This is a really good point. In my first version of the analogy, I’d written “gay-friendly” instead of “gay.” I think I changed it to make it match “Jewish,” but probably I should have changed “Jewish” to say “Jewish-friendly” instead.
Late to the topic but I’m just amazed everytime I watch the show and I don’t hear racist homophobic comments or jokes or anything about the damn immigrants.
Who are these people who think some old country swamp redneck with a long beard in the state of Louisiana is a liberal?
So basically A and E should have told him “hey while you’re doing the show you have to pretend to be something you’re not.” Hell maybe they did.
Let’s not forget a little over 20 years ago that state came very close to electing a Grand Wizard of the KKK to be governor. If people really think those days are over and these old dudes are now enlightened liberals they’re crazy.
I don’t watch the show, mostly because I use my screen time to argue politics on messageboards or to kill hobgoblins with my +12 sword of nerdiness, but in small part because I figured chances were good the stars would be kind of terrible people. Sure, there are old country swamp rednecks who aren’t terrible people, but racism and homophobia are part of the culture, right? Someone who’s not a racist homophobe is swimming against the current.
You’re amazed “everytime” you watch it that you don’t hear offensive comments, yet you continue to tune in?
I think I’ve watched maybe five minutes at a time about five or so times. It’s like a car accident, you don’t want to look while you are passing by but you do and then you regret it.
ehhe. Gotcha
I’m going to ignore the “two wrongs make a right” aspect of this and focus on the distinctions between the hijab case and the Robertson one.
To me it comes down to the two aspects I identified: the degree to which the prohibition on religious expression effects the work being performed and the neutrality of the prohibition wrt all religions.
I think both of these cases pass the neutrality test, but it is a closer question for the hijab case. There is nothing Christian-specific about homophobia, but women covering their heads and faces is a bit more intimately tied to Islam.
The relevance to performance of the work is also pretty clear in the Robertson case - his entire job is drawing viewers to A&E and any action or statement that decreases his popularity (as perceived by A&E) is detrimental to the quality of the service rendered. The hijab case is, again, a bit murkier in that it’s harder to draw a direct line between a hijab and a decrease in the ability to sell clothing (or whatever). I think the employer needs to show that it has a compelling reason for the prohibition of expression. A&E’s reason is pretty clear, the boutique’s less so.
Either way, I would most likely come down on the side of both A&E and the boutique owner, but I don’t think it’s nearly as slam-dunk in the boutique case.
Other than one being real and the other being imaginary? 
I’m wondering why “didn’t they now what they were getting into” doesn’t also apply to the Robertsons. They aren’t going to be the first people to find out that there is no “off camera” when you’re a public figure, and that he who pays the piper calls the tune. While I’m not privy to their contract, it undoubtedly has a clause that says to the effect of “don’t make us look bad”. Well, they’re making A&E look bad.
^Link is broken
The boutique doesn’t have that right because the “no hijab” requirement is irrelevant to their business of selling clothes. Reasonable people have already determined that if a salesperson wears a hijab, its not damaging enough for the business to make them stop. Now if the woman wanted to wear a swastika, be naked, or cover herself in bees and honey, one can say that it damaging enough to the business to force her to stop even if she claims religion
Robertson forgot he was on a TV show. TV gets its money from advertisements and selling crap with his face on it. If suddenly people didn’t want to watch the show or support A&E, then that is impacting the business and not harmless.
The boutique exists because you want to pretend that a hijab is the same thing as spouting hateful rhetoric in a business all about how people view you. Its not. No clothing selling business should be allowed to discriminate against a hijab but every TV show should be able to kick homophobic racists from the air
I’m not picking and choosing anything. I clicked your link on my phone, and that’s the only definition that came up, full stop. Maybe next time you should actually know what you’re linking to.
So, if A&E sees that removing Phil from the show is impacting the business (negatively) and is not harmless, you’d be ok with them apologizing and inviting him back, right?
Why would they apologize?
For kneejerk overreaction? And to get him back. Cuz they need him more than he needs them.
It depends on how you are using the word ‘ok’ in this sense. Would I agree that it is a moral choice that should be applauded and supported? Not so much. Do I think that they are well within their rights to do so? Sure. In much the same way as I would be ok if they decided to air “Little Hitler” during Antisemitic Tuesday. It is their right to do so if they think it will garner them business but I would not support the network myself and would work to let advertisers that I was avoiding their products and why.
Well, it’s not firmly established who needs who. A&E can survive the loss of his performances, or even the loss of the series, I gather (if they can’t, they’re astonishingly poorly run). Personally, I can imagine an apology aggravating the problem, making it appear A&E agrees or endorses his views, or is spineless. It wouldn’t leave me with a positive impression of the network.
Someone should also tell Phil that there are still a lot of “Shintos” in Japan today and they have started any wars or launched any sneaky sneak Pearl Harbor-style attacks in a good long while, so perhaps he shouldn’t state that their evil, non-Christian religion is the cause of all of Imperial Japan’s wrongdoings.
People need to realize gays are super sensitive. It’s not a choice. It’s how they are born. It would be so fabulous if the haters would soften their comments about them.
I am proud of the way the tolerant gays deal with people they oppose. They are never in your face or crass.
Phil Robertson should not have answered that question honestly. He should have said he didn’t believe in God, and thought that a man’s anus was more appealing than a womans vagina.
Now THAT would be entertainment!