'Duck Dynasty's' Phil Robertson suspended for comments about gays

LoAmmi said:

Please point me to the exact moment in time, in this country, where if you made public statements your employer disagreed with you could not be fired.

Click to expand...

There wasn't, but I'm guessing that most people viewed that sort of thing pretty negatively and corporations didn't want to get people ticked off at them.

There was you know a time when people believed in other people's right to say stuff they disagreed with and typically defended that right.

Now it's just "We disagree and are angry. . . FIRE HIM"

And it won't be long before most of the public decides if they are ok with a firing just based on if they agree with what the employee said.

Conservatives don't generally get people fired for expressing views contrary to their own. But they won't hesitate to go tit for tat when they can. Liberals doing this is gonna kick off a war between the two in which the ultimate winners will again be the corporations who will use it to control even more then they already do.

Think about it. . . some employers are demanding to see your private facebook accounts now. You don't think they are slowly but surely taking control of your off the job speech? Wait until they become convinced the only correct speech is the company line and you don't say anything but the company line or else lose your job.

It's coming unless both sides decide to stand up to this sort of thing.

There is more good then bad in capitalism and private industry. I believe in capitalism with some moderate restrictions and regulations. But something bad that people should understand about capitalism is that it is the natural state of groups of people and therefore the natural state of people who run corporations to control as much as they can. If a company determines they can control all employee speech and not be punished by it's customers for it. They are gonna do so.

Luther073082 said:

And it won't be long before most of the public decides if they are ok with a firing just based on if they agree with what the employee said.

Click to expand...

Oh, my opinion is that corporations have way too much power and could stand being knocked down a peg or.. a dozen. I don't think "at-will" hiring is that great and I think the way they have moved to really hamper collective bargaining of employees is deplorable. (In general, mind you. Not every corporation does this).

I would support a law that would not give the employer the right to fire an employee for comments made off the clock. I would strongly support that.

Now, I'm not going to jump on the bandwagon that seems to be suggesting that people can't use their speech to disagree with other speech. But I don't think people should be able to lose their job over it. Lose some friends and not get invited to parties? Yeah, that's something else entirely.

LoAmmi said:

Oh, my opinion is that corporations have way too much power and could stand being knocked down a peg or.. a dozen. I don't think "at-will" hiring is that great and I think the way they have moved to really hamper collective bargaining of employees is deplorable. (In general, mind you. Not every corporation does this).

I would support a law that would not give the employer the right to fire an employee for comments made off the clock. I would strongly support that.

Now, I'm not going to jump on the bandwagon that seems to be suggesting that people can't use their speech to disagree with other speech. But I don't think people should be able to lose their job over it. Lose some friends and not get invited to parties? Yeah, that's something else entirely.

Click to expand...

I would support that law too.

The problem is that the parties who disagreed with his speech demanded he be fired. And that's something I've always hated in our political system. We've decided that when we don't like what you say to just go straight for the groin and cut off a person's lively-hood.

I'm not saying anyone has to be friends with this guy or invite him to parties.

But if this guy wasn't independently wealthy he could be destroyed by his company firing him. Sure no matter what happens this particular man will walk out of this ok.

But what happens when McDonald's really does say that one of it's workers views on the minimum wage are offensive to their profits? Sure liberals get mad. . . but conservatives agree with the company's speech and their restriction of an employee's speech. (Especially after people get economically punished for expressing conservative views.) So what will they do? They will do what happened to Chik Fil-A . . . Make it a point to buy their products when they otherwise would not have. Who wins. McDonald's baby! More money from conservatives supporting them and employee's are on notice that supporting a higher minimum wage will mean they won't be making the current minimum wage for very long.

After Mr. Cathy made his comments. . . who won that battle? Liberals? Nope Conservatives? Nope Chik-Fil-A won that freaking battle. That may not have been their plan, but man they won in the end didn't they? Gays kissing outside their locations didn't really hurt their profits. But conservatives rushing in to buy some chicken sure helped them.

That's where this sort of thing is headed. Corporations allow a war to get started, maybe kick it off themselves. Then they let Liberals and Conservatives go to battle and destroy each other.

