‘Duck Dynasty’ star Phil Robertson’s views common among Americans

The Washington Post's Style Section ^ | December 20, 2013 | Max Ehrenfreund

[wku man]

‘Duck Dynasty’ star Phil Robertson’s views common among Americans

As much as I hate to stoop to childish, 3rd grade retorts...

NO SH*T, SHERLOCK (WaPo, not you, 2 Div)!!

Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

“Half my brain tied behind my back.”

[TigersEye]

Really? I could have sworn that it was illegal to
discriminate in hiring/firing on the basis of religion.

My bad.

[doc1019]

I will say it one more time ... In most states it is legal to fire an employee for no reason. An employer doesn’t have to give a reason. If the employer does give a reason, they can be opening themselves to a lawsuit.

By the way Phil was not fired but put on hiatus, thus they are covering their butts.

[RushIsMyTeddyBear]

;-)

[Black Agnes]

Yup. The A&E execs expected Honey BooBoo with ducks.

[TigersEye]

If the employer does give a reason, they can be opening themselves to a lawsuit. By the way Phil was not fired but put on hiatus, thus they are covering their butts.

Nice spin there. lol

[doc1019]

Not my spin ... facts.

[TigersEye]

By the way Phil was not fired but put on hiatus, thus they are covering their butts.

Nope, no spin there at all. /s

[dfwgator]

No, it means that you can fire your employees without reason in most states.

As it should be. Jobs belong to the employer, not the employee.

[TurboZamboni]

[Iron Munro]

A lot of air time is given to homosexual advocates who complain that people like Phil Robertson are trying to force their beliefs, views and religion on others.

But I haven’t heard anyone ask them if that isn’t exactly what homosexuals have done to the entire coubntry over the last 45 years or so.

Homosexuals can squawk all they want but the fact remains that homosexual sex is an un-natural act.
A fact easily understood by anyone who understands how a nut and bolt work or how a living baby is created.

[SamuraiScot]

In most states it is legal to fire an employee for no reason.

Including New York State, of all places, for those of you keeping score at home. Employees are employed "at will"—the will of the employer, that is. Kind of the business equivalent of "shall issue."

[Hostage]

Good observations.

It is like Hitler’s Blitzkreig that ran over Europe so quickly and put down a harsh martial law so unpopular with the people that they had to go underground.

[TomServo]

But the particular problem for the TV industry is that it’s trying to profit off the same cultural tensions it’s exploiting.

Bingo. It's a business. And everybody is trying to hitch their wagon to it.

[doc1019]

Please ... explain the spin.

He was not fired he was put on hiatus therefore he can’t sue them for firing him for his religious beliefs. At the same time he is not allowed to be in the filming of any DD episode in the future (until his hiatus status is removed) a decision left to the discretion of A&E.

[be-baw]

No, it means that you can fire your employees without reason in most states.

Maybe legally, but anyone who fires an employee without reason will rightfully be subject to the appropriate karma

[cdcdawg]

“Fully 78 percent of white evangelical Protestants agree with Robertson ...”

I’d be interested to hear the thoughts of the other 22% of “white evangelical Protestants” on the matter.

[TruthFactor]

Not only are these views common among most Americans, they’re common among almost all of humanity. Always have been, and always will be, until humanity collectively wants to commit suicide.

[ETL]