Phil Robertson and freedom to have an opinion

[fskimospy]

Errr, the 14th Amendment?

I mean that's probably what he thinks, but the 14th amendment of course does not apply to private employers.

 

[Texashiker]

You cannot be fired for being Black.

Why not? Employment is "at will", right?

Black male employee marries a white woman, their employers can fire them?

There is this little thing called civil rights and discrimination. AE discriminated and retaliated against Phil for his religious beliefs.

 

[werepossum]

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...

LOL
For what it's worth, my name is on my profile. When I'm being a fuckwad, I'm not hiding behind anonymity.

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.

Only to the degree that we are all bigots, and should be. Everyone SHOULD be bigoted against child buggerers, for instance. The question is whether your particular bigotry is reasonable and necessary.

For what it's worth, I consider myself a Christian (others might disagree) and I see no inherent sin in homosexuality other than that inherent in any sex outside of marriage. (Having engaged in essentially as much sex as I could manage before I was married, obviously this isn't giving me much heartburn either.) If I'm wrong, I'm sure we all offend G-d on a daily basis anyway, but He's a big boy; I think He can handle it. In any case, the Bible is freely available, as are good clergy to advise homosexuals. So I'll emphasize the love in G-d's message rather than attempting to whip others into line with His wishes - which I may or may not really understand anyway.

 

[michal1980]

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.

the pope disagrees with you. millions of Christians disagree. plenty of other religions disagree with you.

But you really know that. but are nothing buy an asshole that labels anyone that doesn't accept homosexuality as a bigot. That's ok, continue using the word until it loses all meaning.

 

[bradly1101]

LOL
I see no inherent sin in homosexuality other than that inherent in any sex outside of marriage.

Given gay marriage rights in many places, how are those two things equivalent?

 

[fskimospy]

LOL

Only to the degree that we are all bigots, and should be. Everyone SHOULD be bigoted against child buggerers, for instance. The question is whether your particular bigotry is reasonable and necessary.

Bigotry is usually defined as some sort of baseless, narrow-minded, or otherwise unsupportable dislike of a group. You would never hear someone say 'you're bigoted against people who punch you in the face' or something like that. It wouldn't make sense.

 

[Daverino]

I mean that's probably what he thinks, but the 14th amendment of course does not apply to private employers.

Well it actually does, to some extent. It is the legal justification for the Civil Rights Act of 1967 which prevents discrimination in the workplace and makes segregation and discrimination illegal in a public accommodation. So yes, it does apply to private employers.

Just not in the way that people want here.

 

[fskimospy]

Well it actually does, to some extent. It is the legal justification for the Civil Rights Act of 1967 which prevents discrimination in the workplace and makes segregation and discrimination illegal in a public accommodation. So yes, it does apply to private employers.

Just not in the way that people want here.

That's not correct. The aspects of the Civil Rights Act of 1967 that apply to private actors do not derive their authority from the 14th amendment, but from Congress' ability to regulate interstate commerce.

The 14th amendment is in no way binding on any private individual.

 

[Daverino]

Why not? Employment is "at will", right?

Black male employee marries a white woman, their employers can fire them?

There is this little thing called civil rights and discrimination. AE discriminated and retaliated against Phil for his religious beliefs.

Straw man. There is no equivalence between a black man marrying a white woman and a television star using his employment as a bully pulpit to promote views that many people find offensive.

 

[werepossum]

Given gay marriage rights in many places, how are those two things equivalent?

That is certainly an irony, that so many people who believe sex outside of marriage is a sin also try to prohibit gay marriage - therefore ensuring that gays can have only sinful sex. This is not a problem for them since they also feel that homosexuality (or sometimes, just homosexual acts) are sins in and of themselves.

It helps if you don't know any gay people. Or at least, any nice gay people. Once you know nice gay people, it's difficult to believe that G-d wants you to do bad things to them.

Bigotry is usually defined as some sort of baseless, narrow-minded, or otherwise unsupportable dislike of a group. You would never hear someone say 'you're bigoted against people who punch you in the face' or something like that. It wouldn't make sense.

