American Pastor Blacklisted

[MrLuther]

These contracts have fairly broad language about conduct that reflects negatively on the network.

And if he on the show had said: "Man I just hate those gays, they're disgusting!", one might have a case for "reflecting negatively on the network". Then again: Such a statement would have been edited out.

And, as someone else noted, actors and entertainers are never "off duty".

Unless their contracts state otherwise, then yes, yes they are.

So, A&E had every right to do what they did, as short-sighted as it was.

So if someone had a gay activist employed, and he said: "You know, I don't really sympathize a lot with conservatives", the employer would be totally justified in firing him, because "that statement reflected negatively on the company"?

 

[Cearbhall]

I read this story the other day and I was very touched. His love for his son is deep and is an inspiration.

He violated the tenets of the faith, the doctrine of the church, and be betrayed his duties as a pastor who is suppose to deliver a message that saves sinners. Not officiate over a ceremony that damns them straight to Hell.

Clearly he doesn't agree that it's going to send anyone to Hell.

They have every right to defrock him, of course. Hopefully he continues to use his gifts to serve people through another denomination or similar occupation.

 

[cow451]

And if he on the show had said: "Man I just *f-word* hate those f-gots, they're disgusting!", one might have a case for "reflecting negatively on the network". Then again: Such a statement would have been edited out.

He didn't, therefore, your argument is irrelevant.

Unless their contracts state otherwise, then yes, yes they are.

Don't follow the entertainment business much, huh?

So if someone had a gay activist employed, and he said: "You know, I don't really sympathize a lot with conservatives", the employer would be totally justified in firing him, because "that statement reflected negatively on the company"?

Not likely in the entertainment business, LOL.

As I have said. A&E has the right to interpret the contract, and as employer, boot a cast member. I think it was a bone-headed move. Now

 

[DiligentlySeekingGod]

He violated the tenets of the faith, the doctrine of the church, and be betrayed his duties as a pastor who is suppose to deliver a message that saves sinners. Not officiate over a ceremony that damns them straight to Hell.

He wasn't worthy of being a pastor in this denomination. He is a false pastor and it was right to throw him out.

The Bible says pastors are responsible for their teachings to their flock. And they shall answer for it to God when they lead the flocks astray.

Hoping he goes to another denomination so as to do the work of the Devil isn't Christian. It's damnation and contrary to scripture. Just like his actions when he officiated his damned unrepentant sinner son's marriage abomination.
A father is suppose to save his son. Not curse him to the fire.

Amen sister! You are right on. He is NOT a man of God. It is obvious, by this rotten fruit he has bore, that he cannot be allowed to continue to lead God's people astray. He is NOT worthy to stand behind the pulpit and preach the Word of God, the very Scriptures and the genuine faith that he has openly denied and defiled by his actions. To be honest, I see what he has done as defiling and desecrating the House of the Lord. Scripture is clear that homosexuality is an abomination before God. May he repent and turn from his sin of promoting the sin of homosexuality, before he dies and stands before God in judgment. If he doesn't, then he will be damned for all eternity. And since he was in the position of a Shepherd of a Church, then his punishment will be even more severe. He has led many within his flock astray and that is something God takes very seriously. And may God bless the Church and prosper it for doing what was right before His eyes. Any church denomination or pastor who condones, supports or promotes homosexuality is NOT of God. They are deceived and spiritually blind, if they believe that homosexuality or any other kind of sin is permissible and acceptable to God within the Church or within the lives of those who profess to follow Christ Jesus.

 

[MachZer0]

He didn't, therefore, your argument is irrelevant. Don't follow the entertainment business much, huh?




Not likely in the entertainment business, LOL.

As I have said. A&E has the right to interpret the contract, and as employer, boot a cast member. I think it was a bone-headed move. Now

Why does A&E have the right to interpret the contract, but Robertson doesn't?

 

[Cearbhall]

He is NOT worthy to stand behind the pulpit and preach the Word of God, the very Scriptures and the genuine faith that he has openly denied and defiled by his actions. To be honest, I see what he has done as defiling and desecrating the House of the Lord.

I can only imagine what you think of denominations that actually affirm same-sex marriage ceremonies.

 

[DiligentlySeekingGod]

I can only imagine what you think of denominations that actually affirm same-sex marriage ceremonies.

Any denomination that condones and promotes homosexuality (or any of other sin) is not a part of the true Church and they are NOT of God.

 

[Cearbhall]

Any denomination that condones and promotes homosexuality (or any of other sin) is not a part of the true Church and they are NOT of God.

It's all the same to me. Any church that claims to be Christian is Christian in my eyes, but it's interesting to know that some Christians hold this belief.

 

[DiligentlySeekingGod]

It's all the same to me. Any church that claims to be Christian is Christian in my eyes, but it's interesting to know that some Christians hold this belief.

That is another point of where we differ. No, I don't agree that any church that claims to be Christian is actually genuinely Christian. Not everyone who names the name of Christ is a Christian, especially concerning someone who denies Scripture and defies it.

 

[bhsmte]

Unless the network has a written official statement of "faith" (/"principles"/"opinions", etc) saying: "We support the gay agenda, and demand this of everyone appearing in our shows", then no. Robertson did no such thing.



You just described left-wing dimness instead of what you intended

The network has a contract and the performer must abide by the contract they agreed to when they signed it.

Just as, this church had the right to follow the path they did with this pastor.

 

[bhsmte]

Why does A&E have the right to interpret the contract, but Robertson doesn't?

Are you serious? Do you actually think Robertson didn't have attorneys review the contract before he signed it? Do you actually think he didn't have attorneys review the contract again after he was suspended?

In essence, both parties have the right to say the other side interpreted the language in the contract incorrectly. All they have to do is file a motion with the court and the judge will decided whether the contract has been breached.

