BREAKING: Is A&E In Violation of The Civil Rights Act of 1964 by Suspending Phil Robertson?

BREAKING: Is A&E In Violation of The Civil Rights Act of 1964 by Suspending Phil Robertson?

Right Scoop is reporting on comments made by talk radio king Rush Limbaugh, who says A&E is discriminating against Phil Robertson.

Yesterday GLAAD praised A&E’s firing of Phil Robertson from Duck Dynasty, saying they’ve sent a strong message that discrimination is neither a Christian nor an American value. But Rush Limbaugh says that the only person who has actually been discriminated against is Phil Robertson and that GLAAD should attack A&E for discriminating against him.

It’s true that if the tables were turned, the LGBT community would go ballistic. Why? Well because of this.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), which prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. SEC. 2000e-2. [Section 703]

(a) Employer practices

It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer -

(1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.

That’s a pretty clear picture of what discrimination is (according to the language of the act). Phil Robertson’s comment revolve around his a) belief in natural sexual relationships, and b) his religious beliefs. A&E suspended him for sharing his beliefs, which appears to be a violation of the civil rights act of 1964.

Where is the left on this one? Where are the calls for investigation into A&E?

Inquiring minds want to know.

standwphil-buttonUPDATE: Massive petition delivery planned. Tens of thousands are swarming the official BackPhil.com petition! Click here to sign the “Stand With Phil” petition now!

  • Dwightmannn

    As uninformed as I is , I would believe it to be the truth. . .

  • Tom Cooper

    I’d rather a) send a polite, respectful message to A&E asking them to reinstate Phil, and b) go to http://www.DuckCommander.com and order products to support the Robertsons. (Not Duck Dynasty brand- that’s owned by A&E)

    • 600 Horses

      I shot A & E an email a couple hours ago, did basically what you said. I suspect A & E may soon regret the suspension. They could still get sued for the civil rights violation, and I’m pretty certain they about to have problems with advertisers who are unhappy with this situation.

  • Laffin’atcha

    Don’t you realize white male conservatives with Christian AND family values cannot be discriminated against in America today…

    • HadYourChances

      Phil just was.

    • Jean Nelson

      Who are you kidding

  • Robert Myers

    I think he should file the biggest lawsuit ever brought against a network and take the money from that and back christian leaders for congress and get rid of the Godless criminals that are in there now .

    • Bridges

      Good idea at first impression of this story. But I don’t think Phil would do it. He’s going to let this slide off his back and keep on going. Turn the other cheek, if you will. However, I don’t think A&E should be able to get off scott-free.

      • Andy McWilliams

        It’s like water on a duck’s back to Phil.

    • Justin Hayes Yates

      So you believe that a religious politician will be more honest then one who is not? Interesting. Highly doubtful but a nice thought.

    • Locutis2112

      and the basis for his lawsuit would be??

      • Nugget

        Well because of this…………

        Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), which prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. SEC. 2000e-2. [Section 703]

        (a) Employer practices

        It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer –

        (1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.

        That’s a pretty clear picture of what discrimination is (according to the language of the act). Phil Robertson’s comment revolve around his a) belief in natural sexual relationships, and b) his religious beliefs. A&E suspended him for sharing his beliefs, which appears to be a violation of the civil rights act of 1964.

        ******

        Did this answer your question?

        • techno_bob

          Are you an attorney? If not you should talk to one about this because you’re wrong.

          • HadYourChances

            Are you an Attorney? Then how in the world would you know who is wrong?

            What part of the English language can you not understand from the article?

            Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), which prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. SEC. 2000e-2. [Section 703]

            (a) Employer practices

            It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer –

            (1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.

          • http://nottheeternaltao.blogspot.com/ jimstoic

            You can’t fire someone for being a member of a religion, but you can fire them for acts arising from their religious beliefs if those acts affect your business. If I worked for a bridal store, for example, and told a divorced customer that remarriage constituted adultery, my boss would be within her rights to fire me. And yes, I am a lawyer (but this is not legal advice.)

          • KenWM

            How did it affect their business? Can you prove that A&E lost customers or suffered some form of financial loss? I think a good lawyer would pick that flimsy defense apart when he or she asked A&E to prove such a loss that is not in the course of normal and/or recurring trends (Open the books for the last five years)… If A&E lost anything, I think it would be the result of their choice to do what they did. – With that, I think thousands upon thousands of fans would stand up and say they stopped watching and supporting A&E because of what A&E did, not because of what Phil said, or because of his religious beliefs. Case dismissed! Let’s hear your charges against A&E Mr. Robertson. LOL!!

            By the way, why would any person with religious views that are against people remarrying work in a bridal store – these days – when it’s the norm to be married two or more times? It’d be like me saying: My religion is steadfast against humans consuming meat, but I work in the customer relations office – at a slaughter house. Scenario *fail* my friend! LOL!

            I’m not a lawyer, but I’ve had some law classes and I’ve worked in law enforcement and in close proximity to the legal system for several years (But this too is not legal advice- nor does it mean dick!). :-)

          • kelly

            KenWM, A&E reacted fast, after learning valuable lessons from watching what happened to the Food Network after Paula Deen admitted to bigoted remarks. That’s why they didn’t lose customers or advertisers YET. The Food Network lost one advertiser after the other until there were none left, and they had no choice but to cancel the show. Same thing would have happened if A&E hadn’t suspended Robertson. Thousands of fans might stop watching the Duck show now, but it would have been millions PLUS advertisers. Robertson broke his contract, where he agreed to follow A&E’s corporate values (which includes being strong supporters of the LGBT community), not harm their brand, etc.The majority of Americans support gay marriage, the LGBT community, and African Americans. Our society no longer tolerates bigotry.

          • bevbe

            Kelly, I believe you are incorrect when you say that millions of viewers would have stopped watching the show if A&E had not fired Mr. Robertson. I can’t imagine the LGBT community being fans of a show that portrays a strong Christian faith. A person may, or may not, agree with Mr. Robertson but the fact remains that he speaks his beliefs, unafraid of the fallout. It seems that the only segment of society that is not allowed to do that is Christians. Other well known people are allowed to speak their minds in the vilest of terms and appear on shows depicting all kinds of deviant behavior and no one says a word about it. Come on, let’s at least be equal.

          • Gary Baker

            you are absolutely right bevbe I cant imagine anyone watching a show that is soooo contrary to their very nature…so im sure that it wouldn’t have affected them at all…how can the gays boycott something they don’t utilize anyway….I also think its funny that Kelly ASSUMES they would have lost business…that is what they thought about chic fil a

          • William Rinehart

            And here you are making the assumption that there are not many, many gay Christians! Gay Christians who believe in monogamy and strong family values. Gay Christians that like to hunt. THERE ARE. Many. I realize that ignorant people see that as contradictory. They likely do not know anyone who is gay. People should be careful with their fear of something unknown/misunderstood, and quit boxing people into stereotypes and labels. Gay people are not “evil.” Though A&E has the legal right to suspend OR fire him for it, I do not agree with their decision to do so. the comments he made in the interview were pretty distasteful and not very Christian-like. He could have stated those values without being distasteful and crude. They may be somewhat inline with his beliefs, but the words (in question) he used were not demonstrating the love of Jesus. We’ve all made mistakes and put our foots in our mouth at one time or another though, and people should be forgiven of this. He didn’t get in trouble because of his faith and values; he got into trouble for the words and expressions he chose to use. It wasn’t just GLBT stuff either. It was also about the African-American references. Again though, i will repeat, I do not think that A&E should have suspended him for it. Like you have said, plenty of people have said terrible things and still get airtime. I think there are plenty more important things going on in the US to worry about than this issue.

          • bevbe

            Mr. Rinehart, thank you for your respectful reply. There are so many people that post angry and mean things on here and it is refreshing to read civilized conversations. I do agree with you that Mr. Robertson should have chosen his words more carefully. I have friends who are gay and when we visit, the subject of their lifestyle never comes up. They are not angry people, trying to push their views down my throat and neither do I rant about the way they live. I think, in the interview, that Mr. Robertson was trying to explain why he disagrees with homosexual practices. He believes in the Bible and was quoting what the scriptures say. As far as the comments he made regarding the African-American issue, my understanding of his words were that he, personally, had not seen misery or mistreatment in the black people he worked with. Perhaps the people HE came in contact with were treated fairly and respectably by their employers. I know that there were some horrible things done to people under the banner of racism, but I would have to say that I too, have never witnessed it. I’m assuming that’s what he meant. Thank you for sharing your views with me.

          • William Rinehart

            I do appreciate your civil reply, in kind! I will also have to say, that the “offensive” comments he made look much worse when they are not offered in the context of the entire interview as a whole. Just today, I read the interview in it’s entirety (rather than just the snippets) and found it even less offensive that I originally did. This is probably because Mr. Robertson comes across as a man who simply says it how he thinks it…without attempting to sugarcoat his thoughts. I suppose there is a certain kind of beauty in that, even if what comes out of his mouth may be a little crass. I DO understand WHY and HOW many to most Christians understand homosexuality to be a sin. To the best of their knowledge, the bible indicates it is. With nothing else to go on as proof, that is how it must be accepted. I have a personal conviction that God loves me the way I am…gay and all. Only God can answer that question, and for ME, he HAS (long story involving nightly prayers and crying into my pillow for years). If I had to choose being gay or straight, I certainly would have wanted to be a “normal” straight kid. It was very difficult as a kid realizing I gay, and knowing nothing about it, other than it was “abnormal.” Anyway, thanks again for the kind reply. One thing the extreme Left (and any extreme for that matter) needs to realize is that tolerance is a TWO way street. Some of these Lobbyist groups on either side of the fence cause more damage than they do good.