Problem is, defining it like that allows you to insist that all your bigotry is good and sensible and therefore not bigotry, while others' bigotry is, well, bigotry. It's merely another way of stating that you are perfection and all deviation from your example is wrong.

Well it actually does, to some extent. It is the legal justification for the Civil Rights Act of 1967 which prevents discrimination in the workplace and makes segregation and discrimination illegal in a public accommodation. So yes, it does apply to private employers.

Just not in the way that people want here.

Good point. The Bill of Rights establishes what government may not do to us, but also to some extent what government must prevent others from doing to us. However, one could argue that although the Bill of Rights justifies certain legal protections, those actual protections (against individuals) come from the actual laws, not directly from the Constitution.

 

[fskimospy]

Problem is, defining it like that allows you to insist that all your bigotry is good and sensible and therefore not bigotry, while others' bigotry is, well, bigotry. It's merely another way of stating that you are perfection and all deviation from your example is wrong.

No, it's just the definition of the word as it is commonly used. You're trying to shoehorn this into the same tired tropes you always use. What one person considers bigotry and what another person considers bigotry may not be the same thing.

Again, if you said "I'm bigoted against people who punch me", you would get strange looks. Why? Because that is not how the word is commonly used. You would be considered totally justified in disliking those people, and therefore you would not be bigoted for doing so.

 

[Daverino]

That's not correct. The aspects of the Civil Rights Act of 1967 that apply to private actors do not derive their authority from the 14th amendment, but from Congress' ability to regulate interstate commerce.

The 14th amendment is in no way binding on any private individual.

The equal protection clause in the 14th requires all laws must act equally upon all individuals. That's the Constitutional gas in the CRA's tank.

A good read about the 14th here: http://scholars.law.unlv.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1368&context=nlj

 

[Newbian]

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

It's clear you do not understand what freedom of speech applies to if you think you can act or say stupid stuff and not have to be criticized over it.

You have every right to say it but that does not mean you should say it or other people have to put up with it if they are employing you as they have rights also and one of them is to fire you.

 

[pauldun170]

Why not? Employment is "at will", right?

Black male employee marries a white woman, their employers can fire them?

There is this little thing called civil rights and discrimination. AE discriminated and retaliated against Phil for his religious beliefs.

Assuming that Mr Duck's religion is <insert sect> Christianity.
You would have to prove that there is discrimination against <insert sect> christians at A&E.

I highly doubt that there are policies, procedures or precedent in place that would reveal systematic discrimination against Christians at A&E.

My gut instinct is that Mr Ducks actions ran afoul of policies governing reputational risk over at A&E and his personal beliefs of gays is not the issue.
The issue is making public statements as a representative of A&E that embarrass the company and threaten its bottom line.

You can walk around the office all day saying God loves you but hates gays (unless you are such a dick about it that you create a hostile work environment).
You can't go on the national stage representing an A&E property and say "I'm christian and I think Gays smell like dookie"

 

[Texashiker]

Straw man. There is no equivalence between a black man marrying a white woman and a television star using his employment as a bully pulpit to promote views that many people find offensive.

Either we have rights, or we do not have rights.

Please make up your mind.

You are trying to nit-pick that certain rights apply at certain times. You do not give up your rights depending on where you are standing, or who is giving you a pay check.

 

[Vic]

LMAO!

Good to see you back. Seems like forever.

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

Hey, everything is great. Working my butt off, had a kid (a beautiful daughter ), and just stopped posting online for a long time.

This issue interests me because I am certain we are being played. Follow the money. This is a masterful publicity stunt.

 

[JD50]

the pope disagrees with you. millions of Christians disagree. plenty of other religions disagree with you.

But you really know that. but are nothing buy an asshole that labels anyone that doesn't accept homosexuality as a bigot. That's ok, continue using the word until it loses all meaning.

Religion is no excuse for bigotry or discrimination, sorry.

 

[JD50]

No, it's just the definition of the word as it is commonly used. You're trying to shoehorn this into the same tired tropes you always use. What one person considers bigotry and what another person considers bigotry may not be the same thing.

Again, if you said "I'm bigoted against people who punch me", you would get strange looks. Why? Because that is not how the word is commonly used. You would be considered totally justified in disliking those people, and therefore you would not be bigoted for doing so.

:thumbsup:

 

[Newbian]

Religion is no excuse for bigotry or discrimination, sorry.

Sadly it's the main cause of it even this day and the sad fact is some even encourage it.

 

[Daverino]

Problem is, defining it like that allows you to insist that all your bigotry is good and sensible and therefore not bigotry, while others' bigotry is, well, bigotry. It's merely another way of stating that you are perfection and all deviation from your example is wrong.

Well that's just a problem with your definition of bigotry. It means more than just dislike. If I hate murder it does not make me an anti-murder bigot. Any more so than opposing rape makes you an anti-rape bigot or opposing bestiality makes you an anti-bestiality bigot.

There is a litmus test for bigots of whether the hatred flies in the sense of reason or not. And that also changes over time. Two hundred years ago in America, you wouldn't be a bigot for hating Blacks. 70 years ago in Germany, you wouldn't be a bigot for hating Jews. Fifty years ago in America, you wouldn't be a bigot for hating homosexuals. But times change.

The moral, societal and religious foundation for disparaging homosexuals has eroded dramatically in America over the past twenty years. The arguments that seemed common sense in the past no longer hold up to the light of day. Certainly, from a legal point of view, the Judiciary in America feels that legislation restricting the rights of homosexuals does not stand a Constitutional test. A significant fraction of Christian and Jewish denominations in America do not believe that homosexuality is sinful, so the religious argument is weaker. Sociologists cannot show that same-sex families are inferior to mixed sex families so the social argument is weaker. And the fact that states that have allowed gay rights have not succumbed to sodomy-filled dystopias shows that perhaps the private lives of others will not dismantle the institutions of America.

 

[werepossum]

Hey, everything is great. Working my butt off, had a kid (a beautiful daughter ), and just stopped posting online for a long time.

This issue interests me because I am certain we are being played. Follow the money. This is a masterful publicity stunt.

Congrats - and I'm beginning to suspect you are correct.

 

[Vic]

Believing homosexuality is a sin doesn't make one a bigot. Christians believe that many things are sins. Greed, unkindness, working on the Sabbath. Christians also believe that all sins are equal because all sins lead to the ultimate sin, which is a lack of faith.
So the question is: why are so many Christians so focused on this one sin?

 

[Daverino]

Either we have rights, or we do not have rights.

We have the rights I stated.

We don't have the rights I didn't state.

Why you think the right to have speak your mind without fear of arrest gives you freedom from all consequences of your speech is beyond my comprehension. It's like saying the right to own a gun (2nd amendment) gives you the right to shoot people.

 

[fskimospy]

The equal protection clause in the 14th requires all laws must act equally upon all individuals. That's the Constitutional gas in the CRA's tank.

A good read about the 14th here: http://scholars.law.unlv.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1368&context=nlj

Yes, it does. The CRA has two main parts to it however, the parts that act upon the state and local governments and the parts that act on private business. The segments that act on state and local government draw their authority from the 14th amendment as they are required to provide equal application of all laws.

Title II is the specific part of the CRA that prohibits private business from discriminating on race, etc.

http://users.wfu.edu/zulick/341/civilrightsact1964.html

If you read the text of Title II Sec 201 (c), you will notice specifically that in terms of application it explicitly references businesses engaged in interstate commerce. This is because the interstate commerce clause is the source of authority for these regulations.

EDIT: SCOTUS case discussing title II and its basis in the commerce clause, not the 14th amendment:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katzenbach_v._McClung

I am unaware of any ruling by any court that has ever applied the 14th amendment to any private entity whatsoever.

 

[pauldun170]

Either we have rights, or we do not have rights.

Please make up your mind.

You are trying to nit-pick that certain rights apply at certain times. You do not give up your rights depending on where you are standing, or who is giving you a pay check.

Mr Duck exercised his rights and has not had any rights or entitlements trampled in the process.
You have the right to embarrass your employer.
You are not entitled to a paycheck from that employer after you embarrass them.

I for one fully support Mr Ducks right to say what he said.
I also support the right of an employer to fire employees who cause the company headaches.