|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 10,475
Legend
|
OP
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 10,475 |
I am perplexed by this whole "Duck Dynasty" thing going on... I understand the point that people are trying to make about freedom of speech/religion. I understand the part about the LBGT community. I don't understand how A&E is shocked by this?
I mean really? It's not like you didn't know, based on his very strong religious beliefs, that is how he felt. I also don't understand how A&E is trying to put this on him because of his opinions. When they first started this show, he had these beliefs. The TV reality show went so far as to integrate the religious beliefs in every single episode. I blame A&E.
what are your thoughts?
Meh.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,195
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,195 |
Quack quack quack quack quack
Joe Thomas #73
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
My thoughts are just like yours... Like, when the NFL put Rush Limbaugh on, who is a polarizing figure who will say some un-PC things, then we he does exactly what you would expect him to do, they fired him....
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,704
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,704 |
How I, or anyone, feels about what he said doesn't matter to me, honestly.
The disturbing part is that it becomes more obvious by the day that freedom of speech only applies when it falls in line with what the masses want to hear.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,426
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,426 |
I can proudly state that I've never seen a second of the show and had to ask my wife what it was when we were doing Christmas shopping and saw so much of that freaking apparel everywhere.
As for what he said, I have no problem with the fact that he said it (although I disagree with what he said). Also, I have no problem with A&E pulling him for saying what was said.. Everybody has freedom of speech, but that doesn't entitle you to be free of consequences from your speech.
[color:"green"] "World domination has encountered a momentary setback. Please talk amongst yourselves." Get Fuzzy[/color]
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 10,475
Legend
|
|
OP
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 10,475 |
Quote:
I have no problem with the fact that he said it (although I disagree with what he said). Also, I have no problem with A&E pulling him for saying what was said.. Everybody has freedom of speech, but that doesn't entitle you to be free of consequences from your speech.
good point.
Meh.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Quote:
Also, I have no problem with A&E pulling him for saying what was said.. Everybody has freedom of speech, but that doesn't entitle you to be free of consequences from your speech.
I don't disagree with you in theory (and I've never watched the show either).. but when you hire somebody based on certain traits that they have and the audience they appeal to...... and they say something that is generally within the framework of the traits that they have, don't blame the person that said it.
That would be like hiring GM as your spokesperson and then firing him because he made a fart joke.. you know it's coming, it's just a matter of when.
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 10,475
Legend
|
|
OP
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 10,475 |
Quote:
That would be like hiring GM as your spokesperson who has always made jokes and then firing him because he made a fart joke.. in an interview (you know it's coming, it's just a matter of when.
fixed it for ya 
Last edited by superbowldogg; 12/19/13 02:36 PM.
Meh.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 17,027
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 17,027 |
I think people are entitled to their own opinions, and as long as they are not hurting anyone or breaking any laws, I don't really care.
Just like with the Chik-Fil-A story that was going on a year ago... I don't care if they support a cause that happens to disagree with gay marriage... As long as they treat gay customers or potential gay employees the same, who cares?
I don't agree with what he said, but it's his own opinion and I have to respect that.
I also can't blame A&E for removing him from the show whether that be permanent or temporary. They have their own interests...
I bet gay people weren't even really all that offended, I mean look at the guy...
I think I'm more offended that Duck Dynasty has done as well as it has. I don't want to live on this planet anymore.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,231
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,231 |
Quote:
I think I'm more offended that Duck Dynasty has done as well as it has. I don't want to live on this planet anymore.
This. Times infinity, plus another infinity. Totesies. This universe is not for me any longer.
To answer the topic: It's called A&E doing PR damage control. Nothing more, nothing less.
Browns is the Browns
... there goes Joe Thomas, the best there ever was in this game.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 10,246
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 10,246 |
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Can someone educate me on how A&E disciplining this guy amounts to Congress making a law curbing free speech?
Agree or disagree with A&E's actions, but this isn't a First Amendment issue.
If I found out one of my employees was a member of the KKK, I could terminate them. They're allowed to join the KKK, they're allowed to attend rallies and say racist things. But, as someone else said, they're also made to suffer the consequences.
Now, if this was a public employer (like a city or a school district), then maybe it's a different story.
