"Duck Dynasty" star banned from show for anti-gay comments

[RobDownSouth]

After reading some of the posts about companies controlling their employees, then perhaps the requirement about not hiring because of race, religion, sexual orientation, etc needs to be lifted.

For example, if a company who supports gays is allowed to not hire those who don't support that lifestyle, then there will never be a worry about them stepping out of bounds about what they say or do.

Same is with a Christian company. Same with any company having to do with race, etc.

I know this won't happen, just trying to make a small point. As long as the government has a say so over who companies can and cannot hire, then there will always be people who have differing opinions and a good chance they will share them at some point.

I guess it can't be both ways. Either people are free to speak as they wish (and not have their job in jeopardy) or companies need to freedom to hire whomever they wish.

Nonsense. You've presented a classic false dilemma.

There are two distinct categories here: 'status' and 'conduct'.

The law protects the 'status' of people, factors that they have no control over: Sex, race, national origin, etc. Most recently courts have added "sexual orientation" as more people realize that sexual orientation is innate and not a choice (and yes, I recognize that you are of the opinion that "heterosexuality" is innate and "homosexuality" is a choice, but then your entire life seems to be devoted to double standards).

Employment law does not protect your conduct in the workplace. Period.

As an aside, I'm aware of two major exceptions in employment law that transcend the above: Religious preference and age. The courts have held that "religious preferences" must be accomodated to a reasonable extent, but "religious preference" is not absolute. The other exception is age, which is accomodated within the guidelines of respect for public safety (which is why we have no 80 year old commercial airline pilots).

 

[BotanyBoy]

If you're ability to eat is tied directly to not saying anything your employer might not agree with how free exactly are you? There are of course more ways to punish someone than imprisoning them.

As long as you are taking a pay check from someone else instead of doing or being the shot caller directly in charge of company you will not be free.

Being HMFIC is as free as it gets, HMFIC get's to be as bigoted as HMFIC wants.

Want to make money being a bigot? Be your own boss....make your own company policy/philosophy.

And I'm find with there being consequences, I'm fine with firing the guy. I think it should be in most cases limited to what you've done on the job and to an extent being a celebrity is a job and so your image is who you are on and off set.

Fair enough...so like "off duty" should be protected maybe??? Something to consider.

But I see absolutely no reason by the logic you're giving that Wal-Mart can't fire you for having Obama/Biden bumper stickers.

Me either...IMO they should be able to hire/fire whoever the fuck they want.

What happens when a healthy chunk of employers start doing that and with good reason?

Suckage all around....but as long as the employees don't go publicly shitting all over company policy/image etc I don't think that would be an issue. And most people I know who's food is on the line tend to abide by company policy.

 

[julybaby04]

So you think, wrong verb in your case but stay with me, that it would be OK for companies to deny employment to people because of the colour of their skin?

Nope.

 

[julybaby04]

Nonsense. You've presented a classic false dilemma.

There are two distinct categories here: 'status' and 'conduct'.

The law protects the 'status' of people, factors that they have no control over: Sex, race, national origin, etc. Most recently courts have added "sexual orientation" as more people realize that sexual orientation is innate and not a choice (and yes, I recognize that you are of the opinion that "heterosexuality" is innate and "homosexuality" is a choice, but then your entire life seems to be devoted to double standards).

Employment law does not protect your conduct in the workplace. Period.

As an aside, I'm aware of two major exceptions in employment law that transcend the above: Religious preference and age. The courts have held that "religious preferences" must be accomodated to a reasonable extent, but "religious preference" is not absolute. The other exception is age, which is accomodated within the guidelines of respect for public safety (which is why we have no 80 year old commercial airline pilots).

All I was saying is that if companies are going to have an issue with people speaking on what they believe, unless a company is allowed to only hire people that they agree with, then people will not have freedom of their own opinions.

It was just a hypothetical......just trying to say that as long as any company can hire any individual then differing opinions will always come with them.

 

[Sean Renaud]

While I generally agree with the hire/fire who you want I gotta say firing someone for their political beliefs, assuming they do not reflect on your company should be illegal.

They'll I imagine find something else to put on the paperwork just like they do when they want to fire a chick for not sucking dick or a dude because he doesn't share his beer but at least make em jump through the extra hoop.

 

[Sean]

Nope.

But that's what you just proposed.

