• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

'Duck Dynasty': A&E warned Phil Robertson about speaking out too much [W:1111]

Status
Not open for further replies.
Excon said:
Is whine what you have been giving us?
But yeah, Phil is the authority on what he means.
You didn't know that?
Click to expand...


Oh, keep on worshipping Phil. I know you'll never change. If it makes you happy, bow at his feet, suck up to him, and follow his words. Go for it!

But the rest of us will just keep laughing!
 
paddymcdougall said:
Oh, keep on worshipping Phil. I know you'll never change. If it makes you happy, bow at his feet, suck up to him, and follow his words. Go for it!

But the rest of us will just keep laughing!
Click to expand...
:doh
Worship?
:lamo

You are dreaming.

I don't even watch the show. Never have.

Nor is there reason to change on this position.
He said nothing wrong.
You have to twist what has been said to come to such a conclusion.
 
Gina said:
He did something I cannot do in my professional life. Were I to do it, there would be small chance of recovery for me. He's lucky.

Freedom of speech, comes with consequences. Live with that. He signed a contract that in all likelihood includes a clause that covers issues like this. If it did not, A & E couldn't have suspended him without fear of legal reprisal. So Phil suffered the consequences of his actions. Nothing wrong with that.

Yes is it different. Phil expressed his beliefs. When gays are forced to remain silent about being gay, it's denying who they are, not a belief. Two different concepts.

And apparently, Phil does believe in tolerance according to the A & E statement released today. In part:




So, I guess he's had a change of heart.
Click to expand...

If you don't like the restrictions of your job, get another one.
 
winston53660 said:
Why assume it is A&Es fault and not the stupid stuff ducky man said?
Click to expand...

The Facebook page with 1.5 million like was set up to get people to not watch A&E for a while, which is when the ratings dropped.

Those people are in support of Phil.
 
Fenton said:
A & E warned him and then A & E Caves.

As it turns out, taking the side of the fringe minority was the wrong decsiion all along.
Click to expand...

I would be willing to bet A&E hired people with college degrees but no actual knowledge in their heads.

We all knew this would not go well for them, why didn't they know that at the time?
 
paddymcdougall said:
whoops, just saw the thread ban warning so rephrasing this

Excon, Mason, a lot of us read the comments differently from you; and I doubt we'll convince you anymore than you will convince us.
Click to expand...

You are right. The English language has words and words have meaning. They cannot be changed because you think they mean something else.
 
Gina said:
He did something I cannot do in my professional life. Were I to do it, there would be small chance of recovery for me. He's lucky.

Freedom of speech, comes with consequences. Live with that. He signed a contract that in all likelihood includes a clause that covers issues like this. If it did not, A & E couldn't have suspended him without fear of legal reprisal. So Phil suffered the consequences of his actions. Nothing wrong with that.

Yes is it different. Phil expressed his beliefs. When gays are forced to remain silent about being gay, it's denying who they are, not a belief. Two different concepts.

And apparently, Phil does believe in tolerance according to the A & E statement released today. In part:




So, I guess he's had a change of heart.
Click to expand...
Keeping silent about my personal disgust and disapproval of gays is forcing me to deny who I am. I believe in telling the truth even if it hurts your feelings and even if it's in public.
 
calamity said:
Phil has every right to say any stupid thing he wants. No crime. And A&E can fire him, rehire him and promote him all they want to. And, gays can boycott if they want to. And, anyone can watch or not watch the Dynasty thing as much or as little as they choose to as well.


Being "OK" with homosexuality should not really be the issue. Hell, I'm not "OK" with it. But, I'm not going to tell Homosexuals that they are sinners who will be sent to hell unless they start ****ing girls either. They are what they are, and not by choice. It's thier lot in life to be attracted to the same sex. THat, to me, sounds like quite a burden already.
Click to expand...

Why not say that because I bet that not one of them cares what you think, nor do they care what Phil Robertson thinks, who they probably didn't know until this.

Why are you so upset when they are not?
 
scatt said:
I believe that you would batter someone for speaking. Absolutely.

I personally would not. But my supported positions and way I act are not based in hysterical emotions, so that might be the difference.



Must be those emotions kicking back in.
Click to expand...

Personally I would not either but that is because I think this is Hell and you make it good or bad, that is your choice.

From here we go to a better place.

That is the only think that makes sense.
 
AGENT J said:
he was justly punished thats all they had to do per their opinion of his behavior
Click to expand...

Please define the word punished in this context. Nothing happened to him in any way.
 
paddymcdougall said:
Seriously? Now THAT is funny!

all those rough tough duck dynasty viewers going out to buy little yellow rubber duckies... thanks for the laugh, I hadn't heard about that!
Click to expand...

Some could be black.
 
Excon said:
He answered a question of a specific time period about his personal experience. He made no such comparison.


Fox news? iLOL :doh
Name the actual source and provide the clause you say exists, or stop with the absurdities.
Click to expand...

1) the question was a comparison. He answered it. It's a comparison.

2) standard contract. Without reports an intelligent person would assume it's there. However, we have two reports. That's enough.
 
Slyhunter said:
Keeping silent about my personal disgust and disapproval of gays is forcing me to deny who I am. I believe in telling the truth even if it hurts your feelings and even if it's in public.
Click to expand...

Nope. It is not WHO you are. It is a belief. Something you choose.
 
Slyhunter said:
I am a seeker and a speaker of truth. And gays disgust me. so There.
Click to expand...
And that is a choice you make. Homosexuals, do not get to make that choice. So there.
 
apdst said:
He doesn't need to, in case you haven't heard.

I wonder what GLAAD has up their sleeve, now?
Click to expand...

Not really the point is it. Phil had restrictions. The populace just allowed him to get away with not following them. Is this special for Phil, or should we ignore all restrictions?
 
The poor oppressed LBGT persons at GLAAD have responded:

UPDATE: GLAAD responds: “Phil Robertson should look African American and gay people in the eyes and hear about the hurtful impact of praising Jim Crow laws and comparing gay people to terrorists. If dialogue with Phil is not part of next steps then A+E has chosen profits over African American and gay people – especially its employees and viewers.”

...with a lie. Robertson never praised Jim Crow laws. Anyone want to take bets on how long it takes for that to become a "fact"?

Why lie? Is it because his actual comments weren't really that terrible, so the only option is to lie and make them sound worse?
 
Boo Radley said:
Not really the point is it. Phil had restrictions. The populace just allowed him to get away with not following them. Is this special for Phil, or should we ignore all restrictions?
Click to expand...

What restrictions?

GLAAD has restrictions too. You can't just tell any ol' lie, because it could get you slapped with a defemation suit.
 
apdst said:
What restrictions?

GLAAD has restrictions too. You can't just tell any ol' lie, because it could get you slapped with a defemation suit.
Click to expand...

Most likely a morals clause:

January 18 2012


Author page »
How much room for innovation is there in the realm of the so-called "morals clause"? A "morals clause" is a provision in a contract which stipulates that certain actions or activities undertaken in an individual's "private life" can be grounds for termination of the contract. For entertainment lawyers, these sorts of clauses most often arise in television actor or host contracts (where a producer, broadcaster or studio may want to end their association with an individual whose reputation has become toxic) and in celebrity endorsement contracts (where a manufacturer or service provider no longer wants their product or service associated with an individual who has gained public infamy).

Keep your pants on - the morals clause in performer contracts - Lexology
 
pbrauer said:
I have been wondering if A&E knew of his controversal views...

By Scott CollinsDecember 20, 2013, 4:55 p.m.

Anyone looking at the "Duck Dynasty" uproar may wonder why A&E didn't warn Phil Robertson about the dangers of talking too much to reporters.

But it now looks like they did.

Robertson, the long-bearded patriarch of the clan of Louisiana duck-call merchants, is on "hiatus" from filming episodes of the No. 1-rated cable reality show after giving a GQ magazine interview where he made anti-gay remarks and questioned the need for the civil-rights movement. GLAAD and theNAACP, among others, condemned the comments. But thousands of fans - and even Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal - have rushed to his defense, touching off the latest skirmish in the national culture war. Late Thursday, the family said it might not want to continue the show without Phil.

The scandal has turned into the kind of tempest network executives feared all along. A&E knew of Robertson's controversial views - expounded in videotaped sermons and elsewhere - before the show premiered in spring 2012, and warned him not to overshare on hot-button topics such as gay rights and race relations, according to a producer familiar with the situation. Phil and other family members also probably signed contracts containing "morals clauses" in which they promised to, among other things, avoid anything that would embarrass or bring shame to A&E or the brand. Such clauses are standard in the entertainment and sports industries.

More at: 'Duck Dynasty': A&E warned Phil Robertson about speaking out too much - latimes.com

​


​
Click to expand...

I still don't quite understand the fascination with a family from Louisiana. Is life so boring that this family is so entertaining? IMO we need more reality tv shows to end. Let's start with this one.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom