[quote]pushharder wrote:
Liberals really are the dumbest people I’ve ever met.[/quote]
Do not underestimate them; they can be some of the smartest people you will speak with. Personally, my views do not align with most of theirs but it’s a mistake to think they will make a lot of noise and go away.
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
[quote]JCMPG wrote:
They arent coming out and stating an opposing a view, but seem to be trying to suppress his right to express his personal opinion and beliefs on his own personal time. Arent we then talking about 2 different things?[/quote]
First, he was on a publicity tour promoting the show. I’m not sure I’d characterize this as “on his own personal time.”
Second, if my employee’s public comments made on his own personal time adversely impact my revenue stream, I’m going to fire that employee pretty much 100% of the time unless I’m legally prohibited from doing so. It’s not his own purely private time if his actions are affirmatively costing me money or tarnishing my image.
Third, I’m not convinced A & E actually wants to fire the guy, or that anyone making decisions actually gives a shit about his opinions one way or the other. I suspect they are going to see which way the wind blows and which results generates the most revenue. [/quote]
He was at his home with the interviewer from GQ. And what he said was in response to the question “What, in your mind, is sinful?”
It’s quite obvious A&E’s relationship with the Robertson’s has greatly increased their revenue stream and since the majority of Americans do not support GLAAD that income stream is not likely to diminish.
I misunderstood your points, I assumed we were all discussing things relative to what happened to Phil Robertson specifically.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Let’s try this again.
Jack, I hope you and those toeing your line are more than willing to allow A & E to fire a hypothetical employee/independent contractor for making pro-gay remarks. Right?
I have your assurances on that one? [/quote]
As a general rule I believe in at-will employment and that an employer who doesn’t want to embroil itself in a controversial issue like this one shouldn’t be required by law to maintain the relationship if it doesn’t want to. So if the remarks had been “pro gay” and caused a shit storm and lost revenue, if I were making the laws, A & E would be legally free to sever itself from the relationship (assuming no contract rights speak to the issue). That doesn’t mean that I would personally agree with the decision, it just means I don’t think it should be illegal and it certainly isn’t a First Amendment issue.
A separate question is whether A & E would violate religious anti-discrimination laws by firing this guy for his comments. I think its a murky issue and balancing his rights and his employer’s rights based on the law as I understand it is a complicated question. Assuming the law protected “pro gay” views in the same way with the same defenses (and I actually don’t think homosexuals are a protected category at least federally) and treated it as a religious-discrimination issue, or if “pro gay” was a protected category, then I think the two situations should be treated exactly the same way legally. Again, this doesn’t mean I would personally approve of the decision.
[quote]conservativedog wrote:
…by the way i did try putting my penis in a sewer once and it did feel pretty damn good.
but seriously look, i’m not a hateful person or anything â?? i believe we should all live and let live. but lately, i’ve been having a real problem with these homosexuals. you see, just about wherever I go these days, one of them approaches me and starts sucking my cock.
take last saturday, for instance, when i casually struck up a conversation with this guy in the health club locker room. nothing fruity, just a couple of fellas talking about their workout routines while enjoying a nice hot shower. The guy looked like a real man’s man, too, he had nice big biceps, meaty thighs, thick neck. he didn’t seem the least bit gay. at least not until he started sucking my cock.
[/quote]
Don’t worry man. It’s not gay if you weren’t wearing leather chaps, and he isn’t wearing a day glow green latex body suit, and you don’t have any type of Lady GaGa mix blasting.
There are some very valid points made in this blog post.
http://themattwalshblog.com/2013/12/19/dear-ae-congratulations-you-just-committed-suicide/
[quote]JCMPG wrote:
There are some very valid points made in this blog post.
http://themattwalshblog.com/2013/12/19/dear-ae-congratulations-you-just-committed-suicide/[/quote]
everyone should read the above link. thanks for posting that. duck should jump to another network like CMT or a Fox channel.
2 Timothy 3:1-5 explains well what has passed for good tv entertainment and what the moguls/powers that be suppress.
This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.
