advertisers, if A & E didn't lift the suspension imposed on Robinson?

How come it's only the LGBT and African-American advocacy groups you regard negatively, and you ignore similar, or considerably worse, behavior on the part of right-wing Christian groups. And engineer has already pointed out to you the kinds of tactics and actions those groups have engaged in to make companies fearful of expressing support for same-sex marriage.

Maybe your support of Robertson is really because you share his negative feelings about gays and blacks. You might not share his religion, but you may well share his bigotry, and I definitely think you do. You seem totally unable to realize why his remarks were offensive, and unacceptable, and why the offended groups had very legitimate reason to speak out and express outrage. And that was all they did, they never called for his firing, and yet you continue to accuse them of something they never did.

You're not supporting Robertson's right to express "religious views", you're supporting his bigotry because you agree with it, and you seem to resent all LGBT and black activist groups that speak up to protest their mistreatment, defamation, inequality, and discriminatory treatment--because you've expressed these views about them in thread after thread.

Funny, you never seem to be disturbed by the considerable pressure tactics used by the NRA and the gun lobby, which pale in comparison to anything the LGBT groups or the African-American groups engage in.





0 Replies
 
wmwcjr
 
  1  
Thu 2 Jan, 2014 09:22 pm
@BillRM,
I'm glad you found the article to be of interest. Smile It could be thought of as a companion piece to the Phil Robertson controversy.

The coach's comment was utterly despicable. Sad
BillRM
 
  0  
Thu 2 Jan, 2014 09:37 pm
@wmwcjr,
Quote:
I'm glad you found the article to be of interest. Smile It could be thought of as a companion piece to the Phil Robertson controversy.

The coach's comment was utterly despicable



Here is the other side of the story.......so you lay your money down and decide who to believe it would seems.

Quote:



http://msn.foxsports.com/north/story/2014/01/02/coach-responds-vikings-players-defend-him-after-accusation-by-ex-punter-kluwe.html?cq_ck=1388713644344


Priefer responded later in a statement released to beat reporters.

"I vehemently deny today's allegations made by Chris Kluwe," Priefer responded. "I want to be clear that I do not tolerate discrimination of any type and am respectful of all individuals. I personally have gay family members who I love and support just as I do any family member.

"The primary reason I entered coaching was to affect people in a positive way. As a coach, I have always created an accepting environment for my players, including Chris, and have looked to support them both on and off the field.

"The comments today have not only attacked my character and insulted my professionalism, but they have also impacted my family. While my career focus is to be a great professional football coach, my number one priority has always been to be a protective husband and father to my wife and children.

"I will continue to work hard for the Minnesota Vikings, the Wilf family and all of our loyal fans."

Shortly after Priefer came forward, several players posted on Twitter in support of Priefer, including punter Jeff Locke, who was drafted to replace Kluwe last April.


Metrodome Memories Series

"In my short time with the Vikings, Coach Priefer has treated me with respect and has helped me develop as a player and person," Locke wrote on his Twitter page. "I have never witnessed any actions or statements by Coach Priefer similar to those described in the recent Deadspin article."

Kicker Blair Walsh, who worked with Kluwe during the season in question, supported the coaches with a strongly worded statement.

"I have been a member of the Minnesota Vikings for 2 years," Walsh wrote in a letter sent to reporters. "I want to start off by saying I have the utmost respect for Rick Spielman, Leslie Frazier and Mike Priefer. All three, are good men.

"I have had countless conversations and interactions with Coach Priefer, and I personally can attest to his integrity and character. His professionalism in the workplace is exemplary, and I firmly believe that my teammates would whole-heartedly agree. The allegations made today are reprehensible and totally not compatible with what Mike Priefer stands for.

"As we all know, in the NFL you must perform at the highest level and meet the performance expectations of your coaches, management, and ownership. If these expectations, based upon past performance AND future potential for excellence, are not met, your NFL career with that team, is over. I believe this was the case with Chris, and it is unfair to think that his release was anything other than football related.

"In my time here at Minnesota, Rick Spielman and Leslie Frazier have exemplified true leadership. Contrary to Chris' statements, they have promoted a workplace environment that was conducive for success. At no time did I ever feel suppressed or that I could not be myself.

"I firmly stand behind Rick Spielman, Leslie Frazier, and Mike Priefer."

Other players who supported Priefer on T
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 01/23/2025 at 11:11:47