• 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 35 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Fern said:
Ahh, so I missed the code word. 'Family values" has to mean only opposition to gay marriage?

BTW: If you think that rural Southerners don't know that most people in big cities, particularly in the NE and CA, are very liberal and much different from them it's you who would be terribly shocked.

Fern
Click to expand...

I wasn't saying anything about gay marriage.

I was saying that rural southerners think that anything that isn't the rural south isn't America.
 
What the hell are "family values" anyways?

For the record, the divorce rate and teen pregnancy rates are HIGHER in conservative states. So they can take their "family values" and stick them. Hypocritical assholes who have nothing better to do than pick on minorities/gays/young girls.

Ted Nugent, the pedophile draft dodger, IS emblematic of the demographic that watches this shit.


Yet, paradoxically, as sociologist Brad Wilcox reports, evangelical Protestant teens have sex at slightly earlier ages on average than their nonevangelical peers (respectively, 16.38 years old versus 16.52 years old), evangelical Protestant couples are also slightly more likely to divorce than nonevangelical couples, and evangelical mothers are actually more likely to work full time outside the home than their nonevangelical peers.
Click to expand...

Ask most people about the differences between families who live in “red” (conservative) states and “blue” (liberal) states, and you’ll hear a common refrain: Massachusetts and California are hotbeds of divorce and teen pregnancy, while Nebraska and Texas are havens of virtue and stability. The reality is quite different.
Click to expand...



http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary...se-in-conservative-states-than-liberal-states
 
bshole said:
What the hell are "family values" anyways?

For the record, the divorce rate and teen pregnancy rates are HIGHER in conservative states. So they can take their "family values" and stick them. Hypocritical assholes who have nothing better to do than pick on minorities/gays/young girls.

Ted Nugent, the pedophile draft dodger, IS emblematic of the demographic that watches this shit.

http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary...se-in-conservative-states-than-liberal-states
Click to expand...

I'm guessing it's when you don't get caught beating your wife or fucking your daughter or blowing some random dude in a bathroom stall in an airport. Maybe it's the precious time in between those events. :biggrin:
 
Last edited:
He absolutely has a right to say what he wants however...

A&E is not the government and Duck Dynasty can take their show where ever they want.


Jesus-Colbert-Homosexuality.png


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KW343K1-upo

3 mins. 03 secs. in

These mutherfuckers are fake as shit. These guys make their living pretending to be rough-around-the edges-backwoods... When the actually reality is that they're nothing more than rich yuppies.

-snip-

....Yuppie as shit before he goes on TV. After TV all of a sudden he's a bearded Redneck
Click to expand...
but people don't care. In general Americans like being fooled.

This is generally true of liberals conservatives teabaggers teapartiers progessives and libertarians alike.


duck-dynasty-osama.jpg


images



Looks like it was an A&E-Duck Dynasty fake controversy marketing scheme to get more attention anyways.



=====
 
Texashiker said:
People should be free to make political and religious comments without retaliation from government, business or individuals.
Click to expand...

Wait, so you walk into a a McDonald's and the employee says to you "Hello, sir. What would you like to order, you gun-totin' Rush-Limbaugh lovin' i love you-hating Conservative who possibly belongs to that cult of kiddie-molesting priests?"

Also, the employing is wearing a large button depicting Jesus performing oral sex on Satan with a swastika tattoo, while getting plugged from behind by Michael Moore in full drag.

You're telling me your opinion is that neither you nor that employee's manager should be able to complain or fire/discipline him for expressing his religious/political beliefs? You're just going to smile and possibly high-five him for freely exercising his Constitutional rights and order your filet-o-fish? All because "People should be free to make political and religious comments without retaliation from government, business or individuals?"

:colbert:

Something tells me you haven't put a lot of thought into this statement..
 
cKGunslinger said:
Wait, so you walk into a a McDonald's and the employee says to you "Hello, sir. What would you like to order, you gun-totin' Rush-Limbaugh lovin' i love you-hating Conservative who possibly belongs to that cult of kiddie-molesting priests?"

Also, the employing is wearing a large button depicting Jesus performing oral sex on Satan with a swastika tattoo, while getting plugged from behind by Michael Moore in full drag.

You're telling me your opinion is that neither you nor that employee's manager should be able to complain or fire/discipline him for expressing his religious/political beliefs? You're just going to smile and possibly high-five him for freely exercising his Constitutional rights and order your filet-o-fish? All because "People should be free to make political and religious comments without retaliation from government, business or individuals?"

:colbert:

Something tells me you haven't put a lot of thought into this statement..
Click to expand...

But he puts a tremendous amount of thought into avoiding it.
 
cKGunslinger said:
Wait, so you walk into a a McDonald's and the employee says to you "Hello, sir. What would you like to order, you gun-totin' Rush-Limbaugh lovin' i love you-hating Conservative who possibly belongs to that cult of kiddie-molesting priests?"

Also, the employing is wearing a large button depicting Jesus performing oral sex on Satan with a swastika tattoo, while getting plugged from behind by Michael Moore in full drag.

You're telling me your opinion is that neither you nor that employee's manager should be able to complain or fire/discipline him for expressing his religious/political beliefs? You're just going to smile and possibly high-five him for freely exercising his Constitutional rights and order your filet-o-fish? All because "People should be free to make political and religious comments without retaliation from government, business or individuals?"

:colbert:

Something tells me you haven't put a lot of thought into this statement..
Click to expand...

Free speech doesn't apply for a private business. Most normal businesses wouldn't allow it and private business can discriminate and say no.
 
Incorruptible said:
Free speech doesn't apply for a private business. Most normal businesses wouldn't allow it and private business can discriminate and say no.
Click to expand...

I refuse to accept a world ruled by businesses, which can then act as the thought police, despite legal freedom from the government acting as the same.

What the man said was outside of his place and time of employment, and does not involve his employment what-so-ever.

I liken this situation to the same as teachers being fired for having previous nude photography of them, or even being a stripper on the weekend.

using terms of employment to limit free speech or thought, (provided it does not occur at the place of, or during the [on the clock] time of said employment) should be untouchable by an employer.
Basically it is legal extortion by the employer, and its bullshit.
 
sao123 said:
I refuse to accept a world ruled by businesses, which can then act as the thought police, despite legal freedom from the government acting as the same.

What the man said was outside of his place and time of employment, and does not involve his employment what-so-ever.

I liken this situation to the same as teachers being fired for having previous nude photography of them, or even being a stripper on the weekend.

using terms of employment to limit free speech or thought, (provided it does not occur at the place of, or during the [on the clock] time of said employment) should be untouchable by an employer.
Basically it is legal extortion by the employer, and its bullshit.
Click to expand...


Look, you don't seem to be understanding the basic ideas here.

People like 'ol Phil can say pretty much whatever they want to, whenever they want to, and wherever they want to. They also have to accept the fact that there might be consequences to what they say.

No one is saying that he can't say his words. What they are saying is that If his employer feels, for whatever reason, his words reflect badly on them then they have the right to sever their contractual relationship with him. He is then free to continue saying whatever he wants to.

So, where/how is his speech being limited? Certainly not happening in any constitutional sense.
 
Incorruptible said:
You might want to check my other posts and you will see more of the same. Just because I support freedom doesn't mean my arguments are weak.
Click to expand...

That's the main problem, you seldom even attempt to make an augment.

Most of what you post is little more than the same statements made over and over and over and over and over again. And most of those statements are little more than hyperbole and the parroting of some of the more extremist, right wing propaganda that's floating around.

Most of the time you come off as simply trolling. Now if that's all you want, hey, go for it. If you want something more, then work for it.
 
Victorian Gray said:
Look, you don't seem to be understanding the basic ideas here.

People like 'ol Phil can say pretty much whatever they want to, whenever they want to, and wherever they want to. They also have to accept the fact that there might be consequences to what they say.

No one is saying that he can't say his words. What they are saying is that If his employer feels, for whatever reason, his words reflect badly on them then they have the right to sever their contractual relationship with him. He is then free to continue saying whatever he wants to.

So, where/how is his speech being limited? Certainly not happening in any constitutional sense.
Click to expand...


Where did I say in the constitutional sense? I said Employers should not be able to stop speech any more than the government.


would you be in favor of Employers firing you because they find out you are muslim? No... employers cannot discriminate based on freedom of religion.

Would you be in favor of Ford Corporation firing an employee because they drove a Chevrolet car?

I'm saying... All Personal speech, opinions, and preferences should have that same protection.


This interview for a magazine, was not part of any business with A & E. Was not done on corporate time, was not corporate sponsored advertisement.
This was done on his own time. This was an interview of a magazine writer and Phil Robertson. He did not mention A&E in any negative way.
A & E have no business being involved In what Phil Robertson does on his own time, in a place not of his employment, this does not concern A&E in any way.
 
Last edited:
sao123 said:
Where did I say in the constitutional sense? I said Employers should not be able to stop speech any more than the government.


would you be in favor of Employers firing you because they find out you are muslim? No... employers cannot discriminate based on freedom of religion.

Would you be in favor of Ford Corporation firing an employee because they drove a Chevrolet car?

I'm saying... All Personal speech, opinions, and preferences should have that same protection.


This interview for a magazine, was not part of any business with A & E. Was not done on corporate time, was not corporate sponsored advertisement.
This was done on his own time. This was an interview of a magazine writer and Phil Robertson. He did not mention A&E in any negative way.
A & E have no business being involved In what Phil Robertson does on his own time, in a place not of his employment, this does not concern A&E in any way.
Click to expand...

You don't understand the difference between belief and words.

One is, in essence, a thought process while the other is an action.

A person should never be punished for their thoughts no matter how abhorrent those thoughts might be. Actions, on the other hand, are intended to, and do, have consequences.

The idea of free speech also encompasses the concept that, while an individual or group should be able to say what they wish, it doesn't mean that others are forced to listen to those words or that they can not disassociate themselves from what has been spoken by others.

Phil was *never* prevented from speaking by anyone and is not now prevented from speaking.
 
Victorian Gray said:
You don't understand the difference between belief and words.

One is, in essence, a thought process while the other is an action.

A person should never be punished for their thoughts no matter how abhorrent those thoughts might be. Actions, on the other hand, are intended to, and do, have consequences.

The idea of free speech also encompasses the concept that, while an individual or group should be able to say what they wish, it doesn't mean that others are forced to listen to those words or that they can not disassociate themselves from what has been spoken by others.

Phil was *never* prevented from speaking by anyone and is not now prevented from speaking.
Click to expand...

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.
 
sao123 said:
Lets see...

A & E sends Phil a Paycheck in return for him appearing as an actor in their show.

sounds like an employee to me.
Click to expand...

And you know this because you've seen his paychecks?

No really. . Phil's contract is with Gurney Productions, which is who actually makes Duck Dynasty. A&E is the distributor. In other words, A&E is his client, not his employer.
 
Vic said:
And you know this because you've seen his paychecks?

No really. . Phil's contract is with Gurney Productions, which is who actually makes Duck Dynasty. A&E is the distributor. In other words, A&E is his client, not his employer.
Click to expand...
This is very, very common. And all such contracts include conduct clauses allowing the distributor to break the contract should the production company or talent does something the distributor finds injurious.
 
werepossum said:
This is very, very common. And all such contracts include conduct clauses allowing the distributor to break the contract should the production company or talent does something the distributor finds injurious.
Click to expand...

Media conduct clauses are standard in contracts with all major corporations these days. If an employee, contractor, or vendor communicates to the media (including social) in a manner that the company finds damaging, then the relationship can be terminated immediately and with cause. Corporations have become extremely sensitive to any brand reputation issues.

In this case, what A&E most likely did was contact the production company and inform them that they would not be purchasing any further shows with Phil in them until the media issue was resolved.
 
sao123 said:
There is even case law in several states including Michigan, in which Employers cannot violate the free speech of its employees.

http://www.michbar.org/journal/pdf/pdf4article874.pdf

http://aclj.org/workplace-rights/religious-expression-workplace


ADLER v. BOARD OF EDUCATION
concludes that: employment cannot be conditioned on a surrender of constitutional rights.
Click to expand...

Neither is applicable as they about "public" employees, hence, 1st amendment applies.

Phil was working under a 'private' contract. The cases are in no way comparable.
 
sao123 said:
Where did I say in the constitutional sense? I said Employers should not be able to stop speech any more than the government.


would you be in favor of Employers firing you because they find out you are muslim? No... employers cannot discriminate based on freedom of religion.

Would you be in favor of Ford Corporation firing an employee because they drove a Chevrolet car?

I'm saying... All Personal speech, opinions, and preferences should have that same protection.


This interview for a magazine, was not part of any business with A & E. Was not done on corporate time, was not corporate sponsored advertisement.
This was done on his own time. This was an interview of a magazine writer and Phil Robertson. He did not mention A&E in any negative way.
A & E have no business being involved In what Phil Robertson does on his own time, in a place not of his employment, this does not concern A&E in any way.
Click to expand...

Your first example deals with religious discrimination, different issue although same ammendment.

Second example, it would suck but if the company wished to put in such an employment policy I fail to see how it would be illegal in anyway.

A&E have every right in this case to sever their business ties with someone whose public speech they do not wish to be associated with.

I repeat, nobody has tried to prevent Phil from expressing his opinions to anyone he wishes to. He can say pretty much whatever he wants to say to anyone he wants to say it to and whenever he wants to say it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top