Posted on 12/19/2013 5:49:34 PM PST by Battle Hymn of the Republic
I'm tired of people getting in trouble for expressing their opinions, popular or not. A person should say what they believe, and we should support their right to say it, whether we disagree or not. This is America. Then again, I don't own a company that depends on revenue generated by quirky Louisiana duck hunters, who look like ZZ Top and believe homosexuality is wrong and Southern blacks were a lot happier back in the good old days.
(Excerpt) Read more at mercurynews.com ...
So, if they discriminate against one person and leave a hundred others not discriminated against, then they have not discriminated? Illogical.
An employer is not permitted to discriminate and then call it business interests. Otherwise, they could blackball any group of people they come to dislike or secretly disliked all along.
They are discriminating against Robertson on 2 counts: religion and sexual orientation.
This isn't an employment situation under Title VII. This is a business contract where each party has the right to sever the contract for any reason provided for in said contract. If Victoria's Secret offers a contract to a model to represent them in their advertising, and that model proceeds to gain 50 additional pounds, then Victoria's Secret would be well within their rights to sever that contract on the basis that the model had ballooned to the size of a small pig. Likewise, if Planned Parenthood had contracted with Norma Leah McCorvey to be their spokesperson before her religious transformation, and she subsequently got saved and began preaching on the evils of abortion, PP would have the right to terminate that contract. Government would have no right to prevent a company from legally ending a contract which went against their own interests.
You are not allowed to be conservative and be on TV, it’s a black list
Don't be absurd. A&E didn't suspend Robertson because he was a Christian. They suspended him -- foolishly, in my estimation -- because of what he said. And a misguided fear that it would result in bad PR for the network.
Employers have a right to do that. Even if their action is patently stupid...and makes the situation far worse than it otherwise would've been.
Don't blame A&E for acting unconstitutionally. Blame them for being dumb as a box of rocks.
The logical flaw can be found in your attempt to use the conclusion as a premise of proof. It is called 'begging the question'. Any argument of proving discrimination due to sexual orientation that includes the premise of discrimination due to sexual orientation is in itself illogical.
When A&E first entered into contract with Phil Robertson, his sexual preference was already assumed to be heterosexual. There has not been any contrary discovery here of sexual preference that has triggered A&E's actions. This isn't a case of some group contracting with someone on the assumption that the person was gay, and then wanting to fire them later because they found out the person was actually straight.
An employer is not permitted to discriminate . . .
A&E is not an employer in this case. Phil Robertson is a contractor. He does not receive the rights and benefits an employee would receive.
They are discriminating against Robertson on 2 counts: religion and sexual orientation.
They are not discriminating on either (not that it matters). Robertson's religious views and sexual preference are the exact same as they were when the contract was initially offered.
1. He’s come out as a proud heterosexual. The same with the religious discrimination. OK up to “their” point...and then it wasn’t ok.
2. Contracting businesses can’t discriminate either.
Contracting businesses can and do discriminate all the time. Do you understand how contracts work? A business offers a contract because they perceive that the value received from that contract will exceed the cost of that contract. If at any time their assessment changes, they have the right to terminate that contract provided that such a termination agreement is included. You don’t get to pick and choose what reasons are valid and which are not. You aren’t the one assuming the risk here. A&E is, so the decision remains theirs alone.
It’s against the law to discriminate against a provider because of race, religion, gender, etc. And scotus has, for all practical purposes, added sexual orientation to that.
Let P&G, for example, decide against XYZ corporation’s bid on the basis of their race. See how fast they get taken to the cleaners.
The faggot establishment is used to folks cowering down after someone says something that offends them. This time these GLAADY bastards have set off an unintended a shit storm that will blow back in their face for years to come.
We're not talking about accepting a bid. There is no bidding going on here. This is an ongoing contract that had already been awarded with full knowledge of Phil Robertson's religious views and sexual preference, and it was a contract that was never open for bidding.
I must say that I am amazed at your position that the federal government should use the power of the gun to force A&E to keep Phil Robertson on the air based upon some arbitrary claim of discrimination. As one who was formerly self-employed, the ONLY legal qualifications applicable in any contract are contained within that contract. Period. If the contractee wants to terminate me at any time and for any reason, they have that right. Likewise, at any time that I no longer wish to provide work to the contractee, I have the right to terminate, regardless of reason. And why? Because it says it in the contract.
Yes, only if they are Christian, though. If they are Muslim, Hindu, Atheists, Pagans, Zoroastrians etc. you will be sued and maybe jailed.
You misunderstand. I’m saying that if Robertson were let go because he had announced he is gay or announced pro gay views that we both know it would be a discrimination suit overnight and probably an injunction in the morning. That is what has happened only in reverse. And crickets...
But we both know all the law I’ve mentioned would be used if it were a gay. Which is why the Baker was forced to submit.
I want to see the same course followed and see the hypocrites deny it.
I know a bit about At-will employment and as I am sure there is a catch-all clause in their contract, A&E can only fire Phil if he does something they don’t like on the set or at a company function. Me thinks that’s why he was put on “hiatus” instead of fired. Once the lawyers form an opinion on whether or not he can be fired is when they will make their final decision. To my knowledge, in an at-will contract agreement, the company cannot terminate the contract for something that a contractor does away from the business that is not illegal. You can be fired for any reason, true, but then legally you can sue the company for lost wages, etc.
All Phil did was state his religious beliefs. I believe A&E did not fire him for this reason. He is on "Hiatus" until A and E figures out how many millions of dollars they want to lose!
If the government were forcing A&E to fire this guy, that’d be a freedom of speech issue. If they were indicting him for what he said it’d be freedom of speech issue.
This is a contract between private parties. Certainly not a freedom of speech issue.
How stupid can A & E be?
First, they are spitting into the soup of the largest audience for any series they have EVER had.....the Robertsons.
Next—How unable to connect the dots is the person who went after Phil when the inevitable T-shirts, bumper stickers, coffee mugs, Etc, can be sold in overwhelming numbers with the simple change of an “D” for an “F”?
Is there a single brain cell working at A & E???
I hope Fox picks them up.
Merely noting that it is assuredly within their constitutional rights -- if it is contractually allowed, of course -- to "suspend" him.
It's amusing that, in order to serve the politically correct PR agenda, A&E now finds themselves caught between a.) the agenda and b.) their audience and profit.
Liberals LOVE censorship. They always have an excuse for it, too. However, if a conservative uses their exact excuse they are called all kinds of hate-filled names.
Civil rights law of 164 doesn't cover sexual orientation.
Colorado has a state civil-rights law that forbids places of public accommodation from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation. There is no such federal law.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.