A&E is intolerant...

[Willie T]

Walmart hasn't turned their backs on DD..Their merchandise is flying off the shelves!

And, truthfully, this will only serve to make them even more popular with the people who appreciated the program in the first place.

 

[Cute Tink]

So far, Preacher'sWife2004 seems to be talking the most sense of any of us here.

PW2004 is eloquent as usual. However, Freedom of Speech does not mean that you get to express yourself however you want, whenever you want to whoever you want without backlash. Phil Robertson will not be put in jail for his statements. He will not be fined by the government for his words.

I really don't get why there are so many people who don't get the idea that he is suspended from A&E because of his statements. I have seen plenty of people come out in support of churches and religious schools firing people for coming out as gay or transgender because it doesn't fit within their image/teachings/etc. What is the difference between those situations and this one? (Please note that I am not specifically saying that people in this thread who are defending Phil are those who defend the churches in other threads, just making the comparison)

If a business does not have the right to fire/suspend someone over their statements and actions, then you can't defend any business for firing anyone over statements or actions, religious businesses included. They are all private entities.

 

[Belk]

This is probably the most disturbing comment on the thread, but the fact you make the part of that statement I emboldened is truly scary. The fact that you believe we have to willingly give up our morals, sociopolitical views and essentially who we are simply because we accept a job is indicative of how we've willingly given up our freedoms to an increasingly bigger government that we apparently think can control our lives, and now our hearts and minds as well. The trend of employers controlling what employees say borders on thought control, and it must be reversed. Accepting it as fact is no way to do that.

Is in no way what was said or implied. And he is correct, the first amendment is a limit on government action regarding speech. It does not say that you can say anything you want without consequence.

 

[hollyda]

This is probably the most disturbing comment on the thread, but the fact you make the part of that statement I emboldened is truly scary. The fact that you believe we have to willingly give up our morals, sociopolitical views and essentially who we are simply because we accept a job is indicative of how we've willingly given up our freedoms to an increasingly bigger government that we apparently think can control our lives, and now our hearts and minds as well. The trend of employers controlling what employees say borders on thought control, and it must be reversed. Accepting it as fact is no way to do that.

Who is forcing you to accept a job with a company that violates your values? If the company's values don't coincide with yours, why work there?

 

[grasping the after wind]

No, you're wrong.

Freedom of speech never, ever meant you had guaranteed access to someone else's soapbox.

You want freedom of speech, stand on your own soapbox; if you're standing on someone else's soapbox, he gets to limit what you say.

I completely agree with this, but I also want to make sure we all understand that censorship is not something only the government does. The owner of the soapbox is censoring you by limiting what you say. I bolded and underlined the part below.
Censorship

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
For information about censorship in Wikipedia, see Wikipedia:Censorship. For scientific uses, see Censoring (statistics).
Censorship is the suppression of speech or other public communication which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, politically incorrect or inconvenient as determined by a government, media outlet or other controlling body. It can be done by governments and private organizations or by individuals who engage in self-censorship. It occurs in a variety of different contexts including speech, books, music, films, and other arts, the press, radio, television, and the Internet for a variety of reasons including national security, to control obscenity, child pornography, and hate speech, to protect children, to promote or restrict political or religious views, and to prevent slander and libel. It may or may not be legal. Many countries provide strong protections against censorship by law, but none of these protections are absolute and it is frequently necessary to balance conflicting rights in order to determine what can and cannot be censored.




If you offer someone a soapbox and because they then say something you do not like you say you will take that soap box away unless that person only says things you approve of, you are engaging in censorship. You are not taking away their freedom of speech but you are definitely engaged in censorship. Only government censorship is Constitutionally illegal and then only if the censorship extends to the government not allowing a person to express oneself as a free citizen. As far as I can tell, government is entitled to the censorship of government employees when it comes to discussing their work for the government.

