Not analagous to my question but I will say it depends.

 

Who did I say it to and how much clout do they have with my employer? Is my comment going to cause my company some type of harm or public humiliation? Did I offend my company's biggest customer ie risk losing orders? If it's just "some guy" then I can't see how I'd lose my job. HOWEVER, I fully realize any comment I make in public subjects me to the POTENTIAL of ramifications.

 

 

Now back to my example....

 

Not to mention unless they got a recording or a smoking gun hard to prove.

Not analagous to my question but I will say it depends.

 

Who did I say it to and how much clout do they have with my employer? Is my comment going to cause my company some type of harm or public humiliation? Did I offend my company's biggest customer ie risk losing orders? If it's just "some guy" then I can't see how I'd lose my job. HOWEVER, I fully realize any comment I make in public subjects me to the POTENTIAL of ramifications.

 

 

Now back to my example....

Then maybe I don't understand the point you were making.

 

GQ wasn't interviewing A&E they were interviewing Phil and questioning their lifestyle, not the show.

So I guess I don't understand how it is any different than my scenario. Maybe I'm missing something.

People may want to read what he said about black people too.

 

Here you go, probably naive, but nothing racist.

 

He continued: "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.'"

 

Then maybe I don't understand the point you were making.

 

GQ wasn't interviewing A&E they were interviewing Phil and questioning their lifestyle, not the show.

So I guess I don't understand how it is any different than my scenario. Maybe I'm missing something.

 

 

No sweat.

 

 

Phil is an employee of A&E. In my scenario, Fred Phelps is an employee of a company and is wearing the company logo/clothing when he's saying "GOD hates fags."

 

Neither are "at work."

 

Is it your belief that they cannot be fired for causing some embarrassment to the employer? They're the exact same scenarios.

Here you go, probably naive, but nothing racist.

 

He continued: "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.'"

 

 

And therein lies one of the biggest problems with having discussions about race. A large majority of white people will read that and say..."what's wrong with that?" Black people will read it and say..."what the hell is wrong with that man?"

 

Just because we have a black president doesn't mean progress is being made. Well, he did say black and not colored so I guess that is some progress.

 

The pre-entitlement and pre-welfare bugs me to no end. It's like he is saying all blacks are entitled now for some reason and blacks are happier now because welfare takes care of us.

 

But this is an issue about what he said about homosexuals. Not blacks.........carry on......

And it's okay to compare homosexuals with people who have sex with animals?

 

I'm not a Bible Thumper, far from it, but I don't think he really compared the two any more than that he thought they were sin. No one is talking anout the comparsion of a guy who gets a lot of tail in the same breath. Why are there no beastiality comparisons there? It was in the same sentence.

 

I'm all for gay rights and equality, but some of this stuff is getting ridiculous. Whose bullying who because they don't agree with whose beliefs?

Opinions are like, well you know what they are like and everyone has one, including Mr. Robertson. What I have learned from this is that there is a huge chunk of people in the U.S. who have no idea what freedom of speech is really about. That not only saddens me but scares the hell out of me as well! Say what you want; just be prepared to face the consequences of what you say.

^Freedom of speech means you have the right to say whatever you want without fear of persecution from the government. It does not mean an employer can't take action for something that brings negative attention to them or they feel goes against what they believe.

That one bothered me more than his comments about homosexuality. I guess offending homosexuals carries more weight than offending blacks nowadays.

 

Don't think so, just trendy to be behind GLBT causes.

I could care less what Phil Robertson thinks and never watch Duck Dynasty .Stupid Show

 

The Robertson Family and friends film a show that has them doing silly things, reacting to, or creating goofy scenarios with one another.

In the course of doing so, they get to share their faith in their personal savior, Jesus Christ, share their family values and participate in their passion of duck hunting and the outdoors. All the while, being paid quite handsomely for their efforts. Not to mention the advertising/promotion of their Duck Commander business.

If that is the definition of stupid, sign me up.

After thinking about it today Clyde after my original post. Where does Freedom of religion stop? Hypothetically speaking, if he didn't make the more descriptive remarks and mostly quote the bible could an employer punish you for your religious belief. I think the descriptive remarks about anatomy is what set it over the top. But I was wondering does the a private company have a right to discriminate against religous beliefs and if it does is that absolute.

 

Depends on a few factors. One is nature of the employment. Run a private company that markets literature geared at one religion or a religious radio station? Then you have a different argument (think Hooters not discriminating by hiring men to wait tables). Have an big company who makes widgets, you probably are in some trouble.

No sweat.

 

 

Phil is an employee of A&E. In my scenario, Fred Phelps is an employee of a company and is wearing the company logo/clothing when he's saying "GOD hates fags."

 

Neither are "at work."

 

Is it your belief that they cannot be fired for causing some embarrassment to the employer? They're the exact same scenarios.

 

I guess I don't see Phil talking Bout his religious beliefs as being embarrassing.

Have an big company who makes widgets

 

There is only one group of people in the entire country that still talks about "widgets"... I can tell where your brain has been the past few weeks. I remember all too well.

 

:lol2:

And therein lies one of the biggest problems with having discussions about race. A large majority of white people will read that and say..."what's wrong with that?" Black people will read it and say..."what the hell is wrong with that man?"

 

Just because we have a black president doesn't mean progress is being made. Well, he did say black and not colored so I guess that is some progress.

 

The pre-entitlement and pre-welfare bugs me to no end. It's like he is saying all blacks are entitled now for some reason and blacks are happier now because welfare takes care of us.

 

But this is an issue about what he said about homosexuals. Not blacks.........carry on......

 

We can agree Phil is misinformed if he said black people weren't signing the Blues back then. He'd never been to Memphis apparently.

Has Phil clearly stated his view on homosexuality in the show?

 

No, not that I can remember.

 

If that's the case then it's not hypocritical IMO.

 

How would we really know though? I would imagine that a large part of what is filmed ends up on the editing room floor. To a degree A&E can edit the content to dipict the family however they want do. He very easily could have made similar statements on camera that the network simply chose not to include on the air.