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

@Thomas,

Quote:

And I will, as soon as Robertson suggests specific actions against homosexuals.

how about ANY actions against them? All I heard was "dont you be like that". Likewise he never suggested that young girls should be forced or pressured to marry, he only advised men to find a young woman to marry, dont wait.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

I try not to get too upset about my numerous typos and mindos, but the first paragraph in this response is so embarrassing that I have to correct it:

"No, because that goes beyond expressing an opinion about gay people and advocates the specific action of putting them in a concentration camp, severely depriving them of their liberty (not to mention their dignity) without any process of law, let alone due process. As (I think) I pointed out in the sub-threads about Martin Bashir and Sarah Palin, the suggestion of criminal or unconstitutional actions is where I draw the line."

0 Replies

@hawkeye10,

hawkeye10 wrote:

Quote:
And I will, as soon as Robertson suggests specific actions against homosexuals.
how about ANY actions against them? All I heard was "dont you be like that". Likewise he never suggested that young girls should be forced or pressured to marry, he only advised men to find a young woman to marry, dont wait.

I'm fine in both cases. Let him make his argument and lose.

0 Replies

@engineer,

Quote:

I think there are several interesting takes on this particular defense of speech. First, Robertson is getting a great defense, but others are not. No one is defending the Dominics employee I posted about earlier and the same with the Sacco incident. The defense of speech seems very vocal when homophobic comments are made but other speech seems not worth the effort

First, I think it's important to note that Robertson's main defense was coming from religious-right wing groups, like Faith Driven Consumers, that's who organized the petition drive and made the "demands" of A & E. And, one reason they pounced on this situation, was because it gave them a high-profile opportunity to mount their own attack on the "liberal media", who they always see as being hostile to them. So there was already a special interest group ready to defend Robertson, as "one of their own" for their own reasons, and that was not the case with Sacco or the Dominics employee.

And the only reason that Robertson's remarks kicked up so much dust is because he's on a highly rated cable reality show--he's a pop culture "celebrity". His controversial remarks simply get more attention than the average persons. It's not that Robertson's opinions are more important than anyone else's, it's simply that people may pay more attention to them because they get so much publicity. Sacco and the Dominics employee didn't rate much publicity.

Had a network, like CNN, and a show like Piers Morgan, picked up the cases of Sacco and the Dominics employee as a "free speech" issue, and generated buzz about them, there might well have been more general public discussion of the issue of free speech and the rights of employers to fire people over that. But their cases lacked the built-in newsworthy appeal of Robertson's conflict with A & E.

And because the right-wing religious groups tried to focus this as a religious issue, and because A & E "suspended" him to allegedly show support for the LGBT community, Robertson's comments about homosexuality have simply received more attention than his other offensive remarks--but there was outrage over other things he said, particularly from African-American activist and civil rights groups, it just didn't get much time in the spotlight or notice. All the media chatter was mostly about his remarks concerning homosexuals.

Race and same-sex marriage are hot-button social issues, and they provide the media news outlets with the most sensational coverage and controversial interest, which hypes their ratings, and that is also why those aspects of Robertson's remarks received so much airtime, and cases like Sacco and the Dominics employee receive so little attention--people are just less interested in what went on with them.

0 Replies

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

engineer wrote:
It seems like you are saying it is perfectly fine for them to dish is out but heaven forbid they have to take it. To me, either you condemn the social pressure Robertson and his ilk put on homosexuals as well as the pressure they put on him [...]

And I will, as soon as Robertson suggests specific actions against homosexuals. (For some more details about my reasoning, refer to my response to Firefly.)

You are putting a pretty fine point on that. Robertson said homosexuals are:

'ruthless', 'full of murder', 'arrogant' and liable to 'invent ways of doing evil'.

So he didn't suggest people fire them, beat them or shun them, he just left it up to God-fearing people to do what they must.

2 Replies

@Thomas,

Quote:

Going after someone's source of income for expressing unpopular opinions is an action I disapprove of.

Who, beside A & E, threatened Robertson's income?

And, since they write his paycheck, I think they have a right to do that if they see him as a liability to them, or their Duck Dynasty show, or if they just want to disassociate themselves, and their reputation, from, what they see, as his offensive opinions.

Do you have similar concerns about Faith Driven Consumers threatening the income of A & E if the network didn't comply with their demands--which is exactly what they did?

1 Reply

@engineer,

Why do you not point out one gay person Phil had fired from one of his many businesses for being gay over the years?

How about one gay person he had refused to do business with due to that person being gay?

Seem Phil was more the willing to do business with A&E that have a staff that got bend all out of shape when he dare to support the bible anti-gay positions.

So what is the plan just outlawing the bible completely as a hate book or editing all the current non-PC bullshit it contain out to get a nice clean completely PC bible?

Howabout editing in that Jesus was gay himself as after all the bible seems now to support an asexual Jesus so it would not be too hard to go one step beyond that.

The book is a work of fiction after all who copyright had expiration two thousands or so years ago, so edit away and destroy any versions that you do not care for.

Put to the sword anyone who dare to disagree with you and that would be nothing new either in the history of Christianity.

2 Replies

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

Howabout editing in that Jesus was gay himself as after all the bible seems now to support an asexual Jesus so it would not be too hard to go one step beyond that.

Not necessarily. There are asexual people, which means they have next to no sex drive. They are not gay. This particular sexual minority has recently been recognized by the mental health professionals. (No, I'm not asexual.)

1 Reply

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

Why do you not point out one gay person Phil had fired from one of his many businesses for being gay over the years?

How about one gay person he had refused to do business with due to that person being gay?

I have no idea who Robertson has hired or fired, who he's done business with or whether he'd change his normal practices if he knew in advance this potential employee or customer was gay. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt here. Doesn't change my argument.

BillRM wrote:

Seem Phil was more the willing to do business with A&E that have a staff that got bend all out of shape when he dare to support the bible anti-gay positions.

Actually is seems A&E was willing to do business with him fully aware of his beliefs.

BillRM wrote:

So what is the plan just outlawing the bible completely as a hate book or editing all the current non-PC bullshit it contain out to get a nice clean completely PC bible.

That actually is a first amendment violation. Saying again, you can spew this hatred all you want and be free from government persecution. No issues there. (Just as a historical footnote, the Catholic Council of Carthage did get together in 397 and edited out all the non-PC bullshit to get a nice clean completely PC Bible it's just the definition of PC has changed.)

BillRM wrote:

How about editing in that Jesus was gay himself as after all the bible seems now to support an asexual Jesus so it would not be too hard to go one step beyond that.

I have no desire to edit the Bible. I do feel the need to speak out against some of its more outrageous comments and I have done so in the sanctuary of a church as well as online, but I would no more edit or ban the Bible than I would Huck Finn or Fahrenheit 451.

1 Reply

@wmwcjr,

Quote:

Not necessarily. There are asexual people, which means they have next to no sex drive. They are not gay. This particular sexual minority has recently been recognized by the mental health professionals. (No, I'm not asexual.)

You never had any questions in your mind after reading of the complete lack of relationships of Jesus with females and his followers all being men except for perhaps the other Mary?

Changing the bible so he was gay hardly seems must of a stretch at all.

0 Replies

@engineer,

Quote:

but I would no more edit or ban the Bible than I would Huck Finn or Fahrenheit 451.

But you would do your best to take the livelihood away of anyone who take the bible in a serous manner.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

So you don't accept that the modern intelligent homosexual is right to consider the use of that three letter euphemism to be homophobic and that it is a sign of a deep seated homophobia?

You won't catch me using it.

0 Replies

@BillRM,

Not at all. I didn't call for Robertson's firing, just like I didn't call for Sacco's firing nor that Domincs guy. I do think private employers can hire and fire who they want, a stand that usually works against gays rather than the other way around. That said, if Robertson wants to use the slurs I posted above (directly from the Bible) then I'll speak out against him and encourage others to do the same. I really don't care if he is driven by the Bible, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion or Mein Kampf. There is nothing special about saying hate speech comes from the Bible.

1 Reply

@engineer,

Quote:

The Protocols of the Elders of Zion or Mein Kampf. There is nothing special about saying hate speech comes from the Bible.

footnote Fights over the bible fiction had result in far more deaths over the centuries then Mein Kampf.

In any case, we are not talking about just an employer firing someone for statements the employer does not care for we are talking about the attempt to created a 1950s type blacklist by GAALD and company in order to keep any anti-gay statements ban from the public square at the cost of your livelihood.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

Quote:

In any case, we are not talking about just an employer firing someone for statements the employer does not care for we are talking about the attempt to created a 1950s type blacklist by GAALD and company in order to keep any anti-gay statements ban from the public square at the cost of your livelihood.

You're wrong. This is about "just an employer firing someone for statements the employer does not care for".

Robertson made statements, which his employer did not agree with, and could not support, and that also landed his employer in the middle of an unwanted controversy, and the employer had to decide how they wanted to deal with it. And firing Robertson would have been one of their options.

And that's what happened with Paula Dean, Martin Bashir, and Alec Baldwin--their networks didn't like what they said either, and they were fired. There is nothing really unusual about Robertson's case.

Why do you keep accusing G.L.A.A.D. of things they did not do? G.L.A.A.D. didn't threaten Robertson's livelihood, A & E did, for their own reasons. In this particular situation, it was Faith Driven Consumers who threatened to boycott A & E, and their advertisers, if A & E did not comply with their demands to lift Robertson's suspension.

