Perhaps: no one is in the position of becoming the arbiter of what constitutes offensive speech to others.
But everyone is in a position to state what offends themselves and to voice their disapproval, just as you seem to think everyone has a right to say whatever they wish with no consequences.
Liberal Logic 101:
Call for the firing of a TV star because his Faith teaches him that homosexuality is immoral.
Invite the President of Iran, who has ordered the hanging, stoning and burning to death of 1000's of people for being homosexual, to Columbia University as a keynote speaker.
And you wonder why we think you're all idiots....
Juan Williams is laughing all the say to the bank. He's a black man, and can say any stupid thing he wants with little repercussions, and he's getting paid for it.
A & E was quite aware of Phil Robertson's beliefs and for that fact every one of his families beliefs to act surprised at his remarks is the height of stupidity. They are the ones who stupidly said they had taken him out of the show for his remarks and we the consumers have the right to boycott the station for their stupidity. A&E will suffer the consequences of their actions. I never really reacted to the free speech thing because I knew that wasn't really correct here in this instance. The company should have a clause in their contract if they wish to take him out of the show and maybe they do but a Christian and the Robertson's are that wouldn't sign away their right to talk about their beliefs in public that wouldn't even be something they could do unless tricked into it. I do believe A&E walked into this mess by underestimating how many people actually believe in the right of freedom of religion and the right to speak about that. I never had a job where outside of work I couldn't talk about my religion for fear of being fired and no one should be able to have that happen. He didn't bash one person and name them like Bashir. I would never listen to Bill Mayer or care what he says about anyone we all know is a total kook.
I never had a job where outside of work I couldn't talk about my religion for fear of being fired and no one should be able to have that happen.
“When I got fired, it was part of an honest debate about terrorism in our society. My employer didn’t like it and fired me. But this is not about honest debate. What was said actually shuts down debate. It was ugly language about homosexual acts. It invites bigotry. It invites people to hate people who are gay. And this is amazing, because it is not in the Christian tradition to make judgments about them and to put them in a box.”
All of that is utterly irrelevant. It doesn't matter one whit that Williams thinks that his firing was part of an "honest debate about terrorism" because an employer can - or should be able to - fire any employee at any time for any reason - or no reason - whatsoever. The same applies to Phil Robertson and A&E - A&E should be free to hire and fire employees, subject only to abiding in good faith by the terms of the employment agreement it has with an employee.
Furthermore, members of the general public are free to either demand that a particular public persona be fired, or to protest when a favored public persona is fired. As such, there really isn't any real inconsistency if the right demands that Bashir or Maher be fired and then protests when Phil Robertson is fired - that's their prerogative.
The only real inconsistency, if we want to call it that, is, in fact, on the part of the left, which falls all over itself to demand utter tolerance for bigotted hatred from everyone and anyone other than, generally speaking, whites, men and christians. That they are willing to defend to the teeth the bigotted hatred of muslim imams but not the allegedly bigotted hatred from a white male christian (I'm willing to assume Robertson's statements were bigotted hatred for the purposes of this discussion).
Phil Robertson does (or did anyway). He signed contracts with clauses in it that address things like this.
BTW... if I made it to the ten o'clock news saying something that my employer didn't like, while being identified as someone who worked for the company that he owns (and I work for) he has every right under the sun to fire me.
So you have seen this so called contract that forbids him from talking about his beliefs? I hadn't seen any copy of it floating around? He was being interviewed when asked a question and this is forbidden in his contract to be answered? I haven't seen this so called contract have you people who claim he signed one with that clause. No way would a Christian sign his right away to speak in public about his faith. This is what we are asked to do as a Christian no matter who we work for the only time I wouldn't is during my work hours unless talking to personal friends who hold my beliefs. It is A&E that will suffer not Phil Robertson he is just living his life the way it should be lived.
If the Network or Producer becomes aware that Artist has previously committed any such acts or has engaged in behavior that the Network or Producer reasonably determines brings or may bring Artist, Producer, the Network or the Network’s sponsors into widespread public disrepute, scandal or ridicule or which reflects or may reflect unfavorably upon Artist, Producer, the Network or a sponsor, then Producer shall be entitled to terminate this Agreement forthwith by giving Artist notice of termination in writing at any time after the Network or Producer acquires knowledge of such act or conduct.