 

[RDKirk]

This is probably the most disturbing comment on the thread, but the fact you make the part of that statement I emboldened is truly scary. The fact that you believe we have to willingly give up our morals, sociopolitical views and essentially who we are simply because we accept a job is indicative of how we've willingly given up our freedoms to an increasingly bigger government that we apparently think can control our lives, and now our hearts and minds as well. The trend of employers controlling what employees say borders on thought control, and it must be reversed. Accepting it as fact is no way to do that.

When has it ever been different? Until recent decades in America, an employer could fire an employee for anything, on any whim, at the drop of a dime, and the employee had no recourse.

Interesting how "employee rights" fought hard for by Progressives through union and legal actions are now presumed "natural rights" by Conservatives.

Sorry, but people had to fight for for an employee's right not to be fired on a whim, at least for a small set of reasons. They had to fight hard for that, sometimes even spilling blood against a Big Business force that was certainly willing to spill blood.

 

[Marius27]

This is probably the most disturbing comment on the thread, but the fact you make the part of that statement I emboldened is truly scary. The fact that you believe we have to willingly give up our morals, sociopolitical views and essentially who we are simply because we accept a job is indicative of how we've willingly given up our freedoms to an increasingly bigger government that we apparently think can control our lives, and now our hearts and minds as well. The trend of employers controlling what employees say borders on thought control, and it must be reversed. Accepting it as fact is no way to do that.

Spoken like someone who doesn't understand how the law works.

Freedom of Speech is protected in the Constitution against government interference. For the first 200 years of this country, that only included Congressional interference. States could still deny you freedom of speech if they wanted to. Now, it applies to all levels of government.

Freedom of Speech has NEVER in US history, been applicable to private companies or businesses.

 

[Cearbhall]

So far, Preacher'sWife2004 seems to be talking the most sense of any of us here.

Not in the slightest. You can't be tolerant of all types of people if you're also tolerant of the people who are bigoted against certain groups.

Another thing. This family clearly has no problem doing business with and bringing in huge profits to a company that proudly supports LGBT rights. Does this man really think he's staying true to his beliefs?

 

[PreachersWife2004]

Walmart hasn't turned their backs on DD..Their merchandise is flying off the shelves!

I think that's the brand that A&E owns. I've read that if you want to specifically continue to support Phil and his family you should be buying Duck Commander merchandise.

Is A&E known as a bastion of tolerance or something? Were you not the one who pointed out how you could not go into a gay bookstore because it would be seen as "condoning the gay lifestyle" and that would be an issue since you are the wife of the preacher? Is this somehow different?

I'm not sure what me going into a gay bookstore has to do with this, but I'm pretty sure I didn't say gay bookstore (I didn't know they existed) but I remember mentioning about how I do have to be careful about what I do because it can give the appearance of acceptance. I think it was about going to a party to celebrate friends moving in together or something along those lines.

What do you think would happen to an average employee at the average company making these same remarks?

Probably nothing. My company is well aware of comments that I make and I'm still employed. And my company is a BIG LGBT community supporter.

Not in the slightest. You can't be tolerant of all types of people if you're also tolerant of the people who are bigoted against certain groups.

Then quit screaming for everyone else to be tolerant. Tolerant no longer means what it's supposed to. It means that we'll tolerate you so long as you agree with what we say and do.

Another thing. This family clearly has no problem doing business with and bringing in huge profits to a company that proudly supports LGBT rights. Does this man really think he's staying true to his beliefs?

Yes, he does and he is. I also work for a company who champions the LGBT community. Has that stopped me from expressing my opinions on it? Of course not. Does it mean I too support the community? No, it doesn't. I will gladly stand up for anyone being discriminated against for whatever reason (including their sexual orientation) like I did for that lying waitress but there was no one being discriminated against here, just one man answering about his beliefs.

 

[Cearbhall]

Do these homophobes even know that lesbians exist? Why was he only talking about anal sex and directing his comments at men?

The fact that you believe we have to willingly give up our morals, sociopolitical views and essentially who we are simply because we accept a job is indicative of how we've willingly given up our freedoms to an increasingly bigger government that we apparently think can control our lives, and now our hearts and minds as well.