          • Gary Baker

            that is a blatant lie…most americans do care one way or another what gays want to do..Period that is between them and GOD so why don’t you get off the propaganda wagon….im Christian and I don’t care what you want to do with your life…but I in no way want you to interfere and tell me that I have to believe your lifestyle is ok…

          • mutosheep

            Your bigotry against Christians and intolerance for the Bible shows differently. You must be smoking that legalized pot in Colorado because your statements reflect a mind separated from reality by an immeasurable void. The “LGBT community” is only supported by a minority which is still vastly larger than the amount of gay people who support your little rainbow revolution. You idiots better back off this mob rule garbage and majoritarianism because the moment you secure enough power you will be betrayed by your fellow national socialists in a Night of the Long Knives 2. You have focused so much on punishing Americans for disagreeing with you that you have partnered with the very groups who want to kill you. Take your dumb B.S. over to Russia or Iran and see what it gets your fairy butt.

          • http://nottheeternaltao.blogspot.com/ jimstoic

            The business owner doesn’t have to prove their business was affected, though that kind of evidence could be a defense. The person making the complaint would have to show that the firing was due to his being of a particular religious tradition. Since other members of Robertson’s family are of the same religion and were not fired, that’s clearly not the case.

          • Gary Baker

            so what your trying to say is that its ok for a gay person who works for AandE to give an interview and when he mentions in the interview that he is gay its ok for the network to fire him??? Please say that is how you see it..then we can strike down the civil rights acts altogether OK???

          • mutosheep

            It is very clear that Phil was fired for expressing his religious views. It would not be hard to show that this firing was the result of petitioning by the militant homosexual national socialist group the Human Rights Campaign and their brown shirt buddies. It would also be easy to show that the sponsors and money backed the Robertsons. A&E acted against their own financial interests in order to punish a Christian for expressing a fundamental Biblical truth. Your argument is a sophistry and I doubt you would defend a business owned by Christians for taking similar action against an employee they did not like.

          • MaroonVee

            actually AE will lose business by suspending Phil…AE’s actions will be the ones that hurt AE

          • mutosheep

            Phil made his statements for A&E, not at his place of employment. If Phil was gay and said gays should be allowed to marry and was fired for saying this I wonder if you would change your opinion.

          • Fctwo Willie

            Fortunatly spoungebob, thats for a judge to decide and not you.

          • techno_bob

            Did you fail spelling class or are you just uneducated? Still waiting for that lawsuit to be filed…. you know, the case where Phil Robertson breached the morality clause of his A&E contract.

          • Fctwo Willie

            Oh nose. Tecnobub ataked mai spelin. Musta meaned i wuz wrung kuz i didnt spelcheque. Attacking the spelling of an arguement is the resort of one who lacks brainpower suffiecient to create a solid counterpoint. I commend you on using your limited cognative abilities to pass spelling class. You qualify to act as my secretary now. Lord knows i need one to handle menial tasks like spelling while i create. 

        • Russ Hamilton

          People keep quoting title VII which talks about employees but I am not
          sure if PR is/was an employee of any sort. He and his family had
          contracts but they were as far as I can tell not on the payroll in the
          traditional sense………

          • MaroonVee

            Read the law, it covers all types of employment ..and suspensions are considered discrimination.

      • HadYourChances

        What part of the English language can you not understand from the article?

        Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), which prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. SEC. 2000e-2. [Section 703]
        (a) Employer practices
        It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer –
        (1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.

        • Bruce Velocity

          The part where this isn’t about Language, and is about :LAW.
          A&E can “dismiss” them because in almost EVERY ‘talent’ contract is a direct clause that the contact can be nullified for engaging in activity that the contract holder DEEMS damaging. And yes, I’ve worked in the music industry for years…EVERY contract says that…EVERY.

          • KenWM

            Why would ANYONE sign a contract so one sided? That “clause” basically says “This contract means DICK before you even consider signing it”. If you fart or if I THINK you farted, and I DEEM it as damaging, I can nullify the contract, fire you and you can’t do squat about it legally or otherwise – because it’s not a breach of contract… YOU did somthing I feared was damaging.

            If you’ve worked in the music industry, you know this better than most. Contracts are nothing but a chess game… Played by lawyers and the judicial system. There is ALWAYS a way to seek rightful settlement… ESPECIALLY in the ‘talent’ industry… Fans can make or break you (or your contract holder) in a New York minute (And A&E is feeling that pressure over this already)! There comes a point where the contract, from either perspective, means nothing. Look at it like this: The contract holder (A&E) fires a very popular character on a very popular show (that’s pretty much the anchor show for A&E) for expressing religious views. Thousands upon thousands of fans boycott said contract holder (A&E) by refusing to watch their network – partly because they love the character, but also because they realize the network violated his constitutional rights. With that, the fan base goes down. What happens when the fan base drops? Yep, the overall ratings suffer (Don’t make the mistake of thinking a bunch of duck-lovin’ hillbillies can’t have that much of an impact on the almighty A&E – ’cause they CAN – and they are), What happens when the ratings suffer? Advertisers get a ratings and popularity report that gives them a base to negotiate costs of advertising (and what programs to advertise on) on A&E. When they see this huge fan “exodus”, they will negotiate dirt cheap advertising or not advertise at all (Why spend a million bucks for a six month advertising contract if there is little or no consumers to watch it?). With that, needless to say, money starts to dwindle. When that happens, the contract holder suddenly realizes they screwed up and are going to start “negotiations” (If they’re smart, they start “negotiations” before it gets that bad… Trust that A&E already sees the storm on the horizon with the growing outrage of the fans as well as supporters of the constitution), Anyway, we all know that the phrase “Start negotiations” means: “SH!T!! We better fix this and FAST!” But they’ll do it in a way that makes them look good – like THEY decided to give Phil another chance. If it were me, I’d take a couple million dollar out-of-court, out of media settlement and walk away.
            BTW, you did say “almost” every ‘talent’ contract has this clause… Maybe HE didn’t sign such an absurd contract in the first place, and that’s why he has a dog in this fight (if you ignore his HUGE fighting dog named “Fan-based support”).

          • MaroonVee

            they knew he was religious.. he is a pastor after all… so they were aware of his religion.

          • MaroonVee

            Are there any exceptions to who is covered by Title VII’s religion
            provisions?

            Yes. While Title VII’s jurisdictional rules apply to all religious
            discrimination claims under the statute, see EEOC Compliance Manual, “Threshold
            Issues,” http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/threshold.html,
            specially-defined “religious organizations” and “religious educational
            institutions” are exempt from certain religious discrimination provisions, and a
            “ministerial exception” bars Title VII claims by employees who serve in clergy
            roles.

          • HadYourChances

            The music industry is far more interesting than Ducks. What Genre do you deal with most? I love music, all kinds, been bit bad by the blues bug recently, slide guitar. So many good good artists out there, not every one has the same luck or backing. Good luck!

          • HadYourChances

            I saw a performance contract for jakob Dylan some years ago. It stated in the contract that the venues and their employees are forbidden from asking Jakob ANYTHING about his Father, Bob Dylan. It was funny in a way since I can imagine Jakob must have gotten his fill of questions about his Father real quick. Peace

      • Eddie Brown

        Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), which prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. SEC. 2000e-2. [Section 703]

        (a) Employer practices

        It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer –

        (1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.

        – See more at: http://www.libertynews.com/2013/12/breaking-is-ae-in-violation-of-the-civil-rights-act-of-1964-by-suspending-phil-robertson/#sthash.G8OVD50Y.dpuf

        • Bruce Velocity

          YOU ARE ALL MISSING THE POINT.

          Pa Phil IS NOT AN EMPLOYEE. He has a CONTRACT with A&E. Jeez, I know some of you are low information types but can we at least try to understand that part. If not, anything else intelligent would far beyond your grasp.

          • Loki

            Really? Contract and employee are the same thing. If he gets a paycheck from them, he is an employee.

          • Bruce Velocity

            Really? If I have to deal with this level of ignorance, I don’t see the point of continuing. HE DOESN’T GET A PAYCHECK. HE GETS PAID FOR FULFILLING HIS CONTRACT (or not). Jeez. Huge difference.

            (Hint: there is a really cool feature built into your browser. In that little box, type in “DIFFERENCE BETWEEN CONTRACTUAL SERVICES AND EMPLOYMENT”

          • Loki

            Nice attempt to draw out a emotional response. So I counter with this with emphasis on BOTTOM LINE.

            Read this. http://www.americanbar.org/newsletter/publications/law_trends_news_practice_area_e_newsletter_home/howtoavoidliability.html

          • Bruce Velocity

            Nice dodge. The article is about the role of an organization who didn’t protect THEIR employee from a presumed civil rights violation from an Independant-contractor…which is yet again different from “Working under contract”

          • Loki

            Who is in control? If A&E can suspend them for religious beliefs they are violating his civil rights. Now if Phil just said he hated Gays, this would be completely different. I posted a source, you posted nothing in regards to civil rights and contract workers.

