Too many posts on this subject for the ethics to warrant attention?
Not at all. My FB is blowing up with this. Now that this has sunk in, I'll put my 2 cents in.
This is NOT a first amendment issue, as it isn't government that's restricting the speech. Sure, Phil Robertson has rights. He has the right to speak his mind without fear of reprisal, unless of course, it's "hate speech." A&E has rights. They're free to make any business decision necessary to protect their assets. The LGBT community has the right to not live in fear of discrimination. The Christian Community has the right to express their beliefs without feeling persecuted. With all these rights, what's left?
At the end of the day, the Richardson family will survive. They're loved by millions and are self-made millionaires. They will not be "ruined." A&E will go on, and if they choose to part ways with their #1 cash cow, that's their decision.
My issue is two-fold. First, all this talk of boycotting the network and its sponsors. Fans of the show and the GLAAD/LGBT community are calling for this tactic. I disagree. Let's say Company X is caught in the middle and decides to lean one way or the other. Their "bottom line" might get affected, but who suffers? Not the consumer. Prices will remain competative with the market. Certainly not the CEO's and shareholders who have the patience and resources to weather the storm. Who suffers? The everyday John Q employee who has no dog in this hunt, and will see his/her hours cut, if not outright unemployed.
My next issue, and indeed what is at the core of this, is an attempt of social Marxism that would make Hitler proud. Do we really want to live in a country where we're afraid to speak up and articulate our core values for fear our names, careers, reputation and social standing will be dragged through the mud because we dare have an opinion that differs from the "establishment's?"
If I gave the LGBT the benefit of the doubt, and acknowledge that Phil Robertson was a hateful, vile, racist, sexist, homophobic, that still doesn't make an attempt to silence his voice any more moral. In a country that espouses freedom of expression, I challenge them with this: If you wish to protect the thoughts/expressions/communications of the "best of us", we must protect the same of the "worst of us." In the end, the people should get to decide for themselves.
Take the bitter, vile filth spewed by hate groups that range from the KKK to the Westborough Baptist Church. With the exception of a fanatical few, they are largely discredited. People don't wish to break bread with them, be seen with them, or do business with them. This is not because of special interest groups who silenced them to protect the rest of us. This is because they are free to express themselves and the people as a nation have resolved to how they're regarded.
