20 Dec 13
Originally posted by stellspalfieYou think he painted A&E in a negative light? I don't think so. They did that themselves.
so if you were running a business and one of you employees said something to local newspaper that painted your company in negative light, how would you react? would you sack him, would you tell him not to it again? would you ignore him and let him do it as much as he wanted to?
20 Dec 13
Originally posted by stellspalfieI see your having a hard time understanding our answers. I think the answers are clear but you don't.
so if you were running a business and one of you employees said something to local newspaper that painted your company in negative light, how would you react? would you sack him, would you tell him not to it again? would you ignore him and let him do it as much as he wanted to?
My last try....
If that employee said something untrue about my "company", we would have an issue to be discussed between the two of us. Fair enough?
But if he spoke of an issue that did not pertain to my company and it was something of his own opinion such religion, politics, food, who he liked and didn't like...that is his own business, period.
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
21 Dec 13
Originally posted by galveston75i do understand. i just dont believe you have considered all senario's. you also have a black and white view of 'truth'. what maybe true to you, may not be true to somebody else.
I see your having a hard time understanding our answers. I think the answers are clear but you don't.
My last try....
If that employee said something untrue about my "company", we would have an issue to be discussed between the two of us. Fair enough?
But if he spoke of an issue that did not pertain to my company and it was something of his own opi ...[text shortened]... such religion, politics, food, who he liked and didn't like...that is his own business, period.
lets look at my workplace (so you dont think im picking on jw's). i work in the mental health sector. my company look after people with a mixture of personality disorders. from minor to severe. if i was to go on local radio and say god thinks homosexuals are sinners. i may in your opinion be telling the 'truth'. the effects my comments could have on the company could be disastrous. we have many homosexuals, many with depression, suicidal thoughts and who think they speak to god. my comments would scare the hell out of the people who fund the company.
so the important factor here is what you and i (in this scenario) think is true, isnt what others (the majority in this country) think. so the 'truth' is a grey area (kinda, most people in britain dont think its a sin). but lets say its well in the grey area. my company have a moral obligation towards their own thoughts and a duty of care to the service users........
so, should i be left to continually call homosexual sinners, when it could cause more mental health issues to the people we are supposed to be helping?
your call galveston and is it any easy decision to make? because due to the nature of my work, it gets a lot trickier morally than this.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
21 Dec 13
Originally posted by galveston75We can safely assume that Phil Robertson's relationship with A&E is not as employee, more likely it is a relationship governed by a contract between two corporations, his own production company and A&E. If he wanted to be immune from suspension or firing for certain actions, it should have so stated in the contract.
I see your having a hard time understanding our answers. I think the answers are clear but you don't.
My last try....
If that employee said something untrue about my "company", we would have an issue to be discussed between the two of us. Fair enough?
But if he spoke of an issue that did not pertain to my company and it was something of his own opi ...[text shortened]... such religion, politics, food, who he liked and didn't like...that is his own business, period.
More likely, both parties to the contract agreed that either could terminate it at will, given certain stipulations such as notice and monetary penalties. There could also be certain specific "for cause" termination conditions that would constitute a breach of contract.
So far, I have not heard about his company saying the suspension is in violation of the contract.
21 Dec 13
Originally posted by stellspalfieWell you are answering your questions yourself then that you have for us. Yes there are no just black and white answers because as you say there are many senario's. So to ask us or anyone what the answer would be even to simple questions is not really answerable and it is impossible to give just a black and white answer for us either is there?
i do understand. i just dont believe you have considered all senario's. you also have a black and white view of 'truth'. what maybe true to you, may not be true to somebody else.
lets look at my workplace (so you dont think im picking on jw's). i work in the mental health sector. my company look after people with a mixture of personality disorders. f ...[text shortened]... ecision to make? because due to the nature of my work, it gets a lot trickier morally than this.
So you can keep asking what if this and what if that, but only one could answer if one were there in a given situation.
21 Dec 13
Originally posted by stellspalfie"should i be left to continually call homosexual sinners, when it could cause more mental health issues to the people we are supposed to be helping?"
i do understand. i just dont believe you have considered all senario's. you also have a black and white view of 'truth'. what maybe true to you, may not be true to somebody else.
lets look at my workplace (so you dont think im picking on jw's). i work in the mental health sector. my company look after people with a mixture of personality disorders. f ...[text shortened]... ecision to make? because due to the nature of my work, it gets a lot trickier morally than this.
Perhaps I can shed some light on the JW's since this conversation at the moment is directed at us.
We would never to anyones face call them a sinner. First we are all sinners and none of us are above any others on this planet.
