• Sign in to Neowin Faster!

    Create an account on Neowin to contribute and support the site.

Sign in to follow this  

Duck Dynasty Star Banned Indefinitely for Anti-Gay Comments

Recommended Posts

t_r_nelson    97

A&E and GLAAD are violating the guy's first amendment right. GLAAD is also personally attacking him and his family by questioning his beliefs in an official statement. Sure, his views may not represent the entire network, but those who support promote those who are gay do not represent Phil Roberston.

They are not violating his first amendment rights.  He can say what he wants.  No one is stopping him from saying it.  A&E, as a business, has the final decision on what they chose to air on their network.  If they don't agree with what he's saying, they can chose to stop it.  They may even have a clause in his contract about 'detrimental conduct' or something to that extent.

 

Either way, removing him from the show, in no way, prevents his right to free speech.  He just needs to find another outlet for his views.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cork1958    1,994

Yep,

Didn't read every post, but I saw a few comments about 1st amendment rights.

 

So much for that, and several other rights we used to have!!

 

What a f***ed up country we are getting to be! Actually, should be what a f***ed up country we ALREADY are!! :)

 

Sure am glad I'm not a kid growing up today. Wonder if my parents ever said that about my generation!! ;)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SpeedyTheSnail    1,287

The only people in this country that have freedom of speech are left wing idiots who spew the liberal talking points. Anybody who has a different opinion will be crucified for their belief.

 

 

For example, nobody lost jobs for saying Bush should die or Bush needs to be assassinated, which is WAY worse than saying that homosexuality is not moral. Nobody here is losing jobs over the things said about Christians being lunatic nut cases who believe in the invisible man that doesn't exist. The second somebody says "Homosexuality is wrong and goes against nature" or "People have the right to bear arms" or "God bless America" then all of a sudden these little pansies who never done anything for this countries freedom get their panties in a ruffle and have probably decent people fired. Somebody says something about a conservative view point, and they are on the streets asking for blood.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kreuger    110

Good.  Another show for the LCD of society. Get rid of all of these hobos.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
techbeck    7,351

 Get rid of all of these hobos.

 

I wouldnt call people worth millions hobos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
FloatingFatMan    20,408

Yep,

Didn't read every post, but I saw a few comments about 1st amendment rights.

 

So much for that, and several other rights we used to have!!

 

What a f***ed up country we are getting to be! Actually, should be what a f***ed up country we ALREADY are!! :)

 

Sure am glad I'm not a kid growing up today. Wonder if my parents ever said that about my generation!! ;)

 

Before spouting off about first amendment rights, trying learning what they actually ARE, first.

 

That way, you avoid looking daft. :p

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
t_r_nelson    97

Before spouting off about first amendment rights, trying learning what they actually ARE, first.

 

That way, you avoid looking daft. :p

^^^What he said!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TPreston    5,389

Before spouting off about first amendment rights, trying learning what they actually ARE, first.

 

That way, you avoid looking daft. :p

This, its like the Colorado baker all over again people are either wilfully or otherwise ignorant of the fact that employment discrimination has been illegal since the 60s.

Just shows how desperate these people are, They know their beliefs are as untenable as those prohibiting race mixing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rippleman    3,851

so you only support freedom of speech if you like it. Thats not freedom of speech then. I agree with him, being gay is wrong. Doesnt matter how you look at it. women are made for men and vice versa not men for men; thats just disgusting. Everything is just going back to the days of Sodom. Where there was prostitution and gays, and orgies. It says it all in the bible. Why was everyone against gay's then suddenly its perfectly fine and they allowed to get married, its because thats what the devil wants. For people to become corrupted.

hehe, cute, I actually believed you for a moment that you were serious. :) good one!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
+Frank B.    7,152

hehe, cute, I actually believed you for a moment that you were serious. :) good one!

He is serious. Unfortunately.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
techbeck    7,351

I find it funny that anti discriminatory groups expect tolerance and such for what they believe in.  However, when someone disagrees or voices an opinion opposite of their beliefs, they do not tolerate that.

 

works both ways.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TPreston    5,389

I find it funny that anti discriminatory groups expect tolerance and such for what they believe in.  However, when someone disagrees or voices an opinion opposite of their beliefs, they do not tolerate that.

 

works both ways.

No it doesn't, Rosa Parks didn't need to be tolerant of other people telling her to get to the back of the bus.

They expect equal treatment under federal law and protection from discrimination based on sexual orientation nothing more.

Cue the avalanche of ignorant comments from people clueless of the law just as was the case with the Colorado baker.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
xpablo    138

So much for freedom of speech or expression in America.

 

Now I know what they mean by the word Abomination = ObamaNation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yorak    416

It is uncanny how similar the stars of this show are to my uncles - looks and everything. My dad thought it would be funny to get a Duck Dynasty beard to wear to his community's Halloween party this year, ha.

 

Look, I do not think the gentleman meant any harm. Sometimes I just feel a bit sad for those with no education or those who have not really experienced the world outside of their own group. I too had this issue. For years I was against homosexuality for various silly reasons, and all it took was finding out one of my best pals was gay to make me see the light. If I could take back all of those years, all of those awful things I said, all of the people I may have hurt... I would do it. With that said, I strongly dislike the leaders of the LGBT group basically telling corporations and people what they can and cannot say in the public. Look, it is no secret here on Neowin that I have innate hatred for certain religious types. However, I do support their freedom to worship.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
+LogicalApex    1,749

so you only support freedom of speech if you like it. Thats not freedom of speech then. I agree with him, being gay is wrong. Doesnt matter how you look at it. women are made for men and vice versa not men for men; thats just disgusting. Everything is just going back to the days of Sodom. Where there was prostitution and gays, and orgies. It says it all in the bible. Why was everyone against gay's then suddenly its perfectly fine and they allowed to get married, its because thats what the devil wants. For people to become corrupted.

Ah I always get a kick out of the religious persons who are exclusionary even though it doesn't agree with the very religion they espouse...

 

You should keep in mind, if you're sourcing from the Bible anyway, that passing judgement on Gay persons, or anyone for that matter, is the fastest way to ruin your chances of getting into that fictional place you call Heaven. I guess I missed the part of the Bible where it says any old Christian is equal to Jesus and can arbitrarily decide who is righteous and who isn't.

 

But I'll assume you weren't serious :)

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
techbeck    7,351

Phil Robertson was expressing his opinion.  He was not creating any laws or forcing anyone to follow his beliefs.  Cannot compare it to Rosa Parks.

 

 

No it doesn't, Rosa Parks didn't need to be tolerant of other people telling her to get to the back of the bus.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
FloatingFatMan    20,408

So much for freedom of speech or expression in America.

 

Now I know what they mean by the word Abomination = ObamaNation.

 

Y'know.. It REALLY helps when you read the thread first. :p

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BlueScreenOfDeath    416

A&E and GLAAD are violating the guy's first amendment right. GLAAD is also personally attacking him and his family by questioning his beliefs in an official statement. Sure, his views may not represent the entire network, but those who support promote those who are gay do not represent Phil Roberston.

 

He spoke about his beliefs i do not see anything in his statement where her personally attacked the LGBT community...

 

How are they violating his first amendment rights? 

 

A&E was violating Robertson's right to free speech by suspending him for comments it didn't find acceptable, they could have simply said "his views do not represent those of A&E and avoided all of this.

 

I have no problem with free speech, unless it involves cutting other people down.

 

Oh, and I never "chose" to be hetero. We are who we are, so why all the hate? Is that what your god teaches you? Funny, here I thought gods loved everyone. Perhaps they do, but it seems their followers haven't gotten the memo.

 

Again, where did he cut people down - he said he didn't believe it was acceptable as a life style according to his faith and that it's up to God not man to judge them accordingly. Clearly you haven't educated yourself in the various religions out there and where they stand on the issue of homosexuality.

 

^ That's not an explanation of HOW they're violating his rights, just you claiming they are.

 

Define how his rights are being violated.

 

First, while A&E may strongly support the LGBT "community", it apparently does not support the rights of Christians to exercise their First Amendment rights in public. That should tell every American a great deal about what you are supporting by watching the network's shows -- special rights for some, and no rights for Christians.

Second, the 1964 Civil Rights Act addresses this sort of action very clearly.

   

It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer - to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual?s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin

A&E has made a public announcement to the effect that it has suspended Phil Robertson from his employment on the series Duck Dynasty for having expressed his religious beliefs outside of the workplace. This action certainly "otherwise discrimnate against an individual with respect to his. . . terms, conditions, or privileges of employment because of such individuals. . . religion"

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TPreston    5,389

Phil Robertson was expressing his opinion.  He was not creating any laws or forcing anyone to follow his beliefs.  Cannot compare it to Rosa Parks.

Fine replace "get to the back of the bus" with "mixed race subhuman" See that's the Achilles heal with all these arguments.

