1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

LGBT News Yet Another Bigoted Phil Robertson Video

Discussion in 'Current Events, World News, & LGBT News' started by BryanM, Jan 2, 2014.

  1. Bibliophile

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2011
    Messages:
    482
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Colorado
    Simply because it is in a contract doesnt mean we should seek it to be a norm or allow it to become socially acceptable unless we want to end up never enjoying off beat humor or other non-politically correct things. Well at least not without fear of being fired. Its too dangerous to support and the end results will almost surely be far too negative to outshine any gains from it.
    As has been stated what is legal and what is right are sometimes two very different concepts
     
  2. BradThePug

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2011
    Messages:
    6,573
    Likes Received:
    288
    Location:
    Ohio
    Gender:
    Male (trans*)
    Gender Pronoun:
    He
    Sexual Orientation:
    Bisexual
    Out Status:
    Some people
    The thing is, that in the business world, this has become a norm. I'm not saying that it's right, but you do have to be careful of what you post/say because it easily could be used against you.

    I would love to see people stop watching this show. Then the ratings would go down, which would lead the network to end the show. They've had over their 15 min. of fame.
     
  3. Bibliophile

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2011
    Messages:
    482
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Colorado
    You see to boycott the show is fine. To not buy a thing that would send him a dime is FINE its just calling for a persons job over an off the clock comment is not cool. I know its become the norm but it is a damn dangerous one and one I think will soon bite a lot of its backers sharply in the arse if they keep it up.
     
  4. Aldrick

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2012
    Messages:
    2,175
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Virginia
    The problem with what you're suggesting is that you're setting up a scenario in which there can be no social consequences for what people say - ever.

    You're creating a Slippery Slope. You're effectively saying, 'If we imposed social consequences on those who engage in bigotry, then ultimately we will become targets ourselves.'

    The situation isn't black and white. As a culture and as a society we have the ability to determine what we consider socially acceptable and what we don't. That's what the culture war is all about. We already have a whole host of things that we consider acceptable, and a whole host of things we don't consider acceptable.

    Just as an example, coming to work nude is socially unacceptable. You'd probably be fired. But why does nudity have to be socially unacceptable? I would argue, as has been argued in the past about various clothing designs and slogans, that nudity (like wearing offensive clothing) involves free speech. Yet, if you go to work with offensive clothing (such as a shirt with a slur against women on it), then you could and should be fired. The same for showing up to work in the nude.

    Is the nudests right to freedom of speech being infringed upon? What about the person who wore the offensive t-shirt?

    We can and should have debates over where we draw the lines. Just how far CAN a business go into someones private life? I would argue that being a public figure, as Phil Robertson is, and giving an interview to a magazine (which is effectively promoting his show) -IS- him acting within the domain of his employment. It's like saying an actor isn't working when they're out promoting their upcoming movie. That's a far cry from digging into someones personal life.

    There are certainly lines, but they aren't as black and white as you make them out to be. We also don't have to tolerate everything out of fear that if we don't, then suddenly it's open season on everyone. These are certainly debates we could and should have, but none of them really impact Phil Robertson's situation.
     
  5. Bibliophile

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2011
    Messages:
    482
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Colorado
    You make some interesting and certainly worthy points with this. With his being a public figure yes I can see your point. However we both dance a razors edge with our opinions go to far in either direction and we risk losing the liberty we claim to fight for.
     
  6. Adi

    Adi
    Regular Member

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2013
    Messages:
    691
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Romania
    Gender:
    Male
    Out Status:
    A few people
    Whether or not you agree with him isn't the issue here, but whether he receives criticism or praise for what he says. No one's talking about censoring here, nor is anyone saying he shouldn't get his say (people are within their right to boycott A&E, A&E is within its rights to disassociate itself from someone who smears its image). However, when he goes out of his way to insult and demean a group of people, there is absolutely nothing wrong with criticizing him. What he said regarding gays (among others) is despicable, so he doesn't get to act like he's some decent, stand up guy. There's also no "courtesy" to be extend to such people. They won't leave us along because our very existence is something they view as infringing on their "rights." For them, the only acceptable way in which they can coexist with us is if we cease to exist, or if we just become invisible.

    And it makes sense: a society can't function in such a schizophrenic manner. A society can't simultaneously hold two opposing ideas as being equally valid. You can't expect gays to be seen as part of society and deserving of equal rights to straight people, while at the same time it being OK to consider that gays are perverts and as bad as terrorists or murderers. Gays can't be both those things at the same time. In a democratic society several ideas can coexist. However, only one idea can come out on top and eventually become public policy (and the idea that comes out on top always becomes public policy). It's like war, basically. You should know what that's like.

    Also, your guns won't help you when the whole world is against you.
     
  7. dano218

    Regular Member

    Joined:
    May 24, 2013
    Messages:
    2,165
    Likes Received:
    26
    Location:
    Minnesota
    Gender:
    Male
    Sexual Orientation:
    Gay
    Out Status:
    Out to everyone
    The more I think about it people are making too much of a deal out of this. People say shit on tv or in magazines all the time. Why now is it a big deal. Yeah it was a offensive to me but hell I just don't watch the show than. it's a free country and we all have the right to speak our minds.
     