* * *
Morals clauses are one of the most controversial and heavily negotiated provisions in athlete endorsement contracts. Such clauses often give the advertiser the ability to suspend or terminate the agreement in the event that the athlete commits an act that falls within the purview of the clause – usually defined as behavior that is criminal, scandalous, or otherwise publicly reprehensible. See Nader v. ABC Television, Inc., 150 Fed. Appx. 54, 56 (2d Cir. 2005) affirming 330 F. Supp. 2d 345 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) (in upholding right to terminate actor for breach of morals clause due to criminal activity, the Second Circuit found that "morals clauses have long been held valid and enforceable"). Because the advertiser is paying for the use of the athlete's good name and image, the advertiser may want to end a relationship with an athlete whose misdeeds have tarnished that name and image.
* * *
If an advertiser is concerned with a particular athlete endorser, then the advertiser will often push for a broad morals clause that provides sufficient discretion to the advertiser to determine whether the endorsing athlete's acts constitute a violation. Such a clause might include the following language: "If at any time, in the opinion of Sponsor, Athlete becomes the subject of public disrepute, contempt, or scandal that affects Athlete's image or goodwill, then Company may, upon written notice to Athlete, immediately suspend or terminate this Endorsement Agreement and Athlete's services hereunder, in addition to any other rights and remedies that Sponsor may have hereunder or at law or in equity."
So you have seen this so called contract that forbids him from talking about his beliefs? I hadn't seen any copy of it floating around? He was being interviewed when asked a question and this is forbidden in his contract to be answered? I haven't seen this so called contract have you people who claim he signed one with that clause. No way would a Christian sign his right away to speak in public about his faith. This is what we are asked to do as a Christian no matter who we work for the only time I wouldn't is during my work hours unless talking to personal friends who hold my beliefs. It is A&E that will suffer not Phil Robertson he is just living his life the way it should be lived.
Of course I haven't seen that contract. I don't need to actually see things to believe that they exist.
But, let's go ahead and pretend-live in that world where "morals" clauses haven't been standard in entertainment contracts since the Roscoe "Fatty" Arbuckle case and believe instead that Phil Robertson, an unknown backwoods duck call manufacturer, managed to get a TV show without such a clause in the contract.
Let's pretend that "morals clauses" are not still -prevalent in marketing, television and sports contracts, and that Kate Moss, Michael Nader and Tiger Woods were not fired for violations of the "morals clause" in their contract.
Let's pretend that CG decision to interview Phil Robertson had NOTHING to do with the fact that Phil has a show on A&E, and that the January 2014 cover of GQ doesn't say "Shooting the Sh*t With the Dudes From "Duck Dynasty", a show that belongs to A&E, so they just wanted to interview some random backwoods Louisiana country boy and Phil was available .
Let's pretend all that, and instead believe that that clause doesn't exist, then let's try to figure out why Robertson's attorneys haven't sued A&E for wrongful dismissal and breach of contract.
Because the clause exists, and because the Courts held up such clauses as valid.
I wouldn't write off the possibility of a lawsuit completely. For example, in the wake of 9/11, a footballer named Rashard Mendenhall tweeted various comments both casting doubt on whether the buildings came down solely because of the planes and about how he found it odd that people could hate Osama without knowing him. One of his sponsors, Hanesbrand, terminated their sponsorship agreement with him because of those tweets. He sued and subsequently settled with Hanesbrand because the judge in the case denied Hanesbrand's motion to dismiss because he found that Hanesbrand had an implied covenant of good faith to not exercise its discretion to terminate Mendenhall under the morals clause for his tweets. The fact that they settled means that Mendenhall had a potentially viable claim. There's a discussion of the matter here: http://sportinlaw.com/2013/01/22/athletes-morality-clauses-and-social-media/
It's possible - although I'm not making any odds here - that Robertson might have a similar claim regarding A&E's termination of him if, in fact, they terminated him under a morals clause similar to the one under which Mendenhall was terminated.
"They (homosexuals) committed indecent acts with one another, and they received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. They're full of murder, envy, strife, hatred. They are insolent, arrogant God haters. They are heartless. They are faithless. They are senseless. They are ruthless. They invent ways of doing evil."
Robertson was being interviewed because he's on the show, and that is the primary difference between those tweets and this interview.
Robertson's thoughts on homosexuality are well-known, and documented, but came prior to his involvement with A&E.
