LGBT News Yet Another Bigoted Phil Robertson Video

That's the problem you're making right there. You're turning this into a black and white issue, when it is not black and white. You bring up a valid point about what people say off the clock in semi-public places like their Facebook page, and those are legitimate debates for us to have because we don't want a society where corporations are taking the place of the state when it comes to censorship.

There are certainly lines that are important to draw, and we may find that if we have that debate that those lines are somewhat fuzzy. However, in this specific situation things are fairly straight forward.

First, it's silly to argue that Phil wasn't representing A&E when he made his comments. As a public figure when you give an interview you know that what you say is going to reflect on the brand you represent. Now, Phil may not care - he may even be overjoyed - that he's associated with bigotry. I have no doubt he's being sincere in his views. However, the businesses that advertise during his show, and A&E itself have an obvious and logical reason to be concerned.

It's no different than when you served in the military. You were prevented from making obvious political statements while in uniform because the military didn't want it to appear that you were representing them in an official capacity. Phil giving a interview is in the same exact position. Once again, it's like when someone goes out to promote their book or movie. Just because they're giving an interview doesn't mean they aren't working.

Second, you are engaging in a logical fallacy - the slippery slope. You're saying if we allow X then Y is going to happen. That's not necessarily true. In fact it's already true that gay people are actively being fired for being gay all across the country. This is why we are fighting for ENDA, which would protect us from employment discrimination.

This is the difference between positive and negative rights. Negative rights, such as the First Amendment, prevent the government from silencing free speech. They prevent an entity from taking an action. Positive rights, such as Affirmative Action or ENDA, use state power in a way that restricts the freedom of others to provide greater freedom to someone else. In the case of ENDA it restricts an employers right to fire someone on the basis of being gay, while at the same time providing gays with a secured right to be employed.

How do we determine who gets positive rights and who doesn't? We have public debates and act through the democratic political process. People don't just magically draw positive rights out of thin air, they have to be granted through law, and as we all know when you're a minority group - that's a very hard thing to sell. This is why we do not yet have ENDA passed and people are still actively, even today, being fired simply because they're gay.

The argument for ENDA is a simple one: Like with skin color and gender, sexual orientation is an immutable characteristic of a person. Discrimination based on an immutable characteristic is not a desired thing in our society, and so we want to protect such individuals from that discrimination as a result.

 

I was saying you missed a big point in me. Once you said that you argue for BOTH sides...and I quoted precisely where I said that I would argue just as much for for the other side as well. If I found a hateful gay man, a hateful trans woman, whatever, then I would call for the same consequences

THAT is where I said you passed me up

I even quoted where I said you passed me up

any who

off to bed...been a long night shift

enjoy the debate

Foxface

 

Sigh. Phil Robertson is a brand. His family is a brand. Don't believe me? Go to wal-mart. I saw their ugly faces on dog treats. Now they don't make dog treats, or pillows, or fleece blankets, or birthday cards, or any of the numerous other items their faces are on. Probably don't even actually make duck calls. Duck Dynasty is a brand. So when he did the interview he was representing Phil Robertson, the BRAND which is contractually owned by A&E. Anything he said or did that damaged the brand, A&E had the right to take action on. It's not that hard to understand this. Biblio is just ignoring this point to try to validate his argument.

Let's not forget that people ARE fired for the things they say on facebook. Teachers are fired for making racist remarks, or ridiculing special needs kids. I think they absolutely should be. We all have the option to restrict access to what people can see on facebook. If you have anything on there that your employer might not want associated with the company it's YOUR responsibility to restrict access.

So Phil had a choice. In the interview he might have thought to himself at any point, "whatever I say could reflect poorly on the brand. It might get me into trouble as an employee." And he might have taken some responsibility there and replied, "I prefer not to discuss my more controversial views in this article" or "I simply don't believe in homosexuality among other things". But no. He is proud of how hateful he is. He is proud because he thinks that everyone else should be that hateful too. If society doesn't have a backlash to what he said, then we fail to marginalize these views. They can become mainstream just like he thinks they should be.

He absolutely should have been fired. The only reason he wasn't is because of money. A&E realized that 3/4 or more of the fan base of that dumb show is just like him. Having a job is a responsibility. You can't just say what you want. I worked at an applebee's for some time. I couldn't punch out on Sunday and then go stand in front of the restaurant and go "Hey, guess what, church goers?!? Everyone hates waiting on you because you all never tip! You guys sit around and pray before eating your food then complain about it and send it back because it isn't good enough for you. Christians! First they're bringing all their offspring in here making a mess, then they're leaving little fake $10 bills with scripture on the back...then you just morph out from there: burning crosses in people's yards, attacking abortion clinics! Just like terrorists...sitting around thinking of new ways to do evil!"

Oh, what's that? I'm fired now? But....but I was off the clock! lol:rolle:

 

Now I won't speak for biblio, this is more generally how I feel about this sinking country and it's lack of values. Not values per se, more like responsibility.

I feel like the consequences are being sucked out of the country. I don't mean this in an "I'm no a hardcore conservative" way either. I simply mean it's dangerous to have this idea that consequences should be lessened. I truly believe we are teaching our kids that it's ok to be assholes.

Yes freedom of speech protects me from the state as it should, but if I were to start speaking out and being beligerent and ruining this hospital's brand then I fully expect to find my last paycheck in the mail

Again, I am not speaking in place of biblio..this is what I see happening all over

Foxface

 

Just so people dont think I am ignoring this thread I will give my last post. Each of you that are ok with the calls to fire this man cannot see how dangerious this view is and the things it could lead to. I doubt Ill convince you of it so Im done trying to.
However I want you to think about this.
Do you know of Dan Savage and what he did to Rick Sanatorum? If you do then why did you not call for his being fired? If not look it up and ask why the gay community was mum on this sort of bully like tactic that will effect far more then the person involved.

 

Like seriously? Dan Savage is a comedian/advice radio shock jock! You are setting up a false dichotomy. Either the gay community also condemns Dan Savage the same way we do Phil Robertson or we're all hypocrites. Nope. Sorry. One of these things is not like the others. How many straight people could I even walk up to and say "Santorum" and they'd think of anything other than the latently gay, sweater-vest wearing homophobe from PA?

Lol Trust me, I'm asexual. Dan Savage has said some pretty insensitive and cruel things about asexuals, frankly because he is ignorant about us. But that's his job. His whole job is making some people laugh and offending other people. I don't care. He never said something that indirectly encouraged violence against asexuals or was hateful. But Phil Robertson should lose his job because A&E said they supported LGBT (which our results show: That was a lie) and so they had every right to say, "you don't represent us well and now we cut ties".

No slippery slope into fascism. It's ok to demand to be treated like, you know, people.

 

and I am afraid this OPINION is just that,,, your opinion. It is not a decided fact that society will fall because we expect consequences

But I doubt I'll be able to convince you that this fallacy you propose if not proven

Foxface