• 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

FloatingFatMan    20,390

 

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

 

 

You don't have to be at your place of work to be fired for doing something your employer doesn't like.  Happens all the time, and it's completely legal to do so.

 

When you become a public figure, you need to learn to keep your yap shut or deal with the consequences.  Hell, you don't even need to be a public figure for that to be true...

 

Either way, do try to actually understand that 1st amendment rights apply ONLY with regard to speech directed at the government. You cannot be arrested for criticizing those in power, or insulting them or stuff like that.  Note though that this is not COMPLETE freedom of speech. You -can- be arrested for threatening them!

 

Free speech is not a carte blanche excuse to say anything you want without consequences, nor should it be.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BlueScreenOfDeath    416

Pathetic Arguments Fail;

 

Yes your arguments are pretty pathetic..so yes... fail away friend.

 

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...

Possibly but until we know or A&E releases that it was in his contract that he could be fired due to anything he said being deemed inappropriate. I'm not trying to defend the guy - i have seen the show, i'm just trying to see how what he did was wrong, when it was said to a magizine as his opinion and not on anything A&E related.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TPreston    5,389

That and A&E in no way discriminated against him on the basis of his religion.

 

Yes your arguments are pretty pathetic..so yes... fail away friend.

Possibly but until we know or A&E releases that it was in his contract that he could be fired due to anything he said being deemed inappropriate. I'm not trying to defend the guy - i have seen the show, i'm just trying to see how what he did was wrong, when it was said to a magizine as his opinion and not on anything A&E related.

That's an adhom so ill take that as an addition that you can't defend your deceptive argument.

I'll also quote the part you thought was so devastating to your argument you had to remove it

 

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!

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

At the end of the day it was a legal termination, "I'm a christian" or "I'm gay" are not a licence to say whatever you want and not be fired on the bright side you get to say it shout being jailed.

Share this post


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

 

Yes your arguments are pretty pathetic..so yes... fail away friend.

 

Possibly but until we know or A&E releases that it was in his contract that he could be fired due to anything he said being deemed inappropriate. I'm not trying to defend the guy - i have seen the show, i'm just trying to see how what he did was wrong, when it was said to a magizine as his opinion and not on anything A&E related.

Well in PA, which is an "at-will" employment state, you can be fired for anything that isn't a protected discrimination class. Your employer could fire you, with no advance notice, because they dreamed that you were the devil the night before and that is sufficient grounds for dismissal...

 

Don't expect his contract to be publicly revealed unless this goes to court. I doubt it will as he was terminated legally.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
+Bryan R.    1,148

What this country needs more than hurt feelings is education of our own government. But that goes against the forces that keep the talking points going.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BlueScreenOfDeath    416

That and A&E in no way discriminated against him on the basis of his religion.

 

How is he not being descriminated on basis of his religion - his opinions are an extension of his religious beliefs, it could be argued on those grounds although it'd be a tough one.

Well in PA, which is an "at-will" employment state, you can be fired for anything that isn't a protected discrimination class. Your employer could fire you, with no advance notice, because they dreamed that you were the devil the night before and that is sufficient grounds for dismissal...

Don't expect his contract to be publicly revealed unless this goes to court. I doubt it will as he was terminated legally.

If anything the whole Robertson clan will leave A&E all together.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tonicgoofy    30

This would not have been a violation of his freedom of speech if A&E did not suspend his filming and GLAAD did not issue the hate speech about him and his family. Remember in the US everyone is supposed to have the same rights.

 

 

Except that only a government entity can violate that. Private companies are allowed to have their own policies when it involves their products and image. It probably is in his contract too

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

How is he not being descriminated on basis of his religion - his opinions are an extension of his religious beliefs, it could be argued on those grounds although it'd be a tough one.

He wouldn't have a leg to stand on for religious accommodation.

 

 

An employer does not have to accommodate an employee?s religious beliefs or practices if doing so would cause undue hardship to the employer. An accommodation may cause undue hardship if it is costly, compromises workplace safety, decreases workplace efficiency, infringes on the rights of other employees, or requires other employees to do more than their share of potentially hazardous or burdensome work.

Source: US EEOC

 

The same reason a nut can't say he started talking to Jesus on a two way radio and his religious beliefs give him license to beat up his "heathen" co-workers...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TPreston    5,389

How is he not being descriminated on basis of his religion - his opinions are an extension of his religious beliefs, it could be argued on those grounds although it'd be a tough one.

If anything the whole Robertson clan will leave A&E all together.

And his opinions are not protected any more than the gay guy whos also against race mixing are.

You are grasping at straws, This is NOT the same thing as religious discrimination I suggest you look up the law. Religion is not an excuse to say and not get fired.

Its pathetic that people need this explained just like with the Colorado baker. Or is this wilful ignorance ?

