Originally posted by stellspalfieIts not how I would run a business, but then again I am not on a 400,000,000 dollar contract. Can you tell us what he said was untrue?
[b]He has a lot of supporters you know, some of them quite prominent. Sacking him might be like killing the goose that lays the golden eggs.
there is no doubt that a+e networks are risking a lot of money. he is one of the stars of an extremely lucrative tv show (estimated worth around $400million). a+e networks have always been strong supporter ...[text shortened]... e company should put money first, before its moral values? is that how you would run a business?[/b]
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
20 Dec 13
Originally posted by robbie carrobieso regardless if you agree with his comments or not. if they conflict directly with the morality and ethos of the network then the network are perfectly within their rights to remove him.
Its not how I would run a business, but then again I am not on a 400,000,000 dollar contract.
do you remember glen hoddle getting sacked for saying people had disabilities because of evil things they had done in a previous life? he was sacked because his views were in direct conflict with the f.a. regardless if you agree with glen or not, the f.a. as his employers and big supporters of disabled inclusiveness were perfectly within their rights to sack him.
Originally posted by stellspalfieyes its at their discretion, why do I need to repeat the same thing again and again?
so regardless if you agree with his comments or not. if they conflict directly with the morality and ethos of the network then the network are perfectly within their rights to remove him.
do you remember glen hoddle getting sacked for saying people had disabilities because of evil things they had done in a previous life? he was sacked because his vi ...[text shortened]... ers and big supporters of disabled inclusiveness were perfectly within their rights to sack him.
No I was unaware, never the less, had Glen Hoddle applied the Bibles superlative wisdom at 1 Corinthians 6:12, he would have acted wisely and remained in his employment.
So what did this guy Phil say that was untrue? If it was not untrue then why should he be suspended for saying it? Can you cite the networks policy which states that he should not be allowed to air his religious views, exercise his conscience or exercise freedom of speech? If not then clearly something is wrong. For to prevent a person from doing so is not only unlawful its an infringement of his rights, is it not?
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
20 Dec 13
Originally posted by robbie carrobieSo what did this guy Phil say that was untrue? If it was not untrue then why should he be suspended for saying it?
yes its at their discretion, why do I need to repeat the same thing again and again?
No I was unaware, never the less, had Glen Hoddle applied the Bibles superlative wisdom at 1 Corinthians 6:12, he would have acted wisely and remained in his employment.
So what did this guy Phil say that was untrue? If it was not untrue then why should he be suspended for saying it?
yes its at their discretion, why do I need to repeat the same thing again and again?
the 'truth' is irrelevant. he was suspended because the network strongly disagreed with him and found his comments offensive. the network obviously didnt want to be associated with somebody who had his opinions. which you seem to understand in your second comment (posted above). as you say 'its at their discretion'.
right we seem to have this one wrapped up.
Originally posted by stellspalfieoh no, we are only just beginning,
[b]So what did this guy Phil say that was untrue? If it was not untrue then why should he be suspended for saying it?
yes its at their discretion, why do I need to repeat the same thing again and again?
the 'truth' is irrelevant. he was suspended because the network strongly disagreed with him and found his comments offensive. the netw ...[text shortened]... ted above). as you say 'its at their discretion'.
right we seem to have this one wrapped up.[/b]
so lets get this, a person gets suspended for saying something that is true, that is within his rights as a free moral agent and that the US constitution guarantees his right to say
and you don't think that there is anything wrong with that? surely its a travesty of justice?
the 'truth' is irrelevant? - stellspalfie,
Can I get a witness?
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
20 Dec 13
Originally posted by robbie carrobiehas anybody stopped him from saying what he said?? is he free to say it again?? his company havent stopped him from saying it. they just do not want to be associated with somebody with his opinions. they did not censor him.
oh no, we are only just beginning,
so lets get this, a person gets suspended for saying something that is true, that is within his rights as a free moral agent and that the US constitution guarantees his right to say
and you don't think that there is anything wrong with that? surely its a travesty of justice?
the 'truth' is irrelevant? - stellspalfie,
Can I get a witness?
lets say you do 90% of you painting jobs for indian customers. you employ a guy who keeps popping up at bmp rallies and is constantly in the news for making indian comments. your indian customers get offended, your wife is offended. what do you do?
Originally posted by stellspalfieYes they have in fact curtailed his freedom of speech, in fact, the media has not only misconstrued and misrepresented what he said, they have suspended him from his job, no doubt as a warning which is a from of censorship, isn't it.
has anybody stopped him from saying what he said?? is he free to say it again?? his company havent stopped him from saying it. they just do not want to be associated with somebody with his opinions. they did not censor him.
lets say you do 90% of you painting jobs for indian customers. you employ a guy who keeps popping up at bmp rallies and is cons ...[text shortened]... king indian comments. your indian customers get offended, your wife is offended. what do you do?
He has not said anything that is untrue, nor unlawful and your BMP illustration is therefore inappropriate, he has not said anything that is remotely racist.
