Posted on 12/19/2013 5:49:34 PM PST by Battle Hymn of the Republic
I'm tired of people getting in trouble for expressing their opinions, popular or not. A person should say what they believe, and we should support their right to say it, whether we disagree or not. This is America. Then again, I don't own a company that depends on revenue generated by quirky Louisiana duck hunters, who look like ZZ Top and believe homosexuality is wrong and Southern blacks were a lot happier back in the good old days.
(Excerpt) Read more at mercurynews.com ...
As glockrocks pointed out: “Catholics need not apply.”
This violates the Equal Opportunity Act. I may not like the act, but so long as it is in force, by God, they WILL follow it.
Robertson should hire some damned good attorneys. By the end of the month, he may own A&E.
Those cases are talking about discrimination by the Government. There is currently no federal law banning private employers from discriminating in hiring based on sexual orientation. (A bill to change that is currently before the Senate, and may even pass, but is going nowhere in the House of Representatives.)
The courts have held that the UCMJ can ban conduct that would be OK if done by civilians, because of the need to uphold order and discipline among the troops.
Yes there is. Civil rights law
of 1964.
It's a little ironic, though. Not so long ago the behavior he's under fire for criticizing would have gotten people fired under the same clause if they indulged in that very behavior.
Technically, it may not violate the Act, because the relationship between the network and the Robertsons is probably not one of employer and employee. There is some kind of contract, but I am sure it is not structured as an employment contract.
If the relationship is not one of "employment," the parties' legal rights are very different. For example, I am a lawyer; I get "hired" by clients, but I am not their "employee," so a client may legally say to me "I won't hire you because you're a Jew" (or "because you're white" or "because you're male") and no law has been broken.
Another wrinkle is that A&E has a first amendment freedom of speech right not to broadcast a show that doesn't comport with its views. A California appellate court ruled last week that a TV network could refuse to hire men for the on-air weather forecaster slot (which is an "employee") because they have a first amendment right to broadcast the kind of news show they want.
Not even close. It is a free enterprise issue. And A&E can run its network any way it chooses, and the Duck family can choose whether to involve itself in a contract with that network or not. It is A&E's decision alone to make, and it is A&E that stands to reap the rewards or suffer the consequences of their decision.
No one is taking away Robertson's right to free speech or religious freedom. This is not a viewpoint discrimination case. No one is preventing Robertson from saying what he says.
But it is because of the lack of freedom of expression, where certain points of view arouse media-magnified ire that A&E (or any other enterprise) feels that certain comments are objectionable enough to cost them financial hardship.
Come on!
I agree with you on this, but not everybody here does. I’ll just have to agree to disagree with them.
I do however, hope A&E gets hosed over this.
Those were the opinions cited by the judge forcing the bakers to make a gay wedding cake even though Colorado prohibits same-sex marriage.
I have to agree with you, Gabz.
No one is preventing PR from saying what he believes, but they are trying to silence him by making the consequences of speaking out so dire that one would choose to stay quiet instead of pay the price.
Just like Phillip Morris would try to silence the Marboro Man in stating his opinion about how cigarettes cause cancer.
so what does A&E do when the rest of them deliberately go out and say the same things.
(Key word: 'normal')
I imagine so, lol. They are both within their right, just like country stations were within their rights to stop playing Dixie Chicks, so the rest of us can just react, adjust and move on.
While I agree that the judge was wrong, the judge decided it was discrimination due to sexual orientation. Phil Robertson is being discriminated against because of both sexual orientation and religious belief.
Wrong on both counts. The remaining family members share the exact same sexual orientation preference as Phil Robertson, yet they still retain their contractual status.
A&E made business decision. A&E assumes all risks of that business decision in regards to how it affects their bottom line. Consider for a moment this scenario. Imagine that Phil Robertson decides to come out of the closet and admit an incestuous homosexual relationship with another member of the show. If that happened, viewership would probably decline by 95%, sponsors would bail, the show would become a bigtime money loser, and the A&E brand would take a hit. If that occurred, would A&E have the right to kick Phil and his partner off the show? Absolutely! It would be a business decision on their part, just as it is now. We may judge it to be the wrong decision just as we did with GM's decision to manufacture the Volt, but it is their decision nonetheless. They take the risk. They reap the reward. They pay the price. No one should be able to force A&E to keep to a contract anyone based on sexual preference or religious belief. It is their decision and theirs alone.
I was wondering the same thing. More specifically, WHY the rest of them HAVEN'T. It wouldn't take much for each of them to say "I may not word it like Phil, but I agree with him that..."
Phil Robertson isn’t being discriminated against based upon sexual preference. The other family members who did not get suspended also prefer heterosexuality just like Phil.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.