There's a difference between people stating opposition to social and political issues, like same-sex marriage, and making defamatory remarks about homosexuals as a group. There is no real objection to people expressing disagreement with the legislative aims of LGBT activist groups, including same-sex marriage, that sort of disagreement goes on all the time and there is no issue about it. It is very much in the public square as states continue to legislate approval of, or disapproval of, legalizing same-sex marriage. No one is getting silenced.

But when there are defamatory and bigoted remarks, or slurs, toward entire groups, whether about homosexuals, blacks, women, Muslims, Jews, etc., representatives of such groups will speak up loud and clear in protest, as they should. It's not just "anti-gay" comments that people may not want to keep silent about, it's the negative stereotyping and spewing of hatred toward any group . Generally, all these groups seek is an apology from the person that made the offensive comment or slur. And, as far as I'm aware, that's all these groups asked for from Robertson.

And, when someone continues to make bigoted or offensive statements, why shouldn't offended groups boycott their products? That's their right as consumers. Its a legitimate form of registering protest and disapproval. Mel Gibson, over a period of years, continued to make statements that people found homophobic, racist, sexist, and ant-Semitic, and finally a number of civil rights groups called for a boycott of his movies. Even without any sort of formal boycott, Gibson's movie career just stalled because so many people had found him, and his remarks, offensive.

As far as I know, no advocacy group has called for a boycott of Phil Robertson's line of Duck Commander products.

This really was a situation that just was between Robertson and his employer. And they resolved it.

1 Reply

@firefly,

Quote:

Robertson made statements, which his employer did not agree with, and could not support

so according to you A&E should be able to fire fags no problem if they want to....right? It is all an employer decision you say.

2 Replies

@hawkeye10,

Quote:

so according to you A&E should be able to fire fags no problem if they want to....right? It is all an employer decision you say

What would be the reason for firing them?

I think they could fire you for continuing to refer to gays as "fags", or blacks as "niggers", or women as "cunts" and "bitches"--as you are prone to do on these boards. It's more than slightly offensive. And that's why Alec Baldwin and Paula Dean were fired.

0 Replies

@hawkeye10,

Quote:

so according to you A&E should be able to fire fags no problem if they want to....right? It is all an employer decision you say.

LOL the employer can only fire employees for reasons that Firefly agree with.

In any case, A&E depending on Phil contract have that right and the 14 millions repeat 14 millions viewers of that silly show have a right to boycott A&E for doing so. It work out great in the end for everyone but for GLAAD.

By the way, I would had love and I mean love to see A&E lawyers trying to defend using a moral clause to fired him for daring to express Christian dogma to a court.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

OmSigDavid wrote:

EVERYONE on this planet is ignorant.

Thomas wrote:

That's why I took no position on whether the person Phil Robertson is ignorant.
I deliberately commented about his remarks only.

Can we agree that ignorant = un-informed? ?
Can we agree that a human mind can be ignorant -- i.e., un-informed?
Is it POSSIBLE for a non-living entity e.g. a remark,
(the molecular movement of air) to be ignorant?
Can the wind be ignorant ?
Can the wind from the west be less ignorant
than the wind from the north ?

OmSigDavid wrote:

2. I wonder whether I was BIGOTED
in my impassioned opposition to nazism, communism and all socialism!??
I sure hated Hitler, Stalin and the Kennedys. I resented Truman firing MacArthur.
I had strong feelings! HHHHhhhhhmmmmmm . . . I wonder ?

WHATAYATHINK ????

Thomas wrote:

As applied to Truman, Kennedy, and all socialists, I think your sentiments were bigoted. As applied to Hitler, Stalin, fascism and communism, I think they could be justified a rational response to people who declared war on you and wanted to overthrow America's democratic government.

Is it your position that whether sentiments are bigoted
depends on whether resentment is justified ?
in default whereof, love is obligatory ?
( I KNOW that u did not SAY that; do u believe it ? )

Thomas wrote:

I usually try not to make political discussions personal,
but you specifically asked me what I think. This is what I think.

It was very good of u to respond to my post.
Please accept my thanks for your efforts.

David

1 Reply

@BillRM,

Quote:

It work out great in the end for everyone but for GLAAD.

It worked out well for them too. Their only remaining gripe was that they feel Robertson should sit down with them, and with African-Americans, and look them in the eye, so he could hear about the hurtful impact of comparing homosexuals to terrorists and of praising Jim Crow laws.

And that won't be a bad idea. Let him look Jesse Jackson in the eye and tell him why he thinks blacks were happier in Jim Crow Louisiana, and let him hear Jackson's reaction.

G.L.A.A.D. had never called for A & E to get rid of Robertson.

And the public service campaign that A & E will promote, advocating tolerance and acceptance, seems to have satisfied all the other organizations, including other LGBT organizations, who had registered their offence at Robertson's remarks. And, for all we know, the Robertsons will be part of that campaign.

0 Replies

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know