But if I work for Toyota and during my off time I go out and tell everyone how awful Toyota is and how they should never buy Toyotas and then I go on TV and say that Japanese cars are awful and say all kinds of racist things about Japanese people, can Toyota suspend or fire me?
I am unfamiliar with this feeling of optimism
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,704
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,704 |
Eh, I don't think anyone is questioning WHY A&E is pulling him from the show. Obviously it's damage control.
I guess my concern is more over the fact that they feel the need to do damage control. Why do you have to do damage control over someone's beliefs?
I understand they need to, but they shouldn't need to,.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,964
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,964 |
So I'm getting the idea that this is not a show about ducks or hunting?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,704
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,704 |
Quote:
But if I work for Toyota and during my off time I go out and tell everyone how awful Toyota is and how they should never buy Toyotas and then I go on TV and say that Japanese cars are awful and say all kinds of racist things about Japanese people, can Toyota suspend or fire me?
I understand what you're saying, but it's not the same.
The same would be if the show he was on was about supporting gay rights, then he made his comments.
In your made-up scenario, you're downgrading a product you're selling. That would prevent you from successfully doing your job. That's not the case here.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 10,246
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 10,246 |
It's just as much a "First Amendment" issue as the Duck Dynasty thing.
If the First Amendment protects this guy, it would protect me when I degrade a product that's being sold that I work on.
At its base, the First Amendment argument is that this guy is allowed to say whatever he wants and he doesn't have to face consequences because of "free speech."
In reality, what people are saying is that he shouldn't face consequences because (1) they agree with him; or (2) people shouldn't be so sensitive.
I might not agree with those 2 standpoints, but they're totally legitimate.
But leave the First Amendment out of it.
To me, when you start throwing the First Amendment out there, it cheapens all the times the First Amendment is infringed. It's the reason I hate when a black person is punished and the first reason he/she says is "because I'm black" when in reality the punishment is totally legit.
It cheapens the times that people are truly punished for nothing more than race.
This is not a First Amendment issue. Never was, never will be. The First Amendment was brought up as as sensationalist tactic, that's all. And to prey on people who don't know any better.
Last edited by brownsfansince79; 12/19/13 03:02 PM.
I am unfamiliar with this feeling of optimism
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,704
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,704 |
Like I said, I understand that A&E did this for some sort of damage control.
I just think it's pretty sad that they feel like they have to.
Let me ask you this, would it also be okay for someone to be suspended for saying they supported gay rights?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,231
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,231 |
Quote:
So I'm getting the idea that this is not a show about ducks or hunting?
I have no idea what it is about. It's reality garbage and I refuse to watch that .... crap. I certainly do not concern myself what a paid personality from such a show says, either.
Quote:
I guess my concern is more over the fact that they feel the need to do damage control. Why do you have to do damage control over someone's beliefs?
I understand they need to, but they shouldn't need to,.
Humans are Stupid. Period.
The dude said stuff and some people don't like some of the stuff he said. So, there will be rallying cries against him and the easiest way to hurt him is to take it to those who pay him, those who gave him fame and a platform to speak.... and that is A&E. A&E, of course, wants to protect it's half billion dollar golden goose - so it will play the PR game.
Basically - it boils down to a bunch of people on all sides getting their panties twisted because they can't recognize the fact that they just need to worry about themselves.
This is the type of crap we get when so much of our population has it so easy. #FirstWorldProblems #JaneGetMeOffThisCrazyThing
Browns is the Browns
... there goes Joe Thomas, the best there ever was in this game.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 10,475
Legend
|
|
OP
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 10,475 |
another thinking point...
this (crudely) would be like Discovery suspending Tickle from Moonshiners because he believe that Moonshine should be legal he will continue to voice his opinion about it and he shouldn't have to pay any taxes on it but he still loves America.
Meh.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 10,246
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 10,246 |
Yes, that would be ok, too. I'd disagree with it vehemently, but the employer would be permitted to do it.
And I wouldn't call it a First Amendment issue.
I am unfamiliar with this feeling of optimism
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,704
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,704 |
As long as you're willing to accept the fact that it would also be okay if a company wanted to suspend someone for being outspoken FOR gay rights, then I can't argue with what you're saying.
