'Duck Dynasty' Dad Suspended Following Anti-Gay Remarks

Knotbuyinit said:
I'm sure you meant to say Bashir worked for MSNBC and made comments that got him fired while on the job. His words were protected under the COTUS. Saying that someone should sh!t in Palin's mouth is not what most logical, reasonable people expect from a professional journalist. The outrage over the comments came from members of both parties (not withstanding 700's approval). Coupled with very low ratings and viewership, the comments were reason enough to fire him.
Click to expand...
He was on the job.  His words while on the job are not protected speech.  MSNBC can can him for violating their policy or at will if the contract stipulates that.  Depending on how his contract is worded, his comments may not have been protected speech even while not on air.
 
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread starter
  • #63
Keroseneuser said:
Jeez tree, 
 
You cannot possibly be dense enough to not see we are talking about the same thing.    The difference is I am not complaining about something that someone said in support of the gay lifestyle, but you cannot stand that the Duck guy spoke his mind about the other side of the coin.
 
IF one person has the unfettered right to fully support and promote a gay lifestyle then ANOTHER person has the equal right to support a heterosexual lifestyle.    That's what EQUALITY is!   It is not your twisted view of "I can say whatever I want,  but you need to keep your mouth shut" 
 
You are the worst kind of person out there.   You DEMAND that everyone conform to YOUR view, no matter what their religion, upbringing, and beliefs are, and you want to have "consequences" for anybody that mutters even the slightest peep against anything you support.    
 
The worst part is It does not appear that you even have the ability to recognize the double standard that you are pushing here. 
 
You cannot have it both ways.       
Click to expand...
You nailed it!
Sorry I can not give you more than 1+
You can't have freedom of speech while squelching freedom of speech.
  Independent thought is a great attribute to our society.
Take Care,
B) xUT
 
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread starter
  • #64
Ms Tree said:
He was on the job.  His words while on the job are not protected speech.  MSNBC can can him for violating their policy or at will if the contract stipulates that.  Depending on how his contract is worded, his comments may not have been protected speech even while not on air.
Click to expand...
Is that how you got fired?
:p
 
xUT said:
You nailed it!
Sorry I can not give you more than 1+
You can't have freedom of speech while squelching freedom of speech.
  Independent thought is a great attribute to our society.
Take Care,
B) xUT
Click to expand...
Why do people think this is a freedom of speech issue? A&E made a business decision. The fed or for that matter any govenrment entity did not limit Phils speech.
 
xUT said:
Is that how you got fired?
:p
Click to expand...
Nope. Pissed off a APFA rep who was hooked up and AA wanted me gone. Even the TWC said the reasons were BS but in a right to work state cause is not required.
 
Ms Tree said:
He was on the job.  His words while on the job are not protected speech.  MSNBC can can him for violating their policy or at will if the contract stipulates that.  Depending on how his contract is worded, his comments may not have been protected speech even while not on air.
Click to expand...
Point me to a link of their contract. You have no knowledge of what is or is not in their contract. They may have violated the terms of their contract with A&E but their right to say it is protected by the COTUS. What Phil said was not "fighting words" or "hate speech".
 
Knotbuyinit said:
Point me to a link of their contract. You have no knowledge of what is or is not in their contract. They may have violated the terms of their contract with A&E but their right to say it is protected by the COTUS. What Phil said was not "fighting words" or "hate speech".
Click to expand...
I do not have access to the contract which is why I said "if it stipulates that".  No one has said that Phil in not allowed to say anything.  A&E said he is not allowed to say that stuff if he wishes top stay employed by A&E.  Again, this has nothing to do with protected speech.
 
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread starter
  • #69
Knotbuyinit said:
Point me to a link of their contract. You have no knowledge of what is or is not in their contract. They may have violated the terms of their contract with A&E but their right to say it is protected by the COTUS. What Phil said was not "fighting words" or "hate speech".
Click to expand...
pay her no mind.
she's just running her bigoted mouth once again.
 
Ms Tree said:
Nope. Pissed off a APFA rep who was hooked up and AA wanted me gone. Even the TWC said the reasons were BS but in a right to work state cause is not required.
Click to expand...
I would like to shake that APFA rep's hand.
 
Why did AA want you gone?
 
I am sure the TWC just told you what you wanted to hear so you would go away and they would not have to listen to your incessant nonsense.
 
Maybe instead of calling yourself Ms Tree you should call yourself Ms Take.
 
La Li Lu Le Lo said:
I would like to shake that APFA rep's hand.
 
Why did AA want you gone?
 
I am sure the TWC just told you what you wanted to hear so you would go away and they would not have to listen to your incessant nonsense.
 
Maybe instead of calling yourself Ms Tree you should call yourself Ms Take.
Click to expand...
Id like to shake her hand as well. Wife and I are making o er 30k a yeat more now than whe I worked at AA and I dont have to deal with all the stress of crew skd.
 
The issue here isn't free speech.

It's tolerance and hypocrisy.

Conservatives regularly defend the rights of others to say things even if they find it offensive and vile.

Liberals regularly label opposing viewpoints as hate speech and demand action be taken to silence whatever they find offensive.

A&E knew the Robertsons were deeply religious, and have cashed in on that. Why they chose to react as they did is boggling, and they'll take a hit for it one way or another.
 
1525627_598814400190254_1159471647_n.jpg
 
eolesen said:
The issue here isn't free speech.
It's tolerance and hypocrisy.
Conservatives regularly defend the rights of others to say things even if they find it offensive and vile.
Liberals regularly label opposing viewpoints as hate speech and demand action be taken to silence whatever they find offensive.
A&E knew the Robertsons were deeply religious, and have cashed in on that. Why they chose to react as they did is boggling, and they'll take a hit for it one way or another.
Click to expand...
Conservatives regularly defend the rights of others? Please list a few. If conservatives do it regularly it should be real easy to find 5 or so right off the bat.

When I get home Ill post a list of conservative caees the ACLU has defended. We can compare lists.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Back
Top