Phil Robertson and freedom to have an opinion

[fskimospy]

Those are opinion pieces and nothing more.

There is not a single, solitary part of the Constitution that applies to private individuals. Not one. It applies to the government, and the government alone.

Do you seriously not understand this? You can't be this dumb.

The essence of free speech to protect from retaliation.

Benjamin Franklins uncle wrote a negative piece about the king of England. the king heard about the article and ordered the uncle arrested and put on trial.

The jury came back with a not guilty verdict. the jury also stated that freedom of speech is given by GOD and not by man, the judge had the jury arrested.

Whether the retaliation is by a king, congress or a company, what difference does it make? The person is being punished for something they said.

Because one is restrained by the Constitution (Congress), and the other is not.

 

[Vic]

My stance is simple, congress is the supreme law maker. If congress can not make a law against free speech, than neither can a company make a policy.

Do you have anything to prove me wrong?

You have zero understanding of constitutional law.

I would also like to point out one more time that Phil is not an employee of A&E. He is a principal of a contractor. A&E is his client, not his employer.

 

[jman19]

Those are opinion pieces and nothing more.




The essence of free speech to protect from retaliation.

Benjamin Franklins uncle wrote a negative piece about the king of England. the king heard about the article and ordered the uncle arrested and put on trial.

The jury came back with a not guilty verdict. the jury also stated that freedom of speech is given by GOD and not by man, the judge had the jury arrested.

Whether the retaliation is by a king, congress or a company, what difference does it make? The person is being punished for something they said.

I don't think you understand the US Constitution or its role in any way, shape or form.

 

[Texashiker]

There is not a single, solitary part of the Constitution that applies to private individuals. Not one. It applies to the government, and the government alone.

Do you seriously not understand this? You can't be this dumb.

Oh really?

I might open an all white male cafe, no minorities or women allowed. And I am only going to hire white female employees to work the place.

How long do you think that would last?

 

[pauldun170]

My stance is simple, congress is the supreme law maker. If congress can not make a law against free speech, than neither can a company make a policy.

Do you have anything to prove me wrong?

I will explain it to you

The first amendment was written to prevent the federal government from writing laws that restricted speech. The supreme court added some gotchas later on.

In 1925, the first amendment was incorporated
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Rights#Amendment_I
What the means is that now the states couldn't write laws restricting free speech.

So from 1791 to 1925, what you said could get you arrested and sent to prison depending on the state you lived in.

For the past couple of decades, we can say what we want and not worry about being arrested(as long as you don't run afoul of Supreme court rulings)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases_involving_the_First_Amendment

This Duck Dynasty guy made some statements that caused some butthurt.
He has every right to express his views and he does not have to worry about being arrested or charged with a crime.
That's a great thing

This is an international forum and many posters live in countries where public statements or verbally expressing beliefs can get them locked up.
Our laws protect our ability to speak out mind.

The freedom to speak your mind does not protect the speaker from ridicule, public condemnation and termination of employment (unless that employer happens to be the Government or an entity that falls under federal\state umbrella...but that gets complicated and is not related to Mr Duck)
Mr Duck's employer is not a federal entity nor is it a state entity therefore they are under no legal obligation to respect the first amendment. The only legal obligation being mr Duck and his employer are explicitly defined laws that typically fall under the labor law and the legally binding employment contract signed by both parties.

The first amendment does not protect you from "retaliation"
If you say "Gays suck". Someone can say "Your fathers cock"
If you scream "Gays should be shot", unless there is a reasonable expectation that your words will result in gays being shot you can say that. However, that does not protect your Governor from calling you a brain dead moron.
If there is reasonable expectation that your words carry enough weight that will result in someone shooting gays, you potentially crossed the line.

 

[MrPickins]

This is a very well written article on the issue. That I wish our resident liberaltards would read.
http://www.theatlantic.com/national...gnored-in-the-i-duck-dynasty-i-debate/282587/

Just a tip: people are much more likely to read the articles you post if you don't insult them. :hmm:

 

[Texashiker]

Our laws protect our ability to speak out mind.

When you are fired from your job, lose your house, lose your car, can not feed your family, have to go on welfare and food stamps,,,,, how free is that?

 

[pauldun170]

Just a tip: people are much more likely to read the articles you post if you don't insult them. :hmm:

Our culture has accepted two huge lies. The first is that if you disagree with someone’s lifestyle, you must fear them or hate them. The second is that to love someone means you agree with everything they believe or do. Both are nonsense. You don’t have to compromise convictions to be compassionate.
​

Tolerance is not the same thing as acceptance, and acceptance is not the same thing as an endorsement.

