Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: markomalley

The First Amendment has absolutely NOTHING to do with this incident, for the simple reason that A&E is not CONGRESS.

The First Amendment prohibits certain actions by Congress. It does NOT grant the American people the right to free speech. That right comes from God.

People who keep talking about Robertson’s “First Amendment rights” are fostering the idea that Robertson’s right to free speech is GRANTED by the government or the Constitution.

And what about A&E’s right to free speech? They own the network. They have the right—depending on the contracts involved—to choose who appears on their programs and who does not.

Whatever has been said and done, just one thing is certain: The First Amendment is NOT involved in any way, shape, manner, or form. Robertson was not exercising “First Amendment rights.” He was exercising his right to speak.


23 posted on 12/20/2013 3:01:26 AM PST by Arthur McGowan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: Arthur McGowan

I think one could make a pretty good argument that firing Phil is a violation of title VII of the ‘64 Civil Rights Act - employment discrimination on the basis of religion.

But I suppose it depends on whatever contractual agreement exists between Phil and A&E and also whether or not Phil is considered an employee.


26 posted on 12/20/2013 3:08:18 AM PST by chrisser (Senseless legislation does nothing to solve senseless violence.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies ]

To: Arthur McGowan

You’re right, partially.
This is in fact the deliberate attempt by the Left to create a Brownshirt thugocracy.
This is willful incitement and abuse of power by numerous government officials at all levels.
In some cases by direct incitement and others by unconstitutionally structuring legal code to support aberrant behavior in an ongoing effort at social engineering.
If Mr. Soetoro is stupid enough to comment on this, no matter what he says, I’m sure a good lawyer could make a valid case to his direct involvement, albeit after the fact.
As far as A & E’s rights, they should be regarded as a ‘special needs’ individual and have adult supervision assigned.
They may have some sort of Morals clause or something in Robertson’s contract, but to expect other than him expressing his sincere view when asked is stupid.
Sure they have a right to decide how they will be represented by contractors and who they will do business with. So do ALL businesses.
If I have a private business, the government has no right to force me to do business with ANYONE. And if I discriminate then the marketplace will show whether that is correct or not.
Historically, homosexual is classified as DEVIANCY, right along with pederasty, bestiality, and necrophilia.
To force anyone to accept it against their beliefs IS a violation of their rights. IF the government does not then protect that individual, it IS a 1st Amendment issue.


70 posted on 12/20/2013 6:12:45 AM PST by jim999
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson