30
   

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

 
 
hawkeye10
 
  2  
Sat 21 Dec, 2013 06:05 pm
@Thomas,
Quote:
So, let them say what they have to say and ridicule them for it.
better would be to let them make their case, try to understand it, then make your case hoping that they will be just as civilized. no, few can muster this level of humanity these days.
IRFRANK
 
  1  
Sat 21 Dec, 2013 06:14 pm
@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.


Then change the channel. Or did you say you were a stockholder? I imagine you've lost some $$ over this.
0 Replies
 
IRFRANK
 
  2  
Sat 21 Dec, 2013 06:16 pm
@Thomas,
If we start enforcing Leviticus, we are all in trouble. Just the other day my neighbors dog got lose.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  3  
Sat 21 Dec, 2013 06:20 pm
@firefly,
firefly wrote:
Sarah Palin's been protesting the suspension of this man. So, why, if she's such a champion of free speech, didn't she protest MSNBC's firing of Martin Bashir because of the remarks he made about her?

I am not Sarah Palin, but I can think of at least three good reasons. First off, Martin Bashir was a news anchor whereas Phil Robertson is a reality-show clown. The standards of conduct differ between the two roles. That's number one. Second, Phil Robertson's remarks, while stupid and ignorant, remained general, whereas Martin Bashir singled out a specific person for a specific form of corporal punishment. Third, Bashir's diatribe happened on-screen; Robertson's was off-screen. So while I'm not going to lose any sleep over either of these two gentlemen, the case for pulling Bashir was definitely stronger.
0 Replies
 
engineer
 
  3  
Sat 21 Dec, 2013 06:22 pm
@Brandon9000,
Brandon9000 wrote:

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.

One person's public opinion is another person's erratic behavior. The question here is that the opinions expressed are pretty bigoted, not that they are religious. If you are a member of a religion that says that white people are a superior race and all others are mud people, not worthy of consideration, you are entitled to that opinion. If your employer feels that your public statements about mud people are damaging to their business, they are entitled to cease your employment. That the religion in this case is a sect of Christianity doesn't convey any additional protection.
ehBeth
 
  1  
Sat 21 Dec, 2013 06:25 pm
@firefly,
firefly wrote:
No, his version of his beliefs are not common, not these days.


Penny O'Hamster has an account on FB. Somehow she's collected quite a crowd of friends from Kentucky/Missouri/Louisiana. They are pretty much 100% with Pa Duck - and were before this latest dust-up. They are gun-totin' bigots and racists - at the very best of times.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  0  
Sat 21 Dec, 2013 06:27 pm
@engineer,
engineer wrote:

...One person's public opinion is another person's erratic behavior...

Oh, sorry, but you can't stifle free speech by labeling opinions you agree with as a sign of mental defect. Nice try.
engineer
 
  2  
Sat 21 Dec, 2013 06:27 pm
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:

I think it is become clear that corporate america will on average be willing to put up zero fight for American citizen free speech .

The job of corporate America is to make money for their stockholders. You didn't see Google and Yahoo fighting for privacy rights until their business model came under attack and you won't see a lot of businesses fighting to give up the right to fire employees when they see fit. Putting up a fight for free speech is the job of our elected officials and judicial system. Something to think about at the ballot box.
ehBeth
 
  1  
Sat 21 Dec, 2013 06:28 pm
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:
better would be to let them make their case, try to understand it,


I'm not interested in understanding racism or bigotry.

They can definitely make their case to someone else.
0 Replies
 
engineer
 
  2  
Sat 21 Dec, 2013 06:32 pm
@Brandon9000,
Brandon9000 wrote:

engineer wrote:

...One person's public opinion is another person's erratic behavior...

Oh, sorry, but you can't stifle free speech by labeling opinions you agree with as a sign of mental defect. Nice try.

I am in no way stifling free speech nor does "erratic behavior" mean "mental defect". If the government tried to silence this guy, I would be up in arms about free speech. That's not the case and to my ear, his comments were pretty "erratic", protected but erratic.
0 Replies
 
MontereyJack
 
  3  
Sat 21 Dec, 2013 06:39 pm
Gotta wonder about all these people who call it a free speech issue. How many of them are the same people who try to stop any gay voices in the media because "they're trying to cram their homosexual lifestyle down out throats". Seems like it's only free speech to them if it agrees with extreme-right Christian rigid orthodoxy
firefly
 
  2  
Sat 21 Dec, 2013 06:50 pm
@Thomas,
I found that passage from Leviticus after I made that earlier post--I had plain forgotten about it.

