Agree completely. I just didn’t go into the “go somewhere else” part.
The main point is the Marxists need to see some Christians put their feet and pockets where their words and faith really are. That is the very meaning of “testimony”. Origin. Greek I understand is same as “Martyr”.
So few Christians live lives that truly testify of their words and faith, the world does not believe. The centurion said, “This truly was the Son of God” when he saw Him die - the way he died. The same was repeated in the deaths of early Christians, and throughout the ages.
I have been in the legal world enough (business) to know that their contracts will be airtight prohibiting their going somewhere else with the same show. They’d get sued for everything and more - by much higher paid afforneys too. It would be a long, bloody battle, with no guarantee of a win. Could keep them from another show for 5 or more years.
May God lead them through what’s ahead = and we need to continue to pray for them.....
I’m an attorney and airtight is hard to come by in the real world of contracts. With DD, a great deal hinges on who here is the first true breacher. Effectively firing someone over religious speech not controlled by their performance requirements under the contract is something that could put A&E on the wrong side of that equation. It is effectively adding an extra-contractual condition. You do that, you’re the breacher, because you’re the first one to stop performing under the terms of the contract. That opens the exit to the contract wide open, at least for Phil.
The rest depends on how the contracts were written. If the operating understanding was that they were there as a family, that performance relied in part on them functioning as a family, then taking out the patriarch may make performance substantially impossible, providing yet another exit.
Otherwise, as others here have observed, if the contracts are strictly individual, then an act of religious speech by each of them taking the same position as Phil will put A&E in the position of either breaching the contracts with the others or admitting publicly to having no real basis for the original breach. IOW, if I were DD’s principal attorney, I’d be salivating over this case. High priced lawyers don’t do nearly as much good as having favorable facts. Money can buy effective procedural jockeying, and so can delay the outcome, but IMHO has little effect on the long term results. DD only has to stay in the game to win, and I’m sure they have resources sufficient for that.
As for performing elsewhere as a family, they may not be able to use the exact same brand. But that cannot stop them from earning a living as the principal owner of the underlying product, which is just them being themselves.