Then they walk in and take the spoils. What's scary is Liberals who are usually more into controlling business don't recognized when they are being used by the corporations.

They see comments and have a full fledged freak-out. Conservatives true to their nature rush off to support what the liberals attack. And the corporation goes on to win because they position themselves to pick up the spoils.

I completely agree with all you've said in that post. Let's not even take the McDonald's thing. If a person gave an interview where he gave support for homosexual marriage, and a company fired that person because of it, I don't think we'd see the same people flipping out over it. They would, instead, champion the cause of the corporation instead of the individual and I would be calling them hypocritical over it.

The problem is that "liberals" in the United States isn't really what they are generally.

LoAmmi said:

I completely agree with all you've said in that post. Let's not even take the McDonald's thing. If a person gave an interview where he gave support for homosexual marriage, and a company fired that person because of it, I don't think we'd see the same people flipping out over it. They would, instead, champion the cause of the corporation instead of the individual and I would be calling them hypocritical over it.

The problem is that "liberals" in the United States isn't really what they are generally.

Click to expand...

I don't consider myself liberal or conservative & I can tell you that if an employee's personal opinion was homosexual marriage is a civil right then that is their opinion. Unless someone agrees to waive all personal opinion & thought upon hiring then firing or suspending someone because of personal thought & opinion should be illegal. Period.

I really wish people would stop with the broad brush judgmental comments on whole groups of people. It isn't helping.

Michie said:

I don't consider myself liberal or conservative & I can tell you that if an employee's personal opinion was homosexual marriage is a civil right then that is their opinion. Unless someone agrees to waive all personal opinion & thought upon hiring then firing or suspending someone because of personal thought & opinion should be illegal. Period.

Click to expand...

As long as they are being expressed off the clock, I'd say.

I really wish people would stop with the broad brush judgmental comments on whole groups of people. It isn't helping.

Click to expand...

I mean that liberal in the United States has a different meaning than other places. I tend to be liberal in the global sense, not the United States sense.

hsilgne said:

First...



Then...



Then back to...



Woops, back to...



Now wait for it...



Umm... ya



Well... thanks. What a nice gesture.

Now... Pardon my Louisiana accent while I sign off...

Y’all take care now... ya’ hear?

Click to expand...

I've tried a few times to figure out what you're getting at with this post. I chose my words carefully and I meant what I said. I feel like maybe you're trying to point out some contradiction, but I'm not seeing it.

LoAmmi said:

As long as they are being expressed off the clock, I'd say.

Click to expand...

I'm betting the GQ interview & 700 Club interviews are on their own time.

I mean that liberal in the United States has a different meaning than other places. I tend to be liberal in the global sense, not the United States sense.

Click to expand...

I have not seen what I consider a true liberal or conservative in any true & sensible fashion on this board or anywhere. Two sides of the same coin. I reject both in favor of the issues. Not the zombie-like ideology.

Tallguy88 said:

Indeed. I didn't say A&E was right to fire Mr. Roberson. I said they had the right to fire/suspend him.

His First Amendment rights have not been violated. Neither has his Right to Privacy (because he made his comments publicly) Now, if he had said this to a friend in private and the friend had recorded the conversation without Mr. Robins knowledge, then I would be totally against what A&E did. There is a different between private actions and public actions.

Click to expand...

So if I go out on my own time, watch a few male strippers & say something about not enjoying my job in public...while discussing the latest protest I'm going to participate in & my boss catches wind of it... he can fire/suspend me?

I don't think so.

My job I was hired to do is to do my job. My time is my own. Just like my opinions unless I waived all rights to that as a condition of getting hired in the first place.

Tallguy88 said:

If it will reflect poorly on your employer and negatively impact his bottom line, then yes.



Try it.



If you expressed controversial opinions on the local news and your boss saw it, he could fire you. You made controversial remarks in a public manner. Actions have consequences. They always have.

Click to expand...

I understand that but as I said, this situation is different. A&E knew what they were paying for & they got what they hired. They turned him into a reality TV celebrity by exposing them to the public. A&E of all people knows what all that entails. A&E is responsible for glorifying what some find so repugnant. The fact is, unless the Robertsons hire an attorney & come out with the details of their contract... the only sensible conclusion at this point is to lay the responsibility at A&E's feet. They are not shocked. They are covering their own tails. The Robertsons were pawns to make money & they are still pawns. The pawns always go down first. Regardless.

I wonder if another network will pick him up.

That beard of his is intimidating though. lol...

Michie said:

So if I go out on my own time, watch a few male strippers & say something about not enjoying my job in public...while discussing the latest protest I'm going to participate in & my boss catches wind of it... he can fire/suspend me?

I don't think so.

My job I was hired to do is to do my job. My time is my own. Just like my opinions unless I waived all rights to that as a condition of getting hired in the first place.

Click to expand...

Michie,

Whether a company can fire or suspend you, is determined by the policies that company has which you agreed to when they hired you. If they follow the policies and suspend or fire someone, the only recourse the person has, it to file a suit and hope to show the policy is not legal in that state. Since companies typically have employment law attorney's approve the policies, the chances of that are minimal.

Furthermore, Robertson is a contracted employee, which is different then the vast majority of people who are employed in the United States. Entertainment people and even athletes, have clauses in their contract which prohibits them from engaging in certain activity that would embarrass or hurt the brand of the company they work for. This language applies to celebrities, because the employer is paying them, offering them a stage to be exposed to the public and with that, comes unique obligations.

What A&E did is common for employees who are celebrities, because when they talk to the media, everyone listens and what they say can impact the employer that puts them on a particular show.

The average employee of the average company, is not doing interviews for public consumption, so the situation is different.

This does not violate Robertson's freedom of speech, just as a priests speech wouldn't be violated if he went public and said Jesus was not God and the church defrocked him.

Tallguy88 said:

Those "pawns" are multi-millionaire business owners. Mr. Roberts is laughing all the way to the bank.

Click to expand...

I know what they are, Money does not exclude the fact that they are still being used as pawns. A&E has the same position & more financial & otherwise. Whose butts are they covering? Are they taking any responsibilty? Nope.

bhsmte said:

Michie,

Whether a company can fire or suspend you, is determined by the policies that company has which you agreed to when they hired you. If they follow the policies and suspend or fire someone, the only recourse the person has, it to file a suit and hope to show the policy is not legal in that state. Since companies typically have employment law attorney's approve the policies, the chances of that are minimal.

Furthermore, Robertson is a contracted employee, which is different then the vast majority of people who are employed in the United States. Entertainment people and even athletes, have clauses in their contract which prohibits them from engaging in certain activity that would embarrass or hurt the brand of the company they work for. This language applies to celebrities, because the employer is paying them, offering them a stage to be exposed to the public and with that, comes unique obligations.

What A&E did is common for employees who are celebrities, because when they talk to the media, everyone listens and what they say can impact the employer that puts them on a particular show.

The average employee of the average company, is not doing interviews for public consumption, so the situation is different.

This does not violate Robertson's freedom of speech, just as a priests speech wouldn't be violated if he went public and said Jesus was not God and the church defrocked him.

Click to expand...

I've brought the contract up several times. Fact is, nobody knows hat clauses are in it until someone comes out with it.

Michie said:

I've brought the contract several times. Fact is, nobody knows hat clauses are in it until someone comes out with it.

Click to expand...

I can assure you of this; before A&E suspended Robertson, numerous attorney's reviewed the contracts language to be sure they had legal grounds to do so.

Since he was suspended, I would bet the ranch there are clauses that give A&E the legal right to do what they did.

bhsmte said:

I can assure you of this; before A&E suspended Robertson, numerous attorney's reviewed the contracts language to be sure they had legal grounds to do so.

Since he was suspended, I would bet the ranch there are clauses that give A&E the legal right to do what they did.

Click to expand...

I don't doubt it but I'd like to know. I doubt we ever will though. In the meantime, I'm not wasting anymore time on this ridiculous subject. No offense but there are real things out there to be enraged about.