For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,
Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good,
Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God,
Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
This part of your post alone makes you a fool. An ignorant one.
Go back to your xbox. You have no business commenting on the Bible. You simply aren’t smart enough.
[/quote]
People who aren’t invested in the bible tend to be (much) smarter than those who are.
[quote]legendaryblaze wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
This part of your post alone makes you a fool. An ignorant one.
Go back to your xbox. You have no business commenting on the Bible. You simply aren’t smart enough.
[/quote]
People who aren’t invested in the bible tend to be (much) smarter than those who are.[/quote]
And where do wolverine comics rate on the smartness scale?
[quote]legendaryblaze wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
This part of your post alone makes you a fool. An ignorant one.
Go back to your xbox. You have no business commenting on the Bible. You simply aren’t smart enough.
[/quote]
People who aren’t invested in the bible tend to be (much) smarter than those who are.[/quote]
well, if you say so.
[quote]JCMPG wrote:
There are some very valid points made in this blog post.
http://themattwalshblog.com/2013/12/19/dear-ae-congratulations-you-just-committed-suicide/[/quote]
I love this link because it illustrates some important concepts. Assuming A&E isn’t in a conspiracy with the duck guy and faking this whole controversy to gin up ratings (which I doubt), which of the following groups do you think A & E would prefer to have as its viewership:
a. The vocal gay minority;
b. Conservative Christians;
c. Everybody in the whole fucking world.
If you picked any answer but c, you were wrong. A & E wants everybody to watch its show. Now, when the duck guy opens his mouth in a public forum and says shit that is guaranteed to piss off either a or b, how does this move A & E any closer to its goal of gaining a greater share of c. above as its audience? It doesn’t. Now, A & E is forced to choose and it is virtually guaranteed to lose either a or b–no matter what it does going forward–and it may, in fact, lose both a and b if it doesn’t act very carefully.
Now, assuming I am A&E, why would I want to employ a loose cannon who forces me to choose between my potential viewership; makes me work harder than I had to before to keep my viewership; and is placing my very existence at risk because he feels the need to express his political or religious views in front of a national audience–topics that most agree aren’t suitable for discussing amongst even close friends for fear that the friends might be alienated or lost.
Every job I have worked at had the potential for having a mic shoved in my face–and mics have been shoved in my face on several occasions–and I was told in no uncertain terms before starting that I had the right to my opinions, but they had the right to tell me to keep them to myself if I wanted to keep working there. Because they rightfully didn’t want to lose clients because I felt the need to spout off about my personal views on religion or politics.
This is why part of freedom of speech gives a person the right to shut the fuck up and it gives an employer the right not to tether itself to a christmas ham in shark infested waters.
[quote]legendaryblaze wrote:
People who aren’t invested in the bible tend to be (much) smarter than those who are.[/quote]
Yes, because we all know Jewish people are borderline retarded.
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
[quote]JCMPG wrote:
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
[quote]CroatianRage wrote:
[quote]Jlabs wrote:
I wouldn’t make such comments in public your personal opinions if very controversial should stay private. [/quote]
I could be wrong, but I’m pretty sure the purpose of freedom is speech is to protect unpopular and controversial speech. It’s not Phil’s duty to keep his opinion private, it’s other’s duty to not threaten his livelihood for expressing his thoughts.[/quote]
Nope. “Freedom of speech” prevents the government from taking action against you because of the content of your speech or your ideas. It doesn’t mean you are free to express opinions without private consequences. [/quote]
Does the corporation (A&E) have the same rights under the law as the individual (Phil Robertson)?
[/quote]
To a large degree, yes, but not co-extensively. A corporation is a “person” under the law, and its individual members have the right to act as persons collectively. Corporate con-law rights were also strengthened considerably after the recent Citizen’s United decision.
[/quote]
All true. But as an employer, it is bound by the Civil Rights Act, and they are (apparently) firing him for his expression of a pretty mundane religious viewpoint.
Certainly worth a lawsuit, just for the discovery.
ALSO: people are confusing 1st Amendment rights with what is going on. The Constitution only protects people against “state actors.”
