Skip to comments.Vanity: Did A&E break the Civil Rights Law?
Posted on 12/21/2013 5:41:13 AM PST by rlbedfor
Civil Rights Act of 1964
Title VII of the Act, codified as Subchapter VI of Chapter 21 of title 42 of the United States Code, prohibits discrimination by covered employers on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin (see 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2).
I doubt that the DD folks are employees of A&E.
Superseded by those lovely “hate crime” laws, of course. Just like the equal protection of the laws clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
All animals are equal, But some are more equal than others........
Would it apply? I am NOT standing up for a&e however, he was likely not an employee, but a contractor. if the contract had a clause that A&E used to suspend him or cancel the contract, i am not sure it’s illegal. (just stupid)
If you’re still paying a cable TV or satellite bill you are not only approving of what A&E did, you’re subsidizing the salaries of those who did it.
Good point. I suspect a contractor, but it seems one could not openly not hire women contractors because they are women.
No, Duck Dynasty stars are not employees. They are their own company.
No. He wasn’t fired for expressing religious views, he was suspended for bringing bad press on his employer.
By expressing his religious beliefs. Seems like a slippery slope to religious discrimination. He basically quoted Leviticus 18:22 and 23.
Doesn’t matter what he did to get the bad press, he brought bad press. It’s not discrimination at all, he’s getting the same punishment now he’d have gotten if he’d pulled a Charlie Sheen.
Nope. He is not covered by The Civil Rights Act(s). All four of his descriptors exclude him.
This from Henry Mark Holzer. The finest legal mind I know.
First Amendment or Free Market?
Just when I began to believe that many of the more prominent TV talking heads could not be more stupid, they did it again.
Regarding the current Duck flap (no pun intended).........
In a magazine interview, the Head Duck quoted scripture (in which he devoutly believes) on the subject of homosexuality. That was his right.
Many people were offended. That was their right.
They conveyed their displeasure to the Duck’s employer, A&E Network. That was their right.
The employer fired Mr. Duck because of what he said and/or because of the complaints. That was its right.
Why, Greta and Bill (and many others) was it the Network’s right? Because A&E is a private organization owned by private individuals.
That’s the free market. If I own a bowling alley and insist my employees have the image of a bowling pin tattooed on their foreheads, they can take it or leave it.
Similarly, if Mr. A&E doesn’t want his employees quoting scripture anywhere, disparaging homosexuals, or predicting the next Super Bowl’s winner, the employees can take it or leave.
This is the free market, whose unofficial slogan should be, but sadly isn’t, “take it or leave it.”
Thus, the Duck Episode has nothing—nothing!!—to do with the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United State of America. To remind Greta VanSusteren, Bill O’Reilly, and hosts of their colleague hosts, the First Amendment begins “Congress shall make no law . . . .” And even though judicial sleight-of-hand has made the First Amendment’s guarantees apply to the states, not yet in our statist-collectivist nation has that amendment been thought to assure that “A&E shall make no law . . . .”
No. Civil Rights laws do not apply to Christians and Jews - apparently.
But...is Phil an “employee?” Kinda like Rush is an “employee” if all those radio stations he is heard on?
A free market is not an element of the constitution, any more than “separation of Church and State. Like the latter, its an ideological construct. As to the right of A&E to dispute Roberts interpretation of Scripture, it boils down to the terms of the contract. Since Robertsons is not a professional actor like Sheen, the relationship is very different.
With the fascination of the promotion of homosexuality by some in this nation, I wonder what would happen if straight college grads, who have difficulty getting jobs, decide to mention they are part of the lifestyle during interviews. They could claim they were denied a job based on that reference alone.
Call me a cynic...
Reality show stars are not employees. They’re contractors, not covered by any civil rights statute.
Agreed whole heartedly. And it is our 1st amendment right to chose to speak up about this event. The brass at A&E either has no guts or genuinely distains Christian sentiments. For the latter, it does not make sense, because Mr. Robertson’s Christian beliefs were known and integral to the show. So I have to conclude that A&E believed they will lose more then gain by keeping him on board. The punted.
We’re not talking about the first amendment being violated, but the government’s own laws to prevent discrimination on the basis of one’s religion. EEOC
Whether they should have stuck their nose in defining discrimination is another matter entirely.
Sorry, I misread your post.
Deciding Who Is Covered
People who are not employed by the employer, such as independent contractors, are not covered by the anti-discrimination laws. Figuring out whether or not a person is an employee of an organization (as opposed to a contractor, for example) is complicated. If you aren’t sure whether a person covered, you should contact one of our field offices as soon as possible so we can make that decision.
“All animals are equal, But some are more equal than others........ “
Way to bust out some Orwell. Who knew he would be a prophet.
If A&E did not have the authority to suspend Robertson, he’d presumably just ignore it and keep shooting the show.
I’m sure the business relationship between the family and network is spelled out in their contract. So, here come the lawyers.
Suspended is not the same as fired. Ask lots of cops.
What the American people see playing out in this Duck Dynasty flap has nothing to do with any current provision in our Constitution or Civil Rights laws. This incident is just more evidence that the wisdom our Founding Fathers wrote into our Constitution has, in 200 years, been subverted and their intended form Democracy, as laid out in our Constitution, has become the thing they feared most about a Democracy; it has become Mob Rule, and Phil Robertson has placed himself in opposition of this Mob.
The Democrat Party is now a coalition of Godless Communists, Socialists, pseudo-intellectual elitists, feminists, abortionists, Global Warming insisters , race-baiters, welfare parasites, sexual perverts, and other assorted criminals that comes close to making up the majority of the American population. This coalition may have little in common with one another but they support each others agenda, vote as a block and are powerful enough to twice elect one of their own as President of our country, so they certainly have enough power to not only tell A&E what they can, and cannot say and do, but as soon as Obama appoints another Supreme Court Justice, theyll be able to tell each of us what we can, and cannot, say and do.
That’s quite true. But your initial point was that you weren’t sure Phil Robertson worked for Gay&E. Mine was that if there wasn’t such a relationship, any sanction couldn’t be effective.
FWIW, I don’t think the Robertsons would need to take legal action. Millions of Americans are saying exactly what they think about the network’s actions and it’s quite possible they may never fully recover from the damage they did.
Something tells me this is a one way street.
That’s a pretty good summation: A & E was within their rights to do what they did. Furthermore, if somebody wants to form a pressure group to agitate against A & E (and now Cracker Barrel too) that is their right as well. We’re seeing plenty of that.
Depends on the wording of the contracts.
Yes. All those stations Rush is on have the ability to bail on Rush if he says stuff they don’t want on their airwaves. Now depending on the contracts they have with Rush they might not be able to suspend the show immediately, but at the very least the contracts have an expiration and they can opt not to renew.
The free market might not be in the Constitution, but the Constitution does NOT govern private voluntary relationships. Notice the 1st only says Congress can’t do it:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
You, and your company, are under no compulsion when it comes to other people’s religion or speech. A&E isn’t disputing Robertson’s interpretation of anything, they are disassociating from the bad press he brought. For all intents and purposes Robertson IS a professional actor, he is on air talent paid to give them hours both for taping and for promotion and certainly has a “don’t do things that would limit the audience of the show or network” clause in his contract.
Way to bust out some Orwell. Who knew he would be a prophet.
In a time of universal deceit - telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
Easy solution to get their attention: Block A&E from you TV. I just did that this morning. I can do without them. Then I called my cable people and told them the advertising that goes on A&E will not get to my house.
Would that like contracting to have a wedding cake for a gay couple? If a business can be forced to do business based on "non-discrimination laws", then I fail to see how A & E is not guilty, guilty, guilty.
The Duck Dynasty name belongs to A&E
The Duck Commander name belongs to the Robertsons
Neither are those wanting 'wedding' photography and cakes, but apparently business cannot discriminate based on religious belief of sexual bias. Soooo - what is good for the drake is good for the hen.
Since the press can choose to vilify anybody for anything, your doctrine would leave no conservative's job safe.
Is it their right because they own the business?
I doubt it.
Smoking is still legal as far as I know but it appears that right has been usurped by the political class.
The press didn’t vilify him, he stepped into known controversial territory with an answer that anybody that’s paid any attention to the world for the last decade knew was going to make people angry and cause of boycott. He could have easily opted not to answer (his handler should have stopped him), he could have just said he’s a Bible believing Christian and left it at that, but no he decided to get into anus vs vaginas, he ran straight into the hot button issue with a blow torch. And for that he’s been suspended.
Anybody whose job includes making public statements is one bad comment away from ending their job. It’s the nature of that kind of job. If you’re a celebrity, with a few rare exceptions, your job is to be likable and non-controversial. And it’s just as easy for liberals to screw that up as conservatives.
You do have a point.
Bad Press, is as about as subjective as one can get. In fact Robertson is NOT a professional actor as Sheen is. In any case. a Church is a special case of a corporation, which fact is reflected in magna carta, and in a negative way in the First Amendment. A&E is just one company contracting for a service from another company, of which Robertson is the senior partner.
Bad press isn’t subjective at all, it’s actually very objective, if a sizable group of people start organizing a boycott that’s bad press and the person that brought it on is now in trouble.
He’s paid to be a character (a dramatized version of himself but still a character) in front of cameras for the entertainment of others. He’s an actor. In fact his contract with Gurney Productions (the guys that make the show) probably came off the same boiler plate as Charlie’s contract with Mohawk (makers of his current show), though there’s contractually obligated drug testing that’s been added to Charlie’s.
You got part of it right, A&E is just a company contracting services. And part of that contract includes don’t bring bad press onto the network or the show. He did, he’s suspended, it’s just that simple.
yes, his opinion is controversial. So is the assertion that homosexuality is moral behavior. Except that many people want to keep him from saying what he did. In the context of a gentlemans magazine like GQ, the use of vagina and anus are not out of line. What had them controversial was not the words themselves by the fact that 1) the editor pulled them out of the text and show-cased them. and 2) because he dared to say that homosexuality is immoral, out loud and in public.
GQ isn’t a “gentleman’s” magazine, it’s the guys ‘version of cosmo, and it’s not that the words are out of line, or even what he said. It’s that he said things that made somebody mad, quite a few somebodies, enough somebodies to get a boycott going. It’s a controversial topic, no matter what direction the speaker goes in, how many people and shows do various FReepers boycott because of pro-homosexual statements? One way or the other it’s a dangerous topic for a celebrity to be blabbing about, the only thing about the quote that made it controversial is that he said it, context doesn’t make it less so. It’s a topic he should have known to dodge, he didn’t, now he’s suspended. That’s life as a celebrity.
Of course another part of life as a celebrity is knowing that it’s all temporary, assuming he doesn’t go full Sheen and turn this into a pissing contest between him and the network by Valentine’s Day this whole thing will have blown over and he’ll be off suspension. In the end he should consider it a favor, by being suspended now it means he doesn’t have to participate in the publicity tour for the show coming back in January (which this interview was part of). The number of annoying shallow people he’ll have to talk to for the next 6 weeks just got reduced dramatically, same with his 4AM calls for morning talk shows. And he’ll still get the money from the show and the merch. I’d love that kind of suspension.
In any case, the real question is why A&E thought that what he said cast a shadow on their reputation. The reason is that so many businesses are running scared of the homosexual movement in this country, which seems able to go into any court in this country and win a case against anyone who refuses to do what they want.
The reductio ad absurdum is the case of the little folks like cakemakers and photography are being compelled by the courts to take clients they dont want to take and are upfront about their reasons for not taking such customers.
You are all bent out of shape about the liberties of a big company like A&E. I am worried about the arrogance of a vicious lobby that gets after anyone who disagrees with them, and of course supports A&E because they want to send the message that no one is big enough to stand against them.
Charlie Sheen has been playing himself on TV for a decade