|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,490
Hall of Famer
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,490 |
Quote:
What does get me is the hypocrisy on both sides of this issue. If Phil had been a Muslim and said all Christians were going to hell, the outcry from the people now supporting him would be wild.
J/c
Can you give me an example of that? An American Muslim, who said that all christians are going to hell -- and then got support (presumably from the left?)
~Lyuokdea
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,704
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,704 |
Quote:
Quote:
What does get me is the hypocrisy on both sides of this issue. If Phil had been a Muslim and said all Christians were going to hell, the outcry from the people now supporting him would be wild.
J/c
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,349
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,349 |
Just clicking Nelson
I find it funny that there is a big uproar and cries of racism or homophobia if someone says something about a minority, or a gay person. Yet many are perfectly comfortable with assuming these people are "rednecks" or " hillbillys".
Just from watching the show, they seem like good, decent, down to earth country folks who just happened to become very rich because of duck calls. Phil and Kay, his wife still live in the same simple home that they have lived in for 30 years. Now they do own 100s of acres of property, but no fancy house or anything. Now the sons all have houses in subdivisions and stuff like that, but America needs more families like these people. Who cares if Phil believes homosexuality is a sin, as long as he isnt discriminating against anyone.
And Uncle Si is hilarious, I guess I must be a redneck too, because I know a few people just like him and they are good folks
KING
You may be in the drivers seat but God is holding the map. #GMSTRONG
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 478
1st String
|
|
1st String
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 478 |
Quote:
Quote:
I think it comes down to people agreeing with his gay rights stance, and feeling, that by him being suspended, it is culturally unacceptable for them to have the same views. It is an attack on their beliefs as well.
Do you really believe this?
Yes I do.
People feel that the conservative Christian faith and values are under siege by society. To people who believe that, this story is just further proof.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,490
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,490 |
Good point -- I meant that I had just checked in, since that post was buried in the thread by now. I haven't read posts after that one, not sure if it was already discussed.
~Lyuokdea
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,704
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,704 |
I think it's more that people agree with his right to express his views, whether they agree with them or not.
I personally don't agree with his views, so I'm not upset because I feel like I can't share those views.
I do however support his right to express whatever his opinion is.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,521
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,521 |
Nobody has said that he can't have or express those views.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,704
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,704 |
Quote:
Nobody has said that he can't have or express those views.
A&E did.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,371
Legend
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,371 |
Quote:
Of course it is.. I just think it's stupid.
Ok you lost me, what's stupid?
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 13,882
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 13,882 |
Quote:
Quote:
Nobody has said that he can't have or express those views.
A&E did.
Well, to be more accurate, he can't have or express those views and still be on the show. He's more than able to have and express views of any sort right now.
So, he still has his free speech, just not A&E's money.
...assuming he's fired and never coming back on the show. Which I think they'll eventually let him back on.
![[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: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,521
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,521 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,371
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,371 |
Quote:
Quote:
Nobody has said that he can't have or express those views.
A&E did.
No, they didn't tell him to not express his views. But they didn't care for them or agree with them or think them to be proper in terms of how the show would be viewed.
And they took actions that were within their rights as his employer.
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,044
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,044 |
Quote:
And they took actions that were within their rights as his employer.
Daman, that's an assumption. None of us here are privy to the details of the contract Robertson signed with A&E...these guys are not standard "at-will" employment, they are employment that are binded by contract.
For all we know, A&E could be in breach of contract right now for what any of us know. I am sure Phil's lawyers are looking over his contract as we speak, and contracts often or not have many twists and turns and can be open to interpretation...it will have to be up to the lawyers and judges to sort it out.
A&E may have the standard verbiage about them protecting their image and representing the company, but don't be surprised if theres is also verbiage in that contract giving Robertson a good bit of leeway on what he is and isn't allowed to say....Robertson is no fool...he would not have signed that contract with A&E without his own lawyers looking over it first and making suggestions.
My guess? this goes to court, and whichever side can make the best argument to their loophole in the contract is the one that wins out....most likely, A&E won't want to shoulder the legal fees, and will settle allowing Duck Dynasty to move to a different network.....
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
Quote:
People feel that the conservative Christian faith and values are under siege by society.
Somehow 'we're not catering to your beliefs' became a faith under siege.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,044
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,044 |
This is totally a 1st Amendment issue.
The Founders based this Republic off the premises of the Athenian Republic....the Athenian lawmaker Solon decreed it a crime for any citizen to shrink from controversy. This is what ultimately led the founders to protecting the rights of speech and the rights of the press.
