Duck Dynasty: Beginning of the End?

Off Topic
201

[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]

Makes sense, I appreciate your comments!

202

[quote]UtahLama wrote:

Makes sense, I appreciate your comments![/quote]

Thinking about this some more from his perspective, I would say that, for example, if I own a McDonald’s in an Hispanic neighborhood, I am not allowed to refuse to hire Black employees merely because I think that the local Hispanic residents won’t frequent my store if I hire Black employees. The law says tough shit, that is not a permissible reason not to hire, even if its true.

In contrast, if a Black employee is a vocal black panther who spends his off time walking up and down the side walk actively insulting the Hispanic community in front of my store, I think the law would allow you not to hire that person because he is actively harassing and alienating your customer base, even though his activity is arguably related to his race.

If I were the duck guy, I’d try and say the case is more like the first scenario than the latter and try and develop the case that way, assuming I couldn’t get more direct evidence of actual animosity against Christians out of the decision makers.

203

“They also think the network could have done something to stop the controversial GQ article being made public, because an A&E representative was present during the interview with patriarch, Roberston, 67.”

…thought so…

204

[quote]roybot wrote:

“They also think the network could have done something to stop the controversial GQ article being made public, because an A&E representative was present during the interview with patriarch, Roberston, 67.”

…thought so…
[/quote]

If A&E actively set the guy up, then fuck them. This link looks plaintiff-lawyer driven, however.

205

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]roybot wrote:

“They also think the network could have done something to stop the controversial GQ article being made public, because an A&E representative was present during the interview with patriarch, Roberston, 67.”

…thought so…
[/quote]

If A&E actively set the guy up, then fuck them. This link looks plaintiff-lawyer driven, however. [/quote]

I dont think there will be a lawsuit. I dont think Phil Robertson cares that much. Plus if he is not on the show no one else from the family is going to be according to their website. No Robertson’s, no Duck Dynasty on A&E. I think A&E is the loser here no Phil Robertson.

206

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]roybot wrote:

“They also think the network could have done something to stop the controversial GQ article being made public, because an A&E representative was present during the interview with patriarch, Roberston, 67.”

…thought so…
[/quote]

If A&E actively set the guy up, then fuck them. This link looks plaintiff-lawyer driven, however. [/quote]

I do not think a law suit is going to help him spread the word of God or kill more ducks. Which seem to be his priorty.

207

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]roybot wrote:

“They also think the network could have done something to stop the controversial GQ article being made public, because an A&E representative was present during the interview with patriarch, Roberston, 67.”

…thought so…
[/quote]

If A&E actively set the guy up, then fuck them. This link looks plaintiff-lawyer driven, however. [/quote]

I said in an earlier post that A&E could have stopped Robertson from being interviewed if it brought negative publicity on the series. The presence of a rep during the interview suggests that there was some kind of contract between GQ and A&E. I don’t think it’s a full-on set up. The entire family would be out and Phil’s opinions should’ve been controlled by A & E.

208

[quote]roybot wrote:

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]roybot wrote:

“They also think the network could have done something to stop the controversial GQ article being made public, because an A&E representative was present during the interview with patriarch, Roberston, 67.”

…thought so…
[/quote]

If A&E actively set the guy up, then fuck them. This link looks plaintiff-lawyer driven, however. [/quote]

I said in an earlier post that A&E could have stopped Robertson from being interviewed if it brought negative publicity on the series. The presence of a rep during the interview suggests that there was some kind of contract between GQ and A&E. I don’t think it’s a full-on set up. The entire family would be out and Phil’s opinions should’ve been controlled by A & E.[/quote]

I don’t watch the show or have much context on the back story here, what is your opinion on what’s actually going on? Why didn’t the publicist shut the interview down?

209

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]roybot wrote:

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]roybot wrote:

“They also think the network could have done something to stop the controversial GQ article being made public, because an A&E representative was present during the interview with patriarch, Roberston, 67.”

…thought so…
[/quote]

If A&E actively set the guy up, then fuck them. This link looks plaintiff-lawyer driven, however. [/quote]

I said in an earlier post that A&E could have stopped Robertson from being interviewed if it brought negative publicity on the series. The presence of a rep during the interview suggests that there was some kind of contract between GQ and A&E. I don’t think it’s a full-on set up. The entire family would be out and Phil’s opinions should’ve been controlled by A & E.[/quote]

I don’t watch the show or have much context on the back story here, what is your opinion on what’s actually going on? Why didn’t the publicist shut the interview down?

[/quote]

Christmas Special.

212

[quote]xboxwarrior wrote:
Thanks, everyone for pointing out what how stupid I am.
[/quote]

From the outside, it appears you pretty much did that by yourself.

No, you tried to misrepresent basic theology to an Orthodox Jew lawyer and a couple of Protestants who clearly know their Bibles, and got your ass handed to you. There is no “accepting views different” — you had no viewpoint, other than to lie about what the Bible actually says.

A different viewpoint is “the Bible is all wet” I believe in the Great Spagetti Monster."

What you said was “Christians are stupid because of ABC in the Bible.” Well, turns out people who actually read the Bible can prove this particular point wrong. And it’s not a “different viewpoint.” You’re just wrong in what it says.

