Duck Dynasty Star Banned Indefinitely for Anti-Gay Comments

[hagjohn]

I could care less what people believe in. I'm tired of people thinking they have the right to tell other how they should live their lives.Go live your own and leave everyone else alone.

[snaphat (Myles Landwehr) Member]

I could care less what people believe in. I'm tired of people thinking they have the right to tell other how they should live their lives.Go live your own and leave everyone else alone.

 

Stop telling us how we should live.

[Rigby]

Why is this story getting so much attention, I've never even heard of Duck Dynasty. It looks like one of those horrible cheap reality shows, is it really that popular?

[spenser.d]

Why is this story getting so much attention, I've never even heard of Duck Dynasty. It looks like one of those horrible cheap reality shows, is it really that popular?

It's extremely popular and also is one of those horrible cheap reality shows if by that you mean they just put cameras and a loose storyline in front of these guys and film what happens :p

I was doing work in a hotel lobby/bar this evening and they had Fox News on and I swear they covered this for at least an hour of the 2.5 I was there, which is absolutely ludicrous, though not unsurprising and I'm sure other networks are giving it equal coverage despite the fact that it's not legitimate news.

[seta-san]

He was fired for expressing his religious views. Religion and creed are protected classes and using that religion or creed as the basis of firing someone is blatantly illegal.

[spenser.d]

He was fired for expressing his religious views. Religion and creed are protected classes and using that religion or creed as the basis of firing someone is blatantly illegal.

No.

[seta-san]

Yes

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_group

U.S. federal law protects employees from discrimination or harassment based on sex, race, age, disability, color, creed, national origin, religion, or sexual orientation

[timster]

I know... I actually find it really quite sad that an English guy understands their 1st amendment rights better than some actual American's do... :( What on earth is going on in their schools!? 

 

Absolutely nothing. That's the problem.

[McKay]

 

[snaphat (Myles Landwehr) Member]

Yes

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_group

U.S. federal law protects employees from discrimination or harassment based on sex, race, age, disability, color, creed, national origin, religion, or sexual orientation

 

That doesn't apply here. It isn't discrimination or harassment to fire someone for making potentially offensive comments in a work context (regardless of whether it is their religious beliefs or not). You can't use religion as a means to say whatever you want in a work context. If you were allowed, people would use that excuse for everything and claim it was religion based. You are simply never free to say whatever you want in a work context without possible repercussions. I can't go around saying things about LBGTQ folk just because I feel like it and my religion says it is wrong. I'd be let go on the spot. Hell, employees here have to go through sensitivity training these days because we have people who would be stupid enough to do that and cause harassment lawsuits.

[seta-san]

Just as seriously as anyone who worships a carpenter who was ironically nailed to a piece of wood

[NightmarE D]

Snaphat

I like how you completely twisted everything I said to fit your opinion. Don't ever try that with me again.

Never said what my opinion on what he said was but you implied I did. I don't agree with his beliefs. I could care less who anyone is with. If they are in love and "happy, happy, happy", more power to them.

I like how you tried to imply that I am gay when I'm not. I'm married to a woman and have a 4 year old son. I brought up my gay nephews and one atheist friend to show that not only straight Christians are the ones complaining. One of the nephews is also an atheist.

Won't waste anymore of this post on you. Don't ever twist my words again.

Anywho, the only reason this is in the media is because the man has become threat to certain people. Recently he's been talking more openly about politics and how a lot should change. He has brought up good points and getting a huge political following and someone doesn't like that. Next thing you know GQ and Barbara Walters both come out making him look bad. Now we all know the GQ BS, but anyone know why Walters got angry? She did interviews with people making the news in 2013. What she does every year. The Robberyson family was one of them. Phil and Jase didn't attend. Walters said Phil "snubbed" her like it was out of hate by him. Notice she didn't mention Jase. In reality, the best time for duck hunting just started and Phil and Jase just simply didn't want to miss it. Imagine that. Life-long hunters would rather go hunting than sit for a boring interview.

Also, blame A&E for all the Duck Dynasty merchandise. Even Willie and Jase gave come out saying it's way more merchandise than they ever wanted out there and most of it was useless. Look closely at anything Duck Dynasty released by A&E and all of it features the exact same photos of their faces over and over. Meaning they aren't our there 24/7 posing for merchandise like people think.