  8. Bibliophile

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2011
    Messages:
    482
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Colorado
     
  9. OuterSpaceACE

    Regular Member

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2013
    Messages:
    69
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    CO
    Gender:
    Female
    Out Status:
    Out to everyone
    Biblio, let's just let kkk members have TV shows then. Nobody here can go into their job and say what he said (he was NOT off the clock as you say because he is a celebrity giving a celebrity profile to a magazine, i.e. also part of his job) and not get fired. He should have been fired. Done deal. I find it crazy ironic that you seem to think that freedom of speech means shooting your mouth off at your job. I know that part of your deal in the navy was to sign a contract saying you would not publicly criticize the president. Seems you must have been all for being censored then. Aldrick wins this thread. There's nothing more to see here.
     
  10. Bibliophile

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2011
    Messages:
    482
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Colorado
    I signed up for that and knew what I was getting into when I signed up for my tour of duty. Also I criticized the president publicly plenty when I was in. Both Bush jr. and Obama. So long as you dont do it in uniform they dont care.
    He was NOT on the show nor was he representing anything other then HIS personal views in that interview. Thats like saying if I was caught in a political protest on camera and gave my views my former employer could fire me for making them look bad. Simply because he is well known doesnt mean he cannot have his public say like anyone else. I mean really what you are saying then is that ANY public figure ought to have to fear for their job if they are honest about a personal view that might not be liked? Would you be supporting him being fired if they asked about say polygamy and he supported it? Its just as touchy of a subject with far less support for it in the public eye. Would it be right then?
    As for letting the KKK have a television show, sure let them. Itll flop in less then a year due to lack of ratings. Well unless people are willing to watch just to be entertained by how dumb they are likely to get.
     
  11. Foxface

    Full Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2013
    Messages:
    1,716
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Urbana, IL
    I'm quite in the middle of this argument to be honest, so I hope you don't mind that I just respond to this post

    So here is where I stand. As a vetern of the AF (and as I've said so many times) I am a staunch supporter of true freedom of speech. I believe this loser and every like him has every single right to say gay=bad no matter how anti-progress he is. But here's the thing, I also believe freedom of association exists. A&E, Starbucks, and even the military has and SHOULD have every right not to associate with someone who represents them poorly. We live in the information age and things staying private is just not a reality anymore. I post my view on Facebook and it's EVERYWHERE now whether I want it to be or not. That's the reality of life. Yeah back in the 50's you could tell an off-color joke and maybe one person would know about it, but This guy is a popular figure and made several horrible comments so AE had every right not to associate with him just as he had every right to say what he said.

    Of course we saw how it worked where AE folded. So the idea that it will just go away may work for something like the KKK, but I wager there is many more homophobes out there willing to be out publically than the KKK...or maybe just more prevalent these days

    Foxface
     
  12. Bibliophile

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2011
    Messages:
    482
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Colorado
     
  13. Adi

    Adi
    Regular Member

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2013
    Messages:
    691
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Romania
    Gender:
    Male
    Out Status:
    A few people
     
  14. Bibliophile

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2011
    Messages:
    482
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Colorado
    Adj what you cant seem to wrap your head around is there is a far cry from seeking a person be fired and saying his views are terrible. Look at my post to FoxFace and answer my questions there. Tell me where the line is. Tell me when it ends. People have sought this mans job, they are openly using the same bullying against him that we complain about when we face it. Should a Christian university be able to bash a gay teacher or fire them? If the answers no then where do we get off. If you fight fire with fire both sides end up burned and NO ONE wins.
     
  15. Foxface

    Full Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2013
    Messages:
    1,716
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Urbana, IL
    I feel like you are looking for an extreme here where nobody should ever be fired for their views. Thankfully (IMO) that is not how free speech works. It protects us from state and federal backlash and I love that. If Person A wants to say "I hate (insert highly offensive name here)" the government should never be able to say "you are wrong, jail for you."

    Ok so we all seem to agree there. But if I am the CEO or board chairman of AE and this idiot says these things I have two perfectly legal choices.

    1. I could fire/suspend him thus I am disassociating with him and his opinion. Perfectly within my right as a private business

    2. I can not reprimand. Also perfectly within my right.

    But here's the rub...by doing so I am telling my viewers and customers that I have no problem with the fact that Robertson thinks gays are terrorists

    Either decision is perfectly legal but which one is disastrous to my cause/company?

    They made their choice and I hope they suffer for it.

    Thing is you can be perfectly for free speech while still being for private consequences.

    If I am the owner of a small business, I can decide where that line is drawn to an extent. No I cannot fire someone for being trans (unless you live in a Blue Law state...but that's a whole other problem) and I would never WANT to fire someone for being trans

    But I tell you now if I see an employee publically embarassing my company, I have absolutely no problem letting them go. Does it make me callous? Don't care

    So onto your Facebook example. If my employee makes lewd, offensive comments I am going to determine if it impacts my company. If it has and brought a lot of backlash then I have some tough decisions to make don't I?

    But we here at EC like to look at reality. There is a big difference publically and commercially between little Annie Worker making a gay slur who happens to work at my hardware store and a public figure like Phil making the same comments who (whetehr you like it or not) represents the public image of my company

    so yes, I would love to see his job gone and I am not apologetic at all about it

    That's freedom...he has the right to be a bigot and I have the right as AE's CEO not to associate with someone who publically and poorly represents my commercial enterprise

    Foxface
     
  16. Bibliophile

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2011
    Messages:
    482
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Colorado
    So Foxface are you ok with Chick Fil A firing a Satanist employee? Or a Christian School firing a gay teacher that gets married while working there? Or do you support legal protection for these people?
     
  17. Foxface

    Full Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2013
    Messages:
    1,716
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Urbana, IL
    I'll go ahead and quote what I said since you may have missed it

    So no I do no support firing someone for who they are. But again, heck of a difference between being homophobic and publically representing a highly offensive standpoint.

    If AE found out that Phil was homophobic, so be it. Phil is a homophobe. And actually I am ok with him being a homophobe. Freedom of thought. I am ok with a Satanist working for Chick Fil A...their food sucks but that's another story. If a gay teacher wants to work at a Christian school so be it. However, if that same gay teacher decides to go on a tirade saying Christ is bad and Christians are terrorists...I mean come on...you want the line drawn how about starting there? If the Satanist started publically telling people that Christians are evil and the spawn of Satan...well you made your bed then.

    I'll even go so far as to say a KKK member is free to march in a town like Evanston (very close to where I lived) but if you start publically damaging a company, then that company is quite capable and free to have consequences for it.

    It's obvious what you want from me and Adi and others. I think to be honest you want to paint us as hypocrites but I believe if a gay man working for Chick Fil A wanted to start publically saying that Christians are evil and terrorists I have the same lack of concern for their job as Phil here on AE

    Now, clearly you want to paint us or let us paint ourselves into a corner...

    so here is what I get from you

    I feel you are looking to have the opposite extreme where there should never be private or commercial consequences for being an idiot.

    So I am going to turn your own questions on you

    Where do YOU draw the line? Why not let Phil publically start a TV show called I Hate Gays. Why not? freedom of speech. AE should have to allow him such a show right? Why not have Phil speak out against a whole community of people every day and never have consequences?

    So where is your line?

    Foxface
     
    #57 Foxface, Jan 7, 2014
    Last edited: Jan 7, 2014
  18. Bibliophile

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2011
    Messages:
    482
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Colorado
    Simple if you are AT work and say these thing yes the company has a right to fire you. However if you are off the clock its not their issue. If for example I bash religion on my facebook page or get an interview and do the same I do not think its right for my company to fire me. Its not their business.
    When we allow what we do OFF of work be that out of the store or off of the set like Phil was to be subject to the terms of our employment we run the risk of making freedom of speech, freedom of religion, or our freedom to love who we love worthless. Because if we get blackballed and have no employment then how many people do you think will speak up.
    At what point should a company be able to fire you if for example you were seen at a rally to legalize pot and got on the news or a rally to legalize polygamy and were on the news. They could easily argue such a thing was damaging to their reputation.
    Also Im sorry but I've seen ZERO support for firing say Dan Savage among the gay community and I am betting there is a ton of support for the nasty bullying trash that comes of of his mouth but thats ok because he supports us right? That is why a fight in these kinds of posts, because yes many people are hypocritical in their views as shown by the backlash if we dont like what one side is saying but us keeping mum so long as they are siding with us and bashing people we dont agree with.
    Guess what I argue for BOTH sides. I have fought people in the conservative circles I run in and I fight among the gay community as well. I see freedom for all or none its black and white for me.
     
  19. Foxface

    Full Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2013
    Messages:
    1,716
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Urbana, IL
    and again you passed up my own post...I'll quote for you a second time

    If a gay person came out and starting calling for the death of hetero's, you better believe I'd fully support a decision to fire him/cosequences/whatever.

    I don't believe your experiences and anectodotal evidence is at all representative of everyone in the LGBT community. I am willing to bet there are many out there that believe as I do where if someone who was gay spoke blanketing every single hetero as a terrorist and called for them to all lose their jobs or die or whatever should have consequences.

    Cut I think we've discussed and made our points made. I don't agree with you but hey...freedom of speech right?

    That's why I love it...you think I am silly for my views and I do for yours but that's the beauty of this country and many others. We can have these opinions and speak them

    Good day to you :slight_smile:

    Foxface
     
  20. Bibliophile

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2011
    Messages:
    482
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Colorado
    Fox I am not sure how you feel I passed you up. You asked for my line and I gave it. Only at work should what you say have any bearing. Maybe I rambled too much for that to be clear.
    Also Im sorry but Dan Savage has ruined the lives of an entire set of people with the last name Santorum all because of one terrible politician. Ive NEVER seen a single call to police such behavior among the gay community. He goes out and starts a VERY public campaign that will have results for years to come for kids born with that name but lgbt people just cheered it. I didnt see a soul going wait a minute this may be bigger then one guy.... That is why I get up in arms over posts like this. We are so ready to police bad behavior of others but we fail to address issues in our own camp.