A&E is intolerant...

[abysmul]

 

[Cearbhall]

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.

FYI, if your employer supports them, then you support them, especially if the company sponsors events and/or organizations. You're counteracting your views through your presence and service.

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.

It's the same thing. You don't want to be associated with beliefs that go against your own because it would conflict with the image you want to have. How is that any more tolerant than what A&E did? Especially considering that a multi-million dollar contract is much more consequential.

 

[Glass*Soul]

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.

I am confused. How would we prevent businesses from firing people for publicly expressing views contrary to their policies without making a law to that effect, which would increase the the intrusion of government into the affairs of private businesses?

 

[Belk]

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.

Simply that this strikes me as the same type of situation. That A&E does not want to be perceived as supporting this type of thinking. They have therefore issued a statement and distanced themselves from the person who made them to ensure they are not seen as supporting him. Is your not going to a party to celebrate friends moving in together intolerance?

 

[Glass*Soul]

Simply that this strikes me as the same type of situation. That A&E does not want to be perceived as supporting this type of thinking. They have therefore issued a statement and distanced themselves from the person who made them to ensure they are not seen as supporting him. Is your not going to a party to celebrate friends moving in together intolerance?

Exactly. Both actions amount to distancing oneself from those whose company one finds unbecoming to oneself.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

FYI, if your employer supports them, then you support them, especially if the company sponsors events and/or organizations. You're counteracting your views through your presence and service.

Now I know you're just being funny because I've been told several times that just because my employer provides health insurance that pays for birth control it doesn't mean that I'm supporting it or paying for it myself.

So which is it?

It's the same thing. You don't want to be associated with beliefs that go against your own because it would conflict with the image you want to have. How is that any more tolerant than what A&E did? Especially considering that a multi-million dollar contract is much more consequential.

I'm associated with all kinds of beliefs on a daily basis. What matters is what I believe.

 

[Marius27]

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

Or it's because lesbians are the approved gays, while gay men are not.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

I am confused. How would we prevent businesses from firing people for publicly expressing views contrary to their policies without making a law to that effect, which would increase the the intrusion of government into the affairs of private businesses?

I think the main issue here isn't really business related, though. Phil was giving an interview to a magazine. He did not make these comments on the show nor did A&E air any show with such comments.

At what point in time is an employee separate from their place of employment?

 

[Marius27]

I think the main issue here isn't really business related, though. Phil was giving an interview to a magazine. He did not make these comments on the show nor did A&E air any show with such comments.

At what point in time is an employee separate from their place of employment?

But his actions still reflect on them since he is a very popular figure on one of their popular programs.

 

[bhsmte]

I think the main issue here isn't really business related, though. Phil was giving an interview to a magazine. He did not make these comments on the show nor did A&E air any show with such comments.

At what point in time is an employee separate from their place of employment?

Like I said before, entertainers typically have clauses in their contracts that do not allow them to make statements that could shed a negative light on their employer by making certain comments that would be deemed as racial or prejudicial towards portions of the public. Since his employer is A&E and they are likely paying him lots of money and he is a celebrity who people listen to, it is perfectly legal to ask employees to hold up to an established standard.

 

[RDKirk]

I think the main issue here isn't really business related, though. Phil was giving an interview to a magazine. He did not make these comments on the show nor did A&E air any show with such comments.

At what point in time is an employee separate from their place of employment?

When we don't know who he's working for.

When I was in the military, there were very strong restrictions on what we could say and do in public while wearing the uniform.

In this case, he was being interviewed very much because of his connection and his representation of the A&E program "Duck Dynasty." If not for "Duck Dynasty," we'd still not know who he was.

 

[bhsmte]

I think the main issue here isn't really business related, though. Phil was giving an interview to a magazine. He did not make these comments on the show nor did A&E air any show with such comments.

At what point in time is an employee separate from their place of employment?

He is a celebrity and everyone knows what show he is on and what network, it is all about business and the public perception of A&E, which they rely on to be successful.

 

[Cute Tink]

At what point in time is an employee separate from their place of employment?

That's a tough question and depends a lot on the type of work. Teachers are often fired because of "risque" pictures that are published online (whether by them or not, with or without their knowledge), or even just because of who they date.

Celebrities are on a different level as well. Right or wrong, celebrities are very public in what they say and do and some statements and actions are not tolerated and networks don't want to associate with them.

 

[durangodawood]

People are really confused.

"Tolerance", as used in this context, means tolerance of different kinds of people. We should value this.

It does not mean tolerating every idea or opinion. That would be bad.

 

[ThisBrotherOfHis]

I am confused. How would we prevent businesses from firing people for publicly expressing views contrary to their policies without making a law to that effect, which would increase the the intrusion of government into the affairs of private businesses?

The First Amendment guarantees freedom of speech, freedom from government interference in religion, freedom of assembly and a right to petition the government for a redress of grievances. Free speech is universal, not limited to addressing the government. I do not have to check my beliefs at the door of my employer.

In short, there already is a law. It is called the Constitution. Actions contravening the directives of that document are automatically against the law.

 

[keith99]

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.

You mean like what would happen if I said something grossly disrespectful about Jesus, or a similar gross generalization about Christians on this site?

Or more comparable, a moderator saying something like that and expecting to keep their position.

 

[Supreme]

Even though I don't agree with this man's views, I do think it's rather intolerant and poor behaviour of the show to fire him for them. It's completely their right, but as someone who loves free speech, it's exactly the unpopular opinions that need protecting the most.

 

[keith99]

The First Amendment guarantees freedom of speech, freedom from government interference in religion, freedom of assembly and a right to petition the government for a redress of grievances. Free speech is universal, not limited to addressing the government. I do not have to check my beliefs at the door of my employer.

In short, there already is a law. It is called the Constitution. Actions contravening the directives of that document are automatically against the law.

I suggest you both to read the first amendment. It does NOT say what you claim.

 

[SpyderByte]

More poutrage from the left. A Christian man gives his opinion on homosexuality, the left is up in arms and screamin for blood, Martin Bashir says he'd like to defecate in Sarah Palin's mouth....crickets.....

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/scott-...geous-duck-dynasty-star-skipped-bashirs-vile-

 

[Cearbhall]

If this duck dynasty guy sees a man and woman holding hands I doubt the first image in his mind is the two of them getting it on. Two guys holding hands.......butt sex.

I'm laughing because fandoms think of exactly that with both kinds of couples.

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.

It also has zilch to do with the ways in which anyone but the government tries to limit a person's speech.

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?

They probably think it's justified because they view those people as being literally dangerous to the members of the community. Think of the children!!1