When you reach a certain celebrity status......

Gary, most of us agree with you on this. Not a freedom of speech issue.

There are a few holdouts that don't understand how the 1rst ammendment applies to matters like this



Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I317 using Tapatalk

 

I disagree with that. GLAAD was going to keep it going. But of course they got what they wanted almost immediately.

The DD viewers happen to agree with phil(for the most part) and will not stand by and let him go. Simple as that, they're exercising their right too.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I317 using Tapatalk

 

GLAAD was behind the Alec Baldwin firing, but there wasn't any outrage, thus, it wasn't a big news story.

 

Agreed, and that is my point as well.

 

Because he is a **** and no one likes him or agrees with his tirades. Plus he was threatening someone. (As usual)

Not even in the same book with this , much less chapter.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I317 using Tapatalk

 

You missed my point, but ok.

 

Would you rather be in hell with a terrorist or a dude wanting to put his wee wee in your butt ........
It's hell...... I bet satan lets him

 

Going to chime back in because so many who are okay with the suspension are way off. Freedom of speech does have something to do with it because although no government agency is going after him, companies, A&E in this case, are held to certain regulations by the government. One cannot be suspended for religious beliefs just as someone can't be suspended for being gay. Baldwin getting fired and Robertson getting suspended are completely different situations. Baldwin was going on a tirade yelling and posing a threat while Robertson was simply answering a question on his beliefs. Suspending Robertson for voicing his belief is like someone getting suspended for being gay. Although in this day and age of political correctness, if legal action was taken the guy who got suspended for being gay would get his job back immediately as well as back pay and Robertson likely wouldn't. Plus, we don't know what morality clauses are in his contract or how his contract is written, but he certainly could challenge it. The difference here is Robertson doesn't want to take legal action and doesn't even want to go back and work for them, they lost all credibility and they've already been silencing his beliefs for some time. This is clearly a case of religious discrimination, because he wasn't targeting homosexuality he was targeting sin.

 

This..... soo much.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

 

Nope. Nope. Nope.

 

Good argument.

I'd honestly challenge A&E's decision being in violation of Civil Rights Act of 1964. Discrimination of religion.

 

:sigh:

Your point would make sense if they suspended for being a Christian. That was not why they suspended him.

 

His religion is against homosexuality, as stated in the Bible, which is a Christian doctrine. Being a Christian doesn't mean you pick and choose parts of the Bible that you think are ok and not ok, so I think you are very misguided in your "arugment".

 

There could be a case for this but I think he would lose.

Freedom of speech is not protected from punishment from a boss.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I317 using Tapatalk

 

And that is fine. His religion can be against anything he wants it to be against.

But if he makes public statements that his employer deems inappropriate or harmful to their brand, they have every right to suspend him for those comments.

Your argument is very, very misguided. Absolutely no rights were infringed upon here. It is quite clear.

 

Really guys..............31 pages?

 

It's a slow work week before the holidays. I have found this thread quite fun.

 

Here's the question I can't believe nobody has brought up. What on earth was Phil Robertson doing giving an interview to a metrosexual magazine than no real man's man would even consider reading.

 

trying to expand their brand

 

I don't really think Phil is interested in expanding their brand. Willie yes.