Baker can refuse service != Baker can refuse service based on race, gender, sex, religion etc etc etc

Employers are prohibited from discrimination based on race, gender, sex, religion etc etc etc != these people can say anything and not get fired.

Its so simple.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Davo    146

Is anyone surprised? The whole basis of the show was that they're on some uber-conservative rural 'Murica kick. Sadly, it's probably what made it so successful. The guy should have been smart enough to know that you can't expect the entertainment industry to fight "your good fight". There's numerous instances of entities being dropped like a hot potato the second that a sponsor or possible media shitstorm happens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BillyJack    41

Just shows, no actor is immune enough to say stuff like this and get away with it

regardless of what one's belief is, the studio played it safe

 

Depends on the viewership. You don't want to alienate your base. Networks will always stay inline with their viewership (or rather whoever they think their viewership is -- since the two may not be the same).

 

A&E knows what this guy and his family are like. They promote the entire show on, what seems to be, christian and family. Just watch how they close every show. The family is praying and giving thanks to God. It is not like A&E does not know this. Of course being christian does not mean you do not like homosexuality, but it is common sense they probably do feel that way. I think A&E is over reacting. They could release a statement saying that is his views and not theirs. Who do you think watches more of the TV show. Christians or homosexual people? That is the work of news. Always blowing things out of proportion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
snaphat (Myles Landwehr)    414

Who do you think watches more of the TV show. Christians or homosexual people? That is the work of news. Always blowing things out of proportion.

 

Do you think that the non-heteronormative viewership is exempt from caring about what he said? I have news for you, that is the population is going to care the most. And where those people fall in terms of religion or sexuality isn't ours to decide.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Shadrack    601

Him being suspended for just expressing his views is pretty dumb...whatever.

 

The truth is we are in the turning part of history in regards to LGBT rights and no amount of spitting and cursing on the anti-Homosexual side is going to change that.  Bigots have red necks as their company...what else is new?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
freak180    551

*Raises flag..sets it on fire* How i love this country... :rolleyes: People are way too sensitive.. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BillyJack    41

Do you think that the non-heteronormative viewership is exempt from caring about what he said? I have news for you, that is the population is going to care the most. And where those people fall in terms of religion or sexuality isn't ours to decide.

 

You said that they do not want to alienate their base. What is their base that you are talking about. For the show or the network? If it is for the show than they already have a target audience. That does not make it OK, but they did not make the statement. He did.

 

People will always be split over something. Red vs Blue. How to cook a chicken. Should you eat chicken. We are better off if we learn to accept other people or their views. We know that will never happen and we know the media will always exploit that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
snaphat (Myles Landwehr)    414

You said that they do not want to alienate their base. What is their base that you are talking about. For the show or the network? If it is for the show than they already have a target audience. That does not make it OK, but they did not make the statement. He did.

 

People will always be split over something. Red vs Blue. How to cook a chicken. Should you eat chicken. We are better off if we learn to accept other people or their views. We know that will never happen and we know the media will always exploit that.

 

The viewership for the show is subset of the viewership for the network. You can't consider them independently. The entire point of my two posts is that you shouldn't be making baseless assumptions about the target audience or their heteronormativity because you have no basis to argue unless you've done studies or the network has released statistics about the viewership.

 

Other than that you are kind of just rambling about things that have nothing to do with either of my posts since I never stated a stance either way...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mudslag    10,284

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.

 

 

Which would also be a violation of his freedom of speech as well. Many have come out as gay, but are they fired/suspended from their career? Nope.

 

 

 

He is voicing his opinion on homo marriage.

 

 

 

 

This would not have been a violation of his freedom of speech if A&E did not suspend his filming and GLAAD did not issue the hate speech about him and his family. Remember in the US everyone is supposed to have the same rights.

 

 

 

That's not how free speech works, "freedom of speech" protects you from the gov infringing on your Right to say what you want, not from private companies who you work for and who's businesses are affected. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bguy_1986    364

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..

Thank you for not ATTACKING me for my attaching spelling mistake first of all.  I was in a big hurry earlier.

 

I didn't have time to read everything so I went with the first post I read that I could bring up a decent (IMO) argument against.

 

I could be wrong as well, but I'm guessing GQ led him into this argument because they know it would get blown up and they would get the credit and advertisement for it.  Anyone that follows duck dynasty a little bit should know how he was going to answer a question about gays or being gay.  The only bad people in this is GQ (they knew this would happen) and all the trolls that get bent out of shape because something offended them.  I think it's wrong, but I don't give 2 poops what the next person thinks unless they are in my face telling me I'm wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AJerman    761

 

 
 

 

 

 
 

 

 

That's not how free speech works, "freedom of speech" protects you from the gov infringing on your Right to say what you want, not from private companies who you work for and who's businesses are affected. 

