I support Phil of Duck Dynasty

[IrishLax]

forget about whether you like him or don't like him, whether you agree with him or don't agree with him. Consider the general sequence:

A reporter interviews a public figure and he makes controversial comments about a segment of the population.

Some agree with or don't mind those comments, some are deeply offended by them.

The employer decides that the public figure's comments make that person an inappropriate representative of the firm, and suspends (or fires?) the individual.

The end. There is nothing controversial about what happened here beyond the specific comments - everyone involved was within their rights and the reporter did his job well. If your argument can't be abstracted and translated into a set of principles or rights that were violated, it probably doesn't have much merit.

Nail, head.

Yeah... except that you can extrapolate this situation to discrimination law with regards to employment. And it's not a hard stretch at all. In this case, you're correct that a public figure like Phil isn't afforded the same rights as your general non-public employee... but it's the extrapolation of this suspension to what many Americans believe and might say if prompted that makes it controversial.

 

[IrishLax]

There's a difference between what you HAVE A RIGHT to do and what IS RIGHT to do. Yes, an employer CAN fire an employee over comments made in public. I don't believe an employer SHOULD fire an employee over comments made in public, these comments in particular. No one is saying A&E should be sued over this. But they might be making the (equally free) decision that the network's values do not allign with their own.

And even then it is quite dicey under many different laws if the person is simply publicly stating religious beliefs.

 

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

They should really put an asterisk on the First Amendment.

Then again, it's not like our government follows the Constitution anyway.

This has nothing to do with the First Amendment.

 

[ND NYC]

We haven't seen the last episode. Season 5 was already filmed. If nothing else, I think they'll agree to part ways and the show will be picked up by another network. It's the highest rated cable show of all time.

is it really? thats actually pretty amazing.

i confess i have not watched a single episode of it. not for any reason. not agaist it or anything like that. im just not a big reality tv guy. never was. i spend most of my free time in my own reality wth my own family as much as i can rather than in front of the boob tube. but lots of people i know talk about it all the time/like it.

 

[wizards8507]

Nail, head.

Forget the free speech argument and all that nonsense. This was a stupid BUSINESS decision by A&E. They had two options.

Don't fire Phil: Offend gay rights groups, who probably didn't like the Robertsons anyways and definitely weren't "Duck Dynasty" viewers.

Suspend Phil: Offend Christians, at least some of whom enjoy the program BECAUSE of the Christian views expressed by the Robertson family. Lose viewers.

Given the choice between offending their viewers and offending non-viewers, A&E decided to offend their viewers. Epic. Fail. A&E needs Duck Dynasty far more than Duck Dynasty needs A&E.

 

[magogian]

Forget the free speech argument and all that nonsense. This was a stupid BUSINESS decision by A&E. They had two options.

Don't fire Phil: Offend gay rights groups, who probably didn't like the Robertsons anyways and definitely weren't "Duck Dynasty" viewers.

Suspend Phil: Offend Christians, at least some of whom enjoy the program BECAUSE of the Christian views expressed by the Robertson family. Lose viewers.

Given the choice between offending their viewers and offending non-viewers, A&E decided to offend their viewers. Epic. Fail. A&E needs Duck Dynasty far more than Duck Dynasty needs A&E.

Nope. If you are a large company, especially anywhere in the TV or entertainment field, you kowtow to the national gay rights organizations. If you don't, you are finished.

 

[tussin]

He's free to continue speaking provided he's ready to walk away from A&E. He has conditions of employment, similar to the rest of us.

Again, no one is arguing the right for A&E to dismiss him.

The point is that it's a terrible shame when the our media can get you fired for simply expressing what you believe in. The "politically correct" media is supposed to be tolerant of all viewpoints.

 

[DomerInHappyValley]

I support his right to say it. Whether I agree with it or not.
But I've always held the opinion if it harms no one else I really don't care.
Two homosexuals loving each other don't hurt anyone else. Just like Phil's words didn't hurt anyone else.

 

[wizards8507]

is it really? thats actually pretty amazing.

i confess i have not watched a single episode of it. not for any reason. not agaist it or anything like that. im just not a big reality tv guy. never was. i spend most of my free time in my own reality wth my own family as much as i can rather than in front of the boob tube. but lots of people i know talk about it all the time/like it.

I misspoke. Highest rated cable reality show*. Editing post to correct.

 

[Rhode Irish]

Here is the author's post from yesterday on deadspin talking about the interview, for anyone who cares about where the author is coming from:

The Devil And Phil Robertson: My Day With Duck Dynasty

Autry_Denson had the right take here, I believe. Regardless of whether you agree or disagree with what Robertson said, it is for A&E to decide whether they want to be associated with those comments. That is their right. The first amendment doesn't protect your job or your social standing, it only protects you from government limits on speech.