They do the show because they were given a chance to do something clean and family related. Something that's been missing for a while and they took it. If they stop doing Duck Dynasty it won't hurt them at all because they have Buck Commander and Duckmen shows they also do along with their DVD's. All of which they did and we're well known for years before A&E came into the picture.

I guarantee that if this ends the show, Phil is thinking nothing more than: "More time for hunting" with a thumbs up followed by a "happy, happy, happy". They guy never cared for the fame.

Still can't believe how many haven't actually read the article, but that's laziness I guess.

[seta-san]

That doesn't apply here. It isn't discrimination or harassment to fire someone for making potentially offensive comments in a work context (regardless of whether it is their religious beliefs or not). You can't use religion as a means to say whatever you want in a work context. If you were allowed, people would use that excuse for everything and claim it was religion based. You are simply never free to say whatever you want in a work context without possible repercussions. I can't go around saying things about LBGTQ folk just because I feel like it and my religion says it is wrong. I'd be let go on the spot. Hell, employees here have to go through sensitivity training these days because we have people who would be stupid enough to do that and cause harassment lawsuits.

yes it does apply here. He was doing an interview with a company that had no connection with his job. He paraphrased the bible, gave his own opinion. He didn't even compare homosexuality with beastiality. He made homosexuality the least offensive first step on a slippery slope that ends with beastiality

let me ask you a question. On this interview when asked about homosexuality do you think that he should have lied? Or shamed and threatened into silence? This man gave an honest answer to a question and shouldn't be punished for it.

what if you were in an interview 30 years ago when supporting homosexuality could get you fired? Would you lie or be shamed/threatened into silence? Or would you tell the truth?

Christians are being treated the same as gays were 30 years ago

[snaphat (Myles Landwehr) Member]

I like how you tried to imply that I am gay when I'm not. I'm married to a woman and have a 4 year old son. I brought up my gay nephews and one atheist friend to show that not only straight Christians are the ones complaining. One of the nephews is also an atheist.

Won't waste anymore of this post on you. Don't ever twist my words again.

 

Really, that's how you took that -_-. I was not implying you were homosexual. I was telling you stop using LBGTQ peoples opinions' as a basis for argument because arguments of authority are fallacious arguments. I was pointing out that who you are doesn't make your argument more or less valid. It doesn't matter if you, your family, your friends, or the entire LBGTQ community is against the guy getting fired -- using that as a basis for argument is invalid. You specifically mentioned your homosexual nephews being against it as if that made what you said more valid and it simply doesn't.

 

Let's sum up everything I said:

 

(1) Don't use strawman arguments against what other people say in this thread.

(2) Don't use arguments of authority.

 

That's not "twisting" your words in any way.

[snaphat (Myles Landwehr) Member]

yes it does apply here. He was doing an interview with a company that had no connection with his job. He paraphrased the bible, gave his own opinion. He didn't even compare homosexuality with beastiality. He made homosexuality the least offensive first step on a slippery slope that ends with beastiality

let me ask you a question. On this interview when asked about homosexuality do you think that he should have lied? Or shamed and threatened into silence? This man gave an honest answer to a question and shouldn't be punished for it.

 

It doesn't matter if he wasn't offensive at all. I'm not making the argument that he was or wasn't. I didn't actually read what he said in detail. He could have just talked about religion in general (and never mentioned sins, etc.) and they could still fire him. He is a public figure only asked to interview because of his show and as such everything he says reflects upon the show and network. That's the issue with being a public figure. His employer can fire him for any reason whatsoever associated with the interview, that's just how things work. Interestingly, if I spoke in public, my employer (or anyones) could fire me for the same reason stating that I reflect badly upon the companies values, etc. and am not a good fit. In general, you don't really have a notion of freedom of speech w.r.t. to employment. They can't stop you from saying things, but they can terminate your employment for saying them. What they can't do is just fire you simply because you are a Christian, homosexual, etc -- that's where the law you stated does comes into play.

 

edit: here's an article that talks about this: http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-08-03/where-free-speech-goes-to-die-the-workplace

 

edit2: I should also note, that I don't fault him for giving his honest opinion on the matter (frankly, I don't care if he is prejudice against LBGTQ people not). But, from a legal perspective what A&E did isn't a problem.

[seta-san]

See, no they can't. You would have a winning law suit on your hands. P.s. I'm not coming at this from a freedom of speech pov. I'm coming at it from a protected class pov.