 

[RobDownSouth]

All I was saying is that if companies are going to have an issue with people speaking on what they believe, unless a company is allowed to only hire people that they agree with, then people will not have freedom of their own opinions.

It was just a hypothetical......just trying to say that as long as any company can hire any individual then differing opinions will always come with them.

Most companies I know hire the most qualified workers for the job. Yes, there are a few companies out there (Hobby Lobby and Chic Fil A come to mind) that hire primarily on religious affiliation, but thankfully they are in a distinct minority.

 

[BotanyBoy]

While I generally agree with the hire/fire who you want I gotta say firing someone for their political beliefs, assuming they do not reflect on your company should be illegal.

I can dig that....totally.

But that opens the quagmire of grey WTF!?!?'s

What qualifies as reflecting on your company? ohhhhh we could all grab some sticks and dance around that bush for a while.

They'll I imagine find something else to put on the paperwork just like they do when they want to fire a chick for not sucking dick or a dude because he doesn't share his beer but at least make em jump through the extra hoop.

Right on

 

[julybaby04]

But that's what you just proposed.

No it is not. I was just using a hypothetical. No matter how badly you want it, I am not racist. Never have been and never will be.

 

[Sean]

No it is not. I was just using a hypothetical. No matter how badly you want it, I am not racist. Never have been and never will be.

So, just the bigotry, then.

 

[BotanyBoy]

No it is not. I was just using a hypothetical. No matter how badly you want it, I am not racist. Never have been and never will be.

But you support slavery....and selling your daughter off...and the world is flat...and the subjugation/beating of all women......good job!!

 

[julybaby04]

Most companies I know hire the most qualified workers for the job. Yes, there are a few companies out there (Hobby Lobby and Chic Fil A come to mind) that hire primarily on religious affiliation, but thankfully they are in a distinct minority.

I would agree...higher the qualified. The point I am trying to make is that because companies do hire whomever they wish, then control over their personal views cannot take place.

As for Chik-Fil-A and Hobby Lobby, my guess would be if people know their religious affiliation and it bothers them, then perhaps applying for a job there would not be a good idea.

I bet everyone does this to some point. I know Ben and Jerry is very left wing and I will not purchase ice cream from them. I just don't want to support them. Everyone makes those decisions for themselves. I am sure there are many who will not go to ChikFilA nor shop at Hobby Lobby for the same reasons.

 

[julybaby04]

So, just the bigotry, then.

Nope....it is nothing. Just a hypothetical. I know you would really like me to be like you and hate on people, but sorry, that is not who I am.

 

[julybaby04]

But you support slavery....and selling your daughter off...and the world is flat...and the subjugation/beating of all women......good job!!

What in the world are you talking about?

 

[Not Normal]

Freedom of speech my ass.

No one said he couldn't say what he said. The NETWORK that gives him airtime and lots of cash has decided to take him off of their airwaves.

He hasn't been thrown in jail for what he said, he's only had to face the business and social consequences. So the "freedom of speech" lamentation really doesn't apply here.

yes

Yep. Just like the network has the right to dismiss him. It's really not that hard to comprehend.

and yes

 

[IrezumiKiss]

I bet everyone does this to some point. I know Ben and Jerry is very left wing and I will not purchase ice cream from them. I just don't want to support them. Everyone makes those decisions for themselves. I am sure there are many who will not go to ChikFilA nor shop at Hobby Lobby for the same reasons.

And yet you continue to come here, to this site, a place that fully supports, enables and promotes homosexuality and alternative lifestyles anathema to conservative and right-wing values.

Your posting here enables this. There is no wiggle room around that fact.

Hypocritical behavior amongst human beans is very convenient at certain times, isn't it?

 

[Sean Renaud]

I can dig that....totally.

But that opens the quagmire of grey WTF!?!?'s

What qualifies as reflecting on your company? ohhhhh we could all grab some sticks and dance around that bush for a while.



Right on

I'm sure there are examples that maybe you could even come up with off the top of your head but in general this doesn't sound like a particularly complicated group of circumstances.

1. Are you a celebrity? If yes your image is in fact part of your job and you need to protect it or your employer may fire you and with good reason.

2. Are you using your company's equipment and/or your rank in said company to further your cause? If so you are directly affecting the company. (Though within reason I can see some grey on this one. I'd hate to know that NASA knew Global Warming was a hoax but fear of Obama kept them from opening their mouths. But I think the majority of cases are simpler than that. Bumper stickers don't reflect on your company (unless your'e a delivery boy) period.

