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.
The First Amendment says nothing of the sort. It just says that Congress can enact no laws to establish a religion or prohibit the free exercise of it, or abridging the freedom of speech, the press or assembly.
Congress is not involved in this mess, so when you speak about the principle of the First Amendment, that's not correct in the content of this discussion. Robertson is free to believe as he believes, and free to say what he wants to say, but the 1st Amendment does not protect anyone from the possible consequences of the exercise of our rights.
So you are correct that we can exercise our rights to freedom of speech as we see fit, but incorrect in arguing that we are protected from the consequences of that free speech.
Hell... many of us are not allowed to post in FR
because we exercised our freedom of speech and said something Robinson didn't like. He's probably over there ranting about a freedom that he's notorious for not respecting himself.
So when you are interviewed by a national publication
because you are a member of a TV show that A&E owns, and you say something as a representative of that show and by extension the network, that the network disapproves of, you can and may be fired.
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