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

@BillRM,

Quote:

To sum up they screw themselves big time.

depends if they can use the morals clause to void the contract. It would seem to be a fight if duck dude wants to make it a fight, as religious beliefs are normally an exception and questioning the black victim story does not appear to rise to the level of gross immorality.

2 Replies

@hawkeye10,

Quote:

depends if they can use the morals clause to void the contract

I would love to see A&E and I mean love to see them going to court on the theory that expressing Christian fundamental religion believes is not a moral thing to express!!!!!!

That a large percent of the country and more important their viewers therefore lack morals!!!!!!!!!

No Hawkeye unless they are suicidal they are not going to be able to do that.

Lord I am still laughing at the picture of them trying to employ a moral clause in this case.

Once more they are screw.

0 Replies

@engineer,

Quote:

Can you site a law, labor or otherwise A&E is breaking?

Sorry there is little likelihood that he is an employee at will but a man with a contract and therefore the laws of contracts come into play not labor laws.

The very concept of firing someone under a moral clause for expressing his religion believes still have me rolling on the floor.

That is even as an atheist who hardly have respect for his believes.

0 Replies

@BillRM,

Quote:

The problem is that he had a contract and firing someone for expressing his religion believes sound like he would have a lawsuit.

He wasn't fired, and he has been paid for all the work already done for A & E, including the next season.

There is no lawsuit issue here. There really is no civil rights issue either. He doesn't have a right to a reality show, and he doesn't have a right to have his contract renewed when it expires.

This whole thing has been blown out of proportion, mainly by the religious right and the Republican right wing, like Palin and Cruz.

And he didn't just "express his religion"--he was using his religion to criticize and judge other people. But, "Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned," is part of that same religion and Bible he claims he follows. Perhaps he should re-read that part. Waving the Bible does not give a so-called reality star the right to bash gays, or anyone else for their sexual behaviors, on someone else's network. And A & E can take actions, like a suspension, to keep him from doing that on their network. They have no obligation to give this man a platform on their network if they strongly disagree with how he's using the airtime, or if they strongly disagree with comments he's made elsewhere.

And he also made offensive comments about blacks--about how much happier they were in the days of Jim Crow Rolling Eyes

and how they enjoyed picking all that cotton before the days of "welfare and entitlement." Rolling Eyes

Yup, the pre-civil rights era really was "the good old days" for blacks. Rolling Eyes

And now they're all lazy, and demanding entitlements and welfare. Rolling Eyes

What a load of crap.

A & E hasn't screwed themselves at all. They pre-emptively distanced themselves from his comments, which they needed to do, and they have the next season of Duck Dynasty already in the can and ready to go on the air in January. This is a win-win for them.

2 Replies

@firefly,

Well I got a moment of weakness and look at one of your postings shame on me.

Pulling someone from a show he have a contract to perform in whether they paid him or not is likely breaking that contract. The paid they might give him only going toward question of the amount of damage he suffer due to them breaking their contract with him.

An it is too bad that people have gotten their feelings hurt due to him expressing his religion believes of what will happen in the afterlife to gays but it is not a moral clause breaker.

Hell I am sure the asshole have a lower opinion of atheists such as myself then gays but that is beside the point.

The family is likely to refused to go on with the show until A&E honor their contract with the man so they are screw both in the court of law and the court of public opinion.

1 Reply

@engineer,

engineer wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

If they had fired an actor for expressing the opposite opinion, you would be advocating a law suit.

Others possibly, not me. I know that shows can hire or fire actors at their discretion. Ask Charlie Sheen.

Charlie Sheen, let's remember, was fired for erratic and inappropriate behavior, not for expressing an opinion publicly.

2 Replies

@firefly,

Quote:

This whole thing has been blown out of proportion

no, the outrage is very proportional to the act. The blowing out of proportion was the cutting of pops out of the show for his religious beliefs, which are still fairly common in this nation.

2 Replies

@Brandon9000,

Quote:

Charlie Sheen, let's remember, was fired for erratic and inappropriate behavior, not for expressing an opinion publicly.

Interest point however A&E desire their highest rated show to go forward not a few decades of law suits and counter law suits and not to have a viewer boycott on top of that.

The other actors/actresses on two and a half men TV show also was willing to go on with the show it does not look like his family is willing to do so however.

Once more they had screw themselves.

0 Replies

Quote:

“Cracker Barrel’s mission is Pleasing People. We operate within the ideals of fairness, mutual respect and equal treatment of all people. These ideals are the core of our corporate culture. We continue to offer Duck Commander products in our stores. We removed selected products which we were concerned might offend some of our guests while we evaluate the situation. We continually evaluate the products we offer and will continue to do so.”

Cracker Barrel's statement led to confusion among some customers who wondered if the restaurant was removing Duck Dynasty products owned by A&E or products owned by the Robertson family's Duck Commander business.

Cracker Barrel did not return phone calls seeking clarification or comment.

http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2013/12/21/cracker-barrel-pulls-duck-dynasty-merchandise/

If they are punishing A&E this is a very big story, but I doubt it...they are probably removing edgier stuff no matter who they buy it from. Things that mirror DD views on women of course would be among the gone stuff.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

I think it is become clear that corporate america will on average be willing to put up zero fight for American citizen free speech . What I am left with is more confirmation that corporte america does not represent my values. The queasiest get their way is the road to ruin for the collective.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

Quote:

no, the outrage is very proportional to the act. The blowing out of proportion was the cutting of pops out of the show for his religious beliefs, which are still fairly common in this nation.

Even people such as myself who think he is a jerk and have no respect for his religious beliefs need to side with him and his family over this matter.

2 Replies

@BillRM,

You don't know what you are talking about. So, what else is new?

They haven't pulled him from the show--all 15 episodes of the next season, which will will start running in Jan., include him.

That's why the "suspension" is meaningless--it seems to be nothing more than a warning that his contract might not be renewed, and it may mean he won't be doing publicity for the network to promote the show, and A & E has a right to do that, for any reason they care to. And, if the rest of the family won't fulfill their publicity obligations without him, and they are contractually obligated to do that sort of thing, they'd be the ones violating their contract, and they could be sued by A & E.

A & E has honored their contract--they paid him for the upcoming season, for the work he's already completed, so what are you talking about?

So, if the family doesn't want to go on with the show after next season, if it doesn't include the patriarch, the contract won't be renewed by mutual agreement. A & E doesn't have any obligation to offer a new contract.

Quote:

Pulling someone from a show he have a contract to perform in whether they paid him or not is likely breaking that contract. The paid they might give him only going toward question of the amount of damage he suffer due to them breaking their contract with him.

You've obviously never worked by contract with anyone. I have.

As long as the balance of the contract is fully paid off, the employer can chose to void the contract. The contract is an obligation to provide pay for a service. If the employer wants to pay, without receiving the service, they can certainly do that. There is no "damage" to the employee when a contract is simply paid off without work being done--the employee has suffered no financial loss. The employer's obligation simply involves payment--if they want to pay someone for no work, that's up to them.

And the issue is irrelevant in this case. The man has not been fired, and his contract has not been broken.

And the Duck Dynasty clan has no reason not to just let this matter drop right now, and the same is true of A & E--both parties are benefiting from tons of free publicity for their new season. Both parties want to attract more viewers. They have a mutually beneficial relationship.

This situation is analogous to the situation with Paula Dean and the Food Network--they didn't fire her, they chose not to renew her contract, which was up for renewal. And they had a perfect right to do that.

0 Replies

@BillRM,

Quote:

Even people such as myself who think he is a jerk and have no respect for his religious beliefs need to side with him and his family over this matter.

this nation is suffering through an extreme lack of tolerance, just one of many maladies that add up to us being in a new dark age. But go ask everyone, we are the best humans evar! (Delusion is rampant)

0 Replies

@hawkeye10,

Quote:

The blowing out of proportion was the cutting of pops out of the show for his religious beliefs, which are still fairly common in this nation.

No, his version of his beliefs are not common, not these days.

Not only are people, including Christians, increasingly not condemning homosexuals, states are increasingly legalizing gay marriage, and the Supreme Court's recent rulings recognize the equal rights of partners in a gay marriage--and all of these decisions have been made by a Christian majority.

Even the Pope is encouraging acceptance.

So, at best, this man is part of a small segment of fundamentalist Christian belief--but his personal beliefs are not being interfered with just because a TV network doesn't want to offer him a contract to spout those beliefs on their airtime. And his beliefs about blacks have nothing to do with religion.

This really isn't a religious freedom or civil rights issue. No one is stopping him from practicing his religion, or voicing his opinions. But no one ever said that opinions, or what you say about other people, which is all this is about, doesn't have consequences in the marketplace in terms of whether someone wants to employ you, or watch your show, or your movie. If you want to shoot your mouth off, and you don't care who you offend, you have to be prepared to take the consequences.

2 Replies

@hawkeye10,

All this Christian morality is from a guy who made his fortune helping people offer sex to ducks.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

Quote:

All this Christian morality is from a guy who made his fortune helping people offer sex to ducks.

LOL

0 Replies

@firefly,

Quote:

No, his version of his beliefs are not common, not these days.

Not only are people, including Christians, increasingly not condemning homosexuals,

once you punish people for not giving you the answer that you want to hear you no longer have any way to know what they believe, and you have stopped caring about them, as you have decided that you have the power to run over them and you are not ashamed to use it.

0 Replies

@firefly,

firefly wrote:

Quote:
Why not? Both testaments of the Bible denounce homosexuality as a sin,

I'm not sure that's true, particularly in the Old Testament. Where is homosexuality even mentioned, let alone considered "a sin" in the Old Testament?

Here are two verses from Leviticus:

Leviticus 18:22: "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."

Leviticus 20:13: "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."

Christians tend to define "sin" as a violation of god's commands. Both these provisions in Leviticus are putatively commands from god. (The beginning of each chapter is, "And the LORD spoke to Moses, 'speak to the Israelites and say: ________'" Both times, Leviticus fills the blank with a chapterful of instructions , and of penalties for violating them. The death penalty for men who consensually sleep with one another is just one of them. Failing to see that the Old Testament considered homosexuality, not just a sin, but an abomination and a capital crime, borders on willful ignorance.

3 Replies

@hawkeye10,

hawkeye10 wrote:

you fail to understand that a massive chunk of america believes that the dude is 100% correct, they are sure that it is people like you who have the loose screws.

You're mistaken. I do understand that. So, let them say what they have to say and ridicule them for it. The proper attitude here isn't, "we can't allow them to make their case". It's "let them make their case and lose."

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

Quote:

I was just reading about this guy. I don't understand why Christians would stand up for such a loud-mouthed fool.

Because they agree with him? I wouldn't care so much about that, if they didn't praise freedom in the same sentence.

I also like how they complain about freedom of speech. He wasn't arrested, was he?

0 Replies

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know