A&E suspends Phil Robertson over anti-gay remarks

[Zakalwe]

@Terr

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?

Yep. Same kind of business decision this was. I wouldn’t ever watch them again (and might work to tell advertisers how I felt), but I would totally support their right to make that decision (as I support their right to make this one).

@A_nice_guy_with_an_opinion

I am proud of the way the tolerant gays deal with people they oppose. They are never in your face or crass.

I am so proud of Christians who worship a man who said “Love thy neighbor as thyself” and then spew hateful shit about any neighbor who isn’t exactly like them. It’s so cute how they have no clue about how fucking stupid they sound to anyone who can actually read the words in red…

[Dostoyevsky]

@A_nice_guy_with_an_opinion

People need to realize gays are super sensitive. It’s not a choice. It’s how they are born.

Are you serious?

[Dostoyevsky]

@bmoak

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.

Shinto what??? Too nuanced. Take your not-a-good-old-boy perspective back to the librul digs you’s came from.

[Antinor01]

@A_nice_guy_with_an_opinion

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.

The question was what does he consider sin. It says a lot about his thought process that the first thing he thought of was homos considering that there are about a thousand things he could have said. It has nothing to do with being sensitive, hell I’ve spent my entire life being told I’m going to hell for being gay. You don’t survive a fundamentalist family without developing a thicker skin.

[tomndebb]

@A_nice_guy_with_an_opinion

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.

If you are going to practice your satire, or even your sarcasm, I think that you would do well to do it in front of a close group of friends who can critique your efforts before you attempt it in public.

[A_nice_guy_with_an_opinion]

@Dostoyevsky

Are you serious?

Of course.

If they are born gay, why could they not be born with other traits that apply to them? Isn’t it possible that some traits might be more likely if someone is born gay?

Is sensitivity a bad thing?

I hear gays have very high IQs. Nobody I have seen saying that has a problem with attributing that trait to gays.

I like vagina, so I am probably not quite as smart as the average gay. It’s ok to say that, correct?

[Karrius]

@A_nice_guy_with_an_opinion

I like vagina, so I am probably not quite as smart as the average gay. It’s ok to say that, correct?

To be fair, while you have made it absolutely clear that you’re nowhere near as smart as the average person, it has nothing to do with your sexuality, no matter what made-up strawman fantasizes you have composed of liberals claiming in your head.

Perhaps you should try having less of an opinion, and do more of that being nice thing?

[A_nice_guy_with_an_opinion]

@Karrius

To be fair, while you have made it absolutely clear that you’re nowhere near as smart as the average person, it has nothing to do with your sexuality, no matter what made-up strawman fantasizes you have composed of liberals claiming in your head.

Perhaps you should try having less of an opinion, and do more of that being nice thing?

Here I am attributing sensitivity and a higher IQ to gays, something that has been pushed by studies and groups over and over, and I am the bad guy for taking it as gayspel or gospel…whatever that word is.

I like gays. Most of them I know are smart. I don’t know many stupid or ignorant queers( That is a term used in a show title, correct?) just trying to be fair and call them by a name they chose. I don’t know a whole lot of stupid or ignorant straights either. I know a lot of people that I assume to be straight that are stupid, but they might like anus better than vagina. I just don’t know. I don’t ask or really care. I guess if we went around and asked everyone what they thought about what was ok, or not, we would have a lot better world.

It’s 2013. Even the forum name STRAIGHT dope might be offensive to some.

[Magiver]

@YogSosoth

^Link is broken

The boutique doesn’t have that right because the “no hijab” requirement is irrelevant to their business of selling clothes.

only if you’re selling hijabs. otherwise it’s a an indication the person wearing it is clueless in regards to the sale of the clothing at that store and holds a personal belief that women should wear same.

[Ibn_Warraq]

@A_nice_guy_with_an_opinion

Phil Robertson should not have answered that question honestly. He should have said… that a man’s anus was more appealing than a womans vagina.

Dude, there’s a saying.

There are two type of men in this world.

Bottoms and those who have no idea what they’re missing.

Go get a prostrate massage and see if you disagree.

[A_nice_guy_with_an_opinion]

Never thought of a medical procedure as a pleasure train.

I guess gays should pay more into the ACA since they get extra bennies.

[crowmanyclouds]

@YogSosoth

The boutique doesn’t have that right because the “no hijab” requirement is irrelevant to their business of selling clothes.

