So, if they discriminate against one person and leave a hundred others not discriminated against, then they have not discriminated? Illogical.
An employer is not permitted to discriminate and then call it business interests. Otherwise, they could blackball any group of people they come to dislike or secretly disliked all along.
They are discriminating against Robertson on 2 counts: religion and sexual orientation.
You are not allowed to be conservative and be on TV, it’s a black list
The logical flaw can be found in your attempt to use the conclusion as a premise of proof. It is called 'begging the question'. Any argument of proving discrimination due to sexual orientation that includes the premise of discrimination due to sexual orientation is in itself illogical.
When A&E first entered into contract with Phil Robertson, his sexual preference was already assumed to be heterosexual. There has not been any contrary discovery here of sexual preference that has triggered A&E's actions. This isn't a case of some group contracting with someone on the assumption that the person was gay, and then wanting to fire them later because they found out the person was actually straight.
An employer is not permitted to discriminate . . .
A&E is not an employer in this case. Phil Robertson is a contractor. He does not receive the rights and benefits an employee would receive.
They are discriminating against Robertson on 2 counts: religion and sexual orientation.
They are not discriminating on either (not that it matters). Robertson's religious views and sexual preference are the exact same as they were when the contract was initially offered.