• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Phil Robertson and freedom to have an opinion

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
eskimospy said:
The reason you wouldn't care to review it is because the actual law is quite clear and proves you wrong. For whatever reason you've got some sort of mental disorder where you can't admit fault no matter how obvious it is, so you avoid contrary information at all costs.

For those that actually understand the law, this situation is pretty incredibly simple.
Click to expand...

If you are disagreeing with me then what you are saying is that the law contradicts itself.

Talking about the bible and what constitutes sin and who gets into heaven is clearly CLOSELY ASSOCIATED WITH CHRISTIANITY. If he was suspended for that then he was clearly suspended for his religion, a protected class.

If, however he was suspended for saying butt-sex is icky, I would agree that has nothing to do with religion. However to say that is some kind of vile anti-gay slur is ridiculous. So in that case you are really saying he was suspended because liberals are completely intolerant of any dissenting opinion of "homosexuality being the most wonderful thing ever".
 
eskimospy said:
No, that's just fact. The legal protections of an activity and personal decisions to condemn an activity are not the same thing.

I do find it hilarious that conservatives, who have been furiously attempting to oppress gays for centuries now, are now complaining that their inability to continue to oppress gays is actually a sign that THEY are being oppressed.

It's simultaneously fascinating, pathetic, and hilarious.
Click to expand...

How is saying butt-sex is icky "oppressing gays"?

How is saying the bible says homosexuality a sin "oppressing gays".
 
Daverino said:
And you're assuming that Phil Robertson's contract didn't also have something about "Don't go out in public and offend a bunch of people because we make all our money on advertising?"
Click to expand...

No but thanks for trying to put words in my mouth.

Do you honestly think that suspending Phil but continuing to broadcast the show will actually punish him?
 
nehalem256 said:
If you are disagreeing with me then what you are saying is that the law contradicts itself.

Talking about the bible and what constitutes sin and who gets into heaven is clearly CLOSELY ASSOCIATED WITH CHRISTIANITY. If he was suspended for that then he was clearly suspended for his religion, a protected class.

If, however he was suspended for saying butt-sex is icky, I would agree that has nothing to do with religion. However to say that is some kind of vile anti-gay slur is ridiculous. So in that case you are really saying he was suspended because liberals are completely intolerant of any dissenting opinion of "homosexuality being the most wonderful thing ever".
Click to expand...

The law isn't contradictory. Again, he is free to pursue the argument that he was suspended for his religious beliefs. He will lose.

Outside of that, A&E can suspend or fire him for one of countless reasons. It doesn't matter.
 
eskimospy said:
Are you serious? They are so incredibly far from the same thing that it is ridiculous.
Click to expand...

I didn't say they were the same, eskimopsy, but they have similar elements that I pointed to.

There are all sorts of positions in America that if you made extreme anti-Christian remarks that you would be fired. There are countless sources in America where you can read anti-gay remarks on a daily basis. This argument is shit.
Click to expand...

We're talking about a single situation where a group called for a guy to be disciplined because of his remarks. An outside group can tell an employer what to do with their employee...depending on what they say.

That's shameful.


You should be ashamed of yourself for apologizing for bigotry and trying to force businesses to continue to publicize an individual of this sort, all under the guise that Christians are the truly persecuted group as opposed to the group that they have spent the last few centuries persecuting.

Disgusting and shameful.
Click to expand...

In my opinion, his remarks were tasteless -- I'm defending the right to be offensive without the fear of reprisal. I've read on sites covering this that his remarks were "offensive". They don't want to be offended, plain and simple.

Grow some thick skin.


Of course I am! I mean what kind of person isn't? When religions engage in reprehensible behavior I'm all for them being criticized, and harshly. Just being a religion doesn't give you a pass on encouraging horrible things.
Click to expand...

Don't know how you got that from my post, unless you think disagreeing with gay marriage is "encouraging a horrible thing".

Secondly, we're not talking about any previous situation with religion and gays, etc..we're talking about this issue.
 
eskimospy said:
The law isn't contradictory. Again, he is free to pursue the argument that he was suspended for his religious beliefs. He will lose.

Outside of that, A&E can suspend or fire him for one of countless reasons. It doesn't matter.
Click to expand...

So do you think he was fired for his statements on

(1) Homosexuality being a sin

(2) butt-sex being icky.

Please be clear.
 
nehalem256 said:
So do you think he was fired for his statements on

(1) Homosexuality being a sin

(2) butt-sex being icky.

Please be clear.
Click to expand...

I have no idea what specific reason he was fired for. I do know that it is extraordinarily unlikely that he will be able to show it was because of his religious beliefs however.
 
Texashiker said:
How is disagreeing with something being a bigot?
Click to expand...

If I posit that blacks are human beings and you 'disagree' and say they are sub-human, you would be a bigot. The disagreement in opinion does not define bigotry, the opinion and the reaction does.
 
eskimospy said:
I have no idea what specific reason he was fired for. I do know that it is extraordinarily unlikely that he will be able to show it was because of his religious beliefs however.
Click to expand...