You can't have freedom of speech unless you also protected from those who would retaliate against you....The Founders understood this...thats why the government was created...The founders quite clearly spelled it out that the job of the government was to not only protect the rights of its citizens from being trampled on by out of control government, but to also protect those very same rights from being trampled on by other citizens, foreign nations, businesses, corporations, banks, etc.
Those who say I am wrong, Ask yourself this then
Does the Civil Rights Act not protect the rights of minorities from having their rights violated by private enterprise? The precedents here are quite clear..hell the court cases since the 1960's have further established this precedent.
Robertson had his rights violated, plain and simple...his rights were violated in the same way minorities rights were violated before passage of the Civil Rights Act.
As long as the speech you are saying is not illegal and incites no person to violence, that speech is protected....its also protected from being retaliated against (taking ones paycheck in retribution) for statements made that had NOTHING to do with his job.
Look, its one thing to work for Ford motor company and publicly bash the company as garbage, and publicly bash the automobiles they are making......its a whole other thing to work for Ford motor company, and make statements for or against gay marriage (This is just an example}
The 2nd has nothing to do with your job, as long as your work and production measures up to the standards your evaluated on, then its no foul.
You can't let companies dictate what you can and can't say off work....companies should have a right to decide what you can or can not say "about their product" but thats it...as long as your not wearing their clothes, logo, or acting in any official capacity as advocate for that company, then the statements you make are solely your own opinions and bear no relevance or reflection to that company.
again i'll say it:
"the day the American people allow a private company to dictate what they can say, think, feel, is the day the American Republic will die"
These companies have no more right to supress your rights to speak your mind then government does. They also have no right to retaliate against you by (by firing) for statements that have NOTHING to do with the company or product itself.
Mark my words one of these days someone is going to spend hundreds of thousands on this and take it to the Supreme Court just on general principle, and they are going to win....as i said....the precedent has been set since the 1960's....your burying your head in the sand otherwise...the Civil Rights Act clearly prevents companies from violating peoples right....to say the 1st Amendment doesn't apply to companies is just laughable at best....when clearly the Courts and the upholding of such laws as the Civil Rights Act say otherwise.
Don't get me wrong, if your making disparging comments about the compnay you work for, your fellow co-workers, or the product you produce...or you get yourself into severe legal trouble, then yes a company has a right to fire you under those terms....but to voice your opinion, that is solely your own, about something that has nothing to do with the company whatsoever? BS...your not representing your company on your off time when your walking around in jeans and a t-shirt, drinking a beer at your local bar.
If everyone represents their employer all the time, then the days of drinking beer on your back porch is over...because your employer may drive by your house and see you...that's grounds for termination.....
Companies don't have any more power then the government does, that's been clearly expressed over the last 200 years in American History. Companies are the new threat to American Freedom...they are trying to silence the voice of the people to keep them from saying things they don't agree with that have nothing to do with the company or their work, and are threatening firings and termination to keep people silent...this alone is a human rights violation....its most definitely a rights violation in the eyes of the men who wrote the Constitution.
Those that wonder why the Founders didn't include Businesses in the wording of the 1st Amendment? simple because they didn't have to! because it was univerasally understood and acknowledged at the time of the documents creation and signing that government would protect the peoples rights from being violated, not only by the government, but from other people, business, corporations, foreign governments, etc....thats what the government is for...again...see the Civil Rights Act...it clearly protects people from having their rights violated by private corporations/private enterprise.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,231
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,231 |
Quote:
This is totally a 1st Amendment issue.
No, it is not. Period.
Browns is the Browns
... there goes Joe Thomas, the best there ever was in this game.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,231
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,231 |
Here is the First Amendment, in its entirety:
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.
For anyone who believes this to be a violation of this amendment, please highlight for the rest of us precisely which part of this text it violates.
Browns is the Browns
... there goes Joe Thomas, the best there ever was in this game.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,490
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,490 |
Quote:
Does the Civil Rights Act not protect the rights of minorities from having their rights violated by private enterprise? The precedents here are quite clear..hell the court cases since the 1960's have further established this precedent.
Robertson had his rights violated, plain and simple...his rights were violated in the same way minorities rights were violated before passage of the Civil Rights Act.
The legality of the Civil Rights Act isn't based on the First Amendment, it's based on the 14th Amendment - which protects against discrimination based on certain traits (first interpreted as race, and now more broadly as race, sex, nationality, religion and more recently sexual orientation).
Last edited by Lyuokdea; 12/20/13 01:22 PM.
~Lyuokdea
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 16,195
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 16,195 |
Quote:
Quote:
Does the Civil Rights Act not protect the rights of minorities from having their rights violated by private enterprise? The precedents here are quite clear..hell the court cases since the 1960's have further established this precedent.
Robertson had his rights violated, plain and simple...his rights were violated in the same way minorities rights were violated before passage of the Civil Rights Act.
The legality of the Civil Rights Act isn't based on the First Amendment, it's based on the 14th Amendment - which protects against discrimination based on certain traits (first interpreted as race, and now more broadly as race, sex, nationality, religion and more recently sexual orientation).
I would think rednecks are a minority class.
#GMSTRONG
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,044
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,044 |
Quote:
Quote:
Does the Civil Rights Act not protect the rights of minorities from having their rights violated by private enterprise? The precedents here are quite clear..hell the court cases since the 1960's have further established this precedent.
Robertson had his rights violated, plain and simple...his rights were violated in the same way minorities rights were violated before passage of the Civil Rights Act.
The legality of the Civil Rights Act isn't based on the First Amendment, it's based on the 14th Amendment - which protects against discrimination based on certain traits (first interpreted as race, and now more broadly as race, sex, nationality, religion and more recently sexual orientation).
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxiv
Exactly, but my point is company, business, etc is never mentioned by word in the 14th Amendment, yet the Civil Rights Act clearly prevents and protects citizens from having their rights violated by private companies...its protecting Constitutionally protected rights...Speech is no different in this sense.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,490
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,490 |
But the 14th amendment never says anything about speech - it talks about the the Equal Protection of people
"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
There's no equal protection issue here - it's not that a business can't fire an old person for saying something offensive, but can fire a young person.
~Lyuokdea
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,044
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,044 |
Quote:
Here is the First Amendment, in its entirety:
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.
For anyone who believes this to be a violation of this amendment, please highlight for the rest of us precisely which part of this text it violates.
Prp, your being Anachronistic...business, corporation, etc is mentioned no where in the 14th Amendment, and yet the Civil Rights Act clearly prevents private companies from violating Constitutionally protected rights...its no different with speech.....the only reason this is even still going on is because no one has actually challenged this behavior in court.
The Civil Rights Act proves that the job of the government is protect Constitutionally protected rights from being violated not only by the government, but by other citizens, banks, free enterprise, corporations, foreign governments, etc...thats what the government was ordained for!
again..there is no mention of businesses, corporations, etc in the 14th Amendment, and yet the Supreme Court uphed the Constitutionality of the Civil Rights Act which clearly prevents private companies from violating Constitutionally protected rights. Freedom of Speech is also a Constitutionally protected right....no company has a right to retaliate against someone for protected speech as long as that speech is not made in malice in a direct attempt to damge the said company or the product it sells.
This needs to go the the Courts sooner then later....these companies have no right to dictate waht you can and can not say off company time as long as those words have nothing to do with the company and you are not acting as a rep for the company or wearing any of their cloths, logos or attire. there has to be a meduim ground here man, these companies are out of hand with this nonsense...im all about firing someone that does a poor job or is just being dumb, but a guy or girl that works hard and is a great employee has a right to publicly state her religious or political opinions that have nothing whatsoever to do with her comapny with our fear of reprisal or retribution.
Theres no such thing as free speech without protection from retaliation....again..the 14th amendment mentions nothing about about businesses, corporations, free enterprise, etc...yet the Civil Rights Act clearly prevents private companies from violating constitutionally protected rights....I think the courts have set pretty good track record on this issue...now its just up to someone to who has the money to take it to the Supremes, I bet they could win....as long as the speech falls under the guidelines of the courts definition of protected speech, the person should be protected from being retaliated against..plain and simple.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,044
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,044 |
True, but im only using the 14th Amendment as an example.
My point is...neither the 1st nor 14 Amendments make any mention whatsoever about private companies, etc....yet the 14 Amendment and the Civil Rights Act still protects those Constitutionally protected rights from being violated by companies....so if the courts say the 14th Amendment applies to companies, wouldn't it be a fair assumption to infer so does the 1st Amendment?
I think its a fair assumption...as i said, I don't think anyone has really pressed this issue though...its very new in the days of the Internet and all that now.....im sure it will be tested at some point, and im sure the Court will rule the speech is protected as long as it falls under the guidelines the courts set out as protected speech....because face it, You can't have a Free Republic with companies dictating what your allowed to say and using threats of retribution(firing) as retaliation for making statements or showing support to causes that have nothing to do with your job and are done on an individual merit and basis.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,490
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,490 |
~Lyuokdea
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,371
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,371 |
Quote:
Quote:
And they took actions that were within their rights as his employer.
