Galeongirl
Galeonbroad
Yeah, they're not quite saying "You can't say that", just "if you say that, we don't pay you". It is different, as it gives the guy a choice.
Why does her being openly gay give her any sort of autority?
On a radio program Thursday liberal feminist professor and columnist Camille Paglia commented on the controversy over the remarks made by Phil Robertson:
"I speak with authority here because I was openly gay before the 'Stonewall Rebellion,' when it cost you something to be so," she said. "And I personally feel as a libertarian that people have the right to free thought and free speech. In a democratic country, people have the right to be homophobic as they have the right to support homosexuality -- as I 100 percent do. If people are basing their views against gays on the Bible, again they have a right to religious freedom there … to express yourself in a magazine in an interview -– this is the level of punitive PC, utterly fascist, utterly Stalinist, OK, that my liberal colleagues in the Democratic party and on college campuses have supported and promoted over the last several decades. It's the whole legacy of the free speech 1960's that have been lost by my own party."
http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-...erly-Fascist-and-Utterly-Stalinist-PC-Culture
Strangely, Camille Paglia calls herself - or has been called, I'm not sure which - the anti-lesbian lesbian. She's written books and articles critical of homosexuality...even though she's homosexual herself. I guess she's just looking for attention. I don't know how else to put it.
Sure, but they could if they VOICED those beliefs in public when they go against their bosses views and offend large groups of people. Religion is something personal. Keep it to yourself and everybody's happy.
If you go around spouting hateful stuff about blacks or jews, you'd be fired from your job and your boss would have every right to. This case isn't different.
Gay rights and SSM advocates, we are learning, do apparently have the right to go unchallenged however.As you've seen in here, you have the right to be openly homophobic, which you are. But you don't have the right not to go unchallenged.
No one's rights were violated.
I don't understand why anyone thinks that his has anything to do with free speech rights. The duck guy has every right to say something homophobic, and A&E, having a fiduciary duty to its shareholder to maximize profit, has every right to not give him money anymore. Nobody's free speech is being violated.
Federal Judge Robert J. Shelby: Utah, you don't have an argument for why you are doing this.Gay rights and SSM advocates, we are learning, do apparently have the right to go unchallenged however.
And no one was compelled to accept his beliefs either. Phil Robertson, even if so disposed, has no direct access to the power of government or the law with which to impose his views upon others. Unlike Federal Judge Robert J Shelby, who yesterday informed the citizens of Utah that their beliefs and laws pertaining to the institution of marriage are no longer required and preceded to impose his ideas on marriage upon them from his bench.
We have a lawless president and a lawless judiciary. What could go wrong??
I've been saying this ad nauseum for years on similar threads.
No one is required to listen.
Religious speech is protected, therefore if one wants to say that unless one accepts Jesus as Christ they will not go to heaven,therefore Jews must accept Christ or they will not be saved. Is this hateful?
As evidenced by you ignoring the (factual) statements that this has nothing to do with freedom of speech.
Where do you get the idea that most people think he did NOT cross the line with his words?
Where do you get the idea that most people think he did NOT cross the line with his words?
I think that perhaps Deep is suggesting is that "freedom" goes beyond what the government protects. Which is true. However, we all surrender some freedom in exchange for employment and/service.
For instance - as a soldier, I gave up quite a bit of "freedom" in order to serve. As an employee, I give up some "freedom" in order that other employees can work in a non-hostile environment.
I am perfectly fine with A&E letting Phil go. It's a business decision. It may be a poor decision, based on the response. In that case - I admire the management for sticking to their principles (if that's the real reason). And this is not just about Right vs. Left - as we've seen recently that Martin Bashir and Alec Baldwin have been fired for the words that came out of their mouths.
Civilization requires civility. This is gauged by the people (the government plays only a small role here) - and the line is constantly moving. When a celebrity crosses the line - the people respond. For the most part, it seem that most people think that Phil Robertson did not cross the line here - so, I wont be surprised if he's back on the show when they resume filming, or Duck Dynasty is picked up by another network.
If that happens, Phil Robertson will probably have even less "freedom" with his words.
That they think he was not being intentionally hateful does not imply they think he did not cross the line...
Their hour show is probably edited down from twenty, thirty hours of taping. A and E has created a warm and fuzzy bunch of characters for a brand that is a real money maker. That is their business. I watched a bit of the show lately, it is obviosly some-what scripted and set up. A and E has warned this 'old boy' to not do interviews.
His 'family values' 'god loving' beliefs will not have as wide of a demographic as the fake brand that A and E created.
this man went to church and had his less than Christian attitudes and beliefs validated by others that call themselves Christians, why would anyone want to be associated with that?