Secondly God loves all humans as we are all his children.
That is our clear and honest view of all humans.
What we do have is bible based issues with the "actions or practices" of a human that chooses to practice what the Bible, God's own word condemns.
You bring up homosexuality. This is clearly condemned in the Bible, God's word as is murder, being a thief, beastiality, fornication, etc, etc.
God has up to this point never told one human that any of these things are now ok to do no matter what any human says...Period.
So if one is "practicing" homosexuality it is a sin and God in his word the Bible has told his followers to remove that person from among yourselfs if "after council" from the Bible they refuse to stop.
You say maybe someone with a mental disorder practices homosexuality and they could be fragile mentally?
The elders in our congrergation would deeply take that into consideration and with deep prayer to God would look for guidance as to how to handle this. But Jesus made it crystal clear that the elders are here to protect the congregations from anything that could harm the flock both physically and spiritually.
I commend you for the work you do and I'm sure it is a very hard and fragile work. God see's all of this and will remember your caring ways.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
21 Dec 13
Originally posted by galveston75So you are not arguing about whether Robertson is being denied some right to speak his mind on any old thing while keeping his job. You are arguing the rightness/wrongness of the practice of homosexuality. I will bow out and take my leave.
"should i be left to continually call homosexual sinners, when it could cause more mental health issues to the people we are supposed to be helping?"
Perhaps I can shed some light on the JW's since this conversation at the moment is directed at us.
We would never to anyones face call them a sinner. First we are all sinners and none of us are abov ...[text shortened]... re it is a very hard and fragile work. God see's all of this and will remember your caring ways.
21 Dec 13
Originally posted by JS357I don't believe I'm arguing at all. The bible is clear on this subject and I have nothing to argue about it at all.
So you are not arguing about whether Robertson is being denied some right to speak his mind on any old thing while keeping his job. You are arguing the rightness/wrongness of the practice of homosexuality. I will bow out and take my leave.
21 Dec 13
Originally posted by galveston75A very clear post ... thanks!
[b You bring up homosexuality. This is clearly condemned in the Bible, God's word as is murder, being a thief, beastiality, fornication, etc, etc.
[/b]
I think we are due for another "homosexuality debate" but I can at least
have a little respect for the JW position that the bible says its a sin. (Rather
than Robbie's position of trying to prove homosexuality "unnatural".)
Originally posted by wolfgang59My dear sir, the Bible itself terms the practice as unnatural and I quote,
A very clear post ... thanks!
I think we are due for another "homosexuality debate" but I can at least
have a little respect for the JW position that the bible says its a sin. (Rather
than Robbie's position of trying to prove homosexuality "unnatural".)
That is why God gave them over to uncontrolled sexual passion, for their females changed the natural use of themselves into one contrary to nature; likewise also the males left the natural use of the female and became violently inflamed in their lust toward one another, males with males, working what is obscene and receiving in themselves the full penalty, which was due for their error.
Romans 1:26-27
All i did was supply medical evidence which demonstrated incontrovertibly that the physiology of the human body as found in nature is not conducive to certain homosexual practice and in fact, is quite destructive, making it contrary to nature.
21 Dec 13
From what I have heard, A & E was responsible for asking the person in question their views about homosexuality, knowing their religious persuasion and probably reaction. Then when they have the mouse in the trap they pounce and run with it.
My guess is that this was done for blatant advertising, in addition to making the person in question an example.
21 Dec 13
Originally posted by wolfgang59In the US, well over half the AIDS cases are from gay men even though they only account for under 5% of the population.
A very clear post ... thanks!
I think we are due for another "homosexuality debate" but I can at least
have a little respect for the JW position that the bible says its a sin. (Rather
than Robbie's position of trying to prove homosexuality "unnatural".)
Knowing this and the fact that they are unable to reproduce, which is the biological function of sex, what makes you dispute his claim?
Originally posted by whodeyin the UK there is the highest ever recorded cases of HIV among gay men, a direct consequence of failing to acknowledge that the physiology of the human body is not conducive to homosexual practice and is thus contrary to nature.
In the US, well over half the AIDS cases are from gay men even though they only account for under 5% of the population.
Knowing this and the fact that they are unable to reproduce, which is the biological function of sex, what makes you dispute his claim?
21 Dec 13
Originally posted by stellspalfieWill you now publicly admit that he was maligned by the media, his comments misconstrued and deliberately misrepresented.
a+e thought he painted them in bad light. thats the whole point of the debate. were they in their rights to suspend him. the answer is clearly yes.