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

There's also almost an entire chapter in the NT written by Paul blasting homosexuality. Just FYI.

http://www.uscourts.gov/educational-resources/get-involved/constitution-activities/first-amendment/free-speech.aspx

I think there are a few members who aren't familiar with the nuances of free speech... Bashir made a comment that is directly disallowed under the US speech law: He incited violence against an individual. Period. No excuses.

The Duck Dude shared his religious beliefs which included insensitivity toward blacks and gays.

Neither was arrested, though Palin could have a great lawsuit against Bashir. I think he COULD be arrested/found guilty due to the law. Certainly, MSNBC could be held legally responsible unless they take measures to remove Bashir from their employ.

We all risk repercussions of our speech based on where we are when we choose to speak and under what circumstances we choose to speak.

A man at a John Kerry campaign stop was tazed by Kerry's Secret Service for speaking his opinion. Students are sent to the principal's office, people lose jobs, ("I'm going to Africa. I won't get AIDS though. I'm white." (Ring a bell?) Justine Sacco was fired before her plane landed. Howard Cosell was fired for saying a football player was running like a little monkey...

Most people are merely lining up beside Bashir, Olbermann, Baldwin and the Duck Dude based on nothing other than their political preference.

Circumstances include our legally binding contracts with employers and institutions and vendors.

All these cases have specific elements that should be applied to the law dispassionately.

In what way is Paul opinion on the subject difference then say the Catholic church?

All this is just fuel for the us vs. them fire. It gets tiring, and yes I contribute from time to time. I always thought the bible was a personal guidebook. Not a weapon to use in judgment. Why does Phil feel the need to lash out at others? All this blame and judgment is bad. From all parties. Why does anyone care what he says? Is he doing good with his new found success? Maybe so. I'd like to hear about it. People should apply their Christian morals to themselves.

From what I've read, Phil (Duck Man) was answering questions in an interview. He had every right to say what he did - but he had to know he was taking a risk.

If the contract A&E has with Phil allows, A&E has a right to can him.

There IS a very big following for the show. Fans generally share Phil's religion - he talks about God and his conversion from drug use to religion - and fans are making lots of noise in support of him.

People who disagree are also vocalizing their opinions.

It's cool to me - I just wish sensitivity to people was something we'd all agreed on long ago - and our dialogue was about something better - but at least people are learning about free speech.

Phil has every right to say what he wants, and I doubt he considered any risk, or cared about it. I think people in a public position have some responsibility to add some positive things to life. Placing blame is not positive. If he talked about how religion helped him escape drug use, that would be good. Denigrating a group of people he knows nothing about serves no good purpose, other than inflating his own feeling of superiority.

I don't know the Catholics' book or if they have special addendums.

You don't get any disagreement from me.

This is a ridiculous claim. There is no sane person who would see Bashir's comment as an incitement of violence. This charge would be thrown out of court.

Shud that be addenda????

Possibly. Shouldn't that be "should"?

If Rush Limbaugh said the same about Hillary Clinton, you'd see it differently.

Sarcasm. My expectation is A&E takes stands based on dollars.

A nongovernmental employer can fire a nonunion employee for virtually anything. Thus, Bashir can be legally fired for his nasty words.

Incidentally, the bill of rights is only actionable against the government.

http://www.billboard.com/biz/articles/news/retail/5847706/duck-dynastys-duck-the-halls-album-heading-for-sales-gain-amidst

these fellas seem to be mult-talented. Unlike the Kardashions they might not feel like they need to sacrifice their values for a reality show, as they know how to make money the old fashioned way, by running a business successfully.

I'm afraid you're right. That was an awful, awful thing to say and I approve of his firing.

You are misapplying the concept of "inciting violence" in the case of Martin Bashir. He did not violate any laws. The sorts of things he said are not prohibited under any laws, except, maybe, the rules of good taste.

In the first place, most of Bashir's rant was about how incredibly stupid Sarah Palin is, and he used an allusion she had made to slavery as an example of just how stupid she is. That was really the point he was making. His anger at her stupidity really got the better of him, and he went a little too far in expressing what he thought was necessary to penetrate her stupidity. There's nothing illegal about that, but he was being extremely insulting to her, and he has rightly apologized to her for that.

Not in a million years. A lot of people view her as quite stupid.

And, in terms of actually inciting violence, Sarah Palin doesn't exactly have clean hands.

On her PAC Web site. it was Palin who showed Gabrielle Giffords' congressional district viewed through the cross-hairs of a gun sight. And, not long after that, Giffords was actually shot. While I certainly don't directly blame Palin for Giffords shooting, unfortunately, it's Palin who seems to be doing more to incite or promote actual violence through her ill-considered choice of images, and her "lock and load" figures of speech. I agree with Bashir, the woman is quite stupid, and her manner of expressing herself can be quite reckless.

I definitely felt Bashir had gone over-the-top in that rant, but I don't think he should have been fired, and I don't think Baldwin should have been fired ether, I watched both of their MSNBC shows, and I particularly enjoyed both of them. But I'm not quibbling with their employer's decision to feel otherwise. This isn't a free speech issue, these are corporate decisions that employers can make, for their own reasons. I'm only the consumer. If Nabisco suddenly pulled my favorite cookies off the market, I wouldn't have any say in that decision either, unless Nabisco thought it was in their best interest to put those cookies back on the shelves--they are running a business, not worrying about whether I'd miss Mallomars. And Robertson, the duck dude, is simply another commodity offered for public consumption by A & E., just the way Nabisco offers cookies.

So, how are political preferences any different than cookie preferences?

At the moment, the Duck Dynasty fracas is nothing more than a cookie war. At one extreme are forces like the anti-gay Family Research Council, and at the other, are gay advocacy groups, like G.L.A.A.D.. And they are both battling to influence public opinion, and to get their preference in cookies sold. This whole issue isn't about free speech, or religious freedom, it's about social activists, and pressure groups, on both sides, trying to sell their message. And A & E just offered them a handy battleground to increase their visibility and fight on. The battle is over which side has more political clout, and which side will influence legislation, and public opinion, the most. At the moment, the gay advocacy groups are winning--more and more states are legalizing gay marriage, and DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act) is going down in flames. So I expect the anti-gay forces to milk the Robertson/A & E publicity opportunity for all it's worth, because they need this publicity opportunity to sell their brand of cookies, more than the other side does. They are trying to address a public that goes far beyond the viewers of Duck Dynasty, or of A & E, to sell their anti-gay message, and Robertson is just their latest poster boy.

In the end, A & E will wind up doing what is in their best interests, and, in the end, gay marriage will wind up legal in all 50 states.

And you will revel in the fact that this country goes a little further down the tubes each day with the masses of useful idiots ignoring the destruction of free speech and the growing army of thought police. Financed by the worlds most unsavory characters.

Free speech is not being destroyed--the government is not imperiling or curtailing anyone's right to free speech.

But "free speech" in daily discourse, or on a TV network, can, and does, have consequences. You can't insist that people not react to what you say. That's carrying the idea of the "thought police" to the max.

If I think you're a bigoted idiot, I'm going to say so. And I believe I've already said that to you in the past.

And I think if you did not have the word bigot, you would have nothing to say.