This thread is GAY , y'all should be happy all your gay Phil n uncle si t-shirts will be collector items now lmao !

^^^^^ The winner of the "deep thought of the day" award.:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

Attachment 60277


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

There is no free speech issue here. The First Amendment prohibits the government from blocking speech (with some obvious exceptions, such as classified information, military secrets, etc). At no point has the government exercised prior restraint against Robertson, thus no free speech violation. Robertson has made similar comments in past interviews, including to Christian magazines, so there is no liberal media conspiracy attempting to lure him into saying things. He says them publicly, freely and repeatedly and is still saying them since the GQ interview. Apparently the biggest problem the GQ writer had -- I read the article and overall it's pretty complimentary -- was getting Robertson to shut up about his religious beliefs long enough to ask a question about something else. What many people fail to understand is there is no constitutional right to protection from the CONSEQUENCES of free speech. If you think there is, look your boss in the face tomorrow morning and exercise your right to free speech by calling him a POS and see how long the First Amendment keeps you employed. A&E made a business decision that the negatives would outweigh the positives in retaining Robertson. If you think that was the wrong decision you're free to sign petitions, contact A&E, join a protest against the network, spend your life savings on stuff with the DD logo, hire Robertson for a duck hunt (if he still guides professionally) or whatever, just as groups who were offended are free to protest, call for his firing and so forth.

Liberals and other Americans are free to disagree with the Civil Rights Act of 1964:

(a) Employer practices It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer - (1) to fail or refuse to hire or to DISCHARGE any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.

But I bet there are a few questions they will avoid answering right now relative to the Phil Robertson interview in GQ and his subsequent suspension by A&E:

Since the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is currently in place as Federal law, why don't you think a person should enjoy its protections for quoting the Bible?

Should we ignore the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and allow employers to fire employees for quoting the Koran? The Torah? The Talmud?

Or does protection of a religion (nondiscrimination based on religion) simply not extend to quoting religious texts or expressing religious views?

Would you be OK with Duck Commander firing employees who spoke in favor of homosexual causes?

I think the honest answer from most to your last question is NO. Ad that is the sad truth.

I hear so many arguments for freedom and liberty at family gatherings, then in the next breath they condemn Muslims and Hindus for praying in public or pronouncing their faith.

I'm totally against that frame of mind, and believe in liberty and justice for ALL, not just those with the same beliefs as me...

A&E's big legal problem is not free speach. It is violation of EEOC(Equal Employment Opportunity).

Well said gooh. This drives me crazy also and I never miss a opportunity to point it out. I get looks across the table but they make my brain hurt so I guess we are even.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yea, funny how quick they view you as an atheist, homo, tree hugging liberal simply because you think that "liberty for all" actually means liberty for all. And when the Bible says all men are created equally, it actually meant all men.

Math Geek bring up an interesting point but I think he misinterprets the Civil Rights Act of 1964. There was no violation of that act because Phil Robertson was not canned because he is a Christian. If that were the case then all the Robertson family members would have been canned, or rather there would never have been a DD show. He was canned because he made comments, some but not all of which he justifies as his religious beliefs, that A&E determined were bad for business. You are, thankfully, free in this country to believe what you want to believe and to say what you want to say, but if you start saying stuff that your employer thinks is bad for business, you're not going to remain employed for long. If you are Jewish and work in a Christian bookstore and start telling the customers Jesus wasn't the son of God you're probably not going to be working there much longer, so to answer an earlier question, no, neither the First Amendment nor the Civil Rights Act protects you in quoting a religious text or expressing a religious belief when your employer determines it's bad for business. As to the question of whether an employee at the Robinson store would be canned for expressing pro-gay beliefs, this is a "right to work" state, which in actually means are right to fire state. An employer does not have to have or give any reason for firing an employee and it's up to the employee to prove in court that the firing was discriminatory. You are going to find very little state or federal legal protection for expressing a belief, whether it's religious based or not, that drives away customers. You can believe what you want, but when you go beyond believing it to expressing it and you boss doesn't like it, you're pretty much out of luck.

There are some things people on here seem to be ignoring. Robertson, prior to the GQ interview, admitted that he knew he could not get away with expressing some of his more controversial beliefs on DD. Although some continue to see Robertson as just a simple good old boy clueless to the ways of the wicked left-wing media, if you think that you probably also think your bank account is bigger than his. The reality is Robertson, who is way more media savvy than some give him credit for being, took advantage of his popularity from the show to get his views out to a national audience via an interview in a major magazine. Gay groups and anti-gay groups used that interview to generate publicity for their side. GQ, meanwhile, has gotten a ton of free publicity and generated increased reader interest. Forget this BS about Robinson somehow being a victim. He accomplished what he set out to do in the interview. The guy is 67, has made more money than he ever dreamed he would and, according to past comments, wasn't in favor of doing the show to begin with. He has now jumped from being a redneck entertainment figure to preaching to a national audience. Robinson came out a winner in the sense of getting his message out to a national audience, the pro- and anti-gay groups won in getting lots of publicity off it, and certainly GQ came out ahead. About the only loser in this tempest in a coffee cup (I doubt Phil drinks tea) is A&E, which can't seem to figure out what it wants to do.

Nail on the head!!!!!!

Agreed!!!!!!

Just heard a& r reversed their decision. Phil is back!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yep.

Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk

http://www.komonews.com/news/enterta....html?mobile=y


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk