[nky]

Yup New tablet for Christmas still getting used to it

[TheRealThing]

Yup New tablet for Christmas still getting used to it

I tried to be careful how I worded that. I wasn't correcting you, I just had not seen that. :biggrin:

[RunItUpTheGut]

NKY grammar nicker:

[Granny Bear]

Gut is quite polished when it comes to grammar!!

nicker:

[walterwhite]

A and E couldn't stand the heat and had to get out of the kitchen!

[Quickkickonthird]

I didnt read all of the posts so this may have already been discussed. Someone recently said that it seems like the same people that are yelling the loudest about Phil's free speech right being protected are the same people that were complaining a few years ago about the Dixie Chicks speaking their minds about President Bush. They didnt seem to care about the 1rst amendment then. While I agree that Phil shouldnt be removed for what he said in answering a direct question and I also didnt like what the Dixie Chicks said about the President, especially saying it in another country but I thought the comparison was interesting. Which of the founding fathers said "I may disagree with what you are saying but I'll defend with my life your right to say it." Constitutional rights dont apply simply when we agree with them. Anyway, Im glad Phil is back. I dont think he intended to offend anyone.

[Quickkickonthird]

In this case, it is not freedom of speech. Though I would agree that our inalienable right is freedom of expression, but your inalienable rights ARE superseded by your employer! We all have a right to express our beliefs, but your employer has the RIGHT to establish their own declarations in which trumps your right to WORK! In this case, Phil broke the rules. All of us who work our bound by the restrictions given to us in our employment agreement, and should we decide to step beyond those boundaries, we should not try to use the Constitution or the Bible to correct the knowing rules that we agreed to when accepting employment!

I share Phil's moral position, but I absolutely under zero circumstances will express those beliefs in an environment that breaks my contract to my employer! Phil can afford to say "SCREW A&E", but for all here who are jumping on Phil's bandwagon, tell us all how it goes when you go to your place of employment and express those same beliefs and you sacrifice your families well being because of it! There are a lot of you, I hope that you get a new job and can take care of your families pretty quickly.......

A&E has a right to create their rules of employment and whomever signs that contract knows what they are signing! Phil was correctly punished because he purposely neglected his employers concerns. This is not to say that A&E does not support Phil's stance, but that is not right for business. I applaud A&E for being consistent in their rules for employment! Nobody on this site bitched or threatened boycott of A&E when they canned Dog the Bounty Hunter for his racial slurs, which were a violation of the contract for employment, but now everyone has an issue with A&E over this??????

I respectfully disagree with you in this case. How can they hold Phil to task for expressing his REAL opinion when he works on a REALITY show. He wasnt hired as an actor, payed to repeat dialogue written for him. As I understand it, the Robertsons are simply followed by cameras, recording what they do and SAY, in their daily lives. Your view may be correct and I am certainly open to hearing further debate on the subject, but I dont think the employer placing a gag on what reality people can say arguement holds water.

[nky]

1st Amendment doesn't apply in this case. His contract with A&E does. This is contract law nor constitutional law case

[Aiden]

I read Stardust's last reply.

To be clear about this: A&E is their own business and should have their own views towards politics, religion, etc. At the same time, Phil Robertson has his own views as well. If Phil is ever hired on a Christian tv network and publicly endorses satanism, the network should fire him.

I think the reason why this has become a big issue is because A&E doesn't make the claim of being a liberal network. A&E fired Phil for a short time because it's widely accepted in America that if someone criticizes homosexuality, they're full of hate. A&E didn't want to be called "hate-filled" for standing against the belief of homosexuality.

In conclusion, neither Phil nor A&E did anything wrong. The real problem is that the American people aren't open to other people's opinions. It was the American people who had their hand on the trigger. If A&E never suspended Phil, the homosexual community would complain. If Phil stayed suspended, Christians would complain.

There is only one truth, and we should NEVER force our beliefs on other people. When convincing other people, use "gentle persuasion."

[nky]

A&E has the right to hire and fire anyone who doesn't fit their brand. If the Duck guys don't like it they didn't need to sign a contract. Again this has nothing to do with 1st Amendment. Your boss can displine you for the words you speak if they make the company look bad

[SKINNYPIG]

A&E has shown their true colors. They backed off for the mighty dollar.

Phill is still Phill. It's a win-win.

With all the intrusions of government and all the lies media pipes into the heads of Americans, I cannot believe this story ever became a story. Americans (as a whole) are stupid. Most of us will stand by while the government taxes us into oblivion and never say a word about it. Amazing!

