• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Phil Robertson and freedom to have an opinion

Page 36 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
102,056
16,286
136
Interesting map. I live in one of those counties :)
What were the odds... so do I coincidentally.
All the counties I ahve lived in are on that map, heh.

And only one of those will you find a population of people close to half that would be into hunting. But I'm sure there are others--certainly in Texas, Northern Florida, Georgia, parts of New England.
 
Nov 25, 2013
32,101
11,715
136
I do understand the difference between thoughts and actions.
You do not realize that actions are protected as part of speech as parts of non-discrimination law.

Every sunday, I get up, go to church at the Methodist church. That is an action which is protected against discrimination by employers. My employer cannot fire me because I do not go to the Catholic church that he does, that would be discrimination.

At work...I have a friend who is a practicing homosexual. He has gay sex, and talks about it. Again... both words and actions. My employer is not allowed to fire him because of his words and actions that would be discrimination.

I see no difference between the 2 above examples of protected speech and actions, with what Phil did. firing Phil would constitute a discrimination against his free speech by his employer.

Religion - protected class - covers both public and private sectors

Sexuality - protected class- covers both public and private sectors

Speech - no protected class of people - covers all citizens (and non citizens within the country) - covers public sector as in no laws restricting, etc. - no real protection in private sector.
 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
34,465
4,202
126
Because conservatives are a beacon of tolerance:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/05/business/media/banished-for-questioning-the-gospel-of-guns.html?hp&_r=0

In late October, Mr. Metcalf wrote a column that the magazine titled “Let’s Talk Limits,” which debated gun laws. “The fact is,” wrote Mr. Metcalf, who has taught history at Cornell and Yale, “all constitutional rights are regulated, always have been, and need to be.”

The backlash was swift, and fierce. Readers threatened to cancel their subscriptions. Death threats poured in by email. His television program was pulled from the air.

Just days after the column appeared, Mr. Metcalf said, his editor called to tell him that two major gun manufacturers had said “in no uncertain terms” that they could no longer do business with InterMedia Outdoors, the company that publishes Guns & Ammo and co-produces his TV show, if he continued to work there. He was let go immediately.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
69,057
17,204
136
I have no doubt that conservatives will rush here to defend his right to have an opinion about regulating guns and condemn his employer for firing him over the issue.
 

Exophase

Diamond Member
Apr 19, 2012
4,440
8
81
If magazines want to let their biggest advertisers call the shots they'd may as well include them on the editing process so this stuff doesn't even make it to print. Just saying.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
47,261
7,031
126
That phony letter from 5 years ago about the boss who laid off the workers with Obama bumper stickers is still circulating.. no right wing outrage found there.
 

Exophase

Diamond Member
Apr 19, 2012
4,440
8
81
For what it's worth, here's the thread on the incident more immediately after it happened and before the additional attention was drawn to it by the NYTimes article:

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2352343

Mostly discussion on gun rights/control rather than the actions taken against the author. It doesn't look like anyone really found the article unreasonable, but not a lot of outrage over him being fired either. A lot of "he should have known better." At least one post justifying the firing as a reasonable business decision.

The circumstances are quite a bit different here - in this case the magazine, which internally backed the article, buckled and rescinded under overwhelming pressure from its target audience and sponsors. In the Robertson case they suspended him in spite of his target audience largely being in support of his views or at least his right to say them, and took back the suspension because of this. Although they too were at least pressured by some external organization there executive who decided on the suspension probably did want it.
 

monovillage

Diamond Member
Jul 3, 2008
8,445
0
0
For what it's worth, here's the thread on the incident more immediately after it happened and before the additional attention was drawn to it by the NYTimes article:

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2352343

Mostly discussion on gun rights/control rather than the actions taken against the author. It doesn't look like anyone really found the article unreasonable, but not a lot of outrage over him being fired either. A lot of "he should have known better." At least one post justifying the firing as a reasonable business decision.

