Phil Robertson and freedom to have an opinion

[fskimospy]

Wrong. He was fired because a gay rights group complained.

About his vile behavior. That's like saying you didn't get arrested for committing a crime, you got arrested because someone complained about the crime. ie: that's stupid.

Being same-sex married is not a fundamental, necessary part of being gay. Therefore by your logic it would be fine to fire a gay guy who got same-sex married.

This is baffling and stupid logic, even for you. By SCOTUS precedent, activities that are closely associated with being part of a protected class are also protected. While it has not been specifically adjudicated, if you fired someone for having a gay wedding, this would probably be illegal.

Spouting homophobic slurs in major publications is not closely associated with being a Christian, therefore no protection for it exists.

You just don't understand the law and so you're throwing a temper tantrum.

 

[dpodblood]

Redneck says something you would expect a redneck to say. Slow news day?

 

[nehalem256]

he's not fired. and if a gay person on a show were to start in on their personal beliefs and those reflected poorly on A&E, I would suspect the same thing would occur

he's not suspended for his religious beliefs. he's suspended for his big mouth.

So then you would be fine with A&E suspended someone for getting gay married.

Since he is being suspended not for his sexual orientation, but for his actions.

If his suspension was solely based on his beliefs, they wouldn't have made the show to begin with..

So you are arguing for a don't ask don't tell policy?

 

[ch33zw1z]

Redneck says something you would expect a redneck to say. Slow news day?

pretty much. and all the haters get some more hate fuel.

 

[fskimospy]

And if someone was fired for making a gay rights statement?

Making gay rights statements are also not protected. BEING gay is protected (in some states). These are very different things.

 

[fskimospy]

This is basically the story of this thread (and many others).

 

[nehalem256]

About his vile behavior. That's like saying you didn't get arrested for committing a crime, you got arrested because someone complained about the crime. ie: that's stupid.

Is saying things liberals dislike a crime now?

This is baffling and stupid logic, even for you. By SCOTUS precedent, activities that are closely associated with being part of a protected class are also protected. While it has not been specifically adjudicated, if you fired someone for having a gay wedding, this would probably be illegal.

Spouting homophobic slurs in major publications is not closely associated with being a Christian, therefore no protection for it exists.

You just don't understand the law and so you're throwing a temper tantrum.

Are you suggesting that being anti-gay is not closely associated with some, and presumably Phil Robertson's, religions? Because I thought liberals were always complaining that Christians were trying to force their anti-gay views on others by prohibiting same-sex marriage?

Also what actually said:

“Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men,” he tells reporter Drew Magary. “Don’t be deceived. Neither the adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlers—they won’t inherit the kingdom of God. Don’t deceive yourself. It’s not right.”

He also muses about his own sexual orientation: “It seems like, to me, a vagina—as a man—would be more desirable than a man’s anus. That’s just me. I’m just thinking: There’s more there! She’s got more to offer. I mean, come on, dudes! You know what I’m saying? But hey, sin: It’s not logical, my man. It’s just not logical.”

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2359620

I think its pretty clear that talking about who gets into heaven based on your religious beliefs is closely associated with a given religion.

 

[Exophase]

You guys seriously don't understand what protection from discrimination and being a protected class actually means. It doesn't mean that you're free to express whatever opinion you want on a TV show and they have to air it no matter how unpopular it is. What you say on the show reflects your job performance and marketability, they absolutely can terminate you based on that.

If this guy instead said that he suddenly realized that Christianity didn't make sense to him and he's an atheist now I guarantee you he'd be pulled, no matter how politely he put it. And if Sean Hannity suddenly became very left leaning he'd lose his TV show too. Would you guys be moaning about that too?

 

[brycejones]

And if someone was fired for making a gay rights statement?

They would probably be working for the 700 club?

 

[thraashman]

Conservatives, misunderstanding how freedom of speech works on a daily basis.
or
Conservatives, pro business until that business does something they disagree with.
and
Nehalem, consistently the most incorrect individual in P&N.
or
Nehalem, if you're not white, male, and straight, fuck you.

 

[fskimospy]

Is saying things liberals dislike a crime now?

/facepalm. You're a moron.

Are you suggesting that being anti-gay is not closely associated with some, and presumably Phil Robertson's, religions? Because I thought liberals were always complaining that Christians were trying to force their anti-gay views on others by prohibiting same-sex marriage?

No, I'm saying that making public, anti-gay statements is not.

Also what actually said:

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2359620

I think its pretty clear that talking about who gets into heaven based on your religious beliefs is closely associated with a given religion.

Why don't you read the rest of what you quoted, genius. He was not fired for holding that belief, he was fired for slurring gay people in a national magazine.

I'm sorry that anti-discrimination law is so difficult for you to understand. Maybe go back and read that SCOTUS precedent that I gave you before. I gave you all the information you needed. Is there some kind of difficulty you are having understanding the law?

 

[nehalem256]

No, I'm saying that making public, anti-gay statements is not.

Sure it is. Liberals complain about Christians holding anti-gay views all the time.

Why don't you read the rest of what you quoted, genius. He was not fired for holding that belief, he was fired for slurring gay people in a national magazine.

He was fired for talking about what constitutes a sin. Clearly such a thing would be closely connected with Christianity.

Or perhaps you think saying that butt-sex is icky constitutes a slur?

 

[fskimospy]

Sure it is. Liberals complain about Christians holding anti-gay views all the time.

Irrelevant. Saying someone is making stupid and bigoted statements is bad is not the same as a judgment as to whether or not they are protected by law.

Again, you need to remember just how bad your understanding of the law is. (or how irrationally you are attempting to hold to discredited arguments)

He was fired for talking about what constitutes a sin. Clearly such a thing would be closely connected with Christianity.

Or perhaps you think saying that butt-sex is icky constitutes a slur?

On what evidentiary basis are you saying that he was fired for talking about what constitutes a sin? He said any number of offensive things in that statement. If he believes that he can make the case that making such statements in a national magazine is protected by his freedom from religious discrimination he will of course be free to bring it to the courts. He will lose.

 

[Texashiker]

Irrelevant. Saying someone is making stupid and bigoted statements is bad is not the same as a judgment as to whether or not they are protected by law.

Law aside, there is this thing called mutual respect.

Conservatives - I may not like or agree with your opinion, but I support your right to say it.

Liberals - How dare you think that, much less say it.

 

[child of wonder]

Everyone is free to speak their opinion but they are not free from the consequences of that opinion.

 

[fskimospy]

Law aside, there is this thing called mutual respect.

Conservatives - I may not like or agree with your opinion, but I support your right to say it.

Liberals - How dare you think that, much less say it.

You should go ask Bill Maher and the Dixie Chicks about the truly epic respect conservatives have for free speech.

 

[Texashiker]

You should go ask Bill Maher and the Dixie Chicks about the truly epic respect conservatives have for free speech.

How is humanity supposed to move forward without mutual respect?

Whether it is gay, straight; muslim, christian; jew, muslim; vegan, meat eater; black, white;,,,,, without mutual respect society as a whole will not progress.

 

[thraashman]

How is humanity supposed to move forward without mutual respect?

Whether it is gay, straight; muslim, christian; jew, muslim; vegan, meat eater; black, white;,,,,, without mutual respect society as a whole will not progress.

If conservatives stopped trying to ensure that certain groups had fewer rights and were treated as second class citizens, that might be a start.

 

[fskimospy]

How is humanity supposed to move forward without mutual respect?

Whether it is gay, straight; muslim, christian; jew, muslim; vegan, meat eater; black, white;,,,,, without mutual respect society as a whole will not progress.

'Mutual respect' in this case being the ability of Christians to slur gay people in major publications without consequence.

 

[nehalem256]

On what evidentiary basis are you saying that he was fired for talking about what constitutes a sin? He said any number of offensive things in that statement. If he believes that he can make the case that making such statements in a national magazine is protected by his freedom from religious discrimination he will of course be free to bring it to the courts. He will lose.

Lets look at what he said about gays

“Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men,” he tells reporter Drew Magary. “Don’t be deceived. Neither the adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlers—they won’t inherit the kingdom of God. Don’t deceive yourself. It’s not right.”

He also muses about his own sexual orientation: “It seems like, to me, a vagina—as a man—would be more desirable than a man’s anus. That’s just me. I’m just thinking: There’s more there! She’s got more to offer. I mean, come on, dudes! You know what I’m saying? But hey, sin: It’s not logical, my man. It’s just not logical.”

So seemingly he said 2 things.

(1) Homosexuality is a sin and homosexuals will not get into heaven.

(2) Butt-sex is icky.

So, either he was suspended for

(1) Talking about what is a sin, and who will get into heaven. Clearly this would be closely associated with his religion, and therefore protected, at least if the courts are at all consistent

(2) Irrational gay butt-hurt.

 

[Retro Rob]

This is super simple.

A&E is not required to employ people who make public anti-gay statements. That's is 100% their choice, and they (for obvious reasons) don't want to be associated with that kind of vile behavior. This is why he was suspended, not for his religion. There's no right to not being offended, nor is there a right to offend.

Making public homophobic statements is not a fundamental, necessary part of being a Christian. Therefore, he's not being fired because of his religion. In order to make that case you need to show that homophobia is an inseparable part of his religion, which to me seems to be a much more damaging idea than just firing some stupid bigot.

I get your point, perhaps I didn't make mines clear:

Yes, I agree with you generally, but if they were put under pressure to discipline him for his remarks, then you CAN'T express your opinion(s)...plain and simple.

The fact is, homosexuals/lesbians/bi-sexuals are now an class exempt from any kind of ridicule...even a bland statement of "I don't agree with gay marriage" would get one branded as a homophobic, hateful, bigot and could possibly cause one to lose his position of employment, depending on what that is.

Fact is, we're being forced to accept what they do, who they marry, etc.

Any comment contrary to "I fully support gays and their rights" is no longer tolerated, no matter the reason.

Next time hate speech is directed at any religion or religious person, I suspect you'd come to their defense as well.

 

[Texashiker]

'Mutual respect' in this case being the ability of Christians to slur gay people in major publications without consequence.

And what is the difference in slurring gun owners, liberals, pro-abortion, anti-abortion, democrats,,,,, or anything else?

If Phil would have said something against abortion chances are it would not have made the headlines.

But for some reason anti-gay remarks are condemned?

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

It's just like how stating "I don't agree with biracial marriage" gets one branded as a racist, hateful bigot.

Any comment contrary to "I fully support gays and their rights" is no longer tolerated, no matter the reason.

Everyone knows the reason.

 

[dpodblood]

How is humanity supposed to move forward without mutual respect?

Whether it is gay, straight; muslim, christian; jew, muslim; vegan, meat eater; black, white;,,,,, without mutual respect society as a whole will not progress.

What's with all the commas? Are you the same person as Tweak?

 

[Texashiker]

What's with all the commas? Are you the same person as Tweak?

Continuing the thought process, continuing the list, or pause in the sentence.