Piers Morgan: "Phil Robertson is a victim of his own repulsively racist, homophobic bigotry."
Piers' interpreter: "Piers say he likes a roll in the hay with the boys, himself."
Posted on 12/20/2013 2:29:41 AM PST by markomalley
At 9:30 a.m. on December 19th, CNN's Piers Morgan tweeted that the First Amendment "shouldn't protect vile bigots" like Phil Robertson.
And while making this claim, Morgan also reiterated his position that the Second Amendment "shouldn't protect assault rifle devotees."
Twitchy.com posted Morgan's tweet, as well as one he sent six minutes earlier in he which typed, "Phil Robertson is not a 'victim of political correctness.' He's a victim of his own repulsively racist, homophobic bigotry."
When defenders of Robertson's right to speak his mind took to Twitter to tell Morgan how the First Amendment works, Morgan hedged himself in by tweeting, "Calm down everybody. I'm merely exercising my own 1st Amendment freedom of speech rights to say Phil Robertson's a racist bigot."
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
Technically, he’s right. The 1st amendment codifies a right endowed by the Creator in all men, so even nitwits like Morgan fall under it.
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.
Because he would have to answer to the charges of phone hacking. He is a scofflaw.
The outcry over mere thought or words is indication of the left’s immaturity and internal weakness.
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.
“I don’t understand why the sunufabitch doesn’t just go back to England.
Because he would have to answer to the charges of phone hacking. He is a scofflaw. “
Well in that case I don’t see why he is allowed to remain here in the U.S. Don’t we have an extradition agreement with the British?
so G-d fearing men are ‘vile’ but pornographers and worse are ok?
yup, Satan would feel right at home in the demoncratic party
We wonder whether Piers is willing to clarify his vitriolic and unjustified remarks?
Why is it that Marxists like Piers and other members of the hysterical leftist media immediately resort to name calling instead of intelligently addressing the substance of the matter?
Robertson made a statement about the suitability of body parts for union. Did Piers address whether or not what Robertson said was true? Is it true that men and women have complementary body parts for sexual union? This is something that same sex couples have not. Is it true that natural law supports the statements by Roberts?
Leftists cannot face or deal with the truth as they pursue their version of a Utopian dream.
At 9:30 a.m. on December 19th, CNN’s Piers Morgan tweeted that the First Amendment “shouldn’t protect vile bigots” like Phil Robertson.
Well if it protects a lying cheating anti-American piece of crap like you then it should protect anyone............
Plus I challenge you to prove that what Robertson said that was vile or bigoted.
The Left is anti liberty at its core. They do not acknowledge any right to disagree with them.
So, anyone who believes in the Bible is a vile, racist bigot.
Got it.
Well yes to Piers Morgan they are............
Piers Morgan: "Phil Robertson is a victim of his own repulsively racist, homophobic bigotry."
Piers' interpreter: "Piers say he likes a roll in the hay with the boys, himself."
Hmmm...you sound like someone who actually understands the Brits who overrun our country with their big mouths and posh accents. Even worse are Australians pretending to be English! I’ve had my fill of them - they ruin certain sections of my old New York.
I make one exception: Nigella Lawson.
So sayeth the Media hypocrites working in a profession which is Constitutionally protected and allowed to recklessly attack others without just cause. Look in a mirror you fascist pig. Oink Oink Piers.
“the First Amendment “shouldn’t protect vile bigots”...”
Faggot: “one of a pile of sticks designated for burning up.”
Sexual perversion is a true example of vile behavior.
One who points it out is charitably serving his brother, attempting to save him from impending eternal fires.
Would anybody even know who Piers Morgan was if he didnt make stupid provacative statements?
He’s a freakin’ dog whistle
“The Crown shall behead anyone who says anything that displeases. Heads will be mounted on pikes and bodies hung in the town square until they rot.”
In part, a revolution was fought over this.
electing Obama twice has emboldened these people. We will see more of this in the near future, not less. This is an early skirmish in a long war for the country.
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.