So then we have a travesty of justice on our hands, an innocent man, dishonestly represented in a sodomy obsessed anti religious media because of the hysterical cries of gays who feel that any opposition to their practices must be censured and silenced,
and you don't think there is anything wrong with that? ouch
the 'truth' is irrelevant? - stellspalfie
Originally posted by stellspalfieActually he is getting more publicity about his belief about the sin of homosexual acts now than he would have ever gotten on that reality show by A&E. I also believe A&E is getting more bad publicity than good from their response. It also looks like they will lose a popular show unless they wise up.
has anybody stopped him from saying what he said?? is he free to say it again?? his company havent stopped him from saying it. they just do not want to be associated with somebody with his opinions. they did not censor him.
lets say you do 90% of you painting jobs for indian customers. you employ a guy who keeps popping up at bmp rallies and is cons ...[text shortened]... king indian comments. your indian customers get offended, your wife is offended. what do you do?
It appears that this was in answer to a question from some magazine about what he thought was sin. Who knows what he said exactly? Magazines often take liberties with what they print to further their own agendas.
I found a link to the magazine article here:
http://www.gq.com/entertainment/television/201401/duck-dynasty-phil-robertson
From the article:
But there are more things Phil would like to say—“controversial” things, as he puts it to me—that don’t make the cut. (This March, for instance, he told the Christian-oriented Sports Spectrum magazine that he didn’t approve of A&E editing out “in Jesus” from a family prayer scene, even though A&E says that the phrase has been uttered in at least seventeen episodes.)
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
20 Dec 13
Originally posted by robbie carrobiehow have they curtailed his freedom of speech???? have they stopped him from saying it? no. are you saying for full freedom of speech we need to be able to say it on camera???
Yes they have in fact curtailed his freedom of speech, in fact, the media has not only misconstrued and misrepresented what he said, they have suspended him from his job, no doubt as a warning which is a from of censorship, isn't it.
He has not said anything that is untrue, nor unlawful and your BMP illustration is therefore inappropriate, he has ...[text shortened]... don't think there is anything wrong with that? ouch
the 'truth' is irrelevant? - stellspalfie
he has not been censored. if he had said it on the show and the producers had bleeped it out you could argue he was censored. but he said it to gq magazine and they printed it. his company didnt ban him from saying it. they just didnt want to be associated with a person who says things like that.
the bmp are not illegal, my analogy is perfectly reasonable. can you answer it please.
the 'truth' is irrelevant? - stellspalfie
is very different to - the truth is irrelevant.
20 Dec 13
Originally posted by divegeesterYou fool. I never said anything of the sort and had NO motives other then what I asked . I know you and I know exactly where all the conversations go with you and this is one of the reasons I refuse to continue any conversations with you on anything, not just the blood issue ( which this thread is NOT about ).
It's nothing of the sort, it's a legitimate question on the motive, meaning and intent of Galveston's OP. He was questioned on it from the start and refused to respond which gave rise to people doubting his motives. You can froth all you like robbie, but if Galveston had simply addressed the questions he was being asked the theme of this thread would ha ...[text shortened]... n you end up getting like this, all 'panties in a knot' and feeling victimised. It's ridiculous.
If you want to discuss blood transfusion then start your own thread................
Originally posted by stellspalfieI see, so being suspended from your job for some things that you said in an interview is now no longer a form of censorship or punishment for the things you said, interesting, what is it then?
how have they curtailed his freedom of speech???? have they stopped him from saying it? no. are you saying for full freedom of speech we need to be able to say it on camera???
he has not been censored. if he had said it on the show and the producers had bleeped it out you could argue he was censored. but he said it to gq magazine and they printed it ...[text shortened]... the 'truth' is irrelevant? - stellspalfie
is very different to - the truth is irrelevant.[/b]
No your analogy is nonsense, another totally absurd and ludicrous attempt, next you will be making up illustrations of neo nazi skinheads working in immigration or the ministry for culture.
the 'truth' is irrelevant? - stellspalfie
Originally posted by galveston75dude, step away from the monitor, take a deep breath and remember his entire goal is to get you to make an emotive statement, its what trolls do, its how they get their kicks. Not worth it!
You fool. I never said anything of the sort and had NO motives other then what I asked . I know you and I know exactly where all the conversations go with you and this is one of the reasons I refuse to continue any conversations with you on anything, not just the blood issue ( which this thread is NOT about ).
If you want to discuss blood transfusion then start your own thread................
20 Dec 13
So a question I'd still like more comments on is what has changed in the last few decades that if someone comments on the Bible and God's views and commands on such things as this gentleman responded to, now get the negative knee jerk responces we see with his condemnation by many, when in the past most would have supported it?
One said most are now enlightend and no longer accept those old ways of thinking.....
What does this new enlightenment mean?
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
20 Dec 13
Originally posted by galveston75It means that superior secular morality is steadily winning out over inferior religious 'morality'.
So a question I'd still like more comments on is what has changed in the last few decades that if someone comments on the Bible and God's views and commands on such things as this gentleman responded to, now get the negative knee jerk responces we see with his condemnation by many, when in the past most would have supported it?
One said most are now ...[text shortened]... nd and no longer accept those old ways of thinking.....
What does this new enlightenment mean?