A&E is intolerant...

[PreachersWife2004]

That's not quite comparable. What if a Christian magazine called you up and asked you to do an interview because of your position in the community as a staff member? What if you were a paid employee of this website and had signed a morals clause in a legal contract?

You're assuming that GQ is doing an interview based on his show on A&E. It might be the truth, but you're still assuming.

Remember, the Duck family was rich BEFORE they got on A&E.

And I still have yet to see a morals clause.

Our point is that the company gets to make that choice, not that every company should become Big Brother. And buying something is a bit different than talking to a national magazine.

No, that wasn't the point. The point was that you SHOULD get fired for it. And that's just not true.

We aren't slaves to our companies, and smart bosses know that. Sure, there's stuff that can and will get you fired, but speaking out about your beliefs should NOT be one of them, UNLESS you signed some agreement that says you wouldn't.

And most of the people I know wouldn't work for a company that would do that.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

We were a Christan nation and were founded on that and I dont care how people twist it that is the fact.

You can believe that all you want but the constitution contradicts you. We are NOT a Christian nation. We are a secular nation with a very large percentage of the population that is Christian. These are not the same thing.

 

[Cearbhall]

Remember, the Duck family was rich BEFORE they got on A&E.

I don't remember because I had never heard of them until my peers started talking about how hilarious and intriguing their lives are on this show. I apologize for not knowing this.

 

[QueSeraSera]

As for being employed by Pepsi and saying Coke is better and getting fired? Never happens. I have a ton of friends who work for Pepsi and drink coke AT WORK!

If my face and my name were associated with millions of Pepsi drinkers whom I was employed by , and I went out and gave public interviews saying Coke is better I would get fired.

 

[Maren]

This thread isn't about arguing about whether the nation was founded on Christian principles, please.

****

For those who were trying to say that CF shouldn't censor people, the two incidences aren't related. HOWEVER, if you were over at another forum saying bad things and the staff here at CF punished you for THOSE things, then it would be the same. When I was on staff, we weren't allowed to take things said on other forums into consideration.

As for being employed by Pepsi and saying Coke is better and getting fired? Never happens. I have a ton of friends who work for Pepsi and drink coke AT WORK! That's also like saying someone who works for GM has to drive GM cars. My dad worked for GM his entire life and drove Fords for have of it.

Hobby Lobby hasn't fired anyone for using birth control, nor are they saying their employees can't use birth control. What they said was that they didn't want to pay for it. BIG DIFFERENCE, again, in situations.

I have yet to see A&E make the claim that they had some clause in Phil's contract that didn't allow him to speak like this, and I can't see the Duck family even agreeing to do the show had a clause like that been in it.

I stand by my original assertion that A&E is being intolerant.

I think you are missing the point. Yes, drinking Pepsi when you work for Coke won't get your fired. However, to use an entertainment example, if Simon Cowell is giving an interview about how he prefers Coke, you can bet that Pepsi would immediately cancel their sponsorship of X Factor, as well as any contracts they have with Cowell and his companies.

Let's try some different examples. Alec Baldwin using a gay slur, when being hassled by paparazzi (not even an interview) and he was fired from his MSNBC job. Paula Deen was fired by the Food Network for making private racist comments that came out in a discrimination lawsuit. If we go back lots of years, Jimmy the Greek was fired by CBS for comments made over dinner in a restaurant. There is even a case where an author, whose book was getting ready to be published, had his book cancelled because he mentioned his boyfriend in the author biography section. And I'm not including the numerous references you can find for more ordinary people being fired for making Facebook posts, Tweets, etc.

Pretty much every company has language in their employee handbooks or contracts with employees that talk about protecting the companies image, and their right to fire you if you don't.

While you may believe that A&E is being intolerant, the fact is that this happens all the time -- just typically not with public figures.

 

[QueSeraSera]

Pretty much every company has language in their employee handbooks or contracts with employees that talk about protecting the companies image, and their right to fire you if you don't.

I have a relative who works for X company .She was expressly told to be careful what she says on FB about her own personal life and especially about the company . She even had a grievance with them about one of their products /services she used and when she was too "loud about it" they had a serious talk with her . Basically she was free to not work for them anymore if she was going to bad mouth them.

 

[keith99]

Declaration of Independence - 1776
Constitution - 1787

We weren't the United States when the DoI was written, and it was never a law. It's a document of American history, and an important one. However, it is not, has never been, and never will be a document of American governance. Which, sadly, is what counts.

Do you know the difference?

More to the point the Declaration of Independence was a political document written to the English and designed to be productive. That parts of it are couched in Christian terms speaks more to disputing the claims of the English throne to divine right to govern the Americas than anything else.

 

[hollyda]

More to the point the Declaration of Independence was a political document written to the English and designed to be productive. That parts of it are couched in Christian terms speaks more to disputing the claims of the English throne to divine right to govern the Americas than anything else.

Yeah, I thought about including that, but I didn't think this line of argument would go far anyway. People who argue the DoI as proof the USA is a Christian nation aren't typically persuaded by historical relevance.

 

[Wolseley]

Pesky founding father presidents. Twisting facts that never existed.

*sigh*

WallBuilders - Issues and Articles - The Founding Fathers on Jesus, Christianity and the Bible

And all I have to do is look at their writings and Declaration of Independance to contradict that. I have seen it before and it doesnt change what was written before it by the founding fathers. Facts are pesky when they are ignored or covered over

The Declaration of Independence is a document of a Deist, not a Christian.

Keep saying the lie often enough and someone will believe it.

Not only that but it's also not a legal document and it was written before the constitution, which is the highest law in the land. It mostly applies to the government that came before our current government was established.

Cowboys and Indians.....

We need to decide on a dividing line, people. Faction A can live on one side of the line, and Faction B can live on the other---because as long as we mix with each other with the views we both have, there will be no peace.

 

[Cute Tink]

And I still have yet to see a morals clause.

I have yet to see any clauses. Do you have a link to the Contract between A&E and the family members?

 

[hollyda]

*sigh*

WallBuilders - Issues and Articles - The Founding Fathers on Jesus, Christianity and the Bible

The personal religious views of the founders didn't bleed into their governance. If it did, we would have seen it in the nation's blueprint, specifically with theistic language (the sort found in the DoI). Which we didn't. Many of the founders were Christian. Others, like Jefferson, were Deists (Jefferson himself rewrote the gospels, removing Jesus's miracles and the resurrection -- you know, the basis for Christianity). But even that doesn't mean squat regarding their governance. They could have all been Buddhists; that wouldn't make America a Buddhist nation UNLESS they put it in the Constitution.

The Constitution speaks of religion twice. Once in the Bill of Rights, and once when stating no religious test shall be required to hold office. Nothing about God, and nothing about Christianity. That's all that really matters. The legal precedent for the country.

But I don't expect you or any other "we're a Christian nation!!!!" subscriber to follow that, so I'm done discussing this here*. It's a topic for another thread.

*apparently this was too much to hope

 

[RDKirk]

More to the point the Declaration of Independence was a political document written to the English and designed to be productive. That parts of it are couched in Christian terms speaks more to disputing the claims of the English throne to divine right to govern the Americas than anything else.

Ironically, if Jefferson were alive today and publishing today the things he wrote about Christ in his time, he would be crucified by the Religious Right (creating his own version of the Bible sans miracles!). The fact that he and atheists like Thomas Paine were fully accepted with their views back then suggests that there was less religiosity in politics then than now.

 

[Wolseley]

The personal views of the founders didn't bleed into their governance. If it did, we would have seen it in the nation's blueprint. Which we didn't. Many of the founders were Christian. Others, like Jefferson, were Deists (Jefferson himself rewrote the gospels, removing Jesus's miracles and the resurrection -- you know, the basis for Christianity). But even that doesn't mean squat regarding their governance. They could have all been Buddhists; that wouldn't make America a Buddhist nation UNLESS they put it in the Constitution.

The Constitution speaks of religion twice. Once in the Bill of Rights, and once when stating no religious test shall be required to hold office. Nothing about God, and nothing about Christianity. That's all that really matters. The legal precedent for the country.

But I don't expect you or any other "we're a Christian nation!!!!" subscriber to follow that, so I'm done discussing this here. It's a topic for another thread.

*breaking the news to hollyda very gently* I'm sorry to have to be the one to point this out to you, but the 1796 Treaty of Tripoli isn't in the Constitution, either---so your example proves nothing one way or the other.

Besides which, all that quote means is that the government isn't founded on the Christian Faith; which has nothing to do with the religious beliefs of the vast majority of the people.

 

[hollyda]

*breaking the news to hollyda very gently* I'm sorry to have to be the one to point this out to you, but the 1796 Treaty of
Tripoli isn't in the Constitution, either.

Treaties are legal documents. Unless you're saying legal documents have no standing in governance, you might want to consider a different angle.

Even still, throw the Treaty of Tripoli out and you don't have Christian language in the nation's blueprint.

Besides which, all that quote means is that the government isn't founded on the Christian Faith; which has nothing to do with the religious beliefs of the vast majority of the people

That's nice. I've never disputed most Americans are Christian, but if there was something founders did know, it was how it felt to be oppressed by a large governing body. That is why much of the Constitution, and specifically the Bill of Rights, is worded to place as much emphasis as possible on personal liberties, not just the majority rule's personal liberties.

Want to get back to the topic now?

 

[ThisBrotherOfHis]

Treaties are legal documents. Unless you're saying legal documents have no standing in governance, you might want to consider a different angle.

Even still, throw the Treaty of Tripoli out and you don't have Christian language in the nation's blueprint.

Want to get back to the topic now?

The argument is ridiculous anyway. The U.S. isn't a Christian nation because it is a theocracy. It is a Christian nation because the vast majority of its people are Christians.

End of story.

 

[DiligentlySeekingGod]

This thread isn't about arguing about whether the nation was founded on Christian principles, please.

****

For those who were trying to say that CF shouldn't censor people, the two incidences aren't related. HOWEVER, if you were over at another forum saying bad things and the staff here at CF punished you for THOSE things, then it would be the same. When I was on staff, we weren't allowed to take things said on other forums into consideration.

As for being employed by Pepsi and saying Coke is better and getting fired? Never happens. I have a ton of friends who work for Pepsi and drink coke AT WORK! That's also like saying someone who works for GM has to drive GM cars. My dad worked for GM his entire life and drove Fords for have of it.

Hobby Lobby hasn't fired anyone for using birth control, nor are they saying their employees can't use birth control. What they said was that they didn't want to pay for it. BIG DIFFERENCE, again, in situations.

I have yet to see A&E make the claim that they had some clause in Phil's contract that didn't allow him to speak like this, and I can't see the Duck family even agreeing to do the show had a clause like that been in it.

I stand by my original assertion that A&E is being intolerant.

Right on

I second that.

 

[Wolseley]

Treaties are legal documents. Unless you're saying legal documents have no standing in governance, you might want to consider a different angle.

I wasn't the one laying heavy emphasis on the Constitution; you were.

Want to get back to the topic now?

Arguing about how bigoted Phil is because he thinks homosexuality is a sin? What for? That argument isn't going anywhere, nor will it.

Of course, neither is this one.

Cowboys and Indians.....

The argument is ridiculous anyway. The U.S. isn't a Christian nation because it is a theocracy. It is a Christian nation because the vast majority of its people are Christians.

End of story.

There you go.

 

[hollyda]

Arguing about how bigoted Phil is because he thinks homosexuality is a sin? What for? That argument isn't going anywhere, nor will it.

Do you believe a company has the right to fire an employee for statements made on a public forum, be it FB, a blog, or a magazine, if the company feels the statements could damage the company's reputation or alienate the client base?

Because A&E is hardly the only company with a policy like that, and hardly the only one to fire employees for doing or saying things that can be perceived as damaging to the company. Most larger corporations do.

I've not once called Phil a bigot. I've been arguing the legality of his termination. My personal feelings about his comments have no merit.

Whether or not you agree with their decision, likewise, has no merit. Does a company have the right to make that determination?

 

[QueSeraSera]

The argument is ridiculous anyway. The U.S. isn't a Christian nation because it is a theocracy. It is a Christian nation because the vast majority of its people are Christians.

End of story.

True .And its a good thing the vast majority of Christians (and counting) believe in separation of church and state.

 

[Dusky Mouse]

Pesky founding father presidents. Twisting facts that never existed.

Pesky revisionist history and article 11 that never actually existed.

But boy do Atheists love to think it did.