I don't think any conversation on tolerance is complete without

“Tolerant but not stupid! Look, just because you have to tolerate something doesn’t mean you have to approve of it. If you had to like it it’d be called the Museum of Acceptance. Tolerate means you’re just putting up with it. You tolerate a crying child sitting next to you on the airplane or you tolerate a bad cold. It can still piss you off. Jesus tapdancing Christ!”

-Mr. Garrison, 614

 

[fskimospy]

Oh really?

I might open an all white male cafe, no minorities or women allowed. And I am only going to hire white female employees to work the place.

How long do you think that would last?

That is due to legislation passed by Congress and states, not the Constitution.

What part of the Constitution do you think prevents private employers from racially discriminating?

 

[pauldun170]

When you are fired from your job, lose your house, lose your car, can not feed your family, have to go on welfare and food stamps,,,,, how free is that?

Its as free as when you are fired from your job, lose your house, lose your car, can not feed your family, have to go on welfare and food stamps because you banged your bosses daughter.

You are free to go find a job where they are more accepting of daughter banging.

Your statement implies that citizens are entitled to employment.
In the United states of America and most decent countries, no one is entitled to employment.

 

[umbrella39]

I will explain it to you

The first amendment was written to prevent the federal government from writing laws that restricted speech. The supreme court added some gotchas later on.

In 1925, the first amendment was incorporated
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Rights#Amendment_I
What the means is that now the states couldn't write laws restricting free speech.

So from 1791 to 1925, what you said could get you arrested and sent to prison depending on the state you lived in.

For the past couple of decades, we can say what we want and not worry about being arrested(as long as you don't run afoul of Supreme court rulings)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases_involving_the_First_Amendment

This Duck Dynasty guy made some statements that caused some butthurt.
He has every right to express his views and he does not have to worry about being arrested or charged with a crime.
That's a great thing

This is an international forum and many posters live in countries where public statements or verbally expressing beliefs can get them locked up.
Our laws protect our ability to speak out mind.

The freedom to speak your mind does not protect the speaker from ridicule, public condemnation and termination of employment (unless that employer happens to be the Government or an entity that falls under federal\state umbrella...but that gets complicated and is not related to Mr Duck)
Mr Duck's employer is not a federal entity nor is it a state entity therefore they are under no legal obligation to respect the first amendment. The only legal obligation being mr Duck and his employer are explicitly defined laws that typically fall under the labor law and the legally binding employment contract signed by both parties.

The first amendment does not protect you from "retaliation"
If you say "Gays suck". Someone can say "Your fathers cock"
If you scream "Gays should be shot", unless there is a reasonable expectation that your words will result in gays being shot you can say that. However, that does not protect your Governor from calling you a brain dead moron.
If there is reasonable expectation that your words carry enough weight that will result in someone shooting gays, you potentially crossed the line.

Take a bow, sir. Well done. Sadly this will not compute with most that read it. They want business to be able to serve whoever they want (Not bake a gay cake) BUT in the next breath condemn a business for protecting their image (Suspend someone for their comments). It's clear they need some confusion therapy...

 

[Vic]

When you are fired from your job, lose your house, lose your car, can not feed your family, have to go on welfare and food stamps,,,,, how free is that?

None of that is happening here.

The people at A&E have rights too. They don't have to do business with Phil if they don't want to.

By the way, have you considered looking into who owns GQ?

 

[Moonbeam]

did you follow this thread?

being Christian and following the belief that homosexual acts are a sin makes you a bigot homophobe.

that's what glaad and the gay lobby think and are forcing on American culture. That's basically what phil said, and that got him fired. Its also what all you libertards on this form think.

You can deny theres a war on Christians in this nation, but that's you just choosing to be ignorant.

There is a war on bigotry. All Christians that are bigots are targets in that war. You are a Christian bigot. Truth is at war with you. You know you are a Christian because that's what you think you are, but you are not really a Christian. Christianity is at war with bigots. So because you think you are a Christian and do not know you are a bigot, you don't know that Truth is at war with your bigotry and think it's your Christianity. To preserve what Christianity is your delusional belief in what it is will be destroyed. All that you hold sacred must die so the Sacred can be reborn. What you call Christianity is the worship of opinion. You have come half way. You know there is a good, but the good you think is the good isn't what it really is. it's bigotry.

Hard to take in, I know. It killed me to see it. All my sacred cows ripped away from my hands. And they used to be such big strong hands.

 

[Vic]

What a treat to see you posting.

Hi Moonie! Nice to see you too.

 

[Vic]

OK incorruptable v2.2

One thing about libertarians, other than the part about talking out of both side of their mouth on this issue, they sure do waste a lot of wood. Get down off the cross and back into a classroom.

Please don't confuse these religious fanatics with libertarians. I find it offensive.

 

[MrPickins]

I don't think any conversation on tolerance is complete without

Oh, I tend to agree with you. I was just pointing out that michael1980 isn't doing his argument any favors by continually insulting the people on the other side of the fence.