 

[hollyda]

If what an employee says on a public forum during his/her own time can't reflect or impact their employer, be considered a fireable offense or otherwise affect employment, I imagine everyone defending Mr. Robertson will likewise find this a worthy cause to take up.

 

[MrLuther]

If what an employee says on a public forum during his/her own time can't reflect or impact their employer, be considered a fireable offense or otherwise affect employment, I imagine everyone defending Mr. Robertson will likewise find this a worthy cause to take up.

You mean:
"Do you believe that she should be fired?"?
The answer is: "No."

What, just because you can't stomach people disagreeing with you, that means that no one else can stand a slip-up?

"A thief thinks everyone steals"
- Danish proverb.

 

[hollyda]

You mean:
"Do you believe that she should be fired?"?
The answer is: "No."

What, just because you can't stomach people disagreeing with you, that means that no one else can stand a slip-up?

"A thief thinks everyone steals"
- Danish proverb.

I can stomach people disagreeing with me plenty. I just like to see some consistency.

Are you going to start or advocate petitions for her immediate reinstatement as well, or is that reserved for people who make statements you agree with?

And if you don't think she or Phil should be fired, your problem seems to be employment law. These are hardly isolated cases. Everyone is just treating Phil like he's the first person ever who faced disciplinary actions for saying something publicly the company who employs him found in contradiction to their own values.

 

[Cearbhall]

Not everyone who names the name of Christ is a Christian, especially concerning someone who denies Scripture and defies it.

Well, they have as much right and ability to claim that identity as you do, so I'll continue to give you all equal recognition.

 

[keith99]

This situation is very much the same as the Robertson thing. Both publicly expressed themselves in a way that was inconsistent with their employers' beliefs. Both were sanctioned for it. In each case, everyone exercised their freedom of speech appropriately.

Quite right.

And your stand has been consistent.

I'm betting the stands to those who say Phil's freedom of speech was violated will mainly be silent on this thread and that the majority of those who are not silent will show themselves to be inconsistent.

 

[dies-l]

The interesting thing about this is that my mother is a retired UMC pastor, who is really struggling about keeping her connections with the UMC. At the same time, I don't think that anyone is reasonably arguing that the UMC doesn't have the right to suspend or fire a pastor for openly acting, or even endorsing a belief, outside of the UMC Discipline. But, anyone who thinks that A&E somehow wronged Robertson (though I am beginning to think that the Robertson fiasco is a publicity stunt in which both Robertson and A&E are complicit) should hold the view that the UMC is somehow wronging the Pastor in this case. Likewise, anyone who holds that this pastor is being wronged should hold the position that Robertson was wronged. Otherwise, you're just being inconsistent. I see them both as situations where two conflicting sides both choose to exercise their freedom of speech and each is having to accept the reasonable consequences thereof.

 

[keith99]

The interesting thing about this is that my mother is a retired UMC pastor, who is really struggling about keeping her connections with the UMC. At the same time, I don't think that anyone is reasonably arguing that the UMC doesn't have the right to suspend or fire a pastor for openly acting, or even endorsing a belief, outside of the UMC Discipline. But, anyone who thinks that A&E somehow wronged Robertson (though I am beginning to think that the Robertson fiasco is a publicity stunt in which both Robertson and A&E are complicit) should hold the view that the UMC is somehow wronging the Pastor in this case. Likewise, anyone who holds that this pastor is being wronged should hold the position that Robertson was wronged. Otherwise, you're just being inconsistent. I see them both as situations where two conflicting sides both choose to exercise their freedom of speech and each is having to accept the reasonable consequences thereof.

I'm almost sure of it. Only point that is still open in my mind is was it the plan from the start or was it a brilliant way to decide to deal with things after the article and the publicity started.

Side issue. In the same interview Robertson spouted a rather strange variation of the animals were all vegetarian bit. Whenever I have heard it before it was until the fall. He put it as until the Flood.

Rather different and has me wondering if their faith is a bit of a spoof.

One of the few episodes I checked in on (when football got blowout) had one of the guys being nervous about a (very small) part in a Christmas pageant. Now if the show was real that is absurd. nervous about a couple score people watching a Church pageant but fine with millions watching on TV!

But as a bit of tongue in cheek humor it is passable.

 

[dies-l]

I'm almost sure of it. Only point that is still open in my mind is was it the plan from the start or was it a brilliant way to decide to deal with things after the article and the publicity started.

Side issue. In the same interview Robertson spouted a rather strange variation of the animals were all vegetarian bit. Whenever I have heard it before it was until the fall. He put it as until the Flood.

Rather different and has me wondering if their faith is a bit of a spoof.

One of the few episodes I checked in on (when football got blowout) had one of the guys being nervous about a (very small) part in a Christmas pageant. Now if the show was real that is absurd. nervous about a couple score people watching a Church pageant but fine with millions watching on TV!

But as a bit of tongue in cheek humor it is passable.

Actually, I think that the biblical account supports the idea that vegetarianism lasted until the flood. I think that he was expressing the orthodox view in that regard. The thing that gets me about this is that it is obvious that Robertson is an intelligent and shrewd businessman who possibly plays a redneck moron character on TV. Yet, the narrative seems to be that Robertson just didn't know any better and just isn't an eloquent speaker. I think it more likely that he knew exactly what he was doing, was trying to stir the pot, and hopefully thereby to boost ratings for his show.

 

[cow451]

Why does A&E have the right to interpret the contract, but Robertson doesn't?

Boss: A&E
Employee: Duck dude.

That doesn't mean he can't or won't sue if they do the unlikely by actually cutting him from Season five taping. Both sides have plenty of lawyers that they have probably already consulted.