And, I also did some reading, after I remembered about Leviticus, and it's not clear whether the prohibition in Leviticus is based on the fact that such behavior was considered "unnatural" rather than "sinful". There is a strong emphasis in the Torah on following "the natural laws"--violating "natural laws" is an offense against God. It's a little different than the Christian notion of "sin". By one man sexually engaging with another, he is not spreading his seed and multiplying, he is not following the natural law. That's probably why lesbian behavior wasn't viewed the same way.

And the prohibition against homosexual, or anal, sex may also have been based on hygiene concerns, at that period in time, rather than notions of "sin". The same sort of thinking is behind the prohibition against having sex with, or even touching, a menstruating woman--she is viewed as "unclean" and she has to go through a ritual bath after each menstrual period before an Orthodox Jewish man can touch her in any way. Orthodox Jewish men still avoid touching any woman they do not know, because she might be menstruating.

Talmudic scholars and rabbis endlessly interpret the Torah and debate this sort of thing--they spend lifetimes doing it.

And, while one of the Ten Commandments is about not coveting thy neighbor's wife, there is nothing about not coveting your neighbor's brother.

Currently, it is really only in Orthodox Judaism--the most fundamentalist branch-- that homosexuality is seen as unacceptable, the reform and conservative branches of Judaism really don't promote that view. But, Orthodox Jews also don't use birth control--which is why they tend to have large families--they still very much believe in spreading their seed and multiplying. That's the "natural law"--not wasting one's seed. Homosexuals are seen as wasting their seed.

Today we know there is nothing "unnatural" about homosexual behavior, it naturally occurs in animals beside humans, and it is simply a less frequent occurrence, or variant, of normal unlearned sexual behavior. So, personally, I don't feel that anyone should be bound by a view of such behavior developed thousands and thousands and thousands of years ago. But other people are free to think differently.

But, thanks for pointing out the citation from Leviticus, and the error I made in my previous post.
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Sat 21 Dec, 2013 06:50 pm
@MontereyJack,
MontereyJack wrote:
Gotta wonder about all these people who call it a free speech issue. How many of them are the same people who try to stop any gay voices in the media because "they're trying to cram their homosexual lifestyle down out throats". Seems like it's only free speech to them if it agrees with extreme-right Christian rigid orthodoxy

I personally don't recall anyone trying to silence gay voices in the media. I could be forgetting things I've seen, but it doesn't ring a bell. Who tried to do that?
firefly
 
  2  
Sat 21 Dec, 2013 07:17 pm
@Brandon9000,
Why do you think gays had to remain closeted for so long?

You never even heard gay voices in the media until relatively recently.
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Sat 21 Dec, 2013 07:21 pm
@firefly,
firefly wrote:

Why do you think gays had to remain closeted for so long?

You never even heard gay voices in the media until relatively recently.

He seemed to be implying that someone tried to remove gay voices which were already present and I asked for an example. I don't say it never happened, but I can't think of an example.
firefly
 
  1  
Sat 21 Dec, 2013 08:22 pm
@Brandon9000,
Quote:
He seemed to be implying that someone tried to remove gay voices which were already present and I asked for an example. I don't say it never happened, but I can't think of an example.

The reaction to Ellen DeGeneres "coming out" on both her TV show, and in real life, in 1997, certainly came close to the far right trying to silence gay voices, because they felt a homosexual lifestyle was being shoved down America's throats. The year before, the Defense of Marriage Act had been passed.
Quote:
Ratings for “The Puppy Episode” were significantly higher than Ellen’s average ratings that season; approximately 42 million viewers watched Ellen come out on primetime. Although Chrysler decided to not buy ad time for the episode, claiming that it was their policy to avoid hot-button issues, it was the only corporate sponsor who withdrew from the show—and only for “The Puppy Episode.” The episode won an Emmy for Outstanding Writing for a Comedy Series in 1997, as well as a GLAAD Media Award and a Peabody Award in 1998.

But all the praise was swamped by a negative conservative backlash. The right-wing group Media Research took out a full-page ad on the back cover of Variety on April 17 claiming that ABC and Disney were “promoting homosexuality to America’s families.” Pat Robertson, Phyllis Schafly, Rev. Donald Wildmon, and Rev. Jerry Falwell joined a group of antigay right-winters to sign a scathing letter characterizing “The Puppy Episode” as “a slap in the face to America’s families.”

DeGeneres soon felt the sting personally, as well, when the Washington Post and the New York Times both criticized her for being too openly affectionate with Anne Heche at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner. Although DeGeneres and Heche claimed that they weren’t doing anything that a straight couple would do, the New York Times characterized their behavior as an “ostentatious display of affection,” thereby teaching all future lesbian couples that they should do no more than hold hands in public.

As Ellen’s fifth season began, criticism began to mount that the show was no longer funny, possibly because it was “too gay”—a quote famously attributed to GLAAD’s Chastity Bono, who later claimed it was taken out of context. But the fifth season did deal with Ellen Morgan’s sexuality; she began dating a woman, and several episodes poked fun at Hollywood’s obsession with gay celebrities. Unable to bring in the ratings, Ellen was cancelled at the end of Season 5.

In an interview with Entertainment Weekly, Stuart Bloomberg, chairman of ABC entertainment, stated that “as the show became more politicized and issue-oriented, it became less funny and audiences noticed.” Stephen Tropiano, author of The Prime Time Closet, notes, “Instead of simply stating that the show was canceled due to low ratings, he claims that because the material was more politicized (translation: gay) and issue-oriented (translation: gay), it became less funny (translation: too gay).” Obviously, no straight TV shows are ever criticized for being “too straight.”

Although DeGeneres did suffer a backlash that put her career on the rocks for several years, her coming-out and the furor that followed paved the way for other primetime shows with gay characters. It seemed that now that someone had come out—both onscreen and off—America was ready to deal with a lead gay character, as long as they weren’t “too gay.”
http://www.afterellen.com/back-in-the-day-coming-out-with-ellen/04/2005/


Quote:
Oprah Winfrey: After Ellen DeGeneres' Coming Out Episode, I Was Called The N Word
08/22/2012

Ellen DeGeneres made the bold choice to come out on national television in the legendary 1997 "puppy episode" of ABC's "Ellen," which featured appearances from major stars like Oprah Winfrey, Laura Dern, Billy Bob Thornton, Demi Moore, Melissa Etheridge and many more.

The episode and decision to come out blacklisted DeGeneres in Hollywood and negatively affected some of the guest stars as well. Winfrey, who played the therapist that helped Ellen realize she was gay in the episode, told The Hollywood Reporter, "I did it because she asked me to do it and I wanted to support her ... It didn't occur to me that there would be a backlash."

Winfrey recalled receiving hateful phone calls and letters after the episode, which brought in 42 million viewers, hit airwaves. "I got all of the, 'N-----, go back to Africa. Who do you think you are?'" Winfrey said, noting to THR that she'd never experienced such things before.

And Winfrey is not alone. Dern, who played the object of Ellen's affection in the "puppy episode," appeared on an episode of "The Ellen Degeneres Show" a decade later in 2007 and opened up about the aftermath. "There was certainly backlash," said Dern, who couldn't get work for a year-and-half in the wake of the episode, despite her Oscar nomination. She said she got some "not-so-nice letters" and described the experience as "awfully terrifying," but said it was an "honor" and an "extraordinary opportunity" nonetheless. Now, she stars on "Enlightened," which has earned her a Golden Globe Award.

Things have improved for DeGeneres as well: Fifteen years after the "puppy episode" -- and after Winfrey's retirement -- DeGeneres is now the top-earner in daytime TV.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/22/oprah-ellen-degerenes-coming-out-n-word_n_1822961.html


So, I think it's reasonable to say that they tried to silence Ellen DeGeneres' gay voice in the media, by the backlash and blacklisting that occurred following her "coming out". She really didn't regain her stature again until she made the animated film, "Finding Nemo."

BillRM
 
  0  
Sat 21 Dec, 2013 08:25 pm
@engineer,
Quote:
If your employer feels that your public statements about mud people are damaging to their business, they are entitled to cease your employment. That the religion in this case is a sect of Christianity doesn't convey any additional protection.


Not with a contract they do not have any such right.
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  1  
Sat 21 Dec, 2013 08:29 pm
@engineer,
Quote:
The job of corporate America is to make money for their stockholders


By endangering your biggest money making show is not how to made your stockholders happy.
0 Replies
 
Germlat
 
  1  
Sat 21 Dec, 2013 08:32 pm
@firefly,
Yes but still ..she had success with her talk show, and her stand-up bits. I happen to love her sense of humor. I think the don't ask don't tell still applied to her. In the end, she's been more successful than most comedians. Have you seen her advert with Sofia Vergara? It's hilarious. She is still used in adverts for women's cosmetics..I think that says a lot.
RABEL222
 
  2  
Sat 21 Dec, 2013 08:33 pm
@engineer,
Can you reference this for me. The catholic church approves of abortion when the mothers life is in danger. Either there was more involved or your facts arnt correct. But I agree that religious institutions are guilty of this. Even protestants.

Second favorite was the Catholic hospital where the nun in charge permitted an emergency abortion to save the live of the mother. She was immediately fired and excommunicated (but the woman lived.)
0 Replies
 
 

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 © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/20/2024 at 01:41:49