In that video Robertson states that:
One is free to believe that, and to even say it, but you're not free from the backlash of saying things like that.
Liberal Logic 101:
Call for the firing of a TV star because his Faith teaches him that homosexuality is immoral.
Invite the President of Iran, who has ordered the hanging, stoning and burning to death of 1000's of people for being homosexual, to Columbia University as a keynote speaker.
I didn't say that there weren't differences; however, without having the exact contract language in front of us, and with neither of us having a great deal of experience or expertise in drafting, negotiating, or litigating these sorts of clauses, the chance that he might have a claim that would survive a motion to dismiss or for summary judgment cannot be completely discounted.
Time will tell I guess.
Again, I believe this was more about Robertson's Christian values than anything he said about homosexuals, although that is what he is supposedly being scapegoated for.
Again, I believe this was more about Robertson's Christian values than anything he said about homosexuals, although that is what he is supposedly being scapegoated for.
The producers were well aware of Robertson's views. You don't sign up an entire family to do a TV show in your network without doing due diligence on the people you're about to get into bed with, but (as it is nearly always the case with these reality based shows) you take the chance that the personality will not destroy the show before enough money has been made from it to justify the decision.
A&E was successful in containing Phil's views so long as it was able to dole out his personal brand in edited one half hour portions, but the GQ article exposed many more people that probably aren't fans of the show to Phil's views on subject of homosexuality, forcing the network to deal with his views in a much broader, less controllable universe of social media, forums and facebook.
The network was forced to protect its advertisers and corporate values.
They fired Phil.
The producers were well aware of Robertson's views. You don't sign up an entire family to do a TV show in your network without doing due diligence on the people you're about to get into bed with, but (as it is nearly always the case with these reality based shows) you take the chance that the personality will not destroy the show before enough money has been made from it to justify the decision.
A&E was successful in containing Phil's views so long as it was able to dole out his personal brand in edited one half hour portions, but the GQ article exposed many more people that probably aren't fans of the show to Phil's views on subject of homosexuality, forcing the network to deal with his views in a much broader, less controllable universe of social media, forums and facebook.
The network was forced to protect its advertisers and corporate values.
They fired Phil.
Their advertisers have said the stand with the Robertson's and will go where they go. Seems their advertisers have also become friends with them and some have even hunted with them and advertise on the show because of what they stand for. The entire country has not become hedonistic... yet...as much as you would like to think it has.
Where have I said that I believe that the entire country has become hedonistic Rap?
Don't put words in my mouth so that you can then attack me for something that I haven't said.
I have yet to see one advertiser leave A&E in protest over Phil's firing.
I don't think anyone disputes that A&E has the RIGHT to do what they want on their network. Of course. The First Amendment says so. What most of us are frustrated with is this idea that even questioning the legitimacy of homosexuality is a recipe for instant punishment. It is the principle behind the First Amendment-- that we can freely exercise religion and conscience as we please-- that is driving this debate, not necessarily the letter (which restricts only the federal Congress). The lobbyists who support LGBT causes have been trying to make an end-around this principle by labeling the opposing viewpoint as hate, bigotry and speech beneath the principles of free speech; to borrow from Orwell, some words are less equal than others. As Williams has illustrated, they have succeeded. Even describing the act of sodomy in objective terms-- a less-than-flattering act to be sure-- is considered vile and derogatory.
And the morality clause would apply much more to the storage wars guys than someone quoting from the bible. I don't think the bible has been deemed immoral...yet. and the support is coming from the very fed up public...
THANK YOU! :thumbsup2:
Thank you from one poster who is tired of slogging through reams of post, scolding us dolts for being mad at A&E and lecturing us on what free speech is, when that's no more than a "duh, ya think?" over-simplification of what's really got people ticked off.
Phil Robertson does (or did anyway). He signed contracts with clauses in it that address things like this.
BTW... if I made it to the ten o'clock news saying something that my employer didn't like, while being identified as someone who worked for the company that he owns (and I work for) he has every right under the sun to fire me.
Just for a tangent, Wayne Rogers, (up right corner above Juan Williams in clip in the ski cap and sunglasses), was fired from M*A*S*H because of something to do with a morality clause. It was shown he never signed it and he was given some sort of payment.
If you think it's ok for a media outlet to fire an employee because of protests and demands by conservatives, then you are logically obliged to accept that a media outlet can fire an employee because of protests and demands by liberals.
Liberal Logic 101:
Call for the firing of a TV star because his Faith teaches him that homosexuality is immoral.
Invite the President of Iran, who has ordered the hanging, stoning and burning to death of 1000's of people for being homosexual, to Columbia University as a keynote speaker.
And you wonder why we think you're all idiots....
*Sigh* Once more with feeling... this is more than about an employer firing someone for voicing their opinion.
People in this country are sick and tired of being told what is considered to be acceptable thought in this country, and what isn't. This doesn't have anything to do with being fired--this is about people resent being punished as bigots. Which is maybe why this (http://tv.yahoo.com/news/duck-dynasty-fallout-glaad-reeling-biggest-backlash-years-010050637.html) and this (http://www.chicagotribune.com/entertainment/chi-cracker-barrel-duck-dynasty-20131222,0,748635.story) have been reported in the last 24 hours alone.
A & E was quite aware of Phil Robertson's beliefs and for that fact every one of his families beliefs to act surprised at his remarks is the height ofstupidityduplicity.
So when Robertson decided to wax on about the unacceptable aspects of homosexuality, and how homosexuality was basically no different than bestiality, people got pissed because they don't want to be told what to think.
I would wonder the same thing. After all, the same contract allows Mr. Robertson to have other shows on another network (his Duck Commander and Buck Commander shows are still running on Outdoor Channel, which is owned by conservative Christian Stan Kroenke). Most networks have exclusivity issues that prevent people from holding multiple shows on multiple networks without explicit waivers each instance. That would indicate that we have no idea what is in the agreement between the Robertsons and A&E. A&E made no mention of any such contract clause in their statement.
I don't think anyone disputes that A&E has the RIGHT to do what they want on their network. Of course. The First Amendment says so. What most of us are frustrated with is this idea that even questioning the legitimacy of homosexuality is a recipe for instant punishment. It is the principle behind the First Amendment-- that we can freely exercise religion and conscience as we please-- that is driving this debate, not necessarily the letter (which restricts only the federal Congress). The lobbyists who support LGBT causes have been trying to make an end-around this principle by labeling the opposing viewpoint as hate, bigotry and speech beneath the principles of free speech; to borrow from Orwell, some words are less equal than others. As Williams has illustrated, they have succeeded. Even describing the act of sodomy in objective terms-- a less-than-flattering act to be sure-- is considered vile and derogatory.
Robertson had no intention to be deliberately offensive or provocative with his statement; he was merely stating his personal belief on the matter in as impartial of a way as he could. Maher is deliberately offensive and provocative every time he opens his mouth; that is part of his schtick, one that has been around since Lenny Bruce-- heck, Diogenes. There is a difference between being offensive for the sake of being offensive (as Bashir was and as Maher regularly is) and being offensive because other people want to be offended.
I do find it ironic that so many of the people who wanted Robertson canned also support GENDA legislation: laws that prevent companies from firing people for dressing in drag at work.
I don't think it was about being told what to think.
It was about being told that the truth is not relative and that their behavior is wrong...
The fact that many people don't like the idea that expressing one's religious beliefs can get you fired may be at the root of this thing, but as an employer, I want to retain the right to do that if that employee does it while representing my company
*Sigh* Once more with feeling... this is more than about an employer firing someone for voicing their opinion.
People in this country are sick and tired of being told what is considered to be acceptable thought in this country, and what isn't. This doesn't have anything to do with being fired--this is about people resent being punished as bigots. Which is maybe why this (http://tv.yahoo.com/news/duck-dynasty-fallout-glaad-reeling-biggest-backlash-years-010050637.html) and this (http://www.chicagotribune.com/entertainment/chi-cracker-barrel-duck-dynasty-20131222,0,748635.story) have been reported in the last 24 hours alone.
You seem to have overlooked one very important group... your customers.
Without them, you have no company...
You seem to have overlooked one very important group... your customers.
Without them, you have no company...
Who is guilty of duplicity here?
A&E for signing Robertson on, or Robertson for accepting money and a job from a well-known liberal network?
I love the free market.
It's my right to make decisions about my company, either right ones or wrong ones.
Obviously the network for feigning 'surprise' at Robertson's stance...
Obviously the network for feigning 'surprise' at Robertson's stance...
Read more on the subject that's what's being reported on WND.
According to industry publications, the network wasn't surprised.
I do too. Companies that make bad decisions go away.
Duck Commander will thrive and A & E will go bye-bye...
Great, they did it on purpose...
I wouldn't bet on that.
It presupposes that A&E only exists because of Duck Dynasty, but the network pre-existed the show.
I wouldn't bet on that.
It presupposes that A&E only exists because of Duck Dynasty, but the network pre-existed the show.
A&E isn't going to go away in any event because it isn't a one-horse-wonder. Duck Dynasty is merely one of many programs A&E has, so the loss of one is unlikely to result in the company's demise.
It's not about Duck Dynasty.
It's about A & E's viewers, also known as customers to advertisers...
I would. Pre-existence is irrelevant when you piss-off your customers...
I would. Pre-existence is irrelevant when you piss-off your customers...
A&E will survive.
It's not about Duck Dynasty.
It's about A & E's viewers, also known as customers to advertisers...
A&E's viewers aren't going away either. Do you really think that most of A&E's viewer base consists of Phil Robertson's loyal fans?
A&E will survive.
I will say this about homosexuals I have known, their homosexuality is always front and center. It is how they define themselves. Perhaps that only applies to those I have known and I haven't known many who are openly homosexual.
Cracker Barrel sure did a 180, didn't they...
They have a riht to make that decision and piss of the other end of the spectrum.
THAT is the point. Why do you keep missing it?
That is something I find sad. Defining yourself by one thing is a horrible waste of a person, and it doesn't matter what that thing is.
My experience has been the opposite. While I know several flamboyant homosexuals, they don't get in your face about it, we just laugh and joke about everything under the sun (tend to be good company, too). But most of them - being homosexual is just their preference. Not their identity.
The 'other end of the spectrum' is microscopic.
THAT is the point. Why do you keep missing it?
If I spend a lot of extra time in purgatory for this view, then so be it.
It is? You've been staring down the wrong end of the telescope for far too long.
If I spend a lot of extra time in purgatory for this view, then so be it.
Did God really say...
Romans 1:32 - "Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them."
Meh - we'll meet up for a beer or 6.
Hopefully they'll have something better than near beer, or Foster's, in purgatory.
Pabst in Purgatory.
Mead in Valhalla!
Are you wholly without sin? If not, then we're equally condemned, so your apparent virtuousness does you nothing. If we're all condemned to death in any event because we're all sinners, then I'd prefer to enjoy the company of decent people whose decency outweighs whatever sins they're going to die for. Cutting yourself off from otherwise decent companions even though that won't change your fate - death - one whit seems rather short-sighted and stupid to me.
Pabst in Purgatory.
Mead in Valhalla!
Give me honey and a few herbs and I'll give you a mead that will lift the top of your skull off.
My drinking days are over. I had a Sierra Nevada Torpedo Pale Ale the other day with a steak. Didn't get drunk but had a light beer hangover the next day.
Anti-seizure meds and alcohol do not mix. I could probably count on my fingers and toes the number of drinks I've had in the past 25 years.
I made the mistake of drinking 5 cranberry and vodkas over the course of an evening and ended up in the ER the next night. No more. Maybe half a glass of wine with pasta or an ale with a steak a couple of times a year. That's only in the past 4 or 5 years. I went about 15 years without a drink.
I've known a number of homosexuals, gay men as well as lesbians, and not a single one of them defined himself solely, or primarily, in terms of being homosexual, and certainly not in a way that was antagonistic to anyone who wasn't homosexual. In fact, the people I've known didn't mind being themselves in the company of friends - and certainly weren't offensive about it in any way - but were otherwise just as protective of their privacy and personal lives and is any non-homosexual. Several of the folks I've known have even been good old-fashioned lower case "c" conservatives inasmuch as they firmly believed in individual liberty and freedom from government interference or nosiness in their private affairs, personal responsibility, and free market economics. They're my friends, they're good human beings, and they're as disgusted by people who want to define everyone's politics and entitlements based on their sexual preferences as much as I am. The fact of the matter is this: we're all sinners, and all sins are equal in the sight of God, so the person who takes the Lord's name in vain by cursing, such as using Christ's name as an expletive, is just as much a sinner as is a practicing homosexual. But just as the curser may be an otherwise good person whose sinfulness does not wholly wreck that goodness and thus accorded a certain look-the-other-way'ness as between us sinners, so too giving that same courtesy to an otherwise good person who happens to also be a practicing homosexual, as between us sinners, is the same thing.
If I spend a lot of extra time in purgatory for this view, then so be it.
Your experience with gay people closely mirrors my own. I have known many, and as a rule, have not found them offensive in their personal behavior or interactions with me.
I have met two people who admitted to having killed another human being, one of them was a gay male who was just as 'nice' as he could be...
You just met a third. Betting there are many more on here, considering a good half of the regular posters are vets.
Not a lot to do with sexual preference. It's doing the job you are paid to do.
*sigh*
No, it's not. It's about certain people bitching about the fact that a private business chose to do what it was free to do simply because they don't like the result.
So when Robertson decided to wax on about the unacceptable aspects of homosexuality, and how homosexuality was basically no different than bestiality, people got pissed because they don't want to be told what to think.
The point is that we've become an intolerant society that's lost the concept of "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it", and have chosen instead to punish people for what they say that we don't agree with. WE are the biggest violators of free speech rights. Not that we can't be, but it is damaging nevertheless.
It happened to The Dixie Chicks, it happened to Phil Robertson.
Bashir called for Palin to be assaulted in the most vile way.
Phil simply gave his opinion and never once called for anyone to be harmed or mistreated.
The 'other end of the spectrum' is microscopic.
THAT is the point. Why do you keep missing it?
Okey doke. If that's the very narrow view you want to thread through a needle, I'll defend to the death your right to do so.
Might I add that I think its fair to hold Bashir to a higher standard anyway. A TV program host of a national news network broadcast incited a violent assault on an innocent American citizen. You'd have to be stupid as hell not to know it was most likely scripted/pre-meditated beforehand by him and his producers--making the whole episode even more loathsome.
Meanwhile, OTOH--you have Phil Robertson, who was asked to explain why gay marriage is in conflict with his personal values, so he did. Not even on his TV show mind you, but in an adult magazine interview.
To sit here and watch posters equate these two very different scenarios as morally equivalent is just beyond baffling-- and strange. VERY popcorn worthy. :eatdrink:
Phil Robertson is not an idiot. He runs a multi-million dollar business that's doing quite well, he just doesn't really care what others think about what he says, and how he says it.
So, if trhe guy doesn't care about other people's reaction to what he says, why do we?
Phil Robertson is not an idiot. He runs a multi-million dollar business that's doing quite well, he just doesn't really care what others think about what he says, and how he says it.
So, if trhe guy doesn't care about other people's reaction to what he says, why do we?
It's. Not. Your. Company.
Don't watch A&E, don't patronize their advertisers.
If they made the wrong decision, no one will be happier than you.
Well said, both LoaH and Andy: This is about Phil's words today being considered garden variety hate speech tomorrow. I like the way Andy-in-nh put it upthread: "the intentional politicization of the personal. It is obnoxious and destructive of civil society."
The supporters of which consider themselves both intelligent and moral.
:3:
**nononono*
It always seems to be the pleasures that go first.
I don't (cant) drink. Doesn't stop me brewing it for those who do! :laugh:
Oceander can have the beer or mead - we'll hit a fruit punch or several.
Yes sir, Captain Obvious.
Keep going till you get to a defensible position.
Thanks for telling me what I must do and how I will feel.
Couldn't have done it without you...
In fact, I'd guess that most here would support it
For goodness sake, don't justify your position by telling the rest of us how we think. State your own opinion and let us do the same.
Aren't we all missing the point here? It is not about Mr. Robertson, or his personal opinion, or America at large. Aren't we forgetting?
Are we forgetting all the homosexuals who have been hurt here, with this. They are destroyed. Phil told them they are not going to heaven and now they are all rethinking everything they have ever believed. They are destroyed. They have no idea what to do about this whole, 'going to the kingdom of God' thing. Phil, single handedly, has hurt the entire Gay community. They may never recover from this onslaught.
We have all heard 'ad nauseam', "Do it for the children!". Now we have replaced 'children' with gays. "Do it for the homosexuals!" "Think about what you are doing, to the Homosexuals."
In my opinion, the homosexuals can, as Nancy Pelosi so adaquately put it, embrace the suck.
/snicker
Sorry, but that's about the only response you deserve at this point on this thread.
The Genuine Conflict Being Ignored in the Duck Dynasty DebateArticle previously posted on this thread (http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,124059.0.html), just in case you missed it.