          • Bruce Velocity

            You posted a source that had nothing to do with “working under contract”…and was about an employer’s responsibility for the CONTRACTOR’s actions towards an EMPLOYEE.

            I don’t know how many times I have to say this, but Phil is a “separate” and “private” party under “CONTRACT” with A&E.

            This might be easier to understand. If you hire a carpenter, and he does his work but makes constant remarks about ‘breeders’ that you find offensive…can you dismiss him?
            Yup, you sure can. And, in Pa Robertsons case, A&E probably doesn’t even have to pay him the full amount because there is a morality clause (nothing to do with morals however–that’s just what its called) that says the contract can be dissolved for basically any reason A&E decides that his behavior is hurting their business.

            A&E didn’t “SUSPEND” him. Didn’t FIRE him, Didn’t ask to RESIGN….they used the clause in the contract to dissolve the terms of the contract.

          • Loki

            So it is ok to dissolve a contract if you find out someone is gay. Got it.

          • Bruce Velocity

            Yup. Sure can.

            And it doesn’t even have to be under contract. A vice principal was fired because he married his male partner. It was a catholic high school.

            But yea, generally speaking you could. Now, the question is, would that clause hold up in court…maybe, maybe not…but it aint covered under the civil rights act…at least not yet.

          • Loki

            So if a stripper aka independent contractor is asked to have sex or get fired. That is also legal as well?

          • Loki

            But I take it you have read his contract? I can’t find it. So How do I know you’re not making this up?

          • Bruce Velocity

            Your right. Bit of an assumption on my part. But, I work in the music industry. I’ve never seen a talent contract without that clause. The label for Miley Cyrus could have nullified the contract for a number of things she’s done. However, that would be stupid…about as stupid as A&E dismissing Phil. (or the LGBT community getting upset at a stupid redneck). But its not a civil rights issue. No more than the hundreds of other “talents” being let go for the stupid things they say or do (does the name Charlie Sheen ring a bell?)

          • Loki

            Well I see how biased your remarks are. I also don’t know where you work or how to confirm such a thing. I just know that you have a disagreement with the article. I believe it is best for the lawyers to work this out.

          • Loki

            Let’s put this another way. A contract worker is gay. The company that he is working for finds out and and fires him. Was his civil rights violated?

    • Ryan Mais

      I don’t see Phil doing that. He has more than enough money from Duck Commander to give two shits about what the network thinks. A&E is getting a huge backlash for what they have done and rightfully so. They should have known that this would hurt one of their biggest moneymakers and as business people alone., bad move on their part.

      • Jean Nelson

        Gotta keep their little buddies happy, happy happy

    • Gary Baker

      it will never get past the jewish judges….trust me they protect the jewish networks…just like they will protect the jewish bankers that control the federal reserve….

      • Bruce Velocity

        Damn, why wasn’t i born jewish…I’d be set for life…oh wait…nevermind.

  • Locutis2112

    The issuse here is that, no, there is no wrongful termination with regard to the Civil Rights Act. Phil Robertson was not terminated because of his religious beliefs, which is what this article would have you think. Rather he was fired for the content of his speech as being inflammatory. The “religion” part is merely a tool to have you believe it was because of that. NPR fired Juan Williams for similar comments regarding Muslims, Paula Deen was terminated for inflammatory remarks made over 20 years ago, Dog the bounty hunter endured the same, as did Alec Baldwin. It was not until the religion aspect was mentioned in the same context of his wording did it become “A&E fired a christian for voicing his beliefs,” when in fact A&E fired him for the content of his remarks – not the religious beliefs…..so…fat chance with that one..

    • Justin Hayes Yates

      yes but Paula Deen used a racist term, Mr. Robinson simply said it doesn’t make sense. He didn’t attack anyone. He didn’t use hurtful words or anything.

      • hannamae

        “Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men,”

        I don’t know, if I was a lesbian that would seem pretty hurtful to me. Oh you want to have sex with another woman? Well then you must want to have sex with animals too!

        • David

          Implying that people who have sex with animals are belew people who have sex with other people?

        • Pixel

          He was listing sins, not saying if you do one you must do the others, as well.

    • aliswell

      Actually, Phil WAS put on hiatus because he shared his religious beliefs. There’s no ignoring or getting around that fact. The content of his remarks were based in Truth; ignoring these simple facts won’t make your case for you.

      NPR erred in firing Juan Williams and did apologize AFTER the fact. Paula Deen was also cleared of any wrong doing AFTER the fact. Alec Baldwin is a violent, non-religious loose cannon whose unpredictable behavior made him a liability.

      • Locutis2112

        All true statements, however, his religious beliefs were not the premise the led to his firings – its what he said that was considered offensive, regardless of what group it was directed at and what denomination of scripture he equated it to. Regardless, he works at the leisure of the policies of A&E, a private company.

        • aliswell

          What Phil said WAS a proclamation of his religious beliefs. The Bible quote he used is at the center of the histrionics.

          A&E is under the law and as such they’re restrained by it. I look forward to the punishment A&E will receive for their violation of Mr.Robertson’s civil rights.

      • techno_bob

        The content of his remarks wasn’t based on truth. It was based upon his “man in the sky” beliefs. Just more religious gobbledygook for the weak minded who can’t seem to survive or think for themselves without the “crutch” of organized religion. What a racket.

        • aliswell

          Actually, the “crutch” is humanism. So easy to submit to the flesh, to wallow in the selfish, self-centered, self-aggrandizing world of “it’s all about me.” Making up rules to accommodate the latest whims in morality with the singular goal of setting the bar ever lower.

          Being a Christian is about self-sacrifice, of putting the Lord before self. It’s a life of servitude to both God and one another. It’s a life of submitting to God’s ways rather than submitting to the flesh. “Weak-minded”, Bob? We score higher in science than most godless do.

          • techno_bob

            Superstitious crap.

    • gooseman

      The “inflammatory statements” you reference were, for the most part, a fairly accurate recitation of a verse from Corinthians. The illustration used referencing bestiality is an absurdity to highlight the abject moral decay the country is suffering at the hands of the left.

    • m_gear

      Religious practice, which is generally taken to include religious speech, has special protection under the Civil Rights Act, whereas the statements by Paula Deen, etc. don’t. There is no clear precedent on a situation like this that I’m aware of, and, if Robertson is technically an employee of A&E, which I kind of doubt, he would have at least a decent case.

      • Locutis2112

        Quite true – however, it only applies in the workplace, which Robertson at the time he gave the interview was not in the workplace….good point though

        • m_gear

          It’s not true that it applies only in the workplace. You can’t fire someone (or refuse to hire someone) for going to a certain church, for example, and the church attendance obviously occurs outside of the workplace.

  • zendiK

    I support Phil and his views 100%. However, freedom of speech cuts both ways. A&E is practicing their free speech by suspending him. It is possible it is a violation, but not likely. Unless there was a clause in the contract that superseded this, then you are probably right. But I think he agreed to something in his contract and violated that, allowing A&E to take action.

    And yes, contract can trump federal law. Hence why the professional sports teams can operate a draft system (which is technically a monopoly and therefore illegal under the Sherman Anti-Trust Act). Hence why, during lockouts, sports unions often dissolve. This nullifies the contract and brings the teams back under regulation by the Sherman Anti-Trust Act.*

    **Except for baseball, which is a separate case thanks to a Supreme Course ruling in the late 1800’s/early 1900’s.

    • aliswell

      Sorry, but violating the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by punishing someone for sharing their religious beliefs isn’t “practicing their free speech,” it’s breaking the law. Nice attempt at pounding a square peg into a round hole, though.

      • zendiK

        Can you read? I just said that if Phil and A&E had a contract between them that stipulates the terms of employment and both agree on that then the Cuvil Right Act won’t apply.

        Additionally A&E isn’t stupid and probably had lawyers consult with them on this decision. Since we don’t know what is in Phil’s contract he could have been fires for other reasons like “inflammatory comments”. The first amendment protects your free speech from the government, not private employers (if you work for the government then you cannot be fired for free speech if it is reasonable). It is possible that Phil was both contract and an at-will employee which means he can be fired for what he says. What A&E CANNOT DO is fire him because he is a Christian. However, they can fire him for what he says.

        • aliswell

          Can you comprehend? One cannot sign away their rights; numerous court rulings over the years have confirmed that fact.

          Additionally, no law may gag a Christian from uttering Truth which comes from God. THAT’S discriminating against a Christian’s faith. You cannot separate the two despite the humanists constant attempts to do so. If an atheist or gay may openly espouse THEIR repugnant beliefs (which they do on air ad nauseum), so may a Christian and good luck trying to shut us up.

          • techno_bob

            He can utter his version of truth all he wants…. unless he’s out in public as a celebrity representing the creator of his celebrity, A&E. That’s the reality here & it doesn’t discriminate against anybody’s faith. He could have been Jewish, Hindu, Muslim, Catholic, it doesn’t matter. The same thing would have happened.

          • aliswell

            Wrong. Again. ANY other religion would’ve been given a free pass on this one. It ain’t the “religion” part that’s reviled, it’s the Truth part.

            The reality is “his version” of truth IS the Truth and THAT’S what has every godless prog up in arms.