However, I think you're misinterpreting what I'm saying. I'm not really trying to make this a 1st amendment issue. He has the right to say it, and A&E has the right to suspend him for it, if they see fit. They're not infringing upon his rights to speak his mind.
My point was in the public eye, free speech only applies if it falls in line with the masses.
No one says a word when someone is pro gay rights, but when someone is against it, it becomes a huge deal. Go check your Facebook or Twitter account right now, it's all over the place, I'm sure.
I don't want to come across like I agree with his words, I don't. It's just irritating how in the public eye, you're only allowed to express yourself if you agree with the massses.
Like DC said, do you think it's news to A&E that a 67 year old redneck from Louisiana is anti-gay rights?
They suspended him out of fear of being criticized if they didn't. That's the problem I have with it.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 10,246
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 10,246 |
I have a hard time blaming a corporation, something that's looking to make a profit, from taking an action it sees will help preserve that profit.
I don't like a lot of what Wal-Mart does, but I don't blame it. It's trying to turn a profit. I "punish" Wal-Mart by not shopping there (though that has more to do with the clientele and my lack of patience).
And when I check my Facebook and Twitter feed, it's about half/half defending this guy vs. defending A&E. Heck, it's probably more people defending him. So I'd hardly call this the "masses." Hell, if I believed the "masses" then I'd assume everyone hates President Obama and would never re-elect him with 51% of the vote. Sometimes it depends on what you're watching and who you're listening to that defines who the "masses" are.
This is damage control, like you said, which is entirely within A&E's purview. Its sole purpose is to make a profit, which is driven by the masses or a target audience.
Frankly, if you think about it, this has the potential to hurt A&E more than help it. If people refuse to watch A&E in protest, then A&E loses money (which is its whole reason for existing). Or, more people will watch Duck Dynasty to show support for the show, which will help prop up A&E's profits.
Clever marketing ploy?
I am unfamiliar with this feeling of optimism
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 17,027
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 17,027 |
I'd fire someone for watching duck dynasty.
Point blank.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Quote:
This is not a First Amendment issue.
No, it's not... what it is though, is the current trend of using social media to inflict bullying by the masses to keep people from saying things they believe in that may be outside of some politically correct norm.
Neat how things come full circle.. 30-40 years ago if you said you were gay or showed support for somebody who was gay, you were almost unhireable and ostracized.. now if you say anything negative about it, the same thing is true.... the same type of bullying tactics people fought for 30 years to tear down, they are now using in their favor...
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,704
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,704 |
Quote:
Neat how things come full circle.. 30-40 years ago if you said you were gay or showed support for somebody who was gay, you were almost unhireable and ostracized.. now if you say anything negative about it, the same thing is true.... the same type of bullying tactics people fought for 30 years to tear down, they are now using in their favor...
You were able to put my thoughts into words. I have a feeling I'll be stealing this quote from you at some point 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 77,578
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 77,578 |
j/c
I believe A&E is overthinking this. Duck Dynasty is their golden cow. Whether one likes it or not, it's a very popular show.
For those who don't know, it is about a man, Phil, who made a very highly affective duck call. It turned into a gold mine. One of his sons went to college and he made him CEO.
While the show is silly, the family has always been redneck, hunters, religious and draws many of those same type of fans. They are for gun rights and the same things many of their viewers uphold as valuable.
By suspending Phil from the show, they may shoot themselves in the butt and kill their golden cow. And I would bet in the end, it will be to bow to a contingent that for the most part doesn't even watch the show.
While I wouldn't stand by his side in regards to his comments, I'd say there are a lot of religious, hunters and gun owning people in this county who shares his views on the subject.
If you build a show that caters to such an audience and you end up with a marketing empire because of it, don't be surprised if you lose it just as fast when you insult the very people who are supporting it.
JMHO
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,044
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,044 |
im not going to even begin to get into how your semantically wrong, and if lawyers think this way its no damn wonder this country is in the shape its in.
That being said:
"The day you allow a private company/corporation to control what your allowed to say, think, and feel and to retaliate against those who say things they don't agree with is the day a free Republic is no longer a free Republic"
Do you really think the Founders of this country ever wanted private corporations to have the power to silence and retaliate against citizens who made, said, or wrote statements the company didn't like? if you do, then i have a piece of beach front property in Ohio for sale.