The circumstances are quite a bit different here - in this case the magazine, which internally backed the article, buckled and rescinded under overwhelming pressure from its target audience and sponsors. In the Robertson case they suspended him in spite of his target audience largely being in support of his views or at least his right to say them, and took back the suspension because of this. Although they too were at least pressured by some external organization there executive who decided on the suspension probably did want it.
We have a Bingo.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
69,057
17,204
136
For what it's worth, here's the thread on the incident more immediately after it happened and before the additional attention was drawn to it by the NYTimes article:

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2352343

Mostly discussion on gun rights/control rather than the actions taken against the author. It doesn't look like anyone really found the article unreasonable, but not a lot of outrage over him being fired either. A lot of "he should have known better." At least one post justifying the firing as a reasonable business decision.

The circumstances are quite a bit different here - in this case the magazine, which internally backed the article, buckled and rescinded under overwhelming pressure from its target audience and sponsors. In the Robertson case they suspended him in spite of his target audience largely being in support of his views or at least his right to say them, and took back the suspension because of this. Although they too were at least pressured by some external organization there executive who decided on the suspension probably did want it.
The argument of this thread was not on whether or not it was a smart business decision to fire 'ol Phil, it was that his rights to express himself were under attack. That's exactly the same thing with this guy in the gun magazine.

I for one think that both businesses have the right to fire people who make public statements that they believe harm their brand. I'm just waiting for the same conservatives who worried about Phil's free speech rights to come out and defend this writer against the mean old gun magazines.

I feel like I'll be waiting for a very long time.
 

shadow9d9

Diamond Member
Jul 6, 2004
8,133
1
0
The real irony is that if a 15 year old girl gets pregnant you will have a bunch of liberal feminists worshiping whatever choice she wants to make.

If you are old enough to CHOOSE to be a parent how are you not also old enough to get married?:confused:
1. That isn't irony. Don't use words you don't understand.

2. That has nothing to do with your fantasy of "liberals."

3. The one who is pregnant should be the one decided what they want to do. Should someone else decide what they should do with their own body and the cluster of cells inside?
 

Exophase

Diamond Member
Apr 19, 2012
4,440
8
81
I feel like I'll be waiting for a very long time.
I think so too. I was really disappointed to see not just a lot of forum posters but news personalities latch onto this as a violation of free speech. Ones who should know better.

I don't think the problem is just a matter of conservatives not wanting to call it when someone gets fired for saying something they don't like. There's this misunderstanding because he was suspended over expressing beliefs that were religiously motivated, which I guess sounded like religious discrimination when it really isn't. But no one's going to be confused by Metcalf's stance being motivated by religion.

What I'd be more inclined in hearing is the opinion on people getting fired from jobs because of their religion or lack of religion, for example this woman who was fired for being an atheist: http://www.examiner.com/article/religion-the-workplace-an-atheist-s-battle-against-discrimination-pt-1 In this case the woman had no recourse due to the size of the business, but there could have been a real case of discrimination. I don't think this is analogous to what happened with Phil at all, but I can see other people claiming otherwise.
 
Apr 27, 2012
10,086
58
86
Radical Islamists say far worse things about gay people and most idiot liberals just ignore them. Gotta love the hypocrisy.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
47,261
7,031
126
Radical Islamists say far worse things about gay people and most idiot liberals just ignore them. Gotta love the hypocrisy.
If some radical Muslim came here on ATPN and said some of the same shit you say, I guarantee you that I would not ignore them (or at least not anymore than I ignore you).
 

Exophase

Diamond Member
Apr 19, 2012
4,440
8
81
Radical Islamists say far worse things about gay people and most idiot liberals just ignore them. Gotta love the hypocrisy.
I constantly see conservatives talking about Christian values, then I come on this forum and see conservatives who are atheists. Gotta love the hypocrisy.

Or perhaps those identifying as conservatives (or you know, labeled that way by other people) don't actually all have the same viewpoints on everything and aren't individually accountable for what all of the other ones say and do...
 
Apr 27, 2012
10,086
58
86
I constantly see conservatives talking about Christian values, then I come on this forum and see conservatives who are atheists. Gotta love the hypocrisy.

Or perhaps those identifying as conservatives (or you know, labeled that way by other people) don't actually all have the same viewpoints on everything and aren't individually accountable for what all of the other ones say and do...
Except most liberals refuse to call out radical Islam and you just have to look at the media. There is a serious double standard.

Even on P&N many prefer to attack those who criticize radical Islam and pull the race card because they're idiots.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY