It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Duck Dynasty's Phil Robertson: The Latest Victim of the PC Police

page: 30
78
<< 27  28  29    31  32  33 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 19 2013 @ 08:51 PM
link   

TwoTonTommy
Homosexuality is natural because it arises naturally in the real world, among people and animals.


No one ever suggested that evolutionary dead-ends did not occur in nature. They do.

Robertson's crime was refusing to parrot politically korrect nonsense to appease official offense takers.

By which I mean, allowing tantrum-throwing children to determine what anyone is permitted to say.




posted on Dec, 19 2013 @ 08:55 PM
link   
reply to post by grey580
 


yep this was my thinking on the matter too and as a and e fired him for what he said(religious beliefs) i think he has a case



posted on Dec, 19 2013 @ 08:58 PM
link   

TheWrightWing

TwoTonTommy
Homosexuality is natural because it arises naturally in the real world, among people and animals.


No one ever suggested that evolutionary dead-ends did not occur in nature. They do.

Robertson's crime was refusing to parrot politically korrect nonsense to appease official offense takers.

By which I mean, allowing tantrum-throwing children to determine what anyone is permitted to say.


This reminds me of the Obama rodeo clown incident, where all the rodeo clowns had to get "sensitivity training".
Obama-mask clown gets lifetime Missouri fair ban



posted on Dec, 19 2013 @ 09:02 PM
link   
Duck dynasty has received over a million hits in a day on the Facebook page calling for the boycotting of the network.

Just wanted to add that.



posted on Dec, 19 2013 @ 09:03 PM
link   
reply to post by grey580
 


First off, A&E hasn't fired him. He has been suspended. Second, their actions are not because of his religious beliefs. Their actions are due to the fact that his words could affect their profits. Are you saying that a company should not be allowed to fire an employee if the actions of said employee directly have a negative impact on the company's success?



posted on Dec, 19 2013 @ 09:04 PM
link   
reply to post by TwoTonTommy
 


I heard he was likely to receive person of the year
www.nydailynews.com...



posted on Dec, 19 2013 @ 09:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcalibur254
 



Who exactly did they think was buying his products?

They knew who he was and what he stood for.

Didn't they want reality on the reality program?





posted on Dec, 19 2013 @ 09:10 PM
link   

j.r.c.b.
A&E knew....this is from 2010......Phil doing his usual sermon....

www.tmz.com...


Exactly...his views weren't any secret, which leads me to believe this whole thing is some sort of publicity stunt. Now the family comes out with a statement saying they won't continue the show without Phil...what's next? A&E will have to back down...the show goes on...with a heck of a lot more interest. The show already was a hit, but now it has a whole lot more attention. Not bad!
edit on 19-12-2013 by Rezlooper because: misspelled word



posted on Dec, 19 2013 @ 09:13 PM
link   

Xcalibur254
reply to post by grey580
 


First off, A&E hasn't fired him. He has been suspended. Second, their actions are not because of his religious beliefs. Their actions are due to the fact that his words could affect their profits. Are you saying that a company should not be allowed to fire an employee if the actions of said employee directly have a negative impact on the company's success?


I will say that while I believe you have a valid point, A&E may find a bigger backlash and larger loss of profits with the way they handled this. A negative impact due to an employee's statements you say? It is starting to look like more people will boycott A&E over their 'suspension' of Phil than would have boycotted over Phil's statements. But hey! A&E has every right to pick and choose who they wish to offend lol. If it is truly about money, they may have picked the wrong side, or at least may have picked the wrong approach.



posted on Dec, 19 2013 @ 09:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcalibur254
 


not if those beliefs are part of the core of his religion. you cant use a persons religiously based views as the sole reason to terminate/suspend the individual again case law on this is apparently pending with the lawsuit against fox news. it comes across as he was fired/let go/suspended for speaking his mind about his own religious values and belief system,he committed no crime and did not threaten any one with violence or advocate violence against gay people,he just said under how his religion works he views it as a sin
its one of his sincerely held religious beliefs
www.lc.org...

Sincerely Held Religious Belief Title VII prohibits discrimination based upon an employee's religious belief. This discrimination applies not only to hiring and firing but to all terms, conditions, and privileges of employment. Under Title VII the term "religion" is broadly defined to include "all aspects such as religious observance and practice, as well as belief."(9) The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (hereafter "EEOC"), defines religious practice to include "moral or ethical beliefs as to what is right and wrong which are sincerely held with the strength of traditional religious views. . . . The fact that no religious group establishes such beliefs or the fact that the religious group to which the individual professes to belong may not set the beliefs, will not determine whether the belief is a religious belief of the employee. . . ."(10) Title VII protects individual religious practices even though the practice is not mandated by the religious institution to which the employee belongs.(11)


en.wikipedia.org... i guess you are allowed to discriminate as an employer if they are communist though but not along religious grounds

Title VII allows for any employer, labor organization, joint labor-management committee, or employment agency to bypass the "unlawful employment practice" for any person involved with the Communist Party of the United States or of any other organization required to register as a Communist-action or Communist-front organization by final order of the Subversive Activities Control Board pursuant to the Subversive Activities Control Act of 1950.[42]


www.archives.gov...



posted on Dec, 19 2013 @ 09:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Khaleesi
 



I have read two articles written by gay journalist that are on Phils side tonight.