It was an "unwritten rule" in other words, universally acknowledged at the time the Bill of Rights was drafted that "of course the same rules apply to business owners" Judas priest man! I think the founders assumed we would be smart enough to read between lines or understand the commonly acknowledged....perhaps they over estimated us.
The founders believed in whole premise of "If the government isn't allowed to do it, then a business isn't allowed to do it"
That statement right there pretty much applied to common law/English Common law since the late 1600's to the early 1700's....
The government isn't allowed to pollute the environment, so a company isn't allowed to either.
The government isn't allowed deprive a person of their rights to due process, so a company isn't allowed to either.
The government isn't allowed to violate your rights, and a company isn't allowed to either.
The government at is very essence was founded to PROTECT THE PEOPLES RIGHTS FROM ALL THREATS FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC. The government was founded to protect the people, to protect the peoples rights from being violated, not only by government, but by other people including corporations, to protect the peoples property rights from being violated.
If you say a corporation can violate someones free speech (by retaliating against them for making statements they don't disagree with), then you think corporations can violate your rights to due process as well, they can violate your rights to read whatever news paper you want to read, they can violate your rights to remain silent, they can violate your rights to speak to a lawyer,
All of those rights by the way the Courts have upheld numerous times that companies can't do any of those things...heck a school is not even allowed to question a child about a possible crime on school grounds without parental consent, and the parents can't be denied the right to bring a lawyer with them...what more proof do you need.
this needs to go to the Supreme Court...once and for all so the govt can tells these companies to go slot off! that these employees have a protect right so say what they want without fear of retribution...the Founders were quite clear that the purpose of government is to "protect the rights of ifs citizens" not only from being trampled on by the government, but being trampled on by other citizens including businesses and corporations....
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 13,882
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 13,882 |
Quote:
I can proudly state that I've never seen a second of the show and had to ask my wife what it was when we were doing Christmas shopping and saw so much of that freaking apparel everywhere.
As for what he said, I have no problem with the fact that he said it (although I disagree with what he said). Also, I have no problem with A&E pulling him for saying what was said.. Everybody has freedom of speech, but that doesn't entitle you to be free of consequences from your speech.
+1 on all points.
![[Linked Image]](http://www.dawgtalkers.net/uploads/Punchsmack/punch.gif) “...Iguodala to Curry, back to Iguodala, up for the layup! Oh! Blocked by James! LeBron James with the rejection!”
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 23,847
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 23,847 |
My thought is this, stop bringing attention to it and it's not news.. He was asked a question by a magazine and he answered it the way he felt. His answers went completely in line with what his beliefs are and that of millions more christians, doesn't make him right or wrong, but it's not like he's coming out and trying to cause issues. He answered it just as I would have and anyone else that has seen the show and know how he is would have expected him to. He didn't talk bad about gays, he said he has no problems with them and its not his place to judge anyone. A and E are just a bunch of sensitive women that need to grow a pair and stop giving ammunition to these special interests groups. People say they don't want to live in a world that watches duck dynasty? really? have you even seen the show? I don't want to live in a world where someone can't answer a question truthfully of their own opinion without being persecuted for it. This whole thing should be a non issue. If i was the Duck Dynasty folks, I'd start shopping networks, I'm pretty sure theres other networks that would love to have 9 million viewers every weds.
Tomorrow is the most important thing in life. Comes into us at midnight very clean. It's perfect when it arrives and it puts itself in our hands. It hopes we've learned something from yesterday. -John Wayne
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,521
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,521 |
People should be ostracized for passing hateful judgments on groups of people that are based on some objectively quantifiable trait like skin color or ethnicity or sexual preference. It's archaic, backwards thinking that more often than not is rooted in fear and/or ignorance, and it serves no useful purpose.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 13,882
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 13,882 |
Knight, this dude doesn't have to let A&E control his speech....he can just quit the show and say anything he wants. If he wants the money and fame of the show, he can't say certain things on their network (or as a representative of their network) and get away with it. It's quite simple.
He has a choice.
“...Iguodala to Curry, back to Iguodala, up for the layup! Oh! Blocked by James! LeBron James with the rejection!”
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
KoB, I agree with the spirit of your post.. but there has to be some point where a persons actions/words outside of work can be cause for dismissal right? I mean if you are associated with a company and you are out there making an arse out of yourself all of the time in the media.. surely at some point the company can say they've had enough... Personally, I think it would make for a much more interesting case for him to file a religious persecution suit against A&E and let's have at it.
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 17,284
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 17,284 |
So A&E run a reality show on old fashioned family living in the swamps and are then "shocked" when one of them makes a comment like this?
Why are people not talking about his Civil Rights comment?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,231
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,231 |
Quote:
No, it's not... what it is though, is the current trend of using social media to inflict bullying by the masses to keep people from saying things they believe in that may be outside of some politically correct norm.
Neat how things come full circle.. 30-40 years ago if you said you were gay or showed support for somebody who was gay, you were almost unhireable and ostracized.. now if you say anything negative about it, the same thing is true.... the same type of bullying tactics people fought for 30 years to tear down, they are now using in their favor...
I am glad that someone else sees the increasing trend of manipulating social media for this type of peer-shaming/bullying.
Can hardly go on social sites without getting bombarded by people that have been whipped into a fervor over some idiotic Trauma du jour.
Browns is the Browns
... there goes Joe Thomas, the best there ever was in this game.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,909
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,909 |
Quote:
Frankly, if you think about it, this has the potential to hurt A&E more than help it. If people refuse to watch A&E in protest, then A&E loses money (which is its whole reason for existing). Or, more people will watch Duck Dynasty to show support for the show, which will help prop up A&E's profits.
Clever marketing ploy?
Not really.
You're leaving out a 3rd possibility. Some other company/station picks up the show.
Okay, A&E "suspended" Phil. Got it. Season 4 wrapped up (filming) last month. The series 4 premier is in mid January. To me, timing would dictate that Phil isn't going to be removed from season 4.
He's suspended......but from what? From season 5? If so, expect another company to swoop in and take it from A&E.
That hurts A&E, big time.
If MORE people watch the show this season because of a&e's suspension, I'd be extremely surprised. If LESS people watch, I'd be surprised.
Follow the money.........that's what will determine what happens. Not Phil's beliefs, not a&e's pandering to the few. This is t.v., and on t.v., just like in real life......money sets the tone.
Ironically, a&e also has a show called "Rodeo Girls" http://www.aetv.com/rodeo-girls/video?mk...rls%20tv%20show
Apparently a&e isn't concerned with treating women as sex objects if they can make a buck off them.
So, apparently a know Christian can't state his views when asked.........but that same company has no problem using women to sell a different show. Women, as in "bikini wearing rodeo cowgirls".
Seems kind of odd, doesn't it?
One last thing: I find it interesting the number of people on here that say they've never watched the show, yet they use the term "redneck", etc to describe the show........never having watched it, and probably never will/would regardless of how this all pans out. I find that odd.
The guy was asked his opinion, and he gave it.
The whole family splits $200,000 per episode between 20 people I believe it is. (now, I don't know the percentages as far as who gets what percentage) A "season" is what, 8 shows long? Maybe 10?
Do the math there folks......on what a&e puts out, compared to what they earn airing the show. Money talks.
Plus, the number of people claiming to be upset about this is fairly small, and many of them never watched the show to begin with. The people complaining don't watch the show...........and, GLAAD and LGBT. Hey, they need their names in the limelight too, right?
As I ponder this all..........boy, I can't help but be reminded of the old saying "No press is bad press"
I can't believe people aren't up in arms about what Phil said about the black people he grew up with, working in the cotton fields with them. I'm sure that will come, and he'll be labeled a racist, sexist, bigot.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 18,204
~ Legend
|
|
~ Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 18,204 |
Quote:
People should be ostracized for passing hateful judgments on groups of people that are based on some objectively quantifiable trait like skin color or ethnicity or sexual preference. It's archaic, backwards thinking that more often than not is rooted in fear and/or ignorance, and it serves no useful purpose.
This. I'd like to state this is hardly freedom of speech, since he did say what he say what he wanted to, but didn't care for the consequences.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,909
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,909 |
Quote:
Knight, this dude doesn't have to let A&E control his speech....he can just quit the show and say anything he wants. If he wants the money and fame of the show, he can't say certain things on their network (or as a representative of their network) and get away with it. It's quite simple.
