• 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!

Phil Robertson returns to A&E

Phil Robertson may never return to A&E’s hit reality show “Duck Dynasty,” and the rest of his family is hesitant to carry on without its patriarch, a source tells FOX411. But the family may not be in a position to take an “all of us or none of us” stand.

"It's not as easy as just not returning to the show, since they all have binding agreements. It's the network's option, not theirs," an insider connected to the production told FOX411. "Plus the family makes far too much money selling merchandise because of the show. It would be a bad business decision to leave it."

According to Beverly Hills-based entertainment attorney Julian Chan, each show participant is generally under a separate deal when it comes to these types of contracts. So each family member could be subject to a breach of contract claim regardless of what happens to anyone else on the show, no matter what his or her role.

We're also told that the contracts have morality clauses that give the network the right to get rid of cast members -- but the others still have to keep the show running.

Multiple industry players assured us that even without Phil Robertson, there is just no way A&E will dump "Duck Dynasty" now. With an average of 14 million viewers each week, counting reruns, it’s the highest-rated show on television.
Click to expand...
‘Duck Dynasty’ family members contractually bound to A&E, source says | Fox News
 
Buck Ewer said:
They won't.
They are too smart.
Click to expand...
So you are saying that they are not rednecks then. Interesting.

They absolutely should to force A&E's hand.
As I doubt A&E would cancel their cash-cow.
 
Excon said:
So you are saying that they are not rednecks then. Interesting.

They absolutely should to force A&E's hand.
As I doubt A&E would cancel their cash-cow.
Click to expand...
It is interesting... I am saying that they PLAY rednecks on a TV show.
Buddy Ebsen and Max Baer Jr were not as stupid as they appeared to be on the Beverly Hillbillys show either.
I doubt that the brothers would open themselves up to the expensive litigation of a breach of contract suit when there is still a lot of money to be made from their "cash cow".
 
Buck Ewer said:
It is interesting... I am saying that they PLAY rednecks on a TV show.
Buddy Ebsen and Max Baer Jr were not as stupid as they appeared to be on the Beverly Hillbillys show either.
I doubt that the brothers would open themselves up to