Daman, that's an assumption.
Nope, it's not an assumption. it's a fact. Unless you believe that the actions they took weren't within their rights? I don't see how you can even think that.
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,490
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,490 |
In this case though, you will have to balance the free speech rights of the person against the free speech rights of the corporation.... unless of course you conclude that corporations aren't people and can't have free speech  There are some protections. Tenure of course is a major one (see Arthur Butz)
~Lyuokdea
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Quote:
Have you seen or read a quote from him that specifically refers to "Jim Crow"? The only place I have seen this referenced is in commentary, not his words.
Exactly. the race stuff is being blown far more out of proportion than the gay stuff... To the best of my knowledge, everything he said about race was based on his own opinion of the blacks that he was around, the ones he was working with, and their demeanor at the time... and that before welfare and entitlement programs none of them were singing the blues.. from that point, "journalists" have extrapolated all sorts of things about what he MEANT...
this is a large part of what he said..
Quote:
"I never, with my eyes, saw the mistreatment of any black person," said Robertson, discussing his childhood in Louisiana. "The blacks worked for the farmers. I hoed cotton with them. I'm with the blacks, because we're white trash. We're going across the field.... They're singing and happy."
He continued: "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."
This is how one author interpreted it..
Quote:
In other words, as far as he knew, African-Americans had nothing to complain about under Jim Crow, and insofar that they were angry, it was because of agitators and liberals. This all but parrots the rhetoric of segregationist politicians in the 1950s and '60s, who denounced activists and civil rights workers — like NAACP lawyers or SNCC volunteers — as "communists" and "outside agitators" who made blacks discontent with their rhetoric.
Reach much...
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 17,284
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 17,284 |
Quote:
Quote:
Here is the First Amendment, in its entirety:
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.
For anyone who believes this to be a violation of this amendment, please highlight for the rest of us precisely which part of this text it violates.
Prp, your being Anachronistic...business, corporation, etc is mentioned no where in the 14th Amendment, and yet the Civil Rights Act clearly prevents private companies from violating Constitutionally protected rights...its no different with speech.....the only reason this is even still going on is because no one has actually challenged this behavior in court.
The Civil Rights Act proves that the job of the government is protect Constitutionally protected rights from being violated not only by the government, but by other citizens, banks, free enterprise, corporations, foreign governments, etc...thats what the government was ordained for!
again..there is no mention of businesses, corporations, etc in the 14th Amendment, and yet the Supreme Court uphed the Constitutionality of the Civil Rights Act which clearly prevents private companies from violating Constitutionally protected rights. Freedom of Speech is also a Constitutionally protected right....no company has a right to retaliate against someone for protected speech as long as that speech is not made in malice in a direct attempt to damge the said company or the product it sells.
This needs to go the the Courts sooner then later....these companies have no right to dictate waht you can and can not say off company time as long as those words have nothing to do with the company and you are not acting as a rep for the company or wearing any of their cloths, logos or attire. there has to be a meduim ground here man, these companies are out of hand with this nonsense...im all about firing someone that does a poor job or is just being dumb, but a guy or girl that works hard and is a great employee has a right to publicly state her religious or political opinions that have nothing whatsoever to do with her comapny with our fear of reprisal or retribution.
Theres no such thing as free speech without protection from retaliation....again..the 14th amendment mentions nothing about about businesses, corporations, free enterprise, etc...yet the Civil Rights Act clearly prevents private companies from violating constitutionally protected rights....I think the courts have set pretty good track record on this issue...now its just up to someone to who has the money to take it to the Supremes, I bet they could win....as long as the speech falls under the guidelines of the courts definition of protected speech, the person should be protected from being retaliated against..plain and simple.
Isn't that what the Socialists are preaching? The Workers have more rights than the Businesses? Taking this to court would be the worst idea possible. You would be setting a judicial precedent that the Government has the right to influence personal businesses and corporations for the sake of a minority. All for the sake of a tv show, at that.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,521
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,521 |
I could see it taken either way...for example, that whipping a person is mistreatment but he never saw the black people he knew get whipped or, alternately, he saw the black people he knew get whipped but he did not consider whipping to be mistreatment.
