What's new
By:

GD's next crap thread: Free speach or blatant attempt to discredit gays?

bordelais7 said:
Agreed, but there is a difference between not hiring someone because of their opinions, and telling them "you represent us now, don't say anything stupid please, ok?"

("oh, and here's the script for the next show with a bunch of stupid things we'd like you to say")
Click to expand...

People represent an agency while on official business for that employer/egency. The employer/agency does not own that persons personal lives and as such should stay out of it as long as their personal life is not illegal and/or does not affect their performance.

In this case one could argue (I would) that the article was him acting as a Duck Dynasty rep since being popular is why he was interviewed.
 
Stoked said:
People represent an agency while on official business for that employer/egency. The employer/agency does not own that persons personal lives and as such should stay out of it as long as their personal life is not illegal and/or does not affect their performance.

In this case one could argue (I would) that the article was him acting as a Duck Dynasty rep since being popular is why he was interviewed.
Click to expand...

Yeah and I don't think A&E is out of line or anything. I mean, even though it's called reality TV it is very scripted. They are trying to put a specific product on TV, not just whatever they happen to see while hangin' out with the DD crew. So if they don't like the product they are well within their rights to pull it from their program.

But still, the guy said homosexuality is a sin...He's 100% in line with every Christian institution I'm familiar with. He didn't make that **** up or go out on a limb, they teach that stuff in pretty much every Christian church out there.
 
One Brow said:
From a moral standpoint, they were justified.



Yes, they paid him for a certain type of "bumpkinism" (I don't like that word much), he offered a sort they didn't like, and he let them go.

Maybe I think more highly of poor, rural whites than you.
Click to expand...

More like love business more than i. For me, its no plainer than big business being stupid


That just happened.
 
Gameface said:
I guess the problem I have is that more and more we are linking people's personal opinions that have no impact on their professional responsibilities to their career. Cutting someone off from their profession and livelihood because they hold unrelated personal opinions is a sort of ideological coercion. I think it's a bad thing.
Click to expand...

I agree with you, that if such opinions have no impact on their professional responsibilities, cutting them off that way is a bad thing. I don't think that's an accurate description of this situation.
 
Gameface said:
But still, the guy said homosexuality is a sin...He's 100% in line with every Christian institution I'm familiar with. He didn't make that **** up or go out on a limb, they teach that stuff in pretty much every Christian church out there.
Click to expand...

If that was all he had said, he would probably still be on the show.
 
One Brow said:
I agree with you, that if such opinions have no impact on their professional responsibilities, cutting them off that way is a bad thing. I don't think that's an accurate description of this situation.
Click to expand...

Of this exact situation I would agree with you. Of many others it is an accurate description. People get fired/hired all the time based on things they said or did that have nothing to do with work or their ability to perform their job.
 
Video from a couple of years ago just resurfaced. Don't know if it's posted yet.

Sorry, this guy's a closet butt pirate if I've ever seen one. He's wayyyy too pre-occupied with what gay folks do behind close doors.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LiDjXf4AUIE
 
bordelais7 said:
Number of people I've seen think they're doing everyone else a service by proclaiming on the internets that "Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences": approximately a lot. Generally this statement begins with "Okay, listen people..."

Number of people I've seen make the "A&E had no right to do this because of Free Speech" argument: Sarah Palin

Am I alone in experiencing this as a clarification/chastisement to a virtually nonexistent argument? Or do I need to hang out with dumber friends?
Click to expand...

I've seen countless people on facebook saying the same things as the Dark Lord (Sarah Palin).
 
Nate505 said:
So are you the stupid version of Hantlers or is Hantlers the stupid version of you.
Click to expand...

Isn't that the whole point of pot? To go into an alternative world where everything is fine fine fine.

When did attempted destruction of a non-politicians' livelihood for expressing beliefs become "fine" in sober America?
It seems counter to your supposed libertarian beliefs. This is what I hear you saying:
"Live and let live when it comes to drugs, but it is fine to destroy the career of a Christian for expressing his beliefs"
 
PearlWatson said:
Isn't that the whole point of pot? To go into an alternative world where everything is fine fine fine.

When did attempted destruction of a non-politicians' livelihood for expressing beliefs become "fine" in sober America?
It seems counter to your supposed libertarian beliefs. This is what I hear you saying:
"Live and let live when it comes to drugs, but it is fine to destroy the career of a Christian for expressing his beliefs"
Click to expand...

I thought the whole point of pot was to make Green Acres reruns funny again.

I'm all for his career getting destroyed, though unfortunately I doubt that's the outcome. He's a jagoff of the highest order. This isn't just some Christian who feels homosexuality is a sin. He went much further and spouted off this piece of nutjobbery:

"Women with women, men with men. They committed indecent acts with one another, and they received in themselves the due penalty for their perversions," Robertson said. "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."

Him being a Christian is irrelevant to this. If he were a Muslim, Buddhist, or athiest (though part of that the context wouldn't be right) he'd still be a total jagoff and I'd hope his career would be destroyed.

And I'm sure you hear whatever you want to hear. Though it does make me understand if you have even a basic grasp of the English language. In terms of drugs and speech I don't want the government to criminalize them. If anyone suggested he be arrested for this I would be outraged and about as against it as you can be. But if some nutjob is going to go off and spout that gays are full of "murder, envy, strife, hatred" then destroy his career away, if you can legally through boycotts and other legal means. If someone said the same thing about blacks, asians, women, or any other group of people I feel the same way.
 
Nate505 said:
"Women with women, men with men. They committed indecent acts with one another, and they received in themselves the due penalty for their perversions," Robertson said. "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."
Click to expand...

That is from a 2010 sermon. Not the GQ interview. If he had said that to GQ, they absolutely should have cancelled/suspended the show/him. But at the same time, being that it was from a sermon delivered ONLY to his fellow bumpkin/church members from the Berean Bible Church in Pennsylvania, it's kinda right on par for what I'd expect out of the venue.

There is 0 doubt in my mind that this guy doesn't have misguided values, far from a paragon of religious virtue. A&E knew what kind of person they were dealing with, and thought that kind of person would make a great TV show. That kind of person did make a great TV show. And because that kind of person acted like that kind of person(didn't put up a facade, made no bones about it, wasn't political about it), it was only when they got nasty grams that they did anything about it.

It's reminiscent of that school absence thing where if you miss three days you don't get credit, but the school knows the second someone gets a lawyer and has the lawyer start a lawsuit they'll have to drop that policy. They know it's bad, they know the policy won't stand up to scrutiny in the courts, and yet they keep using it anyway.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top