He has a choice.
And, interestingly enough, when a&e approached him about doing the show, they told him he couldn't pray, or talk about religion.
And he politely told them "then there is no show". a&e gave in.........they saw.................money.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,964
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,964 |
Do I gather that this man simply gave an opinion as being against gay marriage, and said nothing overtly hateful or inciting violence?
Next that this was said on some other media, while NOT on A&E's clock?
Finally, that he is not the host of a children's kiddy hour, or a priest or politician? He is the host of a backwoods hunting program?
Doesn't sound like he violated any morals clause, nor damaged his own reputation or standing with his fans/value. There should have been some disclaimer on the piece "the following is the opinion of X and not that of management, blah, blah, blah".
This is not a first amendment issue, but it may be one of wrongful termination or improper action by his employer.
Basically, a discrimination issue.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,044
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,044 |
Quote:
KoB, I agree with the spirit of your post.. but there has to be some point where a persons actions/words outside of work can be cause for dismissal right? I mean if you are associated with a company and you are out there making an arse out of yourself all of the time in the media.. surely at some point the company can say they've had enough...
Personally, I think it would make for a much more interesting case for him to file a religious persecution suit against A&E and let's have at it.
Thanks DC
As for cause for dismissal? yes, but at what point can be very subjective....
If a person States or writes: These opinions and statements are solely my own, and do not reflect the opinions of my employer and are not endorsed by my employer.
then that person should be able to say whatever he wants(within reason of course) without fear of retribution by a company or anyone else....don't get me wrong, making threats, false claims, libel, slander, and the like are not acceptable forms of free speech, However, a person should be allowed to voice their religious beliefs without fear of being retaliated against...be it government or corporation...
As i said, the Founders were quite clear that Government was established to protect the rights of the people...not only from the government itself, but from corporations as well...the Founders had a great dislike of Corporations...The British Government was corrupted by them...the East India Company and a few others to make the list short...they also hated the European Banking Establishment and Bankers in particular..the Bank of England..
when reading the Federalist Papers, Emer Vitales Law of Nations, and few other books about the founding of the Constitution and Founders, it becomes quite clear that the role of government was to protect the rights of its citizens from all who would dare oppress them, and thats not only the government, but from other citizens, business, and corporations as well.
As for this Duck Dynasty Guy, I think your right DC...this guy probably has a claim that they violated his freedom of religion...he was doing a magazine interview, they were asking him questions of personal nature...he was speaking Phil Robertson the man, not Phil Robertson the star of Duck Dynasty...and regardless...you can't retaliate against someone for making statements about their religious beliefs...even if those beliefs make someone made...its their God Given Constitutional right to have those beliefs and to express them.
I hope he takes A&E to the cleaners, and then donates that money to a Christian Charity to do some real good for the community.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 18,204
~ Legend
|
|
~ Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 18,204 |
Quote:
Quote:
No, it's not... what it is though, is the current trend of using social media to inflict bullying by the masses to keep people from saying things they believe in that may be outside of some politically correct norm.
Neat how things come full circle.. 30-40 years ago if you said you were gay or showed support for somebody who was gay, you were almost unhireable and ostracized.. now if you say anything negative about it, the same thing is true.... the same type of bullying tactics people fought for 30 years to tear down, they are now using in their favor...
I am glad that someone else sees the increasing trend of manipulating social media for this type of peer-shaming/bullying.
Can hardly go on social sites without getting bombarded by people that have been whipped into a fervor over some idiotic Trauma du jour.
This isn't bullying. This is people responding somewhat civil to cretin behavior. Companies don't often hire skinheads, white nationalists, or any other fear mongering groups, so why would they allow openly hostile, volatile people work for them because they're hating on a different group for the same reason (Being a cretin). Me calling hateful people "Cretins" is bullying, not hiring them is not bullying.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Quote:
People should be ostracized for passing hateful judgments on groups of people that are based on some objectively quantifiable trait like skin color or ethnicity or sexual preference.
If you add religious affiliation to your list, a lot of people who would otherwise agree with you are going down to.
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
DawgTalkers.net
Forums DawgTalk Everything Else... Phil Robertson and Duck Dynasty
|
|