So guy says homosexuality is a sin(clearly a religious belief). GLAAD throws a fit. Guy gets fired.

How is that not because of his religious belief?
 
Gonad the Barbarian said:
I guess you're right. Simply disagreeing with where Rosa Parks chose to sit that time totally wouldn't make anyone a bigot. It's surely just an innocent difference of opinion.
Click to expand...

Thank you, but it is not about being right or wrong.

I do not debate in these threads to win. Its more for the exchange of ideas rather than winning or losing.


Daverino said:
If I posit that blacks are human beings and you 'disagree' and say they are sub-human, you would be a bigot. The disagreement in opinion does not define bigotry, the opinion and the reaction does.
Click to expand...

We are not talking about civil rights or classifying a certain group as being inferior.
 
Meh. Slow news cycle bullshit. If you have a job being prominently featured on a media outlet then you're subject to being fired for making any statement publicly that offends any portion of that media outlet's audience. Fact of life. End of story. Not really anything new except people love a good side show. (And this network and stupid show now look forward to even higher ratings than ever as this is nothing but pure publicity.)
 
nehalem256 said:
Well except the whole deal with religion being a protected class. Saying homosexuality is a sin is closely associated with Christinaity and therefore no different than firing a homosexual for getting gay married.

You story of the religious school doing it is irrelevant as religious institutions get to play by different rules.
Click to expand...

Nope, wrong on two accounts.

First, the idea of homosexuality as a sin is not closely associated with Christianity as a whole. Some Christians believe it, but many do not. I go to church every week and my pastor is a gay married man.

Second, you cannot be terminated based on your race, gender, religion or a number of any other categories. Phil Robertson is not being punished because he is a Christian. He's being punished because he said thing publicly that were probably against his contract. There are many ways that an at-will employee can exercise their right to free speech and get terminated as a result.
 
Zaap said:
Meh. Slow news cycle bullshit. If you have a job being prominently featured on a media outlet then you're subject to being fired for making any statement publicly that offends any portion of that media outlet's audience. Fact of life. End of story. Not really anything new except people love a good side show. (And this network and stupid show now look forward to even higher ratings than ever as this is nothing but pure publicity.)
Click to expand...

This. So what he was fired from A&E for speaking his mind about homosexuality, they have that right. There will likely be plenty of other folks to pay him who won't care if he speaks about it, or will even encourage him to. Westboro Baptist Church could put the guy on payroll for example.
 
Phil Robertson will laugh his ass off as he reads the quarterly profit margins as I suspect this will result in higher merchandise sales for the show and Duck Commander as those who oppose his views are not customers of either and supporters will show their support through purchases.
 
Londo_Jowo said:
Phil Robertson will laugh his ass off as he reads the quarterly profit margins as I suspect this will result in higher merchandise sales for the show and Duck Commander as those who oppose his views are not customers of either and supporters will show their support through purchases.
Click to expand...

So then everyone's happy? People who don't want to deal with TV networks housing stupid bigots don't have to, and Phil Robertson/the stupid bigots of America can have a Chick-fil-a moment and all slap each other on the back.
 
Texashiker said:
We are not talking about civil rights or classifying a certain group as being inferior.
Click to expand...

It was an example. The point is that bigotry is more than just a difference of opinion. The nature of the opinion and how you react to someone that disagrees with it defines bigotry. Bigotry is always directed towards a person. The opinion of a bigot is always "I violently hate people of type X without reservation."

Generally the opinion related to bigotry is about something intrinsic to a person: race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, etc. Religion is someone of an odd man because people can choose or change it, so that's why I say 'generally.' Sexual orientation is considered controversial because there still exists a significant minority that believe it is not an intrinsic trait. A favorite flavor of ice cream likely wouldn't cut it. While I suppose there could be someone out there who violently hates me because I like chocolate ice cream, there's nothing intrinsic about me liking chocolate. You could call that person irrational, but probably not a bigot.

So for alcoholism, to be bigoted against alcoholics, you would need to universally hate ALL alcoholics and we'd have to assume that being an alcoholic is congenital. I don't think either is true here. You hate your uncle because he's an alcoholic. But you do not hate all alcoholics as much as you hate your uncle.
 
Daverino said:
Nope, wrong on two accounts.

First, the idea of homosexuality as a sin is not closely associated with Christianity as a whole. Some Christians believe it, but many do not. I go to church every week and my pastor is a gay married man.

Second, you cannot be terminated based on your race, gender, religion or a number of any other categories. Phil Robertson is not being punished because he is a Christian. He's being punished because he said thing publicly that were probably against his contract. There are many ways that an at-will employee can exercise their right to free speech and get terminated as a result.
Click to expand...


except what he said is directly linked to his religion. he is being directly punished because of his religious views.

Or should he just go hide in the closest with his beliefs for fear of getting fired for them?
 
I would like to see a reconcilliation episode where this guy has gay sex for a week to see if his condemnation of the lifestyle was justified. Perhaps a week of heavy sodomy would change his perspective.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top