Reality show star booted for stating his real opinion. Kinda funny if you think about it.
Missed this as I headed out to work, this morning.
Do not insult other posters in this forum.
Knock it off.
[ /Moderating ]
What if A&E stated that their deeply-held, corporate religious beliefs declared that homosexuality was not a sin, and that they could not, in good conscience, continue to employ someone with whom they had such a fundamental disagreement? 
ehheh. That’s a good one.
I think these 2 examples are on different legal plains. The clothing store is selling an image. Their product directly creates a sale. A&E is selling time. The product is advertising space. The content of the show directly affects the value of that time. If the show generates 10% negative reactions and 10% positive reactions in relation to the value of that time then it’s a wash. However, the customer who buys the time is a middleman in this and THEIR sales can reflect a value (or loss of value) associated with the show’s content. And in many cases that customer is a retailer who sells products and the manufacturers of those products can gain or suffer because of the content of the show.
The bottom line is that A&E knew exactly what they were getting just as the produces of Jerry Springer know. They could have mitigated at least a portion of their liability away with a statement that says the show does not necessarily represent their views. This is different from an employee who looks like a fashion train wreck and insists upon the attire for religious reasons. The general public doesn’t take it’s fashion cues from the Amish or any other group that specifies clothing choices.
thanks for that one. Truly brightened an otherwise lackluster day.
While the last paragraph is true it’s also worth noting the current Governor is darker skinned than most African-Americans and an Asian Indian.
That doesn’t mean racism is done, but let’s put things in perspective.
Let’s not get carried away here. Jindal may be darker-skinned that many African-Americans, but I doubt he’s darker than most.
Agreed.
This hardly the same time someone in the entertainment industry has been punished because they said something that embarrassed their company and as a result got fired.
I don’t remember the same people coming to Robertson’s defense doing so when Rick Sanchez made some weird comments about Jews when he was interviewed by a radio host or Martin Bashir after his comments regarding Sarah Palin.
Hell, Bill O’Reilly has been Robertson’s biggest defender and he tried to get Pepsi to fire Ludacris as it’s sponsor because he didn’t like some of the guy’s lyrics.
Yes, I overstated that.
Manufactured controversy, part of the meta game. And boy haven’t we all been roped in?
Employers have made it clear that anything you can can and will be used against you in the court of employment. If Robertson had said what he’d said prior to being given his own show, A&E would have been more than justified in using this as a reason not to hire him. Just like a potential employer can decide you wouldn’t be a good fit if they discovered a video of you twerking at your son’s birthday party floating around the internet…even if twerking would have been one of your job duties!
So it follows that A&E should also be able to fire someone on the same capricious grounds.
Just for laughs, I started putting respondants into groups:
Group A (homophobes, racists, etc.) react positively to Robertson’s remarks.
Group B (A&E execs, nonhomophobes, nonracists, etc.) react negatively to Roberston’s remarks and Group A’s reaction.
Group C (Fox pundits) react negatively to Group B’s reaction, or at least say they do, as directed by Group E (see below).
Group D (Fox viewers, some of whom are also members of Group A) react positively to Group C’s reaction to Group B’s reaction.
Group E (Fox executives) react positively to Group D’s reaction, while making “cha-CHING!” sounds.
Of course they should. The should also bear the consequences of it. As in losing a lot of money. Do you think they will be willing to do that?
As I said earlier, there’s a long list of people waiting to be the next “Duck Dynasty”. People who are smart enough not to say stupid stuff in interviews, who might even have a broader appeal and bring them more money.
Obviously A&E isn’t worried about losing money. I’m thinking they know a lot more about the biz than you do.
Of course. Cuz it’s so easy to have a #1 show that is watched by 15M people. Anyone can do it.
Watch what happens and learn.
What is it that will happen? That we, as a society, will have to pander to bigots or else suffer punishment?
Would you say that then this is proof that the free market can never fix social problems, and so government intervention will always be needed?
Is A&E “we, as a society”?
It is a bit stupid, to say the least, for a network to put up a show featuring a Christian fundamentalist and his family, with quite an emphasis on his religion and fundamentalism, then act all surprised and hurt when they “discover” his views on homosexuality.
Of course. Ban anyone saying anything negative about homosexuality. That’s the ticket.
Well, you told us to watch and learn, and not A&E. So presumably either your remarks were aimed towards more than A&E, or you really need to work on your sentence structure and comprehensibility. Both seem possible.
You did a remarkable job of not actually answering the question, and making things up with a blatant strawman. Well done.
Let me ask more directly - are you claiming that businesses that do not openly support discrimination will suffer monetary loss? I’m not denying this, by the way - I think it’s true.