Mr. Natural certainly seems to have been implying that all people who talk about “faith” and “family” probably share Robertson’s views.
I don’t claim to be tolerant. I don’t view tolerance as a virtue.
You are tolerant of racists and bigots - I’m not.
I’m not “tolerant” of other races, ethnicity, or orientations. Tolerant implies I am somehow finding them distasteful and choose to ignore it. There is nothing I have to “tolerate” about gay people, or black people. I don’t tolerate my close friends. I accept them, and support them.
Well, I don’t see how he implied Jim Crow law should be brought back at all, but that’s besides the point.
A&E specifically explained that he was being suspended becuase of his “anti-gay” comments. The A&E statement said: “His personal views in no way reflect those of A+E Networks, who have always been strong supporters and champions of the LGBT community. The network has placed Phil under hiatus from filming indefinitely.”
It certainly sounds like me like he got suspended for expressing a biblical view of sexual relations. Unless the “B” now stands for “black.”
I’m not saying they did violate his civil liberties. And I’m not even suggesting that firing a person for his religion ought to be considered a civil liberties issue. I’m just saying that people can quite honestly (and correctly) view such a thing as a civil liberties issue.
Paglia has been saying stupid things for years now. I’ve read some of her columns from the mid 90’s and she has…interesting views to say the least.
Okay, I’ll concede that it’s arguable.
If they have a dress code that isn’t religion-specific (i.e. no headcoverings at all, face must be shown at all times, etc) then I don’t really have a problem with it. Assuming that face-to-face contact is a legitimate part of the job (which in high-end sales it would be). A government ban on head coverings is obviously a different matter.
In the Duck Dynasty situation A&E is pretty explicitly paying Robertson to be a public figure that the masses want to watch and listen to. They don’t think that his latest (and past) comments fit with that image, so they suspend him.
I only think civil liberties come in to it if A&E (or the hypothetical retailer) are making either (a) rules that don’t actually pertain to the job at hand (e.g. if Robertson were just a lighting grip or the hijab wearer were a stocker) or (b) rules that are specifically directed at a particular religious practice but not others (e.g. no crosses on jewelry but stars of David are OK). Being anti-guy is not specific to Christianity, and I would have to assume that if Robertson were Muslim or even athiest and said the same things he would have still been suspended.
Do you question the veracity of the statement you quoted? And not sure what you mean by “wh”.
Not seeing how this applies to your original statement.
Should have read my own post more. Gaudere’s law strikes again, as I forgot to fully delete a snippy reply.
I don’t question the veracity that homosexuality is “natural” - I know it is false. There’s no questioning involved in it. I don’t think these are “simple truths” that it’s immoral to have sex outside of marriage, or that it’s somehow fundamental to western civilization to not be gay or have sex outside of marriage. I think that’s pretty damn out there as a statement goes.
Is Duck Dynasty still being aired on A&E? I clicked on their website, and it’s still there. Some folks probably need me to spell out how this, too, is hypocritical, but I’m just going to leave it to them to think for themselves.
How about this article by another homosexual. Does his disagreeing with your take on things render his comments “stupid”, too?
Sure – and in my ideal world, they have every right to do so.
And in my ideal world, the boutique has every right to require no hijab.
The problem is that the boutique exists in real life, and doesn’t have that right.
An important difference would be that while it may be a religious requirement to wear a hijab, I am not aware that there is a religious requirement to tell people that you feel homosexuality is a sin.
You’re focusing on just part of the statement. Here is the statement you shared:
The person who wrote that is Margaret Croft. so you might not agree with her. But hat Roberston said, which she was relating, was what the bible says. That it: “calls all sexual activity outside of holy matrimony sin and immoral, and it’s natural for a man to be attracted to a woman. You know, the birds and the bees.”
So while you may no doubt disagree with the bible, and with Croft, and not like the views of Robertson, what he said in this regard is correct and hardly news.
Are you implying that A&E doesn’t either? Do you think A&E would be within its rights to terminate the contract of an actress who refused to remove a burka for a role?
No, because his disagreement is not based on paranoid delusionist ranting and horrible false equivocation.
He specifically distinguished between adultery and homosexuality.
My comment about Paglia wasn’t specific to that article, but about her writing career as a whole. She has had a lot of really odd things to say, as I mentioned.
From that article, his comments seem perfectly reasonable to me. He wonders why they would suspend someone for saying things that they probably should have expected. That’s perfectly rational. I do like this paragraph from his article;
For the record, I tend towards the opinion that the suspension was a bit of an overreaction (or the culmination of a series of events that pissed off A&E.)
That link takes me to a definition that says nothing about rights denied by anyone other than the government. Did you actually lie and insert words (“individual”) just to suit your idea of what the definition should say, or is this the wrong link?