 

[irishff1014]

This country has become sensitive to every thing. You can't tell the truth unless you a prepared to get slammed if your view is different then the others.

I respect the man to then the gods honest truth. He didn't lie and beat around the bush. But you still got the truth.

You have to sugar coat everything so you look good and don't hurt peoples feelings.

Oh and look what A&E has made off this family if it wasn't for this show their Bank account would look a lot different.

 

[tussin]

Here is the author's post from yesterday on deadspin talking about the interview, for anyone who cares about where the author is coming from:

The Devil And Phil Robertson: My Day With Duck Dynasty

Autry_Denson had the right take here, I believe. Regardless of whether you agree or disagree with what Robertson said, it is for A&E to decide whether they want to be associated with those comments. That is their right. The first amendment doesn't protect your job or your social standing, it only protects you from government limits on speech.

That's just stating the obvious. IMO, A&E's right to make that decision isn't what is driving the controversy.

 

[wizards8507]

If anyone is thinking about "taking a side" in this by purchasing some Duck Commander gear, make sure it's Duck Commander branded, not "Duck Dynasty." The "Duck Dynasty" licenses are owned by A&E.

 

[enrico514]

Here is the author's post from yesterday on deadspin talking about the interview, for anyone who cares about where the author is coming from:

The Devil And Phil Robertson: My Day With Duck Dynasty

Autry_Denson had the right take here, I believe. Regardless of whether you agree or disagree with what Robertson said, it is for A&E to decide whether they want to be associated with those comments. That is their right. The first amendment doesn't protect your job or your social standing, it only protects you from government limits on speech.

A&E made a decison and hopefully the Robertsons will make their own. If they stand by their beliefs and if they are as strong a family as they are shown to be on the show they should leave A&E.

 

[Kaneyoufeelit]

Forget the free speech argument and all that nonsense. This was a stupid BUSINESS decision by A&E. They had two options.

Don't fire Phil: Offend gay rights groups, who probably didn't like the Robertsons anyways and definitely weren't "Duck Dynasty" viewers.

Suspend Phil: Offend Christians, at least some of whom enjoy the program BECAUSE of the Christian views expressed by the Robertson family. Lose viewers.

Given the choice between offending their viewers and offending non-viewers, A&E decided to offend their viewers. Epic. Fail. A&E needs Duck Dynasty far more than Duck Dynasty needs A&E.

Well that's a completely different argument.

I have no idea what A&E thinks the financial ramifications of either move are. It's possible that they are not acting on financial benefit at all and are merely exercising their 1st Amendment right.

"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."

This is from their press release. A&E believes in something very different and has chosen to back up their beliefs and words with action.

I understand that some people think it sucks that he is suspended for saying something he, and a lot of other people believe, but you have to understand that many other people find this belief terribly offensive and believe the exact opposite just as strongly.

This comes down to a choice, do you have the ability to say anything you want and employers despite strongly disagreeing, and despite possible loss of viewers and ad revenue have to deal with it? OR do you have the right to say whatever you want but there can be private consequences? There is a value judgment and legal judgment here. The former is that I as an employer do not have to tolerate your speech if it can harm my business. The latter is that to extend the protection to guard privileges such as being employed by a television network extends the right far past what it was meant to cover. It essentially turns you job into a right.

 

[Rhode Irish]

That's just stating the obvious. IMO, A&E's right to make that decision isn't what is driving the controversy.

I admit to not following these types of sensational "news" stories very closely, but I was under the impression that that was specifically what the controversy is over. If not that, then what?

 

[wizards8507]

I admit to not following these types of sensational "news" stories very closely, but I was under the impression that that was specifically what the controversy is over. If not that, then what?

He was saying yes, A&E legally has the right to fire Mr. Robertson. The controversy is over whether they should have. Yes they have the right but that's different than saying it is right.

 

[johnnycando]

Wake up, Merica!

 

[DomerInHappyValley]

He was saying yes, A&E legally has the right to fire Mr. Robertson. The controversy is over whether they should have. Yes they have the right but that's different than saying it is right.

Where has it been reported that he was fired? All that I have seen says it's an indefinite suspension and it's about the same guy who had interviews out there that made it sound like he has been seriously debating leaving and just letting the kids do it.

 

[Kaneyoufeelit]

He was saying yes, A&E legally has the right to fire Mr. Robertson. The controversy is over whether they should have. Yes they have the right but that's different than saying it is right.

I'm just curious on what you guys are basing the belief that it was wrong for them to suspend him.

 

[TK22867]

Phil didn't have any tact to his response, and that's what got him.

 

[Jebediah Springfield]

Wake up, Merica!

God damn right!

First people talkin about how its not right how little companies want to pay their workers and now whether or not its right that they should be able to fire them or not!

Like Ol Merle once said Are the good times really over for gooooood........

 

[IrishLax]

I'm just curious on what you guys are basing the belief that it was wrong for them to suspend him.

