I support Phil of Duck Dynasty

[tussin]

Because if everyone is watching Fox it doesn't matter what is on the other networks. You can't control the news when no one is watching you. Sorry.

Also that article you linked only looks at money to Obama (which totaled a little over 1 million). I think it might be different if we looked at all donations to Democrats and Republicans as News Corp donated 1 million to the RGA. Yep that one donation equaled about all the money going to Obama from all the other organizations.

Also these organizations just want to put on what people will watch. These type of blowups get coverage because we the people want to watch them. Stop blaming the media and start blaming the people who want to watch/read this shit.

All you need to know about political donations in American media:

TV / Movies / Music | OpenSecrets

 

[woolybug25]

There's a good, "Only the 'Front', never the 'Back' according to Phil" joke in there somewhere, I just can't put it together....

haha... I was thinking the same thing. That joke has to start:

"a Southern Baptist, Catholic and a Bhuddist walk into a bar"

 

[phgreek]

...and by the way, Phil Robertson was a pretty big deal in the 90s...he was already doing well.

Will was a force multiplier to a Brand that was already there...no question in my mind.

So I think the moment the Robertsons decided to do this show, they would have been picked up elsewhere...they've actually been doing TV for a long time...Outdoor Channel, etc.

I think A&E did a great job...but A&E never was "needed". JMHO.

 

[phgreek]

There's a good, "Only the 'Front', never the 'Back' according to Phil" joke in there somewhere, I just can't put it together....

you'd think by now I'd know how that'd look...NOPE!

 

[pkt77242]

All you need to know about political donations in American media:

TV / Movies / Music | OpenSecrets

But that includes movies and music. Not particularly media as far as news goes. We all know that Hollywood donates more to Democrats.

 

[connect the dots]

From reading all the posts on this thread, I have come to the conclusion that many Irish Envy posters are in need of a pair of loose shoes, desire a tight pussy, and feel entitled to a warm place to shit!

 

[IrishLax]

I think you might be thinking of defamation law? It's true that the law recognizes that we all have a right to talk about public figures and we don't want to chill public discourse by allowing public figures to be able to sue anyone who talks bad about them, so a public figure will have a harder time proving a defamation claim than a JoeSchmo. But I'm not aware of why a public figure would have less of a right to be free from employment discrimination.

The employer generally has a lot more latitude for termination when you're representing their brand. For instance, if you refuse to eat beef because you're Hindu but were repping... I don't know... McDonalds or another burger joint of some sort, I'm fairly certain they could terminate you with cause even though it's a religious thing. Whereas an accountant working for McDonald's who doesn't eat hamburgers they could not do something similar.

Am I wrong here? I might be confusing it with defamation law, as you just noted. I thought it was both though.

Well he could probably be fired for publicly making such statements, depending on what they were, what the context was, and what kind of disruption it caused. The fact that your actions are motivated by religion doesn't make you untouchable. If you do things based on your religion which can't be reconciled with a businesslike operation, then you can still be fired.

For instance (again I’m not an expert in this area, so tifwiw) I recall reading a case in which an employee, calling from his work phone, left an anonymous voice mail for a Jewish man in which he told the Jewish man that Jesus loves him and he hopes he finds Jesus or something like that. The Jewish man was able to trace the call back to the employer of the caller and sent an angry letter. The employer fired the caller. The court said there was no employment discrimination because the company was just protecting itself. So if a Muslim employee made anti-gay or anti-women statements in any way that would allow them to be interpreted as endorsed by the company, it could totally fire him. And I think that’s similar to what’s going on with Phil Robertson … A+E just doesn’t want to seem to endorse or agree with Phil Robertson on this. And that’s ok.

I just realized this part of the post was a quote from the aloha discussion, not a continuation. Makes more sense now. With aloha, I was simply asking him if his bigoted view was exclusive to "Jesus freaks" or all world religions he disagreed with.

There is no doubt if you are harassing someone or otherwise representing the company with your religious values in a way that is detrimental the company you can be terminated with cause. The scenario you gave is obviously different than if, say, the Christian man approached the Jewish man on a weekend and said "Jesus loves you"... if he complained to the man's employer then, and he was terminated, I'm pretty sure the employer loses that case in court.

If the Jewish man was interviewing him for some reason and asked him about heaven/hell and the Christian man said "my religious teachings say you have to accept Jesus to go to heaven, so I think you're a sinner and will end up in hell if you don't change"... and then the Jewish man complained to his employer... what happens then?