          • zendiK

            Okay. Do me a favor, and do a little research on the NBA draft or the NFL draft. You will find they are technically illegal under federal law. The only reason they exist is because the players union and the owners union agree in their Collective Bargaining Agreement (contract) to have the draft. Therefore, that trumps the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, which would have otherwise declared the draft illegal as a monopoly.

            And you can sign away some of your rights – people who join the military do it for some rights (i.e. free speech). If you work for a civilian contractor on secret government projects, you cannot talk about those projects. Isn’t that an abridgment of their speech? That’s legal.

            Once again, we do not know what Phil’s contract terms said but I would venture he violated something in those terms that gave A&E the right to suspend him. They could have argued that they are not suspending him explicitly for what he believes or said, but rather they do not want his speech associated with their brand. Think about how athletes who make anti-gay comments are sometimes dropped by sponsors. It’s the same thing.

            You are confusing my argument that what A&E did is legal with me saying what they did was right. I don’t agree with what A&E did. I know that if it was another religion it probably would have gotten a pass. If a Muslim said some shit about hating people who take communion, no one would bat an eye. I get that. I am a Catholic – I take a lot of shit for my religion and beliefs.

            When it comes down to it, the eye of the law is different. As a TV station, A&E definitely consulted with legal experts before doing this. If they didn’t have just cause and/or a contract violation, they have no case. Apparently, they did have one of those things.

          • adamcharles

            This is the law that says they can fire him (not shut him up):

            From the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission:

            Religious Discrimination & Reasonable Accommodation & Undue Hardship

            “An employer does not have to accommodate an employee’s religious
            beliefs or practices if doing so would cause undue hardship to the
            employer. An accommodation may cause undue hardship if it is costly,
            compromises workplace safety, decreases workplace efficiency, infringes
            on the rights of other employees, or requires other employees to do more
            than their share of potentially hazardous or burdensome work.”

        • techno_bob

          Exactly!

      • techno_bob

        Sorry, he wasn’t punished for his religious beliefs. He was disciplined for putting A&E in a bad light by making controversial comments in the media. There is not a single celebrity in the entertainment industry who has the right to do what he did. He could have talked about his religion all he wanted in the interview without issue, but once he makes comments on a controversial issue, it reflects upon the company (A&E) who created his celebrity status with the show & they have a contractual right to step in & take action, as they did.

        • aliswell

          Only the hate-filled godless consider the Word of God “controversial.” ANY celebrity may say what Phil said! They won’t get fired from their current job, but they may find future work hard to come by.

          “He could’ve talked about his religion all he wanted, but…”

          “….then he dared to actually quote a few of the Lord’s condemnations and the Sodomites shrieked for his head.”

          No, they don’t have a “contractual right” to violate Mr. Robertson’s civil rights, as much as the proglodytes wish they did.

          • Becky Newman Brown

            Funny….I don’t remember any part of the Bible talking about how a vagina was waaay better than an anus…. Apparently I’ve been reading the wrong version.

          • aliswell

            Sorry you missed that message, it’s in both the Old and New Testament.

            That aside, THAT wasn’t what GLAAD decided to exhibit faux outrage over. It was over Phil’s use of scripture to define sin.

  • Ames

    Bet the ACLU won’t take up the case….

    • Ryan Mais

      American Communist Lawyers Union wouldn’t touch it with a 50 foot pole

    • Fctwo Willie

      Tyey only support hate groups like GLAAD, the Klan, and westboro

  • CaStylin

    it is not a discrimination if in his contract the network had the ability to limit speech topics or behavior (which I’m pretty sure it does)

    the network did not suspend him for being who he is, they suspended him for not doing what they want…which is lawful if you signed a contract saying you will do so

    • m_gear

      Not necessarily. Religious practices are specifically singles out for protection by the Civil Rights Act, so termination based on such a clause my not be legally defensible in this case. There are some things that cotracts can’t be used to sign away.

      • CaStylin

        Religious practice or belief will not aside you from a contract that rules such language or action a conflict in interest to the presenting party

        I.E. while i believe a teacher should be able to express their views as any other person should they are contractually obligated to hold the saying of those view at school or school functions

        Phil is in the same boat.. except his contact covers a wider band of functions and would extend to public speaking events, interview… so on and so forth

        • m_gear

          A contract clause may very well not be legal if it is in conflict with
          the Civil Rights Act. The courts have historically treated religious
          speech differently than other types of speech, and general speech is not
          something mentioned in the CRA.

  • cuinsong

    Sue Phil, sue them into the poor house

    • Locutis2112

      and sue them for what?

      • aliswell

        You didn’t read the article, then? Sue them for violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII).

        • techno_bob

          Doesn’t apply. He wasn’t fired at all, and his suspension was not because of his religious beliefs. His comments reflected poorly on A&E and as an A&E celebrity, their contract with him gives them the right to discipline him. Shouldn’t be too difficult to understand.

          • aliswell

            Sorry, but you’re dead wrong, it does indeed apply. The histrionics is about Mr. Robertson’s use of scripture to make a point. His comments didn’t reflect poorly on anyone, but A&E’s petty, illegal action against Mr. Robertson reflects very poorly on A&E.

            Proglodyte logic: Hate the message, kill the messenger.

          • techno_bob

            Unless you’re an attorney, you’re in over your head here. You know absolutely nothing about how the law applies here.

          • aliswell

            If I’m the one in over my head here, why are you the one consistently failing to prove your opinions as actual fact?

          • techno_bob

            How so? I only see opinion coming from you….. nothing else. Where are your proven facts. Once again…. are you an attorney? I assume you’re not yet you somehow consider yourself qualified to analyze & apply federal civil rights law? Yeah…uh huh….

          • HadYourChances

            All strikes and zero balls Techno!!!
            The law has been cited that A&E has violated techno, yet you haven’t cited shit dumb dumb. All strikes and no balls techno.

          • m_gear

            For one, we don’t even know if he is technically an employee of A&E. For another, A&E would certainly claim that his speech imposed an undue hardship upon them. Whether a court would buy that or not, I do not know. If he is an employee of A&E however, he would have a reasonably good — but hardly a slam dunk — case.

          • HadYourChances

            SLAM DUNK!!!!!

          • HadYourChances

            What part of the English language can you not understand from the article?

            Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), which prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. SEC. 2000e-2. [Section 703]

            (a) Employer practices

            It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer –

            (1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.

          • Jerry Evans

            So you’re saying if he were an attorney he wouldn’t be in over his head? I think he might be a gay attorney!!

          • HadYourChances

            Techno you read his contract? Share it.

      • HadYourChances

        What part of the English language can you not understand from the article?

        Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), which prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. SEC. 2000e-2. [Section 703]

        (a) Employer practices

        It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer –

        (1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.

  • Nick in CA

    On the cover they are only guilty of disagreeing with Phil; they have not fired him nor mentioned his religious beliefs – its a good one but they are suspending him for his opinion.

    • Linda Snodgrass

      doesn’t he have the same rights to his opinion as anyone else in this country?

      • Nick in CA

        I’m a stickler on what rights we have; we have three. He has the right of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness; if his happiness is evoking free speech, then yes, of course he does.

  • rcon1

    The butt plungers were here were queer crowd wants to impose there way upon the masses. The Gay community is rated number 1 most dangerous lifestyle to your health, like the Libs say “its a safety issue”

    • Lyssa Murray

      Really because they can choose their own life style, you making it so they can’t get married, forcing your believes on them, is more of imposing some thing on someone. And how is it the most dangerous when there is heroin and other drug addicts who die from overdose or prostitutes and strippers who get kidnapped and murdered.The only way being gay would be dangerous if the people who are homophobic and bigots push them and bully them into hurting themselves. You have no actual facts.

      • rcon1

        Huh ? “The only way being gay would be dangerous if the people who are homophobic and bigots” News flash for you honey Gays contract deadly HIV as a direct result of there promiscuous behavior and unnatural sex acts. As a group they are by for the most likely to die above heroin addicts.

        Ive never forced MY lifestyle on anyone but the GLADD feels its there job to force people accept gays and I wont nor will the vast majority of Americans.

      • rcon1

        Huh? “The only way being gay would be dangerous if the people who are homophobic and bigots push them” Homos as a group contract HIV and die as a direct result of their unnatural sexual behavior at a rate of death that makes them the MOST likely to die as a group. GLADD forces gay animals upon us not vice versa. I dont want to be around them nor my children thats MY choice.

      • HadYourChances

        AIDS & HIV is factual bag lady

        • Lyssa Murray

          Umm, plenty of straight people have AIDS and HIV..

    • m_gear

      They probably want to impose the use of apostrophes in appropriate places and the correct usage of “there” on us, too.

      • rcon1

        How, GAY of you

        • m_gear

          And probably the proper use of commas, too…

  • techno_bob

    This ignorant redneck is getting a slap on the wrist, nothing for his “true believers” to be upset about.

    Free speech works both ways. Those who disagree have a right to speak their minds as well. A&E has not violated the civili rights act in any way. Just another conservative nutjob overreaching to justify what this idiot redneck said. He’s entitled to his beliefs, but is obviously not smart enough to figure out that you can’t say stupid things like this in the public arena. I’m sure he has a contract with A&E that has them well within their legal rights to suspend him for what he did. He is a “product” of A&E & should keep that in mind.