We all do to. It’s a faux intelligent liberal who decides its time to go fight theology with an Orthodox Jew and a couple of Protestants and then cries “unfair” when he gets his head so far jammed up his ass that he can blow his boyfriend as his boyfriend fucks him in the ass because he was stupid enough to try to go fight people on their home turf when he knew zero about the topic in question.

To recap: if you want to debate about the Bible, go read the thing, preferably with a reasonable study guide, so you actually have something intelligent to say.

213

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]roybot wrote:

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]roybot wrote:

“They also think the network could have done something to stop the controversial GQ article being made public, because an A&E representative was present during the interview with patriarch, Roberston, 67.”

…thought so…
[/quote]

If A&E actively set the guy up, then fuck them. This link looks plaintiff-lawyer driven, however. [/quote]

I said in an earlier post that A&E could have stopped Robertson from being interviewed if it brought negative publicity on the series. The presence of a rep during the interview suggests that there was some kind of contract between GQ and A&E. I don’t think it’s a full-on set up. The entire family would be out and Phil’s opinions should’ve been controlled by A & E.[/quote]

I don’t watch the show or have much context on the back story here, what is your opinion on what’s actually going on? Why didn’t the publicist shut the interview down?

[/quote]

The publicist didn’t know about the comments. Apparently they were made while Mr. Robertson and the interviewer were out riding ATVs and the publicist was left behind. I do not know why Mr. Robertson answered any questions without the publicist present, maybe he thought that it was off the record without the publicist there. I also do not know why the publicist stayed behind, maybe he doesn’t know how to ride an ATV or something like that. Either way, this whole “I don’t know how A&E let this happen, their publicist was there” stuff is just BS.

Now, as for my opinion on this situation: I am on Mr. Robertson’s side. Not because I agree with his comments on homosexuality, I do not; and not because I like his show, I think that all reality TV is stupid and their particular business is silly. Why would anyone need any of their equipment just to go hunting? I just do not think that employers should have that much control over what their employees do in their free time. Unless it causes an actual drop in revenue for the company, what a person does on their own time is their business. I do not mean a potential drop in revenue either, I mean actual sponsors pulling out and viewership dropping due to the incident. I highly doubt that either of those will actually happen because money is usually more important to companies than ideals (I read that Cracker Barrel stopped selling Duck Dynasty products for one day and started back up). I also doubt that viewership will drop. It is just a hunch based on nothing but stereotypes but I do not think that Duck Dynasty has a large gay or progressive audience.

The only exception to this would be churches, they should be able to establish and run their church based on their own religious guidelines. But, once a church decides to start a business and staff it with people who are not members of their church and have no official standing or training within that church this goes out the window and they should have to follow the same rules as all other businesses.

I also do not get the shock about Mr. Robertson’s comments either: A conservative Christian who is the patriarch of a family that looks like it is one or two generations away from producing the banjo kid from Deliverance thinks homosexuality is wrong (although I do not get why that was the first thing to come out of his mouth, surely there are worse sins)? I am shocked.

214

[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]roybot wrote:

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]roybot wrote:

“They also think the network could have done something to stop the controversial GQ article being made public, because an A&E representative was present during the interview with patriarch, Roberston, 67.”

…thought so…
[/quote]

If A&E actively set the guy up, then fuck them. This link looks plaintiff-lawyer driven, however. [/quote]

I said in an earlier post that A&E could have stopped Robertson from being interviewed if it brought negative publicity on the series. The presence of a rep during the interview suggests that there was some kind of contract between GQ and A&E. I don’t think it’s a full-on set up. The entire family would be out and Phil’s opinions should’ve been controlled by A & E.[/quote]

I don’t watch the show or have much context on the back story here, what is your opinion on what’s actually going on? Why didn’t the publicist shut the interview down?

[/quote]

The publicist didn’t know about the comments. Apparently they were made while Mr. Robertson and the interviewer were out riding ATVs and the publicist was left behind. I do not know why Mr. Robertson answered any questions without the publicist present, maybe he thought that it was off the record without the publicist there. I also do not know why the publicist stayed behind, maybe he doesn’t know how to ride an ATV or something like that. Either way, this whole “I don’t know how A&E let this happen, their publicist was there” stuff is just BS.

[/quote]

If A&E assigned a publicist for the express purpose of controlling the content of the interview, it’s their responsibility to be on Robertson every second from when the reporter leaves to when he arrives. A&E’s defense that their publicist wasn’t there is an even bigger pile of BS than the Robertson clan saying he was. A&E know what Robertson’s views are, they know how passionate he can get about his faith from having to edit the series, yet their PR rep not only failed to stick to Robertson (apparently due to their inability to ride an ATV!), but they also didn’t vet the questions beforehand.

It’s not Robertson’s job to mince words. The last thing going through his head when he made those remarks was “I hope this doesn’t upset GLAAD”. It’s A&E’s screw-up, not his.

215

[quote]thethirdruffian wrote:

[quote]xboxwarrior wrote:
Thanks, everyone for pointing out what how stupid I am.
[/quote]

From the outside, it appears you pretty much did that by yourself.