How you interpret it depends on the point that you're trying to make. Personally I haven't really given it a bit of consideration.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 18,204
~ Legend
|
|
~ Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 18,204 |
jc Funny to see how this thread has turned to "Should the government protect these rights?" (The answer should be "no" btw.) Anyway, I'm assuming the Conservatives on Twitter launched the "#IStandWithPhil" trend, but it soon got taken over by comedians. But I think this was the best #IStandWithPhil tweet that I saw:  Absolutely hysterical.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 77,578
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 77,578 |
We want to thank all of you for your prayers and support. The family has spent much time in prayer since learning of A&E's decision. We want you to know that first and foremost we are a family rooted in our faith in God and our belief that the Bible is His word. While some of Phil’s unfiltered comments to the reporter were coarse, his beliefs are grounded in the teachings of the Bible. Phil is a Godly man who follows what the Bible says are the greatest commandments: “Love the Lord your God with all your heart” and “Love your neighbor as yourself.” Phil would never incite or encourage hate. We are disappointed that Phil has been placed on hiatus for expressing his faith, which is his constitutionally protected right. We have had a successful working relationship with A&E but, as a family, we cannot imagine the show going forward without our patriarch at the helm. We are in discussions with A&E to see what that means for the future of Duck Dynasty. Again, thank you for your continued support of our family. http://duckcommander.com/news/robertson-family-offical-statementLooks like A&E may have just killed their cash cow.
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,521
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,521 |
That's a very well-crafted statement.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,367
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,367 |
Quote:
Quote:
What does get me is the hypocrisy on both sides of this issue. If Phil had been a Muslim and said all Christians were going to hell, the outcry from the people now supporting him would be wild.
J/c
Can you give me an example of that? An American Muslim, who said that all christians are going to hell -- and then got support (presumably from the left?)
First, you aren't j/c if you are talking to me.  Second, please tell me where I said anyone would support it? My point was, many of the folks having a fit over this, claiming he's just exercising his right to profess his religious views, would go ape if something was said by someone of another religion condemning them. I never said "the liberals" would support it, don't get defensive.
I said regarding those who think he should be fired or suspended that if it had been someone making fun of or ridiculing right wing Christians, as an example, they would be saying he was just speaking his mind.
Total hypocrisy, and it happens a lot.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 18,204
~ Legend
|
|
~ Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 18,204 |
He's asking you to show a real example of that occurring as it's never really happened before on a large scale.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,431
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,431 |
Quote:
we cannot imagine the show going forward without our patriarch at the helm
The first shot across the bow . in other words A&E will back down or else .  I hope that it leads to the Robertsons switching networks but I would wager some compromise will be met . This family is worth tens of millions of dollars so it isn't like they couldn't afford to stand on their principles and walk.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 77,578
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 77,578 |
Not trying to speak for her, but I believe I understand what she's trying to say.
Take "The war on Christmas" as an example. I've never actually seen anyone try to stop me from saying Merry Christmas. However, many businesses and others have began to use the term Happy holidays out of a political correctness type of thing not to offend anyone.
The right, at least a portion of them, seem outraged by this. Even though nobody is actually preventing them from saying Merry Christmas. Society overall isn't going along with what they see as "the right way", so they get outraged at the other side.
Same goes for what Robertson said. While people may disagree with what he said, he was basing it on his religious beliefs and personal experiences. Because that doesn't align itself with the way many feel the subjects should be approached, the other side is outraged.
There's simply no balance and both sides seem to make up reasons to be outraged at the other. So you can really pick your poison here. Both sides will flare up and call foul when push comes to shove.
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: 77,578
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 77,578 |
Quote:
The first shot across the bow . in other words A&E will back down or else . I hope that it leads to the Robertsons switching networks but I would wager some compromise will be met . This family is worth tens of millions of dollars so it isn't like they couldn't afford to stand on their principles and walk.
And that's really what I do like about this situation. This family is in a position they can stand on their principles and it would mean very little in a the way of hardship for them.
A&E can't simply dictate its will as they may have been able to do in some cases. I'm actually loving seeing this thing as it unfolds.
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: 3,490
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,490 |
Oh damn... i totally misread you -- I thought you mean that if he had been a muslim expressing religious views, that people say he has freedom to give his religious views.
That's not what you wrote, my bad.
~Lyuokdea
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 16,171
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 16,171 |
Quote:
Quote:
The first shot across the bow . in other words A&E will back down or else . I hope that it leads to the Robertsons switching networks but I would wager some compromise will be met . This family is worth tens of millions of dollars so it isn't like they couldn't afford to stand on their principles and walk.