    • disqus_DzeBFmiE5S

      A Dem defending a profit mongering corporation?! Someone has hit a nerve

      • techno_bob

        Not at all….. apparently many commenters don’t understand what having a contract in place means. I don’t give a crap what he says. He’s got a right to say whatever he wants and tell anyone & everyone what he believes.

        However, he also has a responsibility to A&E when he speaks in public as “Duck Dynasty’s Phil Robertson”. A&E has the right to ensure that anybody they pay does no harm when speaking in public.

        BTW, I’m not a dem. I’m an independent and have historically voted for candidates on both sides of the aisle. Try again. That’s just the narrow minded righty in you coming out.

        • m_gear

          I really don’t think it’s that simple, techno_bob. Religion is specifically singled out for protection by the Civil Rights Act, and not all contacts are legally permissible or valid. You can’t enslave yourself to someone through a contract, for example. You might sign a contract that has a clause about your public statements in it, but that wouldn’t violate the Civil Rights Act, whereas an employer attempting to enforce such a clause over RELIGIOUS speech may very well be in violation of the Civil Rights Act. In actuality, religious speech had additional protection in various circumstances.

          Now, my guess is that Robertson is not technically an employee of A&E at all, although I haven’t seen any solid evidence either way. My guess, though, is that A&E has a contract with the show’s producers.

          Also, it seems clear that the CRA was not designed with a case like this in mind, but that doesn’t mean that it wouldn’t apply.

    • aliswell

      Bob, you should know that one can’t sign away their rights. This has been established via the court system numerous times. As such, Phil’s right to share his personal beliefs are protected.

      Now it’s clear by your numerous, identical posts under various names that you’re profoundly upset Phil has this right and it is protected, but that’s just too bad.

      • techno_bob

        He has every right to speak his mind. But when you agree to appear on a network TV show using their facilities & resources to become famous, they have a right to ensure that they as the owner of the network are properly represented. They lay out those contractually agreed upon rights in a contract document to protect themselves from incidents like this.

        I am not the least bit upset that he has the right to speak his mind. Everybody has that right. What I find offensive is that nobody seems to understand that those who disagree also have rights to speak their mind. And like it or not, A&E has the right to do whatever they want here. Go talk to an attorney if you think I’m wrong.

        • aliswell

          Again, quoting the Bible isn’t a violation of anything, despite the histrionics of the godless. No one may lawfully prevent a Christian from uttering the Word,

          Christians DO understand people have the right to their own beliefs, but we won’t accept maltreatment because of ours.

          You equate A&E’s illegal actions against Mr. Robertson as if they’d simply said “Hey, I disagree!” But removing someone from their “job” as punishment isn’t SPEAKING against someone you disagree with, it’s ACTING against someone you disagree with. Big difference and the law is on Phil’s side.

    • Scott Q Harris

      A&E does not own him you leftist nut job.

      • techno_bob

        He signed a contract you idiot. The contract dictates the terms of his continued employment and requires him to “do no harm” to A&E when he speaks in public.

        Is this too hard for you to understand?

    • gooseman

      OK . The Robertsons were multimillionaires prior to this show from DUck Commander Inc. Phil Robertson has a Masters of Education from La tech, where he kept NFL Hall-of-famer Terry Bradshaw on the bench as quarterback, until he decided to quit football to duck hunt. In fact the only adult male on the show affiliated with Duck Commander that DOESN’T have a college degree is Silas Robertson, who retired from the US Army, with honor.

      So it’s looking like Techno-kneel_and_bob is the only ignorant pretentious asshat around.

      • techno_bob

        Wow, aren’t you clever? Word games…. oh boy! Apparently intelligent discussion is beyond your capabilities. What does their education have to do with this discussion?

        Do you have any other fun tricks beside name calling or is anything more over your head?

        • gooseman

          Did someone hack your account or did you not use the term “ignorant redneck” in your post? Your obliviousness to your own hypocrisy probably renders the rest of this post moot but…

          And most certainly A&E violated the civil rights act, if it was applied evenly. If you take the obverse, and let’s say Phil had said, in the interview, that you know what God doesn’t exist and the Bible is wrong, everyone should be gay, and then A&E had fired him, would not that be protected? So you don’t strain your wittle bwain I’ll help you. GLAAD would have been ALL OVER A&E to reinstate him citing the civil rights act and the first amendment. Just like it would be a violation if a corporation fired someone for being gay or being a Jew or being a gay Jew, it would be wrongful termination. Being terminated for being asked a direct question and answering truthfully, based on your religious beliefs and physiological design, all on your own time, is absolutely wrong. If you ask a preacher like Phil, what his opinion is on a weighty subject like homosexuality, expect to get an answer from the Bible, and Phil used an almost verbatim quote from Paul’s letter to the Corinthians. To fire someone for that is a violation of his or her religious freedoms and most certainly protected under the civil rights act, just as if he had used a quote from the Quran or the Old Testament, which, in point of fact, both decry homosexuality.

    • aliswell

      “I am not the least bit upset that he has the right to speak his mind. Everybody has that right.”

      Those are YOUR words, Bob, in another post below. Yet with each new post you reveal the “man” beneath the mask. Now it’s “ignorant redneck,” “conservative nutjob” and “idiot redneck.”

      Trying to marginalize Mr. Robertson into a mere “product,” it’s your hatred for God that drives your vitriol, not any sort of sound reasoning.

  • adamcharles

    From the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission:

    Religious Discrimination & Reasonable Accommodation & Undue Hardship

    “An employer does not have to accommodate an employee’s religious
    beliefs or practices if doing so would cause undue hardship to the
    employer. An accommodation may cause undue hardship if it is costly,
    compromises workplace safety, decreases workplace efficiency, infringes
    on the rights of other employees, or requires other employees to do more
    than their share of potentially hazardous or burdensome work.”

    There are no calls in to A&E because A&E did nothing illegal. His statements without question could be seen as costly (at most), but at the very least “requires other employees to do more than their share of potentially hazardous or burdensome work” having to field phone calls and mail due to his statements.

    • Blingblong

      Yeah, because the millions upon millions of dollars he helped make for A&E sure caused many a hardship for the company. And ones faith in God sure does make for unsafe and hazardous environment. Especially due to the fact that he never threatened harm to anyone. And I know that an interview with a non A&E magazine must cause employee great stress indeed. Not to mention how burdensome all that money must be for the company.

      • adamcharles

        So because he’s made them money he should be excused from anything he says that the station could get flack for? Because he helped contribute to the existence of a call-center job he shouldn’t be punished for contributing to the influx of angry phone calls that wouldn’t have come in if he’d said nothing?

        He has every right to say what he said. A&E has every right to sever his employment because of it, due to the controversial nature of the topic and its penchant for causing offense.

    • Aaron Kelley

      I would hazard a guess that A&E’s treatment of Phil Robertson will cost them much more than keeping him on would have. Had they issued a statement stating that his expressed opinions do not represent the positions of the company and let it go at that, they might have had a few boycotters, but now they are likely to have many more.

      • adamcharles

        So, because he’s a popular figure they should show favoritism? If a Muslim said the same thing (which many would) would you feel the same way? If yes then cool. If not then your problem isn’t with the law, it’s the law in its application to instances you just don’t like bit are fair

        • aliswell

          Adam, I would applaud a Muslim for saying what Phil Robertson said and I can also state A&E would never have placed a Muslim on hiatus for speaking out like that. This isn’t about Phil saying anything offensive, he used scripture to make a point. THAT’S where the problem lies; the God-haters will not tolerate the Word of God in their midst.

          And speaking of Muslims, I found your above quote from the EEOC interesting because it once again reveals within the corporate world a pattern of accommodating Muslims over and above any other group. How can installing foot baths NOT pose undue hardship? They cost thousands of dollars. Plus, I imagine it gets pretty slick around those footbaths, posing a hazard to folks who walk around the area.

          How about taking time out to pray 5 times a day, a time-consuming activity which is preceded by foot washing? Is that fair to the other employees, as it further burdens their workload while picking up the slack of their Muslim co-workers?

          Yet we see more and more colleges and corporations installing footbaths to accommodate Muslims. And that’s just part of the accommodations created only for Muslims; another aspect is the closure of public pools and beaches for certain periods of time to all but female Muslims, who can play in the water privately without having to put up with Dhimmis.

          The fact is that it’s not about Phil, it’s not about contracts and controversies, it’s about God and the proglodytes’ war on Him.

          • adamcharles

            Installing foot baths would pose undue hardship. If the company wishes to not do so they don’t have to, that’s the point of that section of the EEOC document. It protects the employer from not HAVING to adhere to all practices. That section does not reveal a pattern of accommodating Muslims in the corporate world, it actually puts forth law stating that the corporate world does not have to accommodate the practices of Muslims (and everyone else based on religion).

            The outrage against A&E is perfectly warranted and fine. Stating A&E broke laws is not, and that’s what this article was about. It took me 2 minutes to Google search that language from the EEOC. It could have taken the writer of this article just as long to do the exact same if they cared to.

          • Rafael Lopez

            Hi, dad! It is me again. I find it to be more interesting to talk about English usage and grammar than about the existence of God. Proglodytes is not an English word, maybe you meant “troglodytes”. You see, speaking English as your first language doesn’t make you less prone to making mistakes.However I respect your ideas and opinions and I will not make demeaning comments about them again.

          • aliswell
          • Rafael Lopez

            Hey dad, Urban Dictionary contains dialectical expressions and definitions of the lingo used by various sectors of a particular society. Universal English does not include those entries- check a real dictionary like Webster’s and you’ll see the”light”. Merry Christmas !

          • aliswell

            You stated “Proglodytes is not an English word…” I provide proof that it is, THEN you say “Universal English does not include [dialectical expressions]…”

            Nice tap dance, son. Do you sing, too?

            Merry Christmas to you, as well. Stay safe.

          • Rafael Lopez

            Just because you find that word in an obscure non academic dictionary, does not mean that it is part of standard English. I looked it up in Britanica and Webster’s dictionary. Would you also say that all ghetto words are part of standard English? As I said, If a few people use a particular word, it does not mean that it is part of the general language. Let’s end by agreeing to disagree. Happy new year!

          • aliswell

            Agreed.

            Happy New Year to you, too.

      • Cliff E.

        I’d venture a guess that the Robertson Clan will be out of the show with no Phil, the Patriarch is the anchor of the show. A&E thought they had just some stupid rednecks on tv and Uncle Si’s antics made the masses laugh… what draws the show in is America sees the family unit functioning like it supposed to, they are seeing the family meal at the end of each show with a prayer. I believe America is missing the home family values where you take time out to spend time with the family, not shuttling kids to sports practices, putting in too many hours at the office…… I believe what is happening here the Sleeping Giant is about to awaken, and the average person will now be taking our country back from the over voiced minority mob rule.

      • Jean Nelson

        This is true

    • zendiK

      Thank you! People seem to not understand that we all agree that what A&E did was wrong morally. But some people just can’t accept the fact that is was completely legal.
      Wrong = Yes.
      Legal = Yes.
      Makes me hate A&E = Yes.

  • The_Questman

    Remember the Chick-fil-A debacle? I’m supporting the Robinsons by buying Duck Commander Duck Calls for Stocking stuffers for my hunting friends and relatives. I also support the legal action against A & E. Even if Phil doesn’t want it, it would be in the best interest of the country to show liberals that religious persecution of people speaking about their faith is not something that We The People will allow.

  • Robert Ellsworth

    An interesting point as far as discrimination and the disgusting double standard used against religious conservatives is concerned, but I don’t think any of the Robertson’s are employees of the A&E network. The show is produced by a third party and the Robertson’s no doubt have contractual agreements with them along with A&E. One of the standard clauses in entertainment contracts is that they can be terminated if the talent does something that makes the producers look bad and vice versa. A&E are chickenshits for buckling to the bullying and extortion of Left wing political groups like GLAAD and the Human Rights Campaign, but that’s what corporations do.

    The real issue isn’t what Mr Robertson said or his personal religious views. Like it or not his views are probably shared by the vast majority of Americans. The issue is why we let leftists and special interest activists bully us around. People of all political sides should be aghast that a minority of loudmouths has taken it upon themselves to decide what you and I watch on TV and what is or isn’t acceptable opinion.

    • Jean Nelson

      I like the part about being bullied around by little fringe groups of people. That is exactly what it is.

    • Russ Hamilton

      Good point Robert, this is a point which I was trying to research the definition of employee as it applies to title VII, I think people have been to quick to assume PR meets the applied definition….

      • Bruce Velocity

        …and the result of your research? cause i don’t need too…its PERFECTLY within the definition…its how the wack job Charlie Sheen got ousted…wait, that’s right. you where one of those crying foul in support of his rights being trampled…LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    • Bruce Velocity

      cause you are on the fringe and MOST americans aren’t too keen on mouth breathing knuncle draggers…even when the are rich.

  • Mike Arienti

    Title VII of the Civil Rights Act (1964) includes the following items:
    1. Employers may not treat employees more or less favorably because of their religion.
    2. Employees cannot be required to participate “or to refrain from participating “in a religious activity as a condition of employment.”
    3. Employers must reasonably accommodate employees’ sincerely held religious practices unless doing so would impose an undue hardship on the employer.
    4. Employers must take steps to prevent religious harassment of their employees.
    5. Employers may not retaliate against employees for asserting rights under Title VII.

    A&E violated Title VII by retaliating when Phil Robertson’s quotes in GQ were revealed.

    • m_gear

      My guess is that he is not an employee of A&E in the legal sense. If he were, however, he would have a decent case, A&E would argue, of course, that he had caused them an undue hardship (see #3).

  • Mark Pardue

    For over 3000 years there were laws against gay relations all over the world. It was because of Gods law.Less than 50 years is all it took to wipe out what people knew what WAS right. Go back a few years to Sodom and Gomorrah. The angels told Lott to leave and not look back after the residents tried to force unwanted sex on the angels.God poured out his wrath on the cities. God bless Phil and everyone that stands up for what he believes is the right thing.If the Christian networks would take the Duck Commander group in and add some prayer in I would say their ratings would go up and no one would complain. I know that I would watch the show and some people would get a chance to see Gods word on the shows around it in the line up.

    • m_gear

      Yes, and according to the bible, shortly after Sodom and Gomorrah was destroyed, Lot’s daughters got him so drunk that he didn’t know what was going on and had sex with him so that they could have children. God was okay with that. Should we condone that type of behavior?

  • Alex Maldonado

    His
    firing isn’t based on HIS sexual orientation. He is a rich white man, the civil rights act was NOT implemented to protect him – his firing is based on the fact
    that he said that OTHERS’ sexual orientation leads them to bestiality
    and criminal behavior. That shit is WILDLY offensive and hateful.

    Just
    ask Alec Baldwin or Martin Bashir, two gentlemen who were fired (well,
    Bashir “resigned” but it’s clear he was forced to do so) for expressing
    their “freedom of speech” rights. Hell, weren’t conservatives calling
    for Bashir’s firing? So it’s absolutely hypocritical that they’re
    outraged by Robertson’s suspension. Especially considering Bashir only
    had derogatory words for Sarah Palin whereas Robertson ignorantly bashed
    tens of millions of homosexuals.

    • Alex Maldonado

      Don’t say “those are his religious beliefs” because no where in the bible does it say that homosexuality will lead to criminality, drunkenness, and bestiality. Shockingly enough, it does not.

      • katydude68

        That’s not what Phil was saying. He was ask by GQ what he considered to be a sin. Phil listed adultery along with beastiality and homosexuality, but he did not say one lead to another. He also said we should love one another and it’s God’s job to sort out sin. This IS consistent with the Christ’s point of view. He has a difference of opinion on how to live, but the is no indication that he would impose his views on other.

        • Alex Maldonado

          “Start
          with homosexual behaviour and just morph out from there. Bestiality,
          sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men.”

          • katydude68

            And be for the quote, GQ asked him what a sin was. The other statement you are ignoring is: “However, I would never treat anyone with disrespect just because they are different from me. We are all created by the Almight and like..” Clearly this follows the concept of “love the sinner, not the sin”

    • m_gear

      Derogatory words about Sarah Palin aren’t singled out for protection in the Civil Rights Act. Religion – including one’s religious beliefs, and almost religious speech — is.

  • http://www.facebook.com/dom.paleffree Dom Paleffree

    The constitution is clear,every one is free to free speech, whether others like it or not.

    • Mike Arienti

      No, that is not what it says. We are entitled to speak against our government without the threat of penalty for it.

      • answer42

        NO the first amendment to the Constitution says “Congress shall make no law ………….abridging the freedom of speech, or the press”

        • Mike Arienti

          Right. It says the gov’t can’t make laws stopping us from those. It does not say “the people can say whatever they want, whenever and wherever.” It simply says the gov’t cannot enact specific laws.

    • m_gear

      And no one has stopped Robertson from speaking.

  • Jean Nelson

    The discrimination today is against the White Christian straight male………….NO DOUBT

  • Flash Kellam

    As delightful as the prospect is to contemplate, the simple fact of the matter is
    that any lawsuit under Title VII is going nowhere. The Robertsons are not employees of the Gay&E Network, but simply have a contractual arrangement to star in the “Duck Dynasty” TV series. So, while Phil Robertson has the right to say anything he likes, the Gay&E Network is not obligated to provide him with a forum to disseminate his views.

    On the other hand, neither are the American people obligated to provide the Gay&E
    Network with a viewership. See how it works?

    I suspect that the Gay&E Network will be going the way of Sodom and Gomorrah. Not by Chapter 19 of Genesis, but by Chapter 11 of Federal Bankruptcy Court.

    So, to my fellow Christians, I say stand together, stay strong, and turn the other cheek – by turning to the other channel.

  • Gary W. Searing

    Phil Robertson did not discriminate against gays, he simply stated what the Bible says in his words. When you get right down to it A&E and all the liberals jerks, are discriminating against the Christians on what seems to be a daily basis. by telling us we can’t believe what the Bible says and we’re not allowed to express our opinions without fear of persecution. GLAAD Phil did not say you can’t live the lifestyles you choose he simply stated facts from the Bible. But you on the other hand are emphatic that Christians have to except and even approve of your lifestyles. I am a Christian and very proud to give thanks that God has forgiven me of my sins. I also feel while I don’t agree with your lifestyle it’s between you and God. So quit shoving it down my throat trying to force me to except or approve of it.

  • Andy McWilliams

    I don’t think the ACLU will touch it. But the Robertsons have plenty of money to hire the best attorneys. I don’t think they will. They have better things to do, like duck hunting.

  • BigOrangeJeff

    Here’s a question for all of you who think his freedom of religion has been violated: The KKK uses the Bible as a way to justify their bigotry. Do you feel that their freedom of religion is violated by having to share restaurants, hotels, water fountains, etc. with minorities?

    • katydude68

      Can you list the religious arguments the KKK used? Can you cite anything Jesus Christ said that the KKK could have used to make religous arguments agains sharing public facilities?

      • BigOrangeJeff

        That wasn’t my question, but I’ll play along. One of their claims is that the “beasts of the field” reference in Genesis referred to blacks, making them sub-human.

        Now it’s your turn. Whether you agree with their interpretation or not, do you feel civil rights laws violate a racist’s freedom of religion?

        • katydude68

          The problem with your argument is: The KKK never proclaimed itself to be a religious organization. Plus while is does force public facilites and employers NOT to discriminate it does not force the KKK to use them. Also, Phil Robertson was not advocating laws or harm against homosexuals. He was expressing a religious opinion on sin. Whether or not he can get fired by A&E depends on how he’s employed. If he’s at-will, then yes, A&E has violated the civil rights act. However if he has a more complex work contract. It is up to A&E to cite which clause Phil violated and follow any remedy terms. The ACLU has brought lawsuits against several organizations on behalf of Mulslims due to what they view as religious descrimination. Why should Phil, Christian, be any different if he’s an at-will employee?

          • BigOrangeJeff

            That’s a nice answer to a question I didn’t ask. But, once again, I’ll respond. Let’s see if you’ll ever answer my question.

            While the civil rights laws do not force the KKK to use public facilities, the laws do force KKK business owners to serve minorities, prevent them from firing minorities based on race, etc. So they do have to abide by those laws.

            Secondly, Robertson’s company (and Chick-fil-A and Hobby Lobby, for that matter) do not proclaim itself to be a religious organization, either. That’s a moot point, though, because you don’t have to be a religious organization in order for your freedom of religion to be violated.

            Furthermore, the Robertson’s are not employees of A&E. They are likely employees (or possibly contractors) of the production company that produces the show. A&E just pays them (and the production company) for the rights to air the show. Either way, entertainment contracts include clauses that allow for termination/suspension at the discretion of the network. Just ask Martin Bashir, who recently was let go by MSNBC for disgusting and unnecessary comments about Sarah Palin.

            So – for the third time – do civil rights laws, including those that forbid hiring/firing decisions based upon race, religion, age, and gender, violate the KKK’s religious freedom? If you don’t answer again, we’ll know it’s because 1) your answer is “no” and you realize you’re contradicting yourself, or 2) your answer is “yes” and you agree with the KKK that their hate towards blacks, Jews, etc., is sanctioned by their religion.

          • katydude68

            Your question is absurd because the KKK is not a religion, but a political organization. The 1964 Civil Rights Acts was passed to END the segregation laws in the South, many of which passed by KKK (Democrat) members who held office. Hence, the law was designed to be discriminatory towards political groups and organizations, such as the KKK who advocated discrimination.

            Now hypothetically if the KKK were a religion, then yes, the Civil Rights Act is caught in a paradox where it is discriminating against a religous organization that is it supposed to be “protecting.” At that point, it is a question for the Supreme Court to resolve, if the KKK brought suit.

            Here’s a hypothetical question you don’t want to answer:

            Why would the 1964 Civil Right Act apply to at-will Mulsim woman who gets fired for wearing a Hajib, but not apply to Phil Robertson who get fired for a religious statment, if he is an at-will employee?

          • BigOrangeJeff

            You’re still dancing around the question. You incorrectly assume that only a religion can have it’s freedom of religion violated. But let’s assume for a minute that you’re right. In that case, you are contradicting yourself wrt Robertson. Since he isn’t a religion, he cannot have his civil rights violated.

            So, in your opinion – not hypothetically, since we’ve established that individuals and groups can have their religious freedoms violated, even though they aren’t a religion – have members of the KKK had their civil rights violated by being forced to serve minorities in their businesses and being banned from firing them based on race?

            To answer your hypothetical, Islam defines how women should dress. If she is able to perform her duties while dressed according to her religion and if her employer fired her for following her religion, then, yes, the Civil Rights Act would apply. The Civil Rights ACT doesn’t apply to Robertson for the reason(s) I explained above. Furthermore, his religion doesn’t require him to grant interviews to Esquire magazine, nor does it require him to answer that question.

          • katydude68

            KKK members cannot have their civil right violated based on religious reasons BECAUSE IT IS NOT A RELIGION! What part of that do you not get. That’s not dancing. That’s a thing called REALITY. It’s YOU that trying to stretch the KKK into a religion WHEN YOU HAVE NO BASIS IN HISTORICAL FACTS!!! SO YOU HAVE TO DISCUSS IT AS A HYPOTHETICAL.

            Secondly part of religious freedom is to be able to speak openly about that religion when asked. YOU want to place Christians into a “don’t ask don’t tell scenario.” According to your logic, if an employer asks you if gays are sinful and you answer honestly, they can fire you for not agreeing with them. Talk about jackbooted logic. That’s the kind of stuff that got people killed in Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany. Nice work thought police control freak.

          • BigOrangeJeff

            Okay, let’s try this a different way.

            Do you believe Robertson’s civil rights were violated? Make any assumptions you want, e.g., let’s assume he is an employee of A&E. In that case, were his civil rights violated by A&E suspending him over his statements?

          • katydude68

            If he’s contract, depends on the terms. If he’s at-will or the contract is silent on the issue then yes.

          • BigOrangeJeff

            By your own logic, he’s not a religion. Neither is his business. How can his religious rights have been violated?

          • katydude68

            You really don’t understand at-will vs contract employment, nor how the 1964 Civil Rights Act affects those do you.

            Under at-will an employer can fire you with our without cause because you can quite with or without cause. The Civil Right Act amends that to prevent employers from firing based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.

            Contract employments may include additional restrictions in exchange for more or guarantees of additional compensation. Most entertainment contracts have “morals clauses” that typically allow the employer to terminate due to criminal behavior. However, even those are not excluded from the 1964 Civil Rights act. Phil’s terms would somehow need to include behaviour that might cause harm to A&E. Considering how fast the suspended him, that would be very dificult to prove at this point. In addition, they woud need to separate his statements from his religious beliefs to do so and that’s unlikely.

            In the case of Bashir, notice official word was that quit on this own accord. Odds are MSNBC’s parent company and Bashir negotiated severance terms. Bashir was paid to walk

            In the case of Baldwin, MSNBC officially states it was a mutual parting as well. Same odds MSNBC’s parent company paid Baldwin to walk.

            The reason why Bashir and Baldwin are officially “mutual” partings was because morals contracts don’t cover public statements, but criminal behaviour. A&E should have followed the same pattern.

          • BigOrangeJeff

            Actually, I understand the differences quite well, but nice attempt to avoid the question again. Why can’t you answer it?

            How can Robertson have his civil rights violated – even though he isn’t a religion – when you say it’s impossible for the KKK to have theirs violated specifically because they aren’t a religion?

          • katydude68

            No you really don’t understand employment rules, I do because I’ve worked in HR!!!

            Robertson was expressing a RELIGIOUS view in the context of his RELIGION. It is protected by the 1964 Civil Rights Act. THE 1964 CIVIL RIGHT ACT APPLIES TO INDIVIDUALS. A Klansman is expresses a POLITICAL view. A POLITICAL VIEW IS NOT PROTECTED BY THE 1964 CIVIL RIGHTS ACT. READ THE ACT.

          • BigOrangeJeff

            LOUD NOISES!!! See? I can use the Caps Lock key, too.

            So, let me see if I understand you. What you’re saying is that Robertson’s statements are based on opinions formed from the teachings and scriptures of his religion, right? And the constitution grants us freedom to practice our religion. Is that correct? If so, are there limits to our religious freedoms?

          • katydude68

            Neither me nor the article mention the constitution. It is not a Constitutional issue. It is a 1964 Civil Rights issue. Did you actually read the article above. Yes you can use the cap lock key, but are certainly not capable using your brain.

          • BigOrangeJeff

            Okay, now we’re getting somewhere. So you’re saying that the views Robertson expressed are religious in nature because they are supported by his interpretation of the scriptures of his religion. Is that right?

          • CitizenVetUSA

            It’s my understanding Islam is not a religion but a method of living your life to please Allah the ‘moon god’ that Mohammed received his messages from.

          • BigOrangeJeff

            What is your definition of religion?

  • Bill Van Pelt

    That is a FEDERAL law and if you take the time to read it it actually ONLY applys to FEDERAL EMPLOYEES AND EMPLOYERS……Phil is neither

    • katydude68

      That’s not true. The civil right act applies to private businesses as well. However, if Phil is a contractor instead of an at-Will employee, it is up to the term of that contract whether or not A&E can suspend him.

    • Dee

      The law applies to EVERYONE, not just federal employees, and that includes Christians

  • Rosen Otter
  • Rosen Otter

    What I don’t understand is, why are any of you still watching television? I haven’t owned one in over 20 years.

    • CitizenVetUSA

      We have to watch to police the left from abuse of the airways.

  • Michael J.

    Ephesians 6:12 (1611 King James Bible) ,
    For wee wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darknes of this world, against spirituall wickednes in high places.