Bigger government? What on Earth? This is about a private company. The action that they took is a sign of non-interference on the part of the government.

 

[Metal Minister]

GLAAD should be satisfied with that, too, instead of trying to shut up everyone who disagrees with them.

It exposes how weak their position is, when they cannot respond with a better argument, so they try to shut down the discussion. Seems very familiar.....

 

[Metal Minister]

Because of what I've personally been through involving "God's Word", I'm afraid I can't rouse any sympathy at this point on the matter.

But I want to point out that I wasn't referring to this person's religious involvement. I was more making a jab at the fact that I find all of these types of shows idiotic and lacking in any real value. And personally, I'd enjoy the idea of these shows getting kicked off the air in favor of something more educational (which seems to be in real decline).

Well, I can't speak to what you went through (though if you'd like to talk, my pm box is always open) but I agree, reality shows bore me as well....

 

[PreachersWife2004]

Do these homophobes even know that lesbians exist? Why was he only talking about anal sex and directing his comments at men?

Probably because he's a guy and he was giving an interview to a guys' magazine...

 

[Cearbhall]

Walmart hasn't turned their backs on DD..Their merchandise is flying off the shelves!

It's not like they've ever cared about human rights.

The fact that he automatically goes for one specific sex act like most raging anti-gays, and that he pushes the slippery slope fallacy by saying it's going to lead to bestiality, promiscuity, etc.

He also seems to think that "I like vaginas!" is evidence that a man who doesn't is being illogical.

 

[Wolseley]

Well, so far, a quick review of the first 50 posts in this thread reveal the following:

There are approximately 8 posters who support Phil and think A&E is obstructing free speech; all of them save one are over the age of 40. All of them are Christians.

There are approximately 12 posters who oppose Phil and think A&E is not obstructing free speech; all of them save two are under the age of 40. Their religious views are varied.

Six more didn't really take a stand one way or the other, and political views were all over the map.

Now, this is an extremely non-scientific analysis, simply due to the fact that a lot of people don't have their ages, religions, or political tastes posted on their bios, but the general trend seems to be that older folks who are Christians think Phil is right, whilst younger folks who are not Christians think A&E is right. Interesting.

Anyway, for what it's worth.

 

[Cearbhall]

The reason it "devolves" is because of how people view sin. To most Christians, sin is sin and it doesn't matter which one it is. And, because the same argument can be made for those types of people. They were born that way, etc.

If all sin is the same, then you're all just throwing stones from glass houses. Good job.

A&E is a crime/dram network with a flair for airing specials about adulterers murdering their spouses, etc. Exactly what reputation do they have to uphold?

The reputation that they know how to separate fact from fiction and portray a range of human experiences without endorsing all of them in reality.

 

[ThisBrotherOfHis]

The reputation that they know how to separate fact from fiction and portray a range of human experiences without endorsing all of them in reality.

By suspending Phil Robertson, they certainly endorsed one viewpoint, wouldn't you say?

 

[Cearbhall]

By suspending Phil Robertson, they certainly endorsed one viewpoint, wouldn't you say?

Absolutely. I never said anything to the contrary. There's no problem with that. They get to pick and choose.

 

[hollyda]

By suspending Phil Robertson, they certainly endorsed one viewpoint, wouldn't you say?

Do you think a Christian bookstore should able to fire an employee for making pro-gay statements in a public forum (Facebook, Twitter, etc)?

 

[Cearbhall]

I'm just surprised that A&E didn't see this coming. Hick shows just bring in too much money to worry about it, I guess.

They should definitely leave A&E for a different network. I just find it ironic how people in, for example, sports that admit to being gay are now praised and treated like kings, but if even one person steps out of this liberal agenda that the media has put forth, then you don't stand a chance.

What exactly do you think capitalism is? I'm sure you loved it when the majority of Americans and their companies held your views...

And even if "these folks" ever did talk about other sins, it would never get press time because NO ONE WOULD CARE.

Well yeah, because adulterers, people who watch legal pornography, and divorcees aren't exactly oppressed minority groups.