So, for example, if a President (a state actor) wanted to put a Christian in prison for producing a documentary that was supposedly offensive to Muslims, the President would be violating said Christian’s 1st Amendment rights.
Now, has a lot of such similar conduct bu employers now forbidden by the ACA? Yes.
A very Christian old guy from the south who loves hunting and hasnt shaved in decades believes homosexuality is wrong? HOLY SHIT, what a profound revelation and some hard hitting journalism done by gq.
[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
All true. But as an employer, it is bound by the Civil Rights Act, and they are (apparently) firing him for his expression of a pretty mundane religious viewpoint.
Certainly worth a lawsuit, just for the discovery.
[/quote]
I’d take it for sure if I was getting paid by the hour. I’d have to think long and hard before I took it on a contingent fee. For me, a lot would depend on the forum and what the guy’s contract said.
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
[quote]JCMPG wrote:
There are some very valid points made in this blog post.
http://themattwalshblog.com/2013/12/19/dear-ae-congratulations-you-just-committed-suicide/[/quote]
I love this link because it illustrates some important concepts. Assuming A&E isn’t in a conspiracy with the duck guy and faking this whole controversy to gin up ratings (which I doubt), which of the following groups do you think A & E would prefer to have as its viewership:
a. The vocal gay minority;
b. Conservative Christians;
c. Everybody in the whole fucking world.
If you picked any answer but c, you were wrong. A & E wants everybody to watch its show. Now, when the duck guy opens his mouth in a public forum and says shit that is guaranteed to piss off either a or b, how does this move A & E any closer to its goal of gaining a greater share of c. above as its audience? It doesn’t. Now, A & E is forced to choose and it is virtually guaranteed to lose either a or b–no matter what it does going forward–and it may, in fact, lose both a and b if it doesn’t act very carefully.
Now, assuming I am A&E, why would I want to employ a loose cannon who forces me to choose between my potential viewership; makes me work harder than I had to before to keep my viewership; and is placing my very existence at risk because he feels the need to express his political or religious views in front of a national audience–topics that most agree aren’t suitable for discussing amongst even close friends for fear that the friends might be alienated or lost.
Every job I have worked at had the potential for having a mic shoved in my face–and mics have been shoved in my face on several occasions–and I was told in no uncertain terms before starting that I had the right to my opinions, but they had the right to tell me to keep them to myself if I wanted to keep working there. Because they rightfully didn’t want to lose clients because I felt the need to spout off about my personal views on religion or politics.
This is why part of freedom of speech gives a person the right to shut the fuck up and it gives an employer the right not to tether itself to a christmas ham in shark infested waters. [/quote]
I think you are making a generalization with A,B, and C thing. Everyone who produces a product (doesnt matter what it is) has a target market. Yes you would like if everyone in the whole used your product, but you also know who you are going to make most of your money from. Now wouldnt it be dumb from a business standpoint to alienate your target market to try to increase your revenue? Do you not take the chance in the whole thing blowing up in your face and ending up with nothing? If I am said target market and I going to find someone else to get my product from that caters to my needs.
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
All true. But as an employer, it is bound by the Civil Rights Act, and they are (apparently) firing him for his expression of a pretty mundane religious viewpoint.
Certainly worth a lawsuit, just for the discovery.
[/quote]
I’d take it for sure if I was getting paid by the hour. I’d have to think long and hard before I took it on a contingent fee. For me, a lot would depend on the forum and what the guy’s contract said. [/quote]
You and Jewbacca are both lawyers unless I am mistaken. I would love to hear your opinions if you were hired by the Robertson’s to litigate this.
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
All true. But as an employer, it is bound by the Civil Rights Act, and they are (apparently) firing him for his expression of a pretty mundane religious viewpoint.
Certainly worth a lawsuit, just for the discovery.