  • Fctwo Willie

    Not sure Phil is the suing sort but if he has a solid case he should do it. Decent christians just trying to live their lives tip toe around everywhere they go because hate groups like GLAAD and american athiests groups stick their feet out everywhere waiting for their toes to get stepped on so they can sue. Anymore having the constitution on your side is not enough. You must have recent legal precendent stating its ok to be christian

  • CitizenVetUSA

    A suit of this case could be the slap down needed for years. It’s a big one too.
    File the motion Phil, for ‘America’.

  • Corey

    Why Racist And Homophobic ‘Duck Dynasty’ Comments Have Nothing To Do With Free Speech http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2013/12/19/3091261/duck-dynasty-free-speech/

  • http://www.chucklasker.com/ Chuck Lasker

    LOLZ You people are hilarious. You hate the Civil Rights Act because it limits your racism, but you want to use it to defend a fellow bigot. Well, what he did was not his religion, so that’s a typical bullshit argument. Not that anything I say would dent your extreme racism and homophobia for Christ.

    • ghostofCynicalTIm

      So … you think the Civil Rights Act should be enforced only in cases where you like the results rather than in all cases..

  • http://nottheeternaltao.blogspot.com/ jimstoic

    From now on, when I get a call from a client, I’m going to say “Hello, if you’re not born again, you’re going to eternal damnation. How may I help you?” If my employer fires me, I’ll sue for religious discrimination.

  • Firstname Lastname

    I hope Phil sues A&E for every penny they have and starts his own network with their money! Clear violation of the Civil Rights Acts of 1964.

  • Russ Hamilton

    People keep quoting title VII which talks about employees but I am not sure if PR is/was an employee of any sort. He and his family had contracts but they were as far as I can tell not on the payroll in the traditional sense…..

  • Eddie Brown

    I’m not a racist person at all. But I have to ask where is Jess Jackson and Al Sharpton if Phil was Black Jesse and Al would be all over this.

  • Richard

    We need an open-minded Supreme Court (certainly not this one!) that will extend First Amendment protections to *private* employer-employee relationships. Just relying on the “free market” isn’t enough, because businesses often take the coward’s way out.

  • Professor_Miller

    It wasn’t his religion, they knew it when they hired him and allowed him to preach about things, but when you spew hateful ignorance, saying homosexuality morphs into bestiality, is just vile and ignorant. If you believe it, then you too are ignorant.

  • Bill Perman

    This is NOT a first amendment issue, as it isn’t government that’s restricting the speech. Sure, Phil Robertson has rights. He has the right to speak his mind without fear of reprisal, unless of course, it’s “hate speech.” A&E has rights. They’re free to make any business decision necessary to protect their assets. The LGBT community has the right to not live in fear of discrimination. The Christian Community has the right to express their beliefs without feeling persecuted. With all these rights, what’s left?

    At the end of the day, the Richardson family will survive. They’re loved by millions and are self-made millionaires. They will not be “ruined.” A&E will go on, and if they choose to part ways with their #1 cash cow, that’s their decision.

    My issue is two-fold. First, all this talk of boycotting the network and its sponsors. Fans of the show and the GLAAD/LGBT community are calling for this tactic. I disagree. Let’s say Company X is caught in the middle and decides to lean one way or the other. Their “bottom line” might get affected, but who suffers? Not the consumer. Prices will remain competitive with the market. Certainly not the CEO’s and shareholders who have the patience and resources to weather the storm. Who suffers? The everyday John Q employee who has no dog in this hunt, and will see his/her hours cut, if not outright unemployed.

    My 2nd part of this issue, and indeed what is at the core of this, is an attempt at social Marxism that would make Hitler proud. Do we really want to live in a country where we’re afraid to speak up and articulate our core values for fear our names, careers, reputation and social standing will be dragged through the mud because we dare have an opinion that differs from the “establishments?”

    If I gave the LGBT the benefit of the doubt, and acknowledge that Phil Robertson was a hateful, vile, racist, sexist, homophobic, that still doesn’t make an attempt to silence his voice any more moral. In a country that espouses freedom of expression, I challenge them with this: If you wish to protect the thoughts/expressions/communications of the “best of us”, we must protect the same of the “worst of us.” In the end, the people should get to decide for themselves.

    For example, take the bitter, vile filth spewed by hate groups that range from the KKK to the Westborough Baptist Church. With the exception of a fanatical few, they are largely discredited. People don’t wish to break bread with them, be seen with them, or do business with them. This is not because of special interest groups who silenced them to protect the rest of us. Rather it is precisely because they are free to express themselves that we as a nation regard them for what they are.

    • katydude68

      Think you need to re-read the article above. There’s no mention of a free speech issue. It is arguing that A&E violated the 1964 Civil Rights Act for suspending Phil over a religious opinion.

  • kelly

    Phil Robertson isn’t an employee, so he isn’t protected by any federal employment laws. Phil is an independent contractor with a private contract between himself and a private business Even if he was an employee, this wouldn’t be discrimination. Phil lives in an employment-at-will state, which means he can be fired for ANY reason, except race, gender, religion, etc. He isn’t being fired for his religion (Christianity). No one said, “oh, you’re a Christian, so you can’t work here.”

    An employee or contractor who spews hateful bigoted messages against a person or groups of people and violates the business’s rules or contract terms may be terminated. That’s what A&E did, which is completely legal and not a suppression of freedom of speech. A lot of people on these comment boards don’t know much about our Constitution and our Bill of Rights. The First Amendment relates only to the federal government, not private businesses. It “prohibits the making of any law abridging freedom of speech.” No where does it say you can say whatever you want without consequence. You’re not protected if your free speech violates the company’s standards and practices, angers their customers, damages their brand, reduces their sales of merchandise, and their advertisers start canceling.

    The backlash A&E is receiving from the conservative right is peanuts compared to what would have happened if they didn’t suspend him immediately. Don’t you remember what happened to the Food Network with Paula Deen as advertiser after advertiser canceled?

    • m_gear

      One’s religion goes beyond the name of the type of church one is affiliated with, and religious practice — which is usually taken to include religious speech — is specifically protected under under the Civil Rights Act. It wouldn’t be a First Amendment case. The argument that he wasn’t fired because of his religion, but for what he said about his religious beliefs would be unlikely to fly in federal court. If he were an employee of A&E — you say he isn’t, but I haven’t seen any evidence either way — he would have a decent case under the Civil Rights Act. Not a slam dunk case, but a decent one, at least.

      • m_gear

        Robertson is most likely employed by Gurney Productions.

    • katydude68

      Sorry but wrong for several reasons.

      1. Neither you nor I know the terms of Phil’s contract with A&E. “Morals” contracts typically cover criminal/arrest behavior, but not necessarily public statements unless they can prove “harm”. Considering, Phil’s Duck Dynasty audience and sponsors would agree with him that will be hard to prove damages. A&E will need to negotiate out of the contract. This will result in a severance package, if the Robertsons decide to take a legal route.

      2. If he was at-will his statements, while crude and offensive, were consistent with his religious beliefs and would fall under the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The context of his statements in the interview were clearly related to his religious beliefs.

      If A&E was uncomfortable with the religious views of the Robertson family, which they new, they should have sold the rights to the show to another channel.

    • aerosgrl

      Hateful and hurtful are two different things! There are a lot of things in life that are going to hurt but you move on. Paula Deen used a degrotory term, Phil did not.

    • ghostofCynicalTIm

      Saying something is a sin is a religious statement protected against PRIVATE employer action in the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

      Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), which prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. SEC. 2000e-2. [Section 703]

      (a) Employer practices

      It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer –

      (1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin..

  • ghostofCynicalTIm

    Saying something is a sin is a religious statement protected against PRIVATE employer action in the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

    Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), which prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. SEC. 2000e-2. [Section 703]

    (a) Employer practices

    It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer –

    (1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin…

  • disqus_WfKYUkPmxv

    Where is the ACLU? A&E cannot discriminate on the basis of religion. But, A&E did.

  • ghostofCynicalTIm

    Liberals are making an irrelevant point when they make the correct statement that the First Amendment does not apply to PRIVATE companies. The issue is the 1964 Civil Rights Act which makes it illegal for a PRIVATE employer to suspend (among other actions) a person for their religion.

    For example, I cannot fire a Muslim for saying that eating pork is sinful. I cannot fire a Jewish person for saying that scripture says that the West Bank should be all Israeli. Similarly, A&E cannot fire Phil for saying that homosexual activity is a sin.

    Similarly, they also cannot make a revocation of that right part of an employment contract. Legally, that is considered the same thing as violating the right while employed.

  • mutosheep

    Progressives just don’t care about the rights of Christians. The Attorney General refuses to prosecute black perpetrators and the La Raza member in charge of the NLRB refuses to defend the employment rights of white people. Stop lying about your beliefs and stop all the passive aggressive behavior, socialists and just admit that you hate America, you hate the God of Abraham, and you hate just about everything and everyone else. After you’ve killed all the Jews and Christians you will just start putting each other in prison and killing each other because you are no better than the 9th century barbarian muhammedans. You are worse because historically you cannot wait until eliminating opposition before you start killing each other. Be thankful to your neoPagan gods that we people of the Bible have forced you to tolerate and act civilized for this long because the more you attack the foundation of America, the closer you get to your own destruction.