And comments by gay posters that are on his side on other forums,

I will see if I can find them,



posted on Dec, 19 2013 @ 09:16 PM
link   
I don't care if Phil Robertsons opinions reflect the opinions and values of A&E (or GQ). I don't tune in to A&E to find out what THEIR values and opinions are; I tune in to watch Duck Dynasty and would watch it on any channel. Can't say I'll be tuning in to A&E if Duck Dynasty isn't on as that's the only one of their programs I watch. They can keep their values and opinions.
It appears the Robertsons aren't interested in doing the show if Phil is not on it. Good for them. I knew that the show was not their priority. Genuine souls aren't interested in doing what it takes to satisfy the crybaby liberals agenda so it was only a matter of time before one of them got in trouble for not promoting the politically correct BS we're all supposed to be learning.
They don't call television "programming" for nothing, folks.



posted on Dec, 19 2013 @ 09:18 PM
link   

Stormdancer777
reply to post by Khaleesi
 



I have read two articles written by gay journalist that are on Phils side tonight.

And comments by gay posters that are on his side on other forums,

I will see if I can find them,


I'm one of those 'gay' posters lmao.



posted on Dec, 19 2013 @ 09:23 PM
link   

Xcalibur254
reply to post by grey580
 


First off, A&E hasn't fired him. He has been suspended. Second, their actions are not because of his religious beliefs. Their actions are due to the fact that his words could affect their profits. Are you saying that a company should not be allowed to fire an employee if the actions of said employee directly have a negative impact on the company's success?


Did I read the article wrong?


“Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men,” he tells reporter Drew Magary. “Don’t be deceived. Neither the adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlers—they won’t inherit the kingdom of God. Don’t deceive yourself. It’s not right.”

www.latimes.com... xzz2nyvVxHN6


I certainly see God mentioned in there at least once. If that's not a religious belief I don't know what is.

And no you can't fire an employee for expressing a religious belief.

A&E should of put a disclaimer on the front of the show. And if the ratings tanked then it would be a business decision to cancel the show.



posted on Dec, 19 2013 @ 09:28 PM
link   
reply to post by SkepticOverlord
 


I agree with you. Phil didn't leave A&E much choice when he started talking about his preference in sexual organs. But I think the people that are complaining about his suspension are being Anti-Free Market.
An employer has the right to suspend an employee if they say something that could negatively effect the company. I would have suspended him just for being crass, but his employer was well within their rights to suspend him. Whether those are his personal beliefs or not. You can quote the Bible all you want but when you start going outside of the Bible and start questioning the sanity of homosexual people, then you just have gone too far. People need to read the entire interview. It was a good article, but I can understand why they put him on the bench.

......and I'm pretty sure this was hard to ignore too..In a quote that may raise even more eyebrows than his feelings about gays, Robertson claims he "never" saw black people mistreated during the pre-civil rights era in his home state, and strongly suggests that African Americans were more content under Jim Crow. "Where we lived was all farmers. The blacks worked for the farmers. I hoed cotton with them. I'm with the blacks, because we're white trash," he said. "They're singing and happy. I never heard one of them, one black person, say, ‘I tell you what: These doggone white people’—not a word!... Pre-entitlement, pre-welfare, you say: Were they happy? They were godly; they were happy; no one was singing the blues.” ........I'm just sayin...lol
edit on 19-12-2013 by ltheghost because: added more



posted on Dec, 19 2013 @ 09:30 PM
link   
reply to post by burdman30ott6
 


Burdman, I don't agree with what the Duck Dynasty guy said, but then when I read the whole story, about how he used to be involved in things like drugs and such in the 60's, it actually made more sense.

Even though I don't agree with what he said, I think there is an issue with him being fired from a television series for stating his opinion. At the very least, that sets the precedent for television stations to fire liberals and atheists in 20 years when conservative Christians are at the helm, see?

Things happen in cycles, and if the mechanics are improved to the point where things are more totalitarian, it can hurt everyone over time, that's my opinion on the issue -

The only other thing I could see, is maybe the U.S. Media is attempting a stonewall of certain opinions to eliminate them forever from the U.S. culture - that's risky if it backfires.

But at the very least, we are talking about a situation where it is now completely legal to discriminate against someone at their work for their beliefs, and that's going to get messy. It's like a Pandora's Box - you know? Messy.
edit on 19pmThu, 19 Dec 2013 21:32:14 -0600kbpmkAmerica/Chicago by darkbake because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 19 2013 @ 09:36 PM
link   
www.nytimes.com... more recent article that rehashes alot of what we allready know but further clarifies that even with his suspension the episodes he was in and that are allready filmed will air and as it seems that the robertson family is hesitant to film more episodes with out the dad that A&E will most likely still have to pay the family the agreed on salary bump(200k an episode) and then face the prospect of loosing one of their golden geese due to the growing conflict between the robertsons and a and e as its not like they NEED A & E's money

www.eonline.com...


www.foxnews.com... this one seems to imply a and e is done with the whole family figured id leave this hear as a counter point

and who knows whats in the contrats they each have signed for all we know they might just switch networks to cmt or something like it



posted on Dec, 19 2013 @ 09:42 PM
link   
reply to post by RalagaNarHallas
 



Darn it, I am really gonna miss those guys.



(post by spartacus699 removed for a serious terms and conditions violation)

posted on Dec, 19 2013 @ 09:48 PM
link   
ATTENTION!!!

The topic is:

Duck Dynasty's Phil Robertson: The Latest Victim of the PC Police.

Political Correctness, Media, Pop Culture, Sexual Orientation, Morality and Conspiracy, among other things, are all viable angles. Not graphic sexual content on a family friendly site and Not personal insults, jabs or hateful rhetoric.

Any further disruption of the topic will result in a post ban.

Please note the follow links before posting:

Terms and Conditions of Posting

The end of hate speech, subtle or otherwise, on ATS

Civility and decorum are expected within all topics

YOU are responsible for your own posts


edit on 12/19/2013 by kosmicjack because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
78
<< 27  28  29    31  32  33 >>

log in

join