@Magiver

only if you’re selling hijabs. otherwise it’s a an indication the person wearing it is clueless in regards to the sale of the clothing at that store and holds a personal belief that women should wear same.

The haberdashery doesn’t have that right because the “no yarmulke” requirement is irrelevant to their business of selling hats.

“Only if you’re selling yarmulkes. Otherwise it’s a an indication the person wearing it is clueless in regards to the sale of the hats at that store and holds a personal belief that all men should wear yarmulkes.”
:smack:

@Antinor01

The question was what does he consider sin. It says a lot about his thought process that the first thing he thought of was homos considering that there are about a thousand things he could have said. …

Like the, IIUC, long list of his personal sins?

Apparently motes are more noticeable that beams! (Where mote = a violent assault on two people et al. and beam = having sex he thinks is [del]icky[/del] illogical.)

CMC

[tomndebb]

A nice guy with an opinion, while making no effort to be subtle, I did try to let you know that your responses were not appropriate to this forum.

Now I will let you know, formally, that your responses are out of line. If you want to try to mock issues regarding homosexuality and North American society, open a thread in The BBQ Pit. Your attempts at cheap shots are not really pertinent to this discussion and amount to threadshitting. Do not persist in this attempt at a hijack of this thread.

[ /Moderating ]

[Bricker]

@Jas09

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.

That’s a very balanced reply.

In the real-life hijab case, IIRC the boutique owner argued that he required his salespeople to wear only the clothes that the store sold: in other words, his salespeople were models, and sold clothes by their image, presented by walking around in the store and giving life to the classic “This looks much better on!”

[Bricker]

@YogSosoth

^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

But couldn’t “reasonable people” also determine that an outside interview given to a print magazine is irrelevant to A&E’s business of broadcasting shows?

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@Bricker

But couldn’t “reasonable people” also determine that an outside interview given to a print magazine is irrelevant to A&E’s business of broadcasting shows?

Really? It seems to me that A&E made him famous in order to make themselves money. His fame is inextricably tied up in their business model. His interview is part of their media plan.

I’m no media expert, but it seems wholly implausible to me that his contract doesn’t stipulate conditions for conducting interviews. These interviews reflect on the network’s judgment.

I can’t see how the interview could be irrelevant to their business.

[Bryan_Ekers]

I’m not really seeing a freedom-of-speech angle in this case. He expressed himself and can do so again, as often as he likes.

[Jonathan_Chance]

@Bricker

But couldn’t “reasonable people” also determine that an outside interview given to a print magazine is irrelevant to A&E’s business of broadcasting shows?

Yeah, I can’t buy that one, Bricker. The sole reason he’s being interviewed is due to his role on the show. And I’m willing to bet his contract contains both a ‘shall not negatively represent’ and ‘best interests of the network’ clause in there somewhere.

He sounded off, he’s been smacked down. By keeping quiet it’ll all go away. If he decides to fight and die on this hill that’s his choice. But fame is fleeting.

[monstro]

@Bricker

But couldn’t “reasonable people” also determine that an outside interview given to a print magazine is irrelevant to A&E’s business of broadcasting shows?

Any one of us can be fired for stuff we post on this message board, on Facebook, and on Twitter. Being fired for saying stuff outside of the office is pretty par for the course nowadays. I don’t have sympathy for people like this. Nor do I have sympathy for Robertson. Not when there’s a line flowing out to the street of other talented people waiting for their own 15 minutes of fame. Knowing how to STFU and put on a fake smile is what show biz is all about. Robertson et al. don’t like it? They can leave it!

I don’t know why people are freaking out. It’s not like the clan is going to go broke over this. Michael Richards called a crowd full of people “niggers”, and last time I checked, he’s still on TV. Paula Deen hasn’t been hanging out on any street corners with a “Will fry your food for money” sign either. Don Imus, ditto. Does anyone seriously believe the same won’t happen to Phil Robertson?

[Telemark]

@Bricker

But couldn’t “reasonable people” also determine that an outside interview given to a print magazine is irrelevant to A&E’s business of broadcasting shows?

The A&E handler was with him on the interview - he just wasn’t present when they were out riding quads. This was part of the publicity campaign for the show.

'Duck Dynasty' -- A&E Publicist MIA When Phil Robertson Went Off On Gays!