[snaphat (Myles Landwehr) Member]

See, no they can't. You would have a winning law suit on your hands. P.s. I'm not coming at this from a freedom of speech pov. I'm coming at it from a protected class pov.

 

I see that you are, but the problem is that being part of a protected group doesn't give you the freedom of speech to say whatever you want without consequences (the fact that you are saying something makes freedom of speech come into play). It gives you the right to not be discriminated against for your religion though. The difference is that your employer cannot fire you simply because of your religion, how you look, etc. But they can fire you because of comments you make about your religion (or really any matter at all). The latter automatically gets into freedom of speech. 

[FloatingFatMan]

Christians are being treated the same as gays were 30 years ago

 

Oh dear, such a shame, what a pity.

 

Really sucks when the shoe's on the other foot, doesn't it?  What goes around, comes around.

[Rippleman]

He was fired for expressing his religious views. Religion and creed are protected classes and using that religion or creed as the basis of firing someone is blatantly illegal.

lets say you hired someone to work on your front lawn, always there with his truck and company name parked in front of your house. Lets pretend this persons beliefs where that they believed strongly in pedophilia and voiced it so that millions of people around your area knew about it and where he would openly say that he believed it was his right to have sex with children. (not likely but the duck dynasty guy is famous and millions do know him). Would you continue to have him work on your lawn and be associated with you and your family? Or would you get rid of him?

[Anibal P]

lets say you hired someone to work on your front lawn, always there with his truck and company name parked in front of your house. Lets pretend this persons beliefs where that they believed strongly in pedophilia and voiced it so that millions of people around your area knew about it and where he would openly say that he believed it was his right to have sex with children. (not likely but the duck dynasty guy is famous and millions do know him). Would you continue to have him work on your lawn and be associated with you and your family? Or would you get rid of him?

 

Pedophilia is illegal, being a Christian and not liking Homosexuality is not illegal, apples and oranges, and the last time I checked voicing an opinion is also not illegal, it might not be a popular opinion in some circles but no matter what the pro gay crowd say, it is still not illegal and a protected right to disagree with others 

[Rippleman]

Pedophilia is illegal, being a Christian and not liking Homosexuality is not illegal, apples and oranges, and the last time I checked voicing an opinion is also not illegal, it might not be a popular opinion in some circles but no matter what the pro gay crowd say, it is still not illegal and a protected right to disagree with others 

take the illegal part out. having an opinion of pedophilia is NOT illegal. Everyone has a right to express it. I, like yourself I hope, would not be associated with someone who feels something like pedophilia is awesome and the "right" way to be. Same goes for other opinions. This includes A&E not wanting to be represented by a person with disgusting opinions and hate filled negative beliefs.

[rfirth]

See, no they can't. You would have a winning law suit on your hands. P.s. I'm not coming at this from a freedom of speech pov. I'm coming at it from a protected class pov.

 

 

Perhaps, but A&E has every right to suspend him for claiming blacks were happy pre-civil rights. He called it the pre-entitlement, pre-welfare period. And that he never saw a black person mistreated. They used to sing, were happy happy happy, and never got (sang) the blues.

Forget the gay talk. He completely whitewashed Jim Crow laws in that interview.

[DirtyLarry Veteran]

Dude made some ignorant and hateful remarks against a multiple groups of people, not just one.

Whether those remarks were influenced by his religious beliefs or no does not dismiss the fact they are indeed hateful and ignorant.

A&E or whatever channel they are on are well within their rights to choose whether or not they want to employ someone that says these things, and again, it is irrelevant if Religion is the reason for the remarks. And quite frankly it does not really paint the religion in a positive light if it is indeed the reason for the beliefs themselves.

Anything that preaches intolerance should be seriously examined and questioned, at least IMHO.

[snaphat (Myles Landwehr) Member]

take the illegal part out. having an opinion of pedophilia is NOT illegal. Everyone has a right to express it. I, like yourself I hope, would not be associated with someone who feels something like pedophilia is awesome and the "right" way to be. Same goes for other opinions. This includes A&E not wanting to be represented by a person with disgusting opinions and hate filled negative beliefs.

 

I see what you did there. I like it. That's the kind of analogy that gets people thinking about what they are really saying.

[xrobwx71]

No question or secret about his beliefs. "They" knew it before they asked.