 

You'd be amazed at how hard it is for people to understand that.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
spenser.d    1,100

Some of the comments coming from people are just gold:

 

"Sean Hannity, host of the Hannity talk show, said it was a "slippery slope" to begin firing people over things they said"

Yup. Except that that's been happening since employment was a thing. It's kind of how you find out who you want to work/continue to work for you.

 

"Gov Jindal pointed out that Robertson was suspended while "Miley Cyrus gets a laugh", referring to a US pop star's raunchy performances."

I don't see Miley working for A&E :laugh:

This story unfolding is much more entertaining than that show is.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Zidane    334

So much for freedom of speech or expression in America.

 

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

Posts like this make me wish for a day in-which Neowin Staff would ban people for not practicing basic reading comprehension...

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TPreston    5,389

Posts like this make me wish for a day in-which Neowin Staff would ban people for not practicing basic reading comprehension...

That and I thought freedom of speech died when imus was fired for calling a women's basketball team "nappy-headed hos".

people only bring up this "freedom of speech" cop out because they have nothing else.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Zidane    334

That and I thought freedom of speech died when imus was fired for calling a women's basketball team "nappy-headed hos".

people only bring up this "freedom of speech" cop out because they have nothing else.

Truer words have never been spoken.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gerowen    1,244

At the end of the day, here's what it boils down to.

 

A&E knowingly and intentionally created a reality television show about a very obviously Christian family who made their millions making duck calls before they ever had the television show.  They pray around the dinner table at the end of every episode, so why in the hell is it a surprise that they would stick to their beliefs when they talk to people?  I'm not religious (agnostic), but freedom of speech goes both ways, regardless of what you think of what the other person is saying.  If Muslims can get on television and call Americans infidels and dogs and atheists can get on television and argue against religion, and homosexuals can get on television and talk about why we should boycott the Olympic games in Russia, then why can't a Christian talk about their beliefs?  Just because we disagree with their statements doesn't make them any less worthy of the same respect we give to everybody else.

 

Although I am pro gay rights, I can appreciate the fact that they are a Christian family who didn't back down from their beliefs just because they're unpopular with some groups of people, and I think A&E should have anticipated something like this when they made a TV show about a bunch of southern Christians who make their living hunting and making duck calls, and starring in a reality show about them going hunting and making duck calls, and in which they pray around the dinner table every day.  I see Phil as an integral part of the show and wouldn't be a bit surprised if the rest of the crew boycotted the show in response.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AJerman    761

At the end of the day, here's what it boils down to.

 

A&E knowingly and intentionally created a reality television show about a very obviously Christian family who made their millions making duck calls before they ever had the television show.  The pray around the dinner table at the end of every episode, so why in the hell is it a surprise that they would stick to their beliefs when they talk to people?  I'm not religious (agnostic), but freedom of speech goes both ways, regardless of what you think of what the other person is saying.  If Muslims can get on television and call Americans infidels and dogs and atheists can get on television and argue against religion, and homosexuals can get on television and talk about why we should boycott the Olympic games in Russia, then why can't a Christian talk about their beliefs?  Just because we disagree with their statements doesn't make them any less worthy of the same respect we give to everybody else.

 

Although I am pro gay rights, I can appreciate the fact that they are a Christian family who didn't back down from their beliefs just because they're unpopular with some groups of people, and I think A&E should have anticipated something like this when they made a TV show about a bunch of southern Christians who make their living hunting and making duck calls, and starring in a reality show about them going hunting and making duck calls, and in which they pray around the dinner table every day.  I see Phil as an integral part of the show and wouldn't be a bit surprised if the rest of the crew boycotted the show in response.

I understand where you're coming from, and it's definitely a decent point. You can't make a reality show about someone and ask them to act like someone else. Either way, anticipated or not, it happened and they handled it how they wanted which they have every right to do. It's nothing about not being able to go on TV or to a magazine and say those things. You most certainly can, and you won't be thrown in jail, which is what freedom of speech means. That doesn't mean that the employer, A&E in this case, approves and wants their name next to yours. If he had simply said "I don't agree with homosexuality and I think it's wrong", this likely wouldn't be the big deal it is now. It's the massive ignorance he poured on top like saying homosexuality leads to bestiality that got him in hot water, and rightfully so.

 

I too can appreciate that it's their opinion, and no one is going to take it away from them nor would I want them to, but they might have to find someone who agrees to hire them. We should be applauding A&E for not wanting to be associated with such ignorance. This is the kind of thing that divides us as a growing and evolving race. Free speech wasn't ever in jeopardy, so that argument is null. Actors and actresses and really anyone in general have been getting fired for DECADES for making asses out of their employers, this is just another example.

 

Because I support the freedom of people to say and do what they please, I support A&E's decision to suspend him. You can't argue for one person's freedom without arguing for another.

  • Like 3

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.