[TheRealThing]

A&E has shown their true colors. They backed off for the mighty dollar.

Phill is still Phill. It's a win-win.

With all the intrusions of government and all the lies media pipes into the heads of Americans, I cannot believe this story ever became a story. Americans (as a whole) are stupid. Most of us will stand by while the government taxes us into oblivion and never say a word about it. Amazing!

You're right, most of us will stand by and keep our mouths shut. That's not the part that bothers me. It's what happens in the voting booth. All we need for sanity to rule is for a majority of folks to vote against those who want to give away the store. This responsible and decent act doesn't require courage or sacrifice, only love of country. Nobody has to know a thing about who one votes for. The Dems were more than a little big eyed immediately after the mid terms of 2010. They are back up on the fence crowing lately but, if they get swept again in 2014 the affect will be long lasting.

Winning electoral vote strategies are with the Dems right now. State elections for House and Senate seats are still wide open and are the conservative's best hope for the present. :biggrin:

[Quickkickonthird]

1st Amendment doesn't apply in this case. His contract with A&E does. This is contract law nor constitutional law case

I may not be understanding you correctly. Is it your contention that because you are employed by, in this case, a television network, then they have the right to censor any statements that you make even though the statements have no bearing on the content of the show? Would the same be true if Phil had made anti-abortion statements? Or animal rights statements? Or publicly backing a political candidate? If the Robertsons had signed a contract that contained these and other provisions, then A&E would have been 100% correct but I find it hard to believe that such a contract was in place. We are constantly bombarded with political statements by television and movie personalities. I think a simple statement that the views expressed by Phil Robertson were his own and were neither supported nor condemed by A&E. I do, however, understand your arguement that you make very well. I just respectfully disagree.

[Quickkickonthird]

A&E has the right to hire and fire anyone who doesn't fit their brand. If the Duck guys don't like it they didn't need to sign a contract. Again this has nothing to do with 1st Amendment. Your boss can displine you for the words you speak if they make the company look bad

I agree that A&E has the right to hire and fire as they see fit if a contract was violated. I simply find it hard to believe that there was a conract such as this in place between Mr. Robertson and A&E. Would A&E expect Phil to answer any question that bordered on a political view by saying "Im sorry but A&E does not allow me to express any of my personal opinions for fear that someone might be offended?" Im sorry but I respectfully disagree and I do think that this is a 1rst Amendment issue. Now, you did add the caveat that you could be disciplined by the company if you say things that make them look bad and I agree with that statement. I simply dont think Phil's views apply in this situation.

[Quickkickonthird]

A&E has shown their true colors. They backed off for the mighty dollar.

Phill is still Phill. It's a win-win.

With all the intrusions of government and all the lies media pipes into the heads of Americans, I cannot believe this story ever became a story. Americans (as a whole) are stupid. Most of us will stand by while the government taxes us into oblivion and never say a word about it. Amazing!

I agree with you Skinny. This story should never have even been a story. Thats the thing that amazed me most about the entire situation. With so many REAL stories in the news, the fact that this one received air time was, to me, silly.

[nky]

I agree that A&E has the right to hire and fire as they see fit if a contract was violated. I simply find it hard to believe that there was a conract such as this in place between Mr. Robertson and A&E. Would A&E expect Phil to answer any question that bordered on a political view by saying "Im sorry but A&E does not allow me to express any of my personal opinions for fear that someone might be offended?" Im sorry but I respectfully disagree and I do think that this is a 1rst Amendment issue. Now, you did add the caveat that you could be disciplined by the company if you say things that make them look bad and I agree with that statement. I simply dont think Phil's views apply in this situation.

morals clauses- if talents speaks or acts in a way that insults or denigrates people, the producer reserves the right to suspend or terminate that talent. This would be at the discretion of the producers.

[Ballers]

He said gay, well I think the show is gay so... We're all even.

[Quickkickonthird]

morals clauses- if talents speaks or acts in a way that insults or denigrates people, the producer reserves the right to suspend or terminate that talent. This would be at the discretion of the producers.

Since Im by no stretch very knowledgable about contract law, I will defer to your stand on this situation. I didnt realize that tv personalities were under such stringent "gag" contracts. I also agree with one of the other posters(mabey even you) that Phil was set up by a "loaded" question. There really wasnt a good way to answer that question if his comments were bound contractually other than to say I have no comment.