That's enough for firing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
FloatingFatMan    20,408

Second, the 1964 Civil Rights Act addresses this sort of action very clearly.

   

A&E has made a public announcement to the effect that it has suspended Phil Robertson from his employment on the series Duck Dynasty for having expressed his religious beliefs outside of the workplace. This action certainly "otherwise discrimnate against an individual with respect to his. . . terms, conditions, or privileges of employment because of such individuals. . . religion"

 

A&E -might- have broken the 1964 Civil Rights Act, but they have NOT infringed on his 1st Amendment Right to free speech, That's what's being argued here and that right has sod all to do with employment.

 

Therefore, fail.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
+LogicalApex    1,749

A&E was violating Robertson's right to free speech by suspending him for comments it didn't find acceptable, they could have simply said "his views do not represent those of A&E and avoided all of this.

Why do you, and many others, keep claiming that these rights extend beyond government?

 

Here is a simple question... Porn is covered by the First Amendment freedom of speech rules as Larry Flint worked so hard to prove. So it is perfectly legal to film and show pornographic material in the US, including live shows. Since this is the case, why can't I walk into Best Buy and plop a Pornographic movie onto one of those big screen TVs... For science? They can't kick me out because it would violate my freedom of speech!

 

See where your logic falls apart?

 

Freedom of Speech is binding against government not private entities... He can be, and was, fired for his choice of words, but he won't be arrested for them. See the difference?

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BlueScreenOfDeath    416

A&E -might- have broken the 1964 Civil Rights Act, but they have NOT infringed on his 1st Amendment Right to free speech, That's what's being argued here and that right has sod all to do with employment.

 

Therefore, fail.

 

How exactly is that "fail" - he said this in an interview with GQ, it wasn't on the show, or in any way associated with A&E...so why was he suspended for something OUTSIDE of the show? If you can explain that to us i'll gladly conseed the argument

Why do you, and many others, keep claiming that these rights extend beyond government?

Here is a simple question... Porn is covered by the First Amendment freedom of speech rules as Larry Flint worked so hard to prove. So it is perfectly legal to film and show pornographic material in the US, including live shows. Since this is the case, why can't I walk into Best Buy and plop a Pornographic movie onto one of those big screen TVs... For science? They can't kick me out because it would violate my freedom of speech!

See where your logic falls apart?

Freedom of Speech is binding against government not private entities... He can be, and was, fired for his choice of words, but he won't be arrested for them. See the difference?

Your example is a horrible one and has nothing to do with what happened, two night and day situations. A private business can not fire someone for something someone said outside of their workplace, in this case A&E. He was punished for something he said to GQ magizine not A&E, so yes his freedom of speech has been stomped on. I don't see how any of you cant see this or does it apply to people who are Christian? They aren't allowed to have a voice or opinion because you feel they are redneck backwater inbreads

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Evil Overlord    18,442

arrogance? he just answered a question he was asked? He answered it truthfully and now everybody is attaching him because people are at home crying themselves to sleep because they are offended.

give me a break!

ok , I can accept that, but I stand by what I said, I may well be wrong here, but he is a peer to a huge audience. Also instead of quoting me, you might want to look at other member posts and see who's view is harshest..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TPreston    5,389

A&E -might- have broken the 1964 Civil Rights Act, but they have NOT infringed on his 1st Amendment Right to free speech, That's what's being argued here and that right has sod all to do with employment.

 

Therefore, fail.

You didn't see the trick he was trying to pull. He is claiming this is religious discrimination which it isn't by the same logic a gay guy can go up to the bosses 18 year old son and ask him if hed like to go to his room for some fasting! And when the boss fires this clueless dolt its discrimination... cause he was gay

Please please bring this to court because I want to hear the cries of "activist judge" "judicial tyranny" from BSOD!

 

How exactly is that "fail" - he said this in an interview with GQ, it wasn't on the show, or in any way associated with A&E...so why was he suspended for something OUTSIDE of the show? If you can explain that to us i'll gladly conseed the argument

Sorry bsod he doesn't get a free pass to say anything and not be fired because its in the bible any more than a gay guy does cause he's gay.

Pathetic Arguments Fail;

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
+LogicalApex    1,749

How exactly is that "fail" - he said this in an interview with GQ, it wasn't on the show, or in any way associated with A&E...so why was he suspended for something OUTSIDE of the show? If you can explain that to us i'll gladly conseed the argument

Due to the nature of his work being on TV and in the public eye I'm sure his employment contract says he is always representing the company. It is a part of why he is paid so highly...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.