And that's really what I do like about this situation. This family is in a position they can stand on their principles and it would mean very little in a the way of hardship for them.
A&E can't simply dictate its will as they may have been able to do in some cases. I'm actually loving seeing this thing as it unfolds.
Yep...no apoligies, no forgiving, and a whole lot of ignorance. The show must go on.
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." Thomas Jefferson.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,749
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,749 |
Well ...... now that this story has taken over every news show on every network from dawn till dusk ...... and beyond ....... I guess that I'll wade in here.
I will start by saying that I have never even seen this show. It has become inescapable over the past few days though.
I think that the way this guy presented his position was ....... impolite. He did quote the Bible, rather accurately, regarding the subject of homosexuality, as well as other subjects.
1st Corinthians 6, verses 9 and 10 (and I included up to 20 for context) say:
9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor [f]effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10 nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.
The Body Is the Lord’s
12 All things are lawful for me, but not all things are profitable. All things are lawful for me, but I will not be mastered by anything. 13 Food is for the [g]stomach and the [h]stomach is for food, but God will do away with both of them. Yet the body is not for immorality, but for the Lord, and the Lord is for the body. 14 Now God has not only raised the Lord, but will also raise us up through His power. 15 Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Shall I then take away the members of Christ and make them members of a prostitute? May it never be! 16 Or do you not know that the one who joins himself to a prostitute is one body with her? For He says, “The two shall become one flesh.” 17 But the one who joins himself to the Lord is one spirit with Him. 18 Flee immorality. Every other sin that a man commits is outside the body, but the [j]immoral man sins against his own body. 19 Or do you not know that your body is a [k]temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from [l]God, and that you are not your own? 20 For you have been bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body.
I don't know any other way to interpret this verse other than there are certain things that God finds offensive, and that we should strive against. Some of these are listed in these verses. It is not only homosexual acts, but this is one thing that is specifically listed. We don't get to pick and choose what God says are sins, and what are not. If we are Christians, and believe in the Bible as God's word, then God has spoken, and we need to obey. I struggle against sins on a daily basis, and fail far more than I wish, but I try to do better, to be worthy of God's gift to me. That is how I look at it anyway. God does not require us to pay a price for forgiveness, beyond asking for it and repenting our sins.However, repenting our sins means that we should try to stop these sinful behaviors.
As far as A&E, I will say that I do believe that they are acting in a rather cowardly and shallow manner. They are going to suspend the guy ...... but they have almost an entire season in the can, and featuring the guy they suspended. they will show these episodes. They have a Duck Dynasty marathon scheduled. Evidently they just had a 3 hour mini marathon the other day. They make money off of this show, and if the family were to say "See ya!", the network would be hurt badly financially.
If this were a matter of being offended by him, wouldn't they pull the show completely, rather than leaving it on? They won't, though, because that would cost them money ..... and that's even more important than their principles. They are trying to have both sides ..... maintaining their income stream, while also trying to keep up appearances. I think that they knew who this guy was before the show started, and they should have gained additional insight into who he is over the years the show has been on. This is no surprise to them. However, they want to maintain a certain image, and now they have stuck their parts in the wringer. They have appeased the LGTV community to some extent, yet they have left the show on the air. They have 8 new shows ready to air. They can let this ride for months before they truly have to take any "courageous" actions.
I also have to add that I am sick and tired of hearing about the 1st amendment and freedom of speech in this matter. He is entitled to say whatever he wants, however he can be fired as a result of what he says if his employers find that speech to be unacceptable. This is not a 1st amendment matter.
That said, I think that we should not be forbid offensive language. That is what the 1st amendment was written for. We all have the right to offend anyone and anything. We have the right to speak our minds. As long as we don't legally slander someone, then it should be protected. People have the right to then decide what they will watch, especially on TV. If someone is offended by one person's speech, then they can take their eyeballs away by changing the channel, or turning off the TV. I worry that we are becoming a nation of wimps, unable to manage what I, and most of us were taught as kids. "Sticks and stones will break my bones, but words will never hurt me." Today it seems like many are almost mortally wounded by what others say. Why? Why give someone that much power over you? It seems like we have gone into reverse as a country in this regard. Now words are so hurtful that it almost seems like people die as a result. Why? Take away the power of another's words by not allowing them to inflame and upset you. You can debate what he says, and explain why he is wrong, and that's the way to win. This over-sensitive nonsense is not.
Just my $0.0000012 worth. (after inflation)
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
DawgTalkers.net
Forums DawgTalk Everything Else... Phil Robertson and Duck Dynasty
|
|
