Quote:
Originally Posted by Beagleman
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?