I filled out the Contact Us form on DirecTv's website and asked if I can cancel A&E without affecting my other channels.

I know what the answer is, I just wanted to make a statement.

The best part about watching DD is that it is NOT always politically correct. Phil was asked what he thought and he said it. I bet most of wish we could do the same. I wonder if there would be such a stink if they had asked Elton John and he gave the opposite viewpoint?

quote Originally posted by carnut122: The best part about watching DD is that it is NOT always politically correct. Phil was asked what he thought and he said it. I bet most of wish we could do the same. I wonder if there would be such a stink if they had asked Elton John and he gave the opposite viewpoint?

Who knows what would happen, but Elton doesn't have a problem with people who are different then him so he would never say that in the first place.

I would never have heard about this interview, let alone what he said in the interview, if the network hadn't made a stink about it.

And with a little luck and some network clean-up, hopefully we won't have to hear from ANY of them again.

quote Originally posted by Doni Hagan: No one has infringed upon his right to speak his mind. He can do it again tomorrow if he wishes. Go for it, Phil. BUT A&E has a right also....and it appears they exercised it.

Some say it seems like one way tolerance, infringes on his freedom of speech, and he was fired because of his religious belief. How would you show otherwise?

quote Originally posted by 2.5: Some say it seems like one way tolerance, infringes on his freedom of speech, and he was fired because of his religious belief. How would you show otherwise?

It seems rather simple to me.

Getting fired by a private corporation for saying something they don't like is not infringing on his basic right to say what he wants. He still can say what he wants...he just can't be an employee of A&E while doing so. His fundamental right to speak remains inviolate.

What seems to be getting lost in translation here is that the company has rights as well. Also, he probably has a clause in his contract which states he can be fired for statements/actions that reflect views/opinions the network finds objectionable. You may disagree with the network's actions based on the nature of the opinions expressed by Robertson but that doesn't negate the fact that A&E had every RIGHT to do what they did. Remember Monday Night Football and Hank Williams, Jr? Same principle at play here.

I wasn't debating what of Robertson's remarks A&E found problematic....nor do I care really. My focus is on how the basic "right to free speech" is at issue and whether it has been infringed upon by firing an employee for saying something an employer doesn't like. In this instance, I think Phil Robertson would be hard pressed in a court of law to demonstrate how he can't say what he wants to anymore....he can and probably will again in the press in the very near future. He just won't do so as a paid employee of the A&E Network.

Theoretically and in practice, his constitutionally protected right to free speech remains inviolate.

[This message has been edited by Doni Hagan (edited 12-20-2013).]

quote Originally posted by Doni Hagan: ..he probably has a clause in his contract which states he can be fired for statements/actions that reflect views/opinions the network finds objectionable..

If this is true, yes. As he signed his rights away.

quote Originally posted by 2.5: If this is true, yes. As he signed his rights away.

No, no, no....you're focusing on the single tile in the mosaic. HIS RIGHTS REMAIN INVIOLATE whether he's employed or unemployed. He didn't "sign his rights away."

Okay....let's say you're employed by a company which insists you show up in a dress shirt and a tie to work in their offices but you wear a "Duck Dynasty" t-shirt to work instead. The company fires you for violating their dress code. Your right to wear what you want has not been violated in the broader sense. You can wear the same t-shirt every day for the rest of your life if you wish....you just won't be working for THAT company.

Again, his right to free speech remains intact. But he is employed by A&E and they have the right to demand adherence to their policies....whether one agrees with them or not.

quote Originally posted by Doni Hagan: No, no, no....you're focusing on the single tile in the mosaic. HIS RIGHTS REMAIN INVIOLATE whether he's employed or unemployed. He didn't "sign his rights away." Okay....let's say you're employed by a company which insists you show up in a dress shirt and a tie to work in their offices but you wear a "Duck Dynasty" t-shirt to work instead. The company fires you for violating their dress code. Your right to wear what you want has not been violated in the broader sense. You can wear the same t-shirt every day for the rest of your life if you wish....you just won't be working for THAT company. Again, his right to free speech remains intact. But he is employed by A&E and they have the right to demand adherence to their policies....whether one agrees with them or not.

I think we understand eachother , just differently.
He signed something that said A&E's policies could override his right to speak what he believes. Their policies are against his free speech and freedom of religion, but he agreed to it if he signed something like that. Sure once he is not employed by them anymore they cant fire him again...ya know?

The Latest News is the family refuses to work untill,Phil Robertson comes back. Allso there is an on-line petition to get Phil back.Currently 117,376 signatures
http://istandwithphil.com/

Duck Dynasty Fans Launch Petition to Bring Phil Robertson Back
A Christian group has launched an online petition and website, IStandWithPhil.com, to bring Duck Dynasty star Phil Robertson back to the show in the wake of anti-gay comments that were published in GQ this week.

A&E placed Robertson on indefinite hiatus Wednesday after he explicitly outlined why he doesn't understand homosexuality and likened LGBT people to sinners and people who practice bestiality. The petition calls for the network to reinstate him immediately and to apologize to viewers of the show who share Robertson's beliefs.

Duck Dynasty patriarch Phil Robertson put on hiatus after anti-gay comments

"Simply put, Phil Robertson is being censored and punished for quoting the Bible, and A&E's treatment of him is punitive and highly discriminatory," said Chris Stone, who created the petition. As of early Thursday afternoon, it had amassed nearly 13,000 signatures.

In an open letter to A&E that accompanies the petition, Stone writes: "Mr. Robertson's comments in GQ Magazine are simply reflective of a Biblical view of sexuality, marriage, and family — a view that has stood the test of time for thousands of years and continues to be held by the majority of Americans and today's world as a whole."

Duck Dynasty's Phil Robertson spews anti-gay comments in GQ profile

On Thursday, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal also released a statement defending Robertson. "The politically correct crowd is tolerant of all viewpoints, except those they disagree with," Jindal said. "I remember when TV networks believed in the First Amendment. It is a messed up situation when Miley Cyrus gets a laugh, and Phil Robertson gets suspended."

Robertson has also released his own statement addressing his remarks. "My mission today is to go forth and tell people about why I follow Christ and also what the Bible teaches, and part of that teaching is that women and men are meant to be together," he said. "However, I would never treat anyone with disrespect just because they are different from me."

Duck Dynasty is currently the No. 1 rated unscripted series in television history.

The Cliff Notes' version.....

Phil Robertson has the right to say what he wants and believe what he wants. A&E has a business relationship with the Robertson family and has the right to end that relationship according to the terms of the contract that undoubtedly exists between them. And anyone else with a soapbox (from Sarah Palin to the NAACP) has the right to exploit this situation to their own advantage.

Free speech is awesome.

Well, time for me to shop on eBay for an “I’m a sucker” t-shirt… We just all got sucked into a publicity scam. This is nothing more than a ploy by A&E and DD to get publicity.

quote Originally posted by Purple86GT: Well, time for me to shop on eBay for an “I’m a sucker” t-shirt… We just all got sucked into a publicity scam. This is nothing more than a ploy by A&E and DD to get publicity.

I don't see how. A&E stands to lose a lot of viewers because of their intolerance. Unless you think they will apologize for discriminating against his personal religious views, and everyone will just forget that A&E did this?

quote Originally posted by Doni Hagan: Phil Robertson has a constitutional right to say what he wishes. A&E is a television network, not an extension of the government, and this private enterprise decided to suspend an employee who said what they view as dumb things to a reporter. The freedom of speech does not mean the freedom to have someone PAY you for your speech. The bottom line is.....Who truly gives a flyin' f***

The LBGT zealots do. No one else is allowed to ?
A&E is not an extension of government. They still can not discriminate against anyone's rights without due cause. That bakery which declined not to sell a wedding cake for a gay marriage ceremony were struck down in a court of law. They are a private business too. A&E did not pay Phil Robertson for the comments he made and those comments did not degrade A&E.
True, a cake customer is not an employee. Employees have rights too.

quote Originally posted by Doni Hagan: A&E has a business relationship with the Robertson family and has the right to end that relationship according to the terms of the contract that undoubtedly exists between them.

True. I wonder what it says. Union members all the time say things their employers do not like.

quote Originally posted by Purple86GT: This is nothing more than a ploy by A&E and DD to get publicity.

Heh, not.
GLAD is butt hurt, pun intended. The LGBT community is butt hurt too.
Rights are only protected by those and others who are willing to stand up for them.

Doni is not wrong. In fact, I would have to side with A&E, not for their actions but as a private company doing what they want. Not sure if it a traded company so the final weigh in may be yet to come. I think it is despicable and a massive over reaction and very well may be what Purple alluded too, which makes it even worse.

Interesting that some are sticking up for the big corp on pretty much only this issue though.

quote Originally posted by Doni Hagan: The Cliff Notes' version..... Phil Robertson has the right to say what he wants and believe what he wants. A&E has a business relationship with the Robertson family and has the right to end that relationship according to the terms of the contract that undoubtedly exists between them. And anyone else with a soapbox (from Sarah Palin to the NAACP) has the right to exploit this situation to their own advantage. Free speech is awesome.

Sure, A&E can 'suspend' Phil because of what he said. It's a business relationship. BUT the irony (hypocrisy?) that they suspended him because if his (and millions of others) religious views is what really stand out here. Phil didn't 'hate' or 'discriminate' anyone because of their beliefs.... But A&E sure did discriminate because of someone's beliefs.

quote Originally posted by CoryFiero: I don't see how. A&E stands to lose a lot of viewers because of their intolerance. Unless you think they will apologize for discriminating against his personal religious views, and everyone will just forget that A&E did this?

Drama sells! People that never heard of the show will tune in to see what the fuss is about. Celebs do it all the time… divorce, drug abuse, adopt a child, you name it… People flock to drama and can’t get enough of it. I bet you this was staged.

quote Originally posted by Red88FF: Doni is not wrong.

I agree. A&E actions are a statement of freedom of speech.
Respect goes both ways. Impressions are powerful.
That A&E caved to a fringe via threat of boycott of the sponsors, is telling. A&E's Duck Dynasty sponsors are standing up for Phil.

quote Originally posted by Purple86GT: Drama sells! People that never heard of the show will tune in to see what the fuss is about. Celebs do it all the time… divorce, drug abuse, adopt a child, you name it… People flock to drama and can’t get enough of it. I bet you this was staged.

Maybe, but the outcome of this staging is so unpredictable I'm not sure A&E would risk it. They don't need publicity. Duck dynasty is the #1 cable show. Maybe it was staged by the DD folks. They know A&E would get butthurt about those comments and give them a chance to part ways with a majority of Americans on the DD guys side. I suppose I can see that.

the right to "Free Speech" is not being jailed for what you say. Thats it. Everything about this topic is "just business".

the right to Free Speech does mean you can tell your Boss off. But, it does NOT prevent him from firing you for it. As long as you are not jailed for what you say - your freedom of speech is NOT infringed.

there are endless examples for stupid things said, or done, and person taken off the air. there was recent person fired for saying bad things about diva palin. she cried out about it. the guy got fired. freedom of speech had NOTHING to do with it. go ahead - say whatcha want. but dont expect a broadcast network to keep you on the air.

everyone seems to need icons & poster children. this is the latest. yippie. enjoy the flash.

quote Originally posted by Red88FF: Doni is not wrong. In fact, I would have to side with A&E, not for their actions but as a private company doing what they want. Not sure if it a traded company so the final weigh in may be yet to come. I think it is despicable and a massive over reaction and very well may be what Purple alluded too, which makes it even worse. Interesting that some are sticking up for the big corp on pretty much only this issue though.

I am not so sure (although I DO realize American and Canadian employment and human rights laws are VEEERRRRYYYYY different) Up here, unless a contract spells out different terms, an employer has basically no say whatsoever in an employees private time (what they say, who they associate with, what they do ect, ect, ect). In Canada A&E would be paying out a VERY large settlement for violating an individuals rights. We tend to view employment as a skills rental agreement/ contractual relationship MUCH more than the USA where it seems employers have much more power in the lives of thier staff.

quote Originally posted by MidEngineManiac: I am not so sure (although I DO realize American and Canadian employment and human rights laws are VEEERRRRYYYYY different) Up here, unless a contract spells out different terms, an employer has basically no say whatsoever in an employees private time (what they say, who they associate with, what they do ect, ect, ect). In Canada A&E would be paying out a VERY large settlement for violating an individuals rights. We tend to view employment as a skills rental agreement/ contractual relationship MUCH more than the USA where it seems employers have much more power in the lives of thier staff.

yup. but - on-air folk do normally have all kinds of spelled out BS in their contracts about "embarrassing the network". amazing that so many folk think this is the first time anyone got sacked for this. happens all the time. even in sports. this is NOTHING unusual.

quote Originally posted by Pyrthian: yup. but - on-air folk do normally have all kinds of spelled out BS in their contracts about "embarrassing the network". amazing that so many folk think this is the first time anyone got sacked for this. happens all the time. even in sports. this is NOTHING unusual.

If it was in his contract, and only if, correct?

quote Originally posted by 2.5: If it was in his contract, and only if, correct?

varies. 'right to work" certainly gives an employer the easy button to terminate at will, and without cause.

but, I would think that by now contracts for on-air folk have become pretty full of such statements. not exactly a "new" industry. is this really the first time some of you have seen someone sacked like this? no one remembers charlie sheen? take a cue - go somewhere else. thats all. he's not jailed for speaking his mind. just getting a different hairstyle has gotten people on the hotplate.

quote Originally posted by Pyrthian: is this really the first time some of you have seen someone sacked like this?

Its the subject matter, I'm sure, and villifying agendas..etc.

Just as a clarification, I don't think Robertson is at fault for what he said. My issue is not with the religious nature of his statements....he's certainly within his rights to believe whatever he wishes to believe.....but with the outcry about his 1st Amendment rights being infringed upon. From that aspect and that one solely, I don't see where that has actually happened. His rights remain fully intact from a constitutional standpoint and nothing A&E did or does will or can impact that.

Is there a certain irony in selling a show based upon the personalities of the characters and complaining when one of them expresses his opinions on social issues....opinions that are not held by the network? I personally feel there is. My attitude about A&E's position is "You knew what you bought when you bought it." Phil Robertson has been vocal before now about his conservative Christianity as well as his marital troubles and love of guns and hunting.

BUT I believe both parties were well within their rights to do what they did.

Personally, I suspect the show will go on and Phil Robertson will return to it. There's too much money involved. A&E's mission will see how they'll accomplish the return without looking like sellouts or appearing hypocritical to their viewers. Good luck with that.

BTW....I've never seen more than a few minutes of Duck Dynasty and now know more about the show than I ever did before. I did think the promos showing the Rolls-Royce with the duck emblem on the radiator were rather funny. It's still not something I'd be interested in watching though....and that has absolutely nothing to do with his or any other family member's religious beliefs or position on social issues.

quote Originally posted by Doni Hagan: No one has infringed upon his right to speak his mind. He can do it again tomorrow if he wishes. Go for it, Phil. BUT A&E has a right also....and it appears they exercised it.

As do A&E viewers. As do the people who purchase products from A&E advertisers. I don't watch much if any A&E, the wife may, I don't know.
But, if Mr. Robertson's fans want to get someone's attention, contact those advertisers. I'm sure Mr. Robertson will be re-instated quickly.

Personally, I support Mr. Robertson's right to espouse his opinion without repercussions from his employer. But, that's just me.
Heck, for all we know, this could be just another marketing ploy by A&E to secure free advertising. I've never watch DD so, I really don't know. I may watch in the future just so I can see which advertisers I should be writing.

------------------
Ron
Isn't it strange that after a bombing, everyone blames the bomber, his upbringing, his environment, his culture, his mental state but … after a shooting, the problem is the gun?

My Uncle Frank was a staunch Conservative and voted straight Republican until the day he died in Chicago. Since then he has voted Democrat. Shrug

quote Originally posted by blackrams: As do A&E viewers. As do the people who purchase products from A&E advertisers.

Also quite true....

They seem to be doing quite well with their duck call bussiness.
Willie Robertson is an American entrepreneur, reality TV star and CEO who has a net worth of $20 million. Willie Robertson is the son of Phil Robertson who founded the hunting-accessories company "Duck Commander".
Read the full storey here:
http://www.celebritynetwort...commander-net-worth/

quote Originally posted by blackrams: I've never watch DD so, I really don't know. I may watch in the future just so I can see which advertisers I should be writing.

I really like(d) The First 48 and After The First 48. I watched it.... religiously.

These are the most common advertisements I saw


K-Mart
Zales
Capital One
AT&T
ancestry.com

Go to any of these company's Facebook pages and you will see hundreds of people letting them know 'you lost my business because you support A&E with your money'.

quote Originally posted by 2.5: I think we understand eachother , just differently. He signed something that said A&E's policies could override his right to speak what he believes. Their policies are against his free speech and freedom of religion, but he agreed to it if he signed something like that. Sure once he is not employed by them anymore they cant fire him again...ya know?

Nope, no "christian victim" in this situation. And nope, the contract/policies are not "against" his free speech/free religion, rights. A corporation is not a democracy, you agree to work for a corporation, then you also agree to follow its policy's. Just like anyone, hes free to say, and believe what he wants, but hes also free to accept and deal with the consequences of what he says, no different than anyone else. He signed a contract to work for A&E, which makes him, their employee, and just like working for any company, they will have rules that you must follow, because you now represent that company. If you somehow break policy, or even go against the values of said company that you work for, and represent, then they fire you.

Nobody's rights where violated here, the man spoke his mind, and beliefs, which is his right, the company he worked for and represented didn't approve of the image he was putting fourth (while representing their company) so they fired him.. End of story. No doubt things like that happen all the time in the real world, just because it happened to a rich redneck on tv who happens to be christian, does not make him a special case.. He spoke his mind, good for him, now he has to deal with the consequences of it..

[This message has been edited by Jonesy (edited 12-20-2013).]

quote Originally posted by Jonesy: ... End of story...

For some reason your words made me think of just why this is happening. You see, his "O"ness, and his media minions need that constant deflection from reality. Reality TV is the cure for, well, reality.

quote Originally posted by Tony Kania: For some reason your words made me think of just why this is happening. You see, his "O"ness, and his media minions need that constant deflection from reality. Reality TV is the cure for, well, reality.

Not gonna disagree with you there, past administrations have always attempted to control media bias in some form or fashion, and Obama's is no different. But if your attempting to spin this as somehow being Obama's fault, im gonna go ahead and say your reaching way to far. As for the story deflecting attention away from anything Obama is doing, well then it just happened to work out well for Obama, but thats the medias fault for turning what is really a non-story and attempting to turn it into some hugh rights violation, which its not.

Now obviously we don't know the details of the DD guys contract, but if its similar in anyway to most large corporations, there was probably something in there prohibiting him from expressing religious or political beliefs while representing the company he worked for. In this case A&E. Most corporations are like that, they dont care what you truely believe, or say privately on your own time, but when your representing them in whatever fashion, you need to adhere to their policy. Why you say? Money thats why, they don't want an employee shooting their mouth off about religious and political beliefs while representing them, because that can potentially alienate alot of potential customers. The DD guy when on a national media outlet (GQ magazine) and shot his mouth off about his religious beliefs, which was apparently against A&E's company policy, and he got fired for it.

Think about it logically, if you owned and ran a business, say a store of some kind, and you had an employee going around telling customers his religious/political beliefs, would you let him stay, and not fire him? Even if he shares the same exact beliefs as you do?. But at the end of the day, you have a business to run, and money to make for yourself, your family, and your employees, and your employee is alienating customers by shouting his beliefs to them. but not only customers, but could alienate other employees as well who do not share the same views. You think every customer will just agree with this employee? Certainly many will not, and will no longer shop at your store, so you just lost customers and money simply because your employee feels the need to share his beliefs with customers. Not a good way to run a successful business.

Sure you could say "no i would not fire someone for sharing their beliefs with customers" just in an attempt to contradict me, but we all know in the real world, that would be total B.S. Any good business owner would agree. Work is political and religion neutral. Believe whatever you want, just keep it at home, not at work.

The duck man was representing A&E by giving an interview to a nationally published magazine, broke company policy, and got fired for it. End of story.

[This message has been edited by Jonesy (edited 12-20-2013).]

They told us "on cable" is where you oughta be...

So we loaded up the truck and went to A&E...

Liberals, that is...Democrats, Hooooomoooosexuals....

------------------

quote Originally posted by Jonesy: Not gonna disagree with you there, past administrations have always attempted to control media bias in some form or fashion, and Obama's is no different. But if your attempting to spin this as somehow being Obama's fault, im gonna go ahead and say your reaching way to far. As for the story deflecting attention away from anything Obama is doing, well then it just happened to work out well for Obama, but thats the medias fault for turning what is really a non-story and attempting to turn it into some hugh rights violation, which its not.

Doh! My post was truly meant as part jest. No, I did not include the repub fat cats, but as a whole, politicians lie. Or DO they? Bwahahaha!

quote Originally posted by Doni Hagan: Just as a clarification, my issue is not with the religious nature of his statements....he's certainly within his rights to believe whatever he wishes to believe.....but with the outcry about his 1st Amendment rights being infringed upon.

Sorry for cut/chopping your post. I hope I left the meaning intact.
My issue is ... freedom of speech. Sure, the government can't jail Phil. People have fought for those rights. If we believe them, we should practice them. We don't need government for that. It is said that one's rights end when they infringe on those of another. Phil did not violate anybodies rights.

quote Originally posted by Tony Kania: Doh! My post was truly meant as part jest. No, I did not include the repub fat cats, but as a whole, politicians lie. Or DO they? Bwahahaha!

Oh we both know they do, they are the masters of deceit. Which is why ANYTHING a politician says i take with a grain of salt, not a single one, from any party, is trustworthy.

Sorry if you meant it as a joke, just got home, in a crappy mood (you know why, we talked about it in your topic) and i just kinda went off a little. Hope you didnt take any offense, cause i really like you Tony, and in a weird way we kinda connected in your "my life" topic, and id like to keep that going.

quote Originally posted by cliffw: Phil did not violate anybodies rights.

and his rights where not violated either.

[This message has been edited by Jonesy (edited 12-20-2013).]