3. Were you off duty?

Like I said I'm sure there are exceptions that could be come up with, but there are exceptions to when you can legally KILL somebody. The fact that there might be an exception to the rule i sno reason not to set a rule in the first fucking place.

 

[Sean]

Nope....it is nothing. Just a hypothetical. I know you would really like me to be like you and hate on people, but sorry, that is not who I am.

You're a bigoted retard, that's documented fact.

 

[RobDownSouth]

I would agree...higher the qualified. The point I am trying to make is that because companies do hire whomever they wish, then control over their personal views cannot take place.

As for Chik-Fil-A and Hobby Lobby, my guess would be if people know their religious affiliation and it bothers them, then perhaps applying for a job there would not be a good idea.

I bet everyone does this to some point. I know Ben and Jerry is very left wing and I will not purchase ice cream from them. I just don't want to support them. Everyone makes those decisions for themselves. I am sure there are many who will not go to ChikFilA nor shop at Hobby Lobby for the same reasons.

Okay, I see your point.

I don't typically boycott companies on principle. I don't patronize Ben and Jerry's, primarily because high-fat ice cream has no appeal to me.

I do eat a Chic Fil A fairly regularly (they're close to my workplace and I like their spicy chicken sandwich). I've met Chic Fil A founder Truett Cathey twice and found him to be a very devoted, principled man. His son Dan is a complete waste of oxygen. A good analogy would be Truett::Billy Graham, Dan::Franklin Graham.

I've never been inside a Hobby Lobby even though I have one less than 1/3 of a mile away from my house. No boycott, though, they just don't offer any product that might appeal to me.

 

[KingOrfeo]

If however, you are saying that "homosexuals" have "won" something themselves, come talk to me when they are a majority of the population.

What about blacks? Have they won nothing themselves?

 

[KingOrfeo]

Native American family, St Regis Reservation/Mohawk Nation of Akwesasne.

They didn't wear dirt or mud for camouflage, they wore it so they would NOT be smelled.

Deer will smell and hear you WAY before they see you.

You can wear flaming red and hot pink and they won't care, as long as you're fucking quiet and didn't put deodorant on that morning.

Why? Can they smell the deodorant?

 

[BotanyBoy]

What in the world are you talking about?

As far as the Bible, I believe it is the inerrant Word of God. I believe every word to be true.

Leviticus 25:44-46 ESV

As for your male and female slaves whom you may have: you may buy male and female slaves from among the nations that are around you. You may also buy from among the strangers who sojourn with you and their clans that are with you, who have been born in your land, and they may be your property. You may bequeath them to your sons after you to inherit as a possession forever. You may make slaves of them, but over your brothers the people of Israel you shall not rule, one over another ruthlessly.

Luke 12:47 ESV

And that servant who knew his master's will but did not get ready or act according to his will, will receive a severe beating.

"But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God." (I Corinthians 11:3)

"For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man." (I Corinthians 11:8-9)

Should I go on??

 

[KingOrfeo]

Racist comments, too.

Phil Robertson's anti-gay comments aren't the only part of his interview with GQ causing controversy.

The 67-year-old "Duck Dynasty" star was suspended by A&E Wednesday for calling homosexuality sinful — and putting gay people in same category as terrorists. While those quotes quickly went viral, it wasn't his only brow-raising statement in the interview; he also implied that African Americans were happier living under Jim Crow laws.

"I never, with my eyes, saw the mistreatment of any black person. Not once," the reality star said of growing up in pre-Civil-Rights-era Louisiana. "Where we lived was all farmers. The blacks worked for the farmers. I hoed cotton with them. I'm with the blacks, because we're white trash. We're going across the field ... They're singing and happy. I never heard one of them, one black person, say, 'I tell you what: These doggone white people' — not a word!"

Robertson continued, "Pre-entitlement, pre-welfare, you say: Were they happy? They were godly; they were happy; no one was singing the blues."

Needless to say, that hasn't gone over well either. A spokesperson for the NAACP shared a copy of the letter that they, along with the Human Rights Campaign, sent to "Duck Dynasty" network A&E. In addition to asking for the network to "denounce and repudiate Robertson's comments," they demanded that Robertson "apologizes for his vitriolic comments."