That's already been outlined in at least a half dozen posts on the first page.

Let's play the counter for a second... why do you think they were right to suspend him? I disagree with Phil and have never watched Duck Dynasty... I'm still really uncomfortable with someone getting suspended or fired for stating what they consider religious beliefs.

Do you think that someone should have to hide their religious beliefs if they're a public figure? If so, what about non-public figures?

 

[Rack Em]

Juan Williams got canned from NPR last year for statements he made about Muslims. Somewhat similar situation.

I commend A&E for having values and sticking to them. I also commend Chick-Fil-A for having values and sticking to them. But I think Lax is right, firing someone for religious views is very controversial. If my employer fired me for statements I made regarding my practicing Catholicism, I personally take their rear end to court (In 8 months when I can practice law...).

The difference? A&E's values have become cool and mainstream and progressive. Chick-Fil-A's aren't cool and popular and progress. Consequently, the media took every liberty to crucify it. This is why Phil is getting raked over the coals now.

 

[alohagoirish]

Since there seems to be so much support for free speech if I may exercise some here:

I am simply stunned by the level of support for this crackpot. Black people were so much happier before civil rights, they were "singing and happy". Holy mother of god!
I am really tired of those using religion to couch what is nothing but bigotry and racism. Anyone who thinks these are simply heartfelt beliefs inspired by love of Jesus is either blind or an ostrich by choice. We all know what this fella thinks about gays & blacks and I would wager those same feelings inspired by love of jesus also go to immigrants, Mexicans, arabs, jews, and most likely liberals and Yankees.

But its all good according to many of the posts on this thread because his religion informs his views--give me a break guys.

We are all free to be as bigoted as we want , I for one have little patience for ignorant jesus freaks but if I spout those views on my television show I can expect the ownership or the sponsers not to be thrilled with my continuing employment.

 

[pkt77242]

Again, no one is arguing the right for A&E to dismiss him.

The point is that it's a terrible shame when the our media can get you fired for simply expressing what you believe in. The "politically correct" media is supposed to be tolerant of all viewpoints.

Seriously people need to stop blaming the media. They put on what we will watch. We get events like this from the media because we the people watch it and eat it up like a big bowl of Ben & Jerry's. Don't blame the media, they are just for profit companies trying to make a buck by catering to our wants. So look in the mirror and at your fellow man don't blame the media.

 

[Riddickulous]

Why is no one discussing Robertson's comments on black people?

 

[Emcee77]

Again, no one is arguing the right for A&E to dismiss him.

The point is that it's a terrible shame when the our media can get you fired for simply expressing what you believe in. The "politically correct" media is supposed to be tolerant of all viewpoints.

I don't know if I understand this point of view. Wouldn't the opposite be a shame, if A+E couldn't pull Phil off the air because it thought it was no longer in its best interest to associate with him? A lot of people find Phil Robertson's views abhorrent. They expressed outrage. A+E decided that it was in its best interest to cut ties with Phil Robertson. What's wrong with that? If A+E can't do that, if citizens and the media can't express their outrage, then who is being "censored"? (Others have correctly pointed out that there is no First Amendment issue. Some have seemed to hint that there may be an employment discrimination issue, but I doubt there is that either. This likely isn't a simple employee/employer relationship anyway; there must be a contract which governs A+E's right to pull Phil Robertson off the air if he runs into image problems.)

I think a lot of people underestimate how many people find what Phil Robertson said offensive. I very much doubt, as wizards seems to think, that by making this decision A+E is alienating more people than it is appeasing. You sometimes hear commentators say that the Republicans lost the 2012 presidential election because they simply underestimated how many Democrats are out there. I think something similar is going on in this thread.

 

[Rack Em]

Why is no one discussing Robertson's comments on black people?

Civil rights is so 1960s

 

[wizards8507]

I am simply stunned by the level of support for this crackpot. Black people were so much happier before civil rights, they were "singing and happy". Holy mother of god!

I name you a liar. Flat out.

Making up some horrific statement and then passing it off as a "quote" is the worst kind of strawman, and is borderline libelous.

I never, with my eyes, saw the mistreatment of any black person. Not once. Where we lived was all farmers. The blacks worked for the farmers. I hoed cotton with them. I’m with the blacks, because we’re white trash. We’re going across the field .... They’re singing and happy. I never heard one of them, one black person, say, ‘I tell you what: These doggone white people’—not a word! ... Pre-entitlement, pre-welfare, you say: Were they happy? They were godly; they were happy; no one was singing the blues.

ALL he's saying is that he knew black people. He worked with black people. The black people he knew and with whom he worked were happy and he never saw them mistreated. He didn't say mistreatment didn't happen, just that he never witnessed it. He called them "godly," which, for Phil Robertson, is about the highest form of respect he can bestow.