But, this is P&N. I suppose I shouldn't expect any kind of civility...

 

[JD50]

did you follow this thread?

being Christian and following the belief that homosexual acts are a sin makes you a bigot homophobe.

that's what glaad and the gay lobby think and are forcing on American culture. That's basically what phil said, and that got him fired. Its also what all you libertards on this form think.

You can deny theres a war on Christians in this nation, but that's you just choosing to be ignorant.

I know plenty of Christians that don't believe in the bold text. You're right, belief that homosexual acts are a sin makes you a bigot, regardless of your religion.

 

[JD50]

My stance is simple, congress is the supreme law maker. If congress can not make a law against free speech, than neither can a company make a policy.

Do you have anything to prove me wrong?

You can't be serious.

 

[Daverino]

I cite the First Amendment,

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances

Do you see that "abridging the freedom of speech" part?

Congress trumps company policy, consider it the supremacy clause.

If congress can not restrict free speech, then neither can a company.

The First Amendment protects your right to free speech from the government.
Phil Roberston said what he did and the government did fuck all about it.
First Amendment working as intended.

Texashiker, I suggest you look at what an at-will employee is. Ironically, if Phil were in a union he might not have had this problem.

 

[Texashiker]

You can't be serious.

People should be free to make political and religious comments without retaliation from government, business or individuals.

Texashiker, I suggest you look at what an at-will employee is. Ironically, if Phil were in a union he might not have had this problem.

At will huh?

So a company can fire someone for being black?

Of course not. There is this little thing called "rights."

 

[werepossum]

Cookoo for cocoa puffs

LMAO!

Good to see you back. Seems like forever.

Shit, just looked at your posting history - it HAS been forever! Hope everything is okay.

This is a very well written article on the issue. That I wish our resident liberaltards would read.
http://www.theatlantic.com/national...gnored-in-the-i-duck-dynasty-i-debate/282587/

That is an excellent article, but it misses one very important point: Just as Phil has the absolute right to express his views, so does GLAAD. Including the right to lobby to have him taken off the air, for there can be no freedom of speech only as long as it is ineffectual. In the end, A&E made a decision that they would rather offend the Christian majority than homosexuals. Assuming we aren't being played with a publicity-seeking way to let Phil off the show, I suspect that A&E is about to discover that it needs Duck Dynasty a lot more than Duck Dynasty needs A&E. However, A&E also answers to Disney, which is heavily homosexual. (Lots of creative types are homosexual; to some degree the traits seem to go hand-in-hand.) $400 million a year is a serious blow to anyone, but Disney may well need the good will of homosexuals a lot more than they need Duck Dynasty. If so, A&E may stand firm even though as a corporation they'll take a major hit. The Duck Dynasty people will be fine either way.

Again, this is all assuming we aren't being played.

When you are fired from your job, lose your house, lose your car, can not feed your family, have to go on welfare and food stamps,,,,, how free is that?

Consequences. If we insist on freedom from consequences as part of freedom of speech, then we must infringe on the rights of others. Imagine a major corporation being forced to continue employing a PR agent who just pissed off a whole continent she's nominally in charge of wooing, or Catholic Charities being forced to continue employing someone who gives interviews about how religion is a sham, or an organization with many gay employees being forced to continue employing a man giving interviews about how those gay employees are going to hell.

I don't necessarily agree that this makes a hostile workplace as there is and should be no right to not be offended or that everyone in your workplace must give at least implicit approval of your life style, but freedom of speech cannot be the only freedom we embrace.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

People should be free to make political and religious comments without retaliation from government, business or individuals.




At will huh?

So a company can fire someone for being black?

Of course not. There is this little thing called "rights."

Like Martin Bashir

 

[Daverino]

That is due to legislation passed by Congress and states, not the Constitution.

What part of the Constitution do you think prevents private employers from racially discriminating?

Errr, the 14th Amendment?

 

[Moonbeam]

Yeah, the one thing I've always thought about our culture is that Christianity has no voice in it. On what planet is that author living?

I am consistently amazed at the degree to which conservatives desperately search for ways to make themselves into victims. I'm not sure what it is about victimhood that is so attractive to you guys, but it's kind of gross.

They project their self hate onto others and think it's coming from them. We all are capable of doing this but it's typical of folk who don't do much in the way of introspection. Christians are exceptional at it because of the crucifixion. They confuse death of the ego and resurrection of the true self with misery and complaining, victimhood.

 

[Daverino]

People should be free to make political and religious comments without retaliation from government, business or individuals.




At will huh?

So a company can fire someone for being black?

Of course not. There is this little thing called "rights."

You cannot be fired for being Black.

You can be fired for making a YouTube video about 'Raping all the White women' even if you are Black.

See the difference?