No, you tried to misrepresent basic theology to an Orthodox Jew lawyer and a couple of Protestants who clearly know their Bibles, and got your ass handed to you. There is no “accepting views different” — you had no viewpoint, other than to lie about what the Bible actually says.

A different viewpoint is “the Bible is all wet” I believe in the Great Spagetti Monster."

What you said was “Christians are stupid because of ABC in the Bible.” Well, turns out people who actually read the Bible can prove this particular point wrong. And it’s not a “different viewpoint.” You’re just wrong in what it says.

We all do to. It’s a faux intelligent liberal who decides its time to go fight theology with an Orthodox Jew and a couple of Protestants and then cries “unfair” when he gets his head so far jammed up his ass that he can blow his boyfriend as his boyfriend fucks him in the ass because he was stupid enough to try to go fight people on their home turf when he knew zero about the topic in question.

To recap: if you want to debate about the Bible, go read the thing, preferably with a reasonable study guide, so you actually have something intelligent to say.[/quote]

LOL

Well that about sums it up.

216

[quote]roybot wrote:

If A&E assigned a publicist for the express purpose of controlling the content of the interview, it’s their responsibility to be on Robertson every second from when the reporter leaves to when he arrives. A&E’s defense that their publicist wasn’t there is an even bigger pile of BS than the Robertson clan saying he was. A&E know what Robertson’s views are, they know how passionate he can get about his faith from having to edit the series, yet their PR rep not only failed to stick to Robertson (apparently due to their inability to ride an ATV!), but they also didn’t vet the questions beforehand.

It’s not Robertson’s job to mince words. The last thing going through his head when he made those remarks was “I hope this doesn’t upset GLAAD”. It’s A&E’s screw-up, not his.[/quote]

Did you read the rest of my post that you didn’t quote? I agree with you, and I will even go one step further to say that I do not think A&E should have had a publicist there to control what he said anyway unless Mr. Robertson requested one, but that doesn’t excuse Mr. Robertson from lying about the situation to make himself look like some kind of victim.

Claiming that A&E was more wrong than Mr. Robertson doesn’t change anything. He said what he said, which he had every right to, and he does have to own up to it. Lying about the situation is not doing that (on a side not, I think that lying is a sin according to Christianity, so I guess his Christian values aren’t as deeply rooted as he claims).

217

[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:

[quote]roybot wrote:

If A&E assigned a publicist for the express purpose of controlling the content of the interview, it’s their responsibility to be on Robertson every second from when the reporter leaves to when he arrives. A&E’s defense that their publicist wasn’t there is an even bigger pile of BS than the Robertson clan saying he was. A&E know what Robertson’s views are, they know how passionate he can get about his faith from having to edit the series, yet their PR rep not only failed to stick to Robertson (apparently due to their inability to ride an ATV!), but they also didn’t vet the questions beforehand.

It’s not Robertson’s job to mince words. The last thing going through his head when he made those remarks was “I hope this doesn’t upset GLAAD”. It’s A&E’s screw-up, not his.[/quote]

Did you read the rest of my post that you didn’t quote? I agree with you, and I will even go one step further to say that I do not think A&E should have had a publicist there to control what he said anyway unless Mr. Robertson requested one, but that doesn’t excuse Mr. Robertson from lying about the situation to make himself look like some kind of victim.

Claiming that A&E was more wrong than Mr. Robertson doesn’t change anything. He said what he said, which he had every right to, and he does have to own up to it. Lying about the situation is not doing that (on a side not, I think that lying is a sin according to Christianity, so I guess his Christian values aren’t as deeply rooted as he claims). [/quote]

Yes I did. I didn’t quote that part because it didn’t pertain to what you said about the publicist’s presence, specifically this:

" Either way, this whole “I don’t know how A&E let this happen, their publicist was there” stuff is just BS".

I’m not claiming that Robertson was more wrong than A&E. I’m saying that A & E wanted total control over what Robertson said and it was incumbent on them, not him to make sure that happened. They didn’t request pre-approval of questions, otherwise this would never have happened.

No use in taking disciplinary action against Robertson when it was the publicist’s job to ensure Robertson didn’t say anything he wasn’t supposed to. Again, if the network trusted Robertson to be a good boy they wouldn’t have sent a publicist along at all.

Why do you think the Robertson clan are lying?

220

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[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]

In their own minds I’m sure they are; in fact I bet they’re lofty pinnacles of unmatched intellectual acumen. They must look down from their self perceived Olympus’ with utter disdain for the mere mortals who have studied their Bibles. When they chuckle at the common human who has cracked the holy book more than once or twice I’m sure the lightning flashes and the thunder roars.

Are you one of these gods? Is your blaze truly legendary?[/quote]

A grown man believes in sky fairies. Cute.
Is “push harder” what you tell your boyfriend as he rams his fist up your ass? Maybe it’s a reminder that when you’re having issues going potty, you should “push harder”. We may never know. I think a more suitable name for you would be “try harder”. I’ll let you figure out why.
(hint: your level of pretentiousness is off the charts).