"We want to be clear why Phil Robertson's remarks are not just dangerous but also inaccurate," the letter stated, in part. "Mr. Robertson claims that, from what he saw, African Americans were happier under Jim Crow. What he didn't see were lynching and beatings of black men and women for attempting to vote or simply walking down the street."

Noting that the remarks "go beyond being outlandishly inaccurate and offensive" and are actually "dangerous and revisionist, appealing to those in our society who wish to repeat patterns of discrimination," the letter said Robertson's "words show an unbridled lack of respect for African Americans and LGBT people, and the ongoing challenges members of our communities continue to experience on a daily basis."

"Surely a brand like A&E does not want to be associated with such racist and homophobic remarks," it concluded.

Robertson’s remarks about African Americans could ultimately be more damaging in the longterm than what he said about homosexuals, according to one expert.

"Racial comments are often career killers — as are scandals involving children and animals," David E. Johnson, who is the CEO of public relations and branding agency Strategic Vision, tells Yahoo TV. "Yet, looking at the demographics who are attracted to 'Duck Dynasty,' we see an older, more conservative, and evangelical audience. These people will take the comments with a grain of salt. This is because Phil Robertson and the 'Duck Dynasty' brand is one that is viewed as politically incorrect and says what is on their mind. So, in that light, the comments are unlikely to do damage — unless African Americans begin emerging and demonstrating he has discriminated against [them]."

However, "Barring that, overall, his comments and the controversy has in all likelihood strengthened the brand," adds Johnson.

On Wednesday night, the cable network did denounce the "Duck Dynasty" patriarch. In addition to suspending him indefinitely from filming, they said in a statement, "We are extremely disappointed to have read Phil Robertson’s comments in GQ, which are based on his own personal beliefs and are not reflected in the series 'Duck Dynasty.' His personal views in no way reflect those of A+E Networks, who have always been strong supporters and champions of the LGBT community. The network has placed Phil under hiatus from filming indefinitely."

Earlier in the day, Robertson clarified his words — though he didn't come close to apologizing.

"I myself am a product of the '60s; I centered my life around sex, drugs and rock 'n' roll until I hit rock bottom and accepted Jesus as my Savior," the TV star said in a statement. "My mission today is to go forth and tell people about why I follow Christ and also what the Bible teaches, and part of that teaching is that women and men are meant to be together. However, I would never treat anyone with disrespect just because they are different from me. We are all created by the Almighty and like Him, I love all of humanity. We would all be better off if we loved God and loved each other."

Not everyone is offended by Robertson's statements. A petition called IStandWithPhil.com was launched by a group called Faith Driven Consumer and calls for A&E to reinstate Robertson — and apologize to the "Duck Dynasty" watchers who share the TV's star's beliefs.

"Mr. Robertson’s comments in GQ magazine are simply reflective of a Biblical view of sexuality, marriage, and family — a view that has stood the test of time for thousands of years and continues to be held by the majority of Americans and today’s world as a whole," it says on the site. "While the LGBT community may be offended by his opposing viewpoint, your rash, discriminatory, and unfair treatment toward Mr. Robertson — a recognized symbol of the faith community — is a slap in the face to Faith Driven Consumers and everyday Americans alike."

Needless to say, this controversy won't be dying down anytime soon.

 

[Polarbear57]

Land of the free, and so on.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

All I was saying is that if companies are going to have an issue with people speaking on what they believe, unless a company is allowed to only hire people that they agree with, then people will not have freedom of their own opinions.

It was just a hypothetical......just trying to say that as long as any company can hire any individual then differing opinions will always come with them.

I would agree...higher the qualified. The point I am trying to make is that because companies do hire whomever they wish, then control over their personal views cannot take place.

As for Chik-Fil-A and Hobby Lobby, my guess would be if people know their religious affiliation and it bothers them, then perhaps applying for a job there would not be a good idea.

I bet everyone does this to some point. I know Ben and Jerry is very left wing and I will not purchase ice cream from them. I just don't want to support them. Everyone makes those decisions for themselves. I am sure there are many who will not go to ChikFilA nor shop at Hobby Lobby for the same reasons.

So which one is it? A&E shouldn't have hired Phil because they knew his politics, or Phil shouldn't have gone in to work for A&E because he knew their owner's politics?