 

[tussin]

But that includes movies and music. Not particularly media as far as news goes. We all know that Hollywood donates more to Democrats.

Hollywood doesn't tell report the news obviously, but I do feel Hollywood has a significant impact on the general political narrative. There are people that don't watch news channels at all and only watch Comedy Central and MTV... which way are they going to vote?

You made a good point on the news channels viewership though. I didn't realize Fox had THAT much of a lead on the other stations.

 

[magogian]

You made a good point on the news channels viewership though. I didn't realize Fox had THAT much of a lead on the other stations.

Foxnews is dwarfed by the viewership of the nightly news for the Big 3 networks. I believe they run around 6-10 million viewers per.

 

[Emcee77]

The employer generally has a lot more latitude for termination when you're representing their brand. For instance, if you refuse to eat beef because you're Hindu but were repping... I don't know... McDonalds or another burger joint of some sort, I'm fairly certain they could terminate you with cause even though it's a religious thing. Whereas an accountant working for McDonald's who doesn't eat hamburgers they could not do something similar.

Am I wrong here? I might be confusing it with defamation law, as you just noted. I thought it was both though.

Oh, no, you're not wrong at all. That's kind of what I was trying to say in the second part of my post. I just misunderstood you.

 

[NDPhilly]

I agree with every god damn word he said.

 

[Emcee77]

If the Jewish man was interviewing him for some reason and asked him about heaven/hell and the Christian man said "my religious teachings say you have to accept Jesus to go to heaven, so I think you're a sinner and will end up in hell if you don't change"... and then the Jewish man complained to his employer... what happens then?

It would depend on whether it reflects on the company or not. If the Jewish man is a reporter and he interviews the Christian man because in his spare time the Christian man is a noteworthy artist or activist or competitive eater or whatever, then the company couldn't fire him. If the Jewish man is interviewing the Christian man because he is overseeing his company's new building project, then it might be a different story. Phil Robertson was being interviewed because he's a reality TV star, and he can properly suffer an adverse employment action to the extent that the interview he gave reflects on A+E.

Not sure I would totally buy the argument that Robertson's interview reflects poorly on A+E though, personally. I mean is anyone surprised that he takes this point of view? This essay is really good:

A&E Cannot Bear Very Much Reality « The Dish

I mean what did A+E expect? They gave a redneck a show, and he said something redneckish to a reporter. Like Sullivan points out in the essay, it's actually kind of odd to fire Phil for being himself, which is what he does in the show.

 

[BobD]

Who gives a squat what Phil Robertson thinks? All this controversy over some rich hillbilly with a reality show.

 

[BobD]

He'll be doing Chick-Fil-A ads by next week.

 

[phgreek]

He'll be doing Chick-Fil-A ads by next week.

for not carin'...that little dig took some thought...just sayin'

 

[Kaneyoufeelit]

for not carin'...that little dig took some thought...just sayin'

Not really. That's pretty low hanging fruit I think haha


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ND NYC]

oh boy, now THIS thread here ole IrishPat would really love

 

[phgreek]

Not really. That's pretty low hanging fruit I think haha


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

K...substitute "effort to comment in the first place...then come back and comment again"...for "thought"

now...

just sayin'

 

[CanadianIrish]

The majority of what he said really isn't a problem. Where he runs into trouble is the section that suggest homosexuality leads to beastiality, or equates it with beastiality. Also the term "homosexual offenders". Otherwise, sure he has his opinion and others have theirs.

But one you draw a line of some sort between homosexuality and beastiality you are going way too far and you know you're going to get in trouble.

 

[BobD]

for not carin'...that little dig took some thought...just sayin'

Not much thought needed.

 

[Woneone]

The majority of what he said really isn't a problem. Where he runs into trouble is the section that suggest homosexuality leads to beastiality, or equates it with beastiality. Also the term "homosexual offenders". Otherwise, sure he has his opinion and others have theirs.

But one you draw a line of some sort between homosexuality and beastiality you are going way too far and you know you're going to get in trouble.

But that wasn't what was said.

The question was - What, in your mind, is sinful?

“Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men,” he says. Then he paraphrases Corinthians: “Don’t be deceived. Neither the adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlers—they won’t inherit the kingdom of God. Don’t deceive yourself. It’s not right.”

Did he start with homosexuality? Yes, if people want to hold that against him, they can.