[/quote]
I’d take it for sure if I was getting paid by the hour. I’d have to think long and hard before I took it on a contingent fee. For me, a lot would depend on the forum and what the guy’s contract said. [/quote]
You and Jewbacca are both lawyers unless I am mistaken. I would love to hear your opinions if you were hired by the Robertson’s to litigate this.[/quote]
High-profile employment cases are tough to judge, especially without knowing the internal facts. A lot is going to turn on the contract; the internal e-mails; and the background of the decision makers. I personally think–without knowing the internal facts–that this would be a tough case for the duck guy. Key questions in a religious discrimination case turn on things like the actual motivation of the decision makers and whether an employee is imposing and undue hardship on the business.
For example, what if each decision maker is a Christian who testifies that they privately agree with the duck guy, but they felt he was jeopardizing the network by alienating potential viewers? It becomes a lot harder to believe that the A&E execs just don’t like Christians. In contrast, what if all the A & E execs are muslims or atheists who actively hate Christians? Well, the duck guy’s case just got a whole lot better.
I also suspect that the contract will have built in defenses based on business necessity and the need to avoid controversy. I personally think the law allows employers to require employees to avoid public controversy without running a foul of anti-discrimination laws, as long the requirement isn’t too overreaching, and especially where the position involves the public spotlight. I mean, look what happened here: if you were A&E, would you want to be stuck between Sara Pailin and GLAAD if you didn’t have to be? On a basic level, an employee has a fiduciary duty to his employer and needs to refrain from actively taking actions that harm the business of the employer. Frankly, if this case went to litigation, you could expect a counterclaim for breach of fiduciary duty and probably breach of contract, depending on what the contract says.
At the end of the day, in a religious discrimination case, the duck guy is going to have to convince a jury or an arbitrator that the decision makers were substantially motivated to take an adverse action because they didn’t like his Christian beliefs and that A&E didn’t act reasonably or out of a business necessity. It is hard to judge how the case would play out without a lot more information.
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
All true. But as an employer, it is bound by the Civil Rights Act, and they are (apparently) firing him for his expression of a pretty mundane religious viewpoint.
Certainly worth a lawsuit, just for the discovery.
[/quote]
I’d take it for sure if I was getting paid by the hour. I’d have to think long and hard before I took it on a contingent fee. For me, a lot would depend on the forum and what the guy’s contract said. [/quote]
You and Jewbacca are both lawyers unless I am mistaken. I would love to hear your opinions if you were hired by the Robertson’s to litigate this.[/quote]
High-profile employment cases are tough to judge, especially without knowing the internal facts. A lot is going to turn on the contract; the internal e-mails; and the background of the decision makers. I personally think–without knowing the internal facts–that this would be a tough case for the duck guy. Key questions in a religious discrimination case turn on things like the actual motivation of the decision makers and whether an employee is imposing and undue hardship on the business.
For example, what if each decision maker is a Christian who testifies that they privately agree with the duck guy, but they felt he was jeopardizing the network by alienating potential viewers? It becomes a lot harder to believe that the A&E execs just don’t like Christians. In contrast, what if all the A & E execs are muslims or atheists who actively hate Christians? Well, the duck guy’s case just got a whole lot better.
I also suspect that the contract will have built in defenses based on business necessity and the need to avoid controversy. I personally think the law allows employers to require employees to avoid public controversy without running a foul of anti-discrimination laws, as long the requirement isn’t too overreaching, and especially where the position involves the public spotlight. I mean, look what happened here: if you were A&E, would you want to be stuck between Sara Pailin and GLAAD if you didn’t have to be? On a basic level, an employee has a fiduciary duty to his employer and needs to refrain from actively taking actions that harm the business of the employer. Frankly, if this case went to litigation, you could expect a counterclaim for breach of fiduciary duty and probably breach of contract, depending on what the contract says.
At the end of the day, in a religious discrimination case, the duck guy is going to have to convince a jury or an arbitrator that the decision makers were substantially motivated to take an adverse action because they didn’t like his Christian beliefs and that A&E didn’t act reasonably or out of a business necessity. It is hard to judge how the case would play out without a lot more information. [/quote]
I think you are right from a legal position. In my opinion A&E is wrong on a moral level. Just my opinion for what is worth, which in this matter is nothing other than I have viewed programs on their network and probably will no longer after Duck Dynasty is gone.