“We certainly did not mean to have anyone think different.”
Unintentional irony from the Cracker Barrel PR person, or just grammatically challenged? Both?
It’s a facebook post. Proper grammar, orthography, punctuation and syntax on facebook posts are optional.
18-49, while an important demo, is not the sole demo. The 15 million viewers claim is incorrect by any metric.
It’s not additive.
Because homophobia is a choice, which only reveals itself once you’ve done something which is definitely liable to cause harm to the business you are working for, i.e. made your bigotry public knowledge. Homosexuality is not a choice. You might as well ask “Why is it legal to fire a black person but illegal to fire a loudmouth racist”.
Homophobia is a choice, homosexuality isn’t. The two are not comparable. It is no more acceptable to fire someone for being gay than to fire them for being black, and the two should both be absolutely illegal.
Homosexuality isn’t a choice. Homosexual acts are. If things that are by choice can be illegal, should it be illegal to fire someone for that?
I’ll tell you what. I agree that if someone at work is talking about banging their significant other I fully support that being listed as a fireable offence. I just ask that if apply across all sexualities and that merely being a homo or heterosexual is not enough to assume that such acts are taking place.
ha. And now A&E i$ having a Duck Dyna$ty marathon. Way to tand behind your principle, A&E.
The crackers had them over a barrel, huh?
-is what I would say if my ability to make puns underwent a shocking decline.
I’m willing to entertain the possibility that this was a publicity stunt, or that A&E saw it as having the potential of a publicity stunt.
What if the place of work doesn’t follow your wants and only fires people for homosexual acts? Should it be legal (since it’s a matter of choice)?
A&E never suspended Duck Dynasty. They suspended the participation of one of its characters. They continue to plan re-runs of the show and they planned the “marathon” months ago and chose not to refuse to run it. Since Robertson’s repugnant views were not widely publicized at the time that the episodes were filmed, A&E probably figures that there is no point in not using them.
A&E has made no claim that the Robertson family is under a cloud or even that Papa Robertson is to be banned, forever.
It’s just business.
If I’m so offended by somebody’s repugnant views that I’m going to disassociate myself from him, then I’m not going to selectively do so. I’m going to totally do so.
But yeah. It obviously isn’t really about the principle of it. It’s just business. As usual.
Hey, people can hear racist homophobia all the time. That’s no reason to deprive them of conversations about… I dunno, ducks, or some shit.
I would normally call someone a racist who thinks that African-Americans were happy living with a constant stream of terrorist attacks directed at them. But, perhaps I’m wrong. I suppose it’s possible that he thinks that victims of terrorism are generally happy. Maybe he thinks that people were happy after 9/11 and the OKC bombing as well. If that’s the case, I suppose he’s just a sociopath, rather than being racist.
So what? Not many people live in your black and white world.
By suspending (not banishing) Robertson, A&E left it open for Robertson to make a statement or take an action that would demonstrate that he would not be a drag on the show’s ratings. Nothing in A&E’s suspension announcement claims a moral issue. Only those who want to promote or defend Robertson’s homophobia and racism appear to be trying to make this a moral issue.
Can you elaborate how you have decided, judging by my comments, that I’m living in a black and white world?
Yep, nothing homophobic, here:[“They (homosexuals) committed indecent acts with one another,” said Robertson, clad in his usual camouflage, in the video posted on the church’s YouTube page, which has drawn fresh attention in the wake of Robertson’s suspension from one of the most-watched shows on cable television.
“And they received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion,” he added. “They’re full of murder, envy, strife, hatred. They are insolent, arrogant God haters. They are heartless. They are faithless. They are senseless. They are ruthless. They invent ways of doing evil.”](http://bangordailynews.com/2013/12/21/news/nation/duck-dynasty-star-phil-robertson-critical-of-gays-in-2010-speech/?ref=latest)
As for the claim that a statement that black people were happy in the 1950s: trying to portray that as not racist is just silly. One response from a woman who grew up at the same time as Robertson in the same area:“Oh, I hated [the boss man and white people.] I really, really did,” she told him. “I was mad at what they did to us. I had to walk eight miles to school each way. Rain, cold, hot, whatever. The school bus used to pass us by. We couldn’t ride it because we were black. Sometimes there’d be this big 'ol bus and only two white children riding it. The bus would pass by close enough to splash water on us, but they wouldn’t pick us up.” Robertson’s “race” claims indicate that he was oblivious to the racism that his neighbors suffered and that fifty years later he has refused to learn anything about what was going on around him. That may not make him a David Duke racist, but it certainly indicates a pretty strong case of willful ignorance that seems to be strongly “colored” by racism.
In a perfect world it should be legal but we don’t live in a perfect world. Much like race issues within the recent past have necessitated special legislation to prevent people from firing blacks, animus toward homosexuals was recent and virulent enough that I think they are deserving of special consideration.
Given the above I feel that it makes for a good compromise to allow for employers to fire anyone based on knowledge of their sexual exploits coming to light at work regardless of the sex of the participants.