But he didn't say that homosexuality morphs into bestiality, he said here is A, B, C, D. Hell, the way I read it, he called out heterosexuals that sleep around.

What I have a problem understanding is this idea that singling out a specific category of people is supposedly wrong, and yet, from that list of sinners he mentioned, the only one's EVERYONE is singling out are the homosexuals.

As a greedy, drunken gigolo that sells used cars, I'm greatly offended.

 

[woolybug25]

The majority of what he said really isn't a problem. Where he runs into trouble is the section that suggest homosexuality leads to beastiality, or equates it with beastiality. Also the term "homosexual offenders". Otherwise, sure he has his opinion and others have theirs.

But one you draw a line of some sort between homosexuality and beastiality you are going way too far and you know you're going to get in trouble.

It's been said above, but this is the most frustrating thing. I have heard 6 different shows report this crap. He never compared those things, it was a list. One that included heterosexual infidelity. No one is reporting that he "claimed that homosexuality led to heterosexual infidelity". They have no problem spinning his words to make him sound worse though.

 

[IrishJayhawk]

It's been said above, but this is the most frustrating thing. I have heard 6 different shows report this crap. He never compared those things, it was a list. One that included heterosexual infidelity. No one is reporting that he "claimed that homosexuality led to heterosexual infidelity". They have no problem spinning his words to make him sound worse though.

It's true that he didn't draw a straight line, but he did place homosexuality on the same list as bestiality and terrorism. Seemed a bit hyperbolic to me.

 

[CanadianIrish]

It's been said above, but this is the most frustrating thing. I have heard 6 different shows report this crap. He never compared those things, it was a list. One that included heterosexual infidelity. No one is reporting that he "claimed that homosexuality led to heterosexual infidelity". They have no problem spinning his words to make him sound worse though.

Including beastiality on a list with homosexuality is going to get you in trouble - period. If you don't get that then you're too stupid to be on TV in any capacity. I understand what he's trying to say, but it's said unbelievably poorly. Blame his publicist, but he said something stupid.

 

[IrishLax]

It's true that he didn't draw a straight line, but he did place homosexuality on the same list as bestiality and terrorism. Seemed a bit hyperbolic to me.

IMO, no different then someone being asked to list felonies and starting with burglary then listing all kinds of random stuff from espionage, to mass murder, to pedophilia, to GTA... all in all this is just an epic spin job. People see what they want to see.

 

[IrishJayhawk]

IMO, no different then someone being asked to list felonies and starting with burglary then listing all kinds of random stuff from espionage, to mass murder, to pedophilia, to GTA... all in all this is just an epic spin job. People see what they want to see.

The attempt to make it into a free speech issue (see Ted Cruz, Sarah Palin, etc.) is a bigger spin, IMO.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

Dumb people can get master's, and apparently dumb people can make money in bird calls. It's not like he was an investment banker.

His comments would suggest that he is not very smart. He lost his spot on his show because he couldn't control his mouth, and his comment on Jim Crow laws was ignorant as hell.

Dumbest post of the day goes to...drumroll please

He's clearly far more intelligent than you. Yes, a lot of dumb people can get masters' and PhD's. Sooo because this guy voiced his opinion about homosexuality, isn't an investment banker, isn't Ivy League educated, and started a business that made him wealthy...tells you he isn't smart. Alright...got it.

From now on I'm calling you pajama boy. I was going to give the nickname to BobD, but he's too old.

 

[bert2834]

It might have been said on here before in this thread but....I support Phil for a different reason than most. I have a gay brother and I disagree with his comments. This country and most people just need to "stop being a bitch! ". People are gonna say things you don't like. Deal with it.

 

[CanadianIrish]

IMO, no different then someone being asked to list felonies and starting with burglary then listing all kinds of random stuff from espionage, to mass murder, to pedophilia, to GTA... all in all this is just an epic spin job. People see what they want to see.

Sorry, but I think that's simply absurd. Much like there are dozens of felonies, there are dozens of sins. What you choose to put on the list is essentially an editorial comment. If I make a list of: terrorism, treason, espionage and securities fraud you don't think there is an editorial component to that? Are you kidding me?

The fact that he's listing sins is irrelevant, he picked certain sins to list and left of dozens of others. When he does that he's giving commentary and equating behaviours.

 

[Buster Bluth]

It's true that he didn't draw a straight line,

I think that's the only line he drew.