He was punished for stating his opinion. Also it is his religious beliefs and he was punished for those as well. A&E also knew about Phil's feelings towards gays before the show even started as he had been preaching his feelings publicly for years. So they hired him and allowed him to do an interview where they knew questions were going to be asked about homosexuals and they knew what his response would be. A&E is being dishonest about something they knew about all along.
Personally I believe that A & E by suspending him violated his right to freedom of speech. What do you think?
Going strictly by what the OP asked, no. His right to freedom of speech was not violated in the least. He said things, and sometimes when you say thing there are repercussions. His rights would of been violated if the gov't stepped in and started mucking around and silencing his voice. What's next? Are children going to claim that their rights are being violated whenever they swear at their parents and get grounded because of such? Are people going to claim that they are being deprived of their rights after getting fired from their job for telling their boss to fornicate off?
He was punished for stating his opinion. Also it is his religious beliefs and he was punished for those as well.
So why shouldn't he? Anyone can shoot their mouths off however they deem fit; but there will be ramifications. It's a simple fact of life. He was punished for his religious beliefs that weaved a tapestry of hate and bigotry, which was completely offensive, and probably went against what A&E wanted to portray its image as. Simply put, hate speech is not free speech. That's why Nazism is treated so harshly around the world.
A&E also knew about Phil's feelings towards gays before the show even started as he had been preaching his feelings publicly for years. So they hired him and allowed him to do an interview where they knew questions were going to be asked about homosexuals and they knew what his response would be. A&E is being dishonest about something they knew about all along.
A company holds the right to suspend or fire its employee whenever it deems fit. so long as there is a breach of contract. There's nothing dishonest about it.
It had nothing to do with the fact they were his religious beliefs. It was because those views were bigoted and potential could hurt the image the company wants to project. It being his religious view shouldn't be a shield.
Yeah but there was no contract saying he couldn't say those things.
And Paula Deen probably did not have a part of her contract explicitly stating "Don't refer to black people are the n-word". You're missing the point that any company is totally able to fire their employees for doing what Paula Deen and...the other guy...did. If you worked in a law firm and did that? Fired. If you worked in a fast-food joint? Fired. If you worked in a high-profile TV showed watched my millions of people? Ttlly fired.
Yeah but there was no contract saying he couldn't say those things.
There is no contract saying I can't hire a group of Mexican drug lords to burn my White Castle to the ground but if I did it I'm sure as hell getting fired.
I think this whole thing has been blown up way beyond what it should've been. It should be a non issue⦠not on grounds of free speech or sympathy for gays and/or blacks either. People say this sort of thing all of the time. Hell, different Christian groups say it to different congregations and religious groups all of the time. Lets not forget the anti-smoker, anti-drinker, anti-gmo, tree hugger people either. From the shoes I've worn to the shirt on my back to the straight A's I made in high school to the sports I've competed in I've been made fun of for all of it. Who cares what those people think? If they're not made fun of directly for being gay, then they're gonna be made fun of for their clothing choices and OMG if that's not a direct assault on someone's identity of self too⦠not that these things should be completely ignored, but someone needs to pop the bottle out of the baby's mouth and let life happen. Crap happens and a rich redneck is the least of your worries.
If you hire a redneck to be a redneck, then you shouldn't be surprised when you get what you pay for.
I can see how the stuff from 2010 can be used to paint a deeper picture, but I really don't think that should be fair game for now. (he also may have changed since then) What was said in the interview is what got him in trouble for the few days he was in trouble⦠I think discussing whether or not he should be kept on the show should be kept to the article If we want to talk on general terms about him then sure⦠dredge up stuff that didn't have to directly do with the issue at hand.
If I give a laundry list of types of people I don't like, then does that then equate all said parties to one another? I don't like people who smoke in public, I don't like pedophiles, I don't like terrorists, and I don't like people who talk with their mouths full. Does it change if someone says they're all forms of sin? You can make the argument for "we should infer everything (just so long as it fits our argument!)" but unless you've actually asked the man it's all conjecture⦠regardless of how accurate it may be. It may be a spectrum of items in the list, it may be that the person is equating everything, or it might be just a random list of whatever variously valued things pop into mind.
That particular road goes both ways (lols)⦠he equated them to bestiality and terrorists⦠but don't forget that he also "equated" them to just any random heterosexual sleeping around with other random heterosexuals. So, obviously he doesn't think those things are too terrible if he equated them to general polygamous non-married sex. Sounds like someone's also doing some judging of their own. What do you people have against bestiality and polygamous straight people that makes you think they're so bad??? Such hate! Such intolerance!
â¦..he DID say that he loved all of those people and that it was God's decision to do whatever. Maybe he assumes God (granted he exists) will judge one way⦠and maybe Phil gets surprised by both fairies and angels in heaven. I don't know if he'd be one to argue with his God should that ever happen.
and to the NAACP involvement I sayâ¦. lolololjessejacksongotinvolvedandyoucanaddhimtothelistofithingsIdon'tlike
(lololol jesse jackson got involved and you can add him to the list of things I don't like) -for those of you who had a hard time reading that.
They took "I worked in the fields with them. I was white trash. They sang and were happy. I never witnessed any of them being mistreated and I never heard any of them saying I hate whitey. The ones I witnessed were happy and hard workers back pre entitlement." obviously parts of that are paraphrased and/or made more concise, but I don't believe I changed the message any. Saying the African American community was hurt just as much as the homosexuals potentially was is akin to putting them into the same list and inferring that they were equal b/c they both were in said laundry list. It's a wonder they didn't coin a new term like white redneck or white caucasian for their newest media coverage. It kinda goes hand in hand with what the article says about post entitlement and all that if you think about it. He never said "all black people had a fan-freaking-tastic time back then"⦠He just said that the people he knew weren't any worse off than he was and that they were happy and hard working. If it's true it's true. If it's not then I guess we'll never know. There's absolutely no reason for that hate monger JJ to be riding in on his hate horse.
After the whole Trayvvon thing there were quite a few Afro Americans on the news channels saying they didn't like white peopleâ¦. I remember one older lady with some head wrap thing in particular on a panel of about 6 people saying how she didn't like white people. No one jumped on her nationally. If Phil apologizes on national television then I'd really like her to. I've never done anything to hurt black people. I've been threatened in the neighborhood I run in around my school by racist black people quite a few times (middle fingers, curse words, derogatory statements, swerving cars). This sort of thing happens against white people all of the time yet you don't see these same equality crusaders or these treat the black people like white people people when the shoe is on the other foot. I want Mr. Jackson to come to that neighborhood and make it a safer place for me to run, bc racism in any form is bad!
and back to my original point⦠this should be a non issue. Who cares what he thinks??! If I don't like what I'm reading in a magazine article I move on to the next section or throw the magazine away. As long as he's not strapping gay people to a chair and electrocuting them or actually hurting them I don't really care. Same for Jackson and his jabbering. As long as he's not going to go all black hitler and try to wipe out white people I don't really care what he says. It's almost like a hypersensitive immunological response. Where people should have no reaction at all whatsoever they go into anaphylactic shock and you'd think some of them would almost die from the reactions to the stuff they read. It's pretty much a copy pasta statement from every other person who has disagreed with these people's lives. "what if a child reads it and it hurts their feelings one day???" They've gotta grow up and understand the world isn't all rainbows and sunshine eventually. People disagree with my life choices and judge me for them, and I do not care so long as they don't try and physically hurt me.