... Missing in the controversy over A&E’s handling of its golden goose—or duck, rather—is the fact that the real conflict here is not between Robertson and A&E; it is between gay activists and a solid majority of Christians who believe homosexual acts are wrong. Again, Robertson’s views are hardly anomalous. Christians may disagree on the details, but the Bible strongly condemns homosexuality in both the Old and New Testaments; the marriage model of one man and one woman is first given by God in Genesis 2 and reiterated by Jesus in Matthew 19; and in Romans 1 the Apostle Paul denounces homosexuality as a hallmark of a degenerate culture. The point here isn’t that you have to believe any of this, but many Christians do believe it and feel morally bound to believe it.
Instead of acknowledging this tension, however, A&E, GLAAD, and their supporters have responded with disingenuous expressions of shock and horror. And it matters that it's disingenuous, because if they actually acknowledged that there is a genuine conflict between orthodox Christianity and homosexual sex (along with several forms of heterosexual sex) they would have to confront head-on the fact that calling for a boycott or pressuring for Robertson's suspension tells orthodox Christians that their religion is no longer acceptable, and that’s not a very politically correct thing to do. ...
In fact, I'd guess that most here would support it
For goodness sake, don't justify your position by telling the rest of us how we think. State your own opinion and let us do the same.
Because this argument isn't about just Phil's opinions and words alone, and its not about whether Phil cares what others think. It's not even about whether or not he remains employed by A&E.
This is about Phil's words today being considered garden variety hate speech tomorrow. I like the way Andy-in-nh put it upthread: "the intentional politicization of the personal. It is obnoxious and destructive of civil society."
Aren't we all missing the point here? It is not about Mr. Robertson, or his personal opinion, or America at large. Aren't we forgetting?
Are we forgetting all the homosexuals who have been hurt here, with this. They are destroyed. Phil told them they are not going to heaven and now they are all rethinking everything they have ever believed. They are destroyed. They have no idea what to do about this whole, 'going to the kingdom of God' thing. Phil, single handedly, has hurt the entire Gay community. They may never recover from this onslaught.
We have all heard 'ad nauseam', "Do it for the children!". Now we have replaced 'children' with gays. "Do it for the homosexuals!" "Think about what you are doing, to the Homosexuals."
In my opinion, the homosexuals can, as Nancy Pelosi so adaquately put it, embrace the suck.
Phil Robertson's contract is not with A&E...
http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,124090.0.html
So A&E doesn't even need to give a reason why they will no longer purchase the show from the production company.
What exactly has Phil done to remain employed by A&E?
I couldn't care less, as my personal beef with all this is not with A&E putting Robertson on suspension. Meanwhile, have you weighed in on the original topic of this thread yet?
(https://scontent-a-iad.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/1526799_644573165606354_1604528063_n.jpg)
Thanks for that dose of reality!
Yes we have. Liberals are just as free to demand that Robertson be removed as conservatives are to demand that Bashir and Maher be removed. That's not a particularly controversial issue.
He didn't tell anyone here - or anywhere else - what to think.
For goodness sake, don't justify your position by telling the rest of us how we think.[emphasis added]
If Robertson's name had been Ahmed and A&E had fired as a result of pressure from women's groups after Ahmed was interviewed by GQ and in that interviewed he was extolling the values of sharia law and the treatment of women under Islamic law, no one will protest one bit about his firing. Most would actually cheer the firing.[emphasis added]
Yeah....it was getting frustrating reading the circular argument. And the nonsense that usually accompanies it.
Are you wholly without sin? If not, then we're equally condemned, so your apparent virtuousness does you nothing. If we're all condemned to death in any event because we're all sinners, then I'd prefer to enjoy the company of decent people whose decency outweighs whatever sins they're going to die for. Cutting yourself off from otherwise decent companions even though that won't change your fate - death - one whit seems rather short-sighted and stupid to me.
Yes, I'm done here.
At the end of the day, none of this really matters one bit.
That's why there's no honest disagreement with a true believing Leftist. They do not see you as merely mistaken, but as evil, even as the psychological process of projection makes them assign their anger and hostile intent to you.
Yikes! Haven't you noticed how many people on conservative fora (thanks, Ocean, for fora) say that Obama is evil? I don't think liberals have a corner on that market.
Are you wholly without sin? If not, then we're equally condemned, so your apparent virtuousness does you nothing. If we're all condemned to death in any event because we're all sinners, then I'd prefer to enjoy the company of decent people whose decency outweighs whatever sins they're going to die for. Cutting yourself off from otherwise decent companions even though that won't change your fate - death - one whit seems rather short-sighted and stupid to me.
Guess again, plus you got it wrong. I didn't say he was telling what TO think but rather WHAT we think.
* * *
Leaving aside the childish "/snicker" it appears you have it pretty much ass backward.
He didn't even do that; he merely stated his own private opinion of what he thought you probably thought. Some remedial English might be in order under your tree, or in your stocking.
A statement like this: If Robertson's name had been Ahmed and A&E had fired as a result of pressure from women's groups after Ahmed was interviewed by GQ and in that interviewed he was extolling the values of sharia law and the treatment of women under Islamic law, no one will protest one bit about his firing. Most would actually cheer the firing. pretty clearly shows he is telling some of us HOW we think.
Did you even notice your client Luis did not even contradict me, only you did? Does that possibly tell you something?
You're damned right Obama is evil! :patriot:
what do you call him? Misguided? Incompetent?
Leaving aside the childish "/snicker" it appears you have it pretty much ass backward.
He didn't even do that; he merely stated his own private opinion of what he thought you probably thought. Some remedial English might be in order under your tree, or in your stocking.
A statement like this: If Robertson's name had been Ahmed and A&E had fired as a result of pressure from women's groups after Ahmed was interviewed by GQ and in that interviewed he was extolling the values of sharia law and the treatment of women under Islamic law, no one will protest one bit about his firing. Most would actually cheer the firing. pretty clearly shows he is telling some of us HOW we think.
Did you even notice your client Luis did not even contradict me, only you did? Does that possibly tell you something?
By the way, in my opinion Juan Williams argument is justified. Also in my opinion, Luis made the most cogent arguments in defense of his position, as did Ocean.
You're damned right Obama is evil! :patriot:
what do you call him? Misguided? Incompetent?
Yikes! Haven't you noticed how many people on conservative fora (thanks, Ocean, for fora) say that Obama is evil? I don't think liberals have a corner on that market.
Maybe one of the two of you can address my concern, since Luis sidestepped it twice???
Putting aside the employment/contract issue/economic intimidation arguments, do either of you agree or disagree (or care) that this episode was one more log on the fire of our society's loss of freedom to express our opinions without fear of mockery, ridicule, isolation or other such non-economic punishments?
The whole comparison is ludicrous. Bashir's was a personal attack against an individual, Robertson's was not.
Totally bogus from the get-go, as is most of Juan Williams' comments.
The whole comparison is ludicrous. Bashir's was a personal attack against an individual, Robertson's was not.
Totally bogus from the get-go, as is most of Juan Williams' comments.
So, in this unusual moral relativism equation of yours, the murder of one Jew is worse than the genocide of the Jewish people.What's interesting (not really) is the way you twisted the poster's words.
Interesting concept.
So, in this unusual moral relativism equation of yours, the murder of one Jew is worse than the genocide of the Jewish people.
Interesting concept.
What's interesting (not really) is the way you twisted the poster's words.
The incitement of violence on one innocent person is always going to be worse than a thousand solicited opinions.
I haven't contradicted you because I'm bored with the absurd nature of your posts.
It was my opinion. I should know... I posted it.
You don't think that what I stated as my opinion is my opinion?
That's just your opinion.
So, in this unusual moral relativism equation of yours, the murder of one Jew is worse than the genocide of the Jewish people.
Interesting concept.
Hey, Luis, don't for one minute think I didn't notice you only stated this hours after I had pointed out you hadn't contradicted my claim of what you were actually doing: telling the Conservatives on here HOW they think.
no one will protest one bit about his firing. Most would actually cheer the firing.
Now the only question is: why do I doubt your sincerity this time?
:happyhappy:
Since there are no bodies laying around on either side, I think your comparison is bogus as well.
I'm damned happy that you did.
Here's an even more complex notion for you all to ponder.
Of the two people that are the subject of this article and Williams' comments, one may have a true First Amendment complaint.
That would be Martin Bashir, because the subject of his tirade is a public figure and a politician, which means that an individual in Bashir's position can say damned near anything they want with a reasonable expectation of immunity.
Immunity from whom and from what? From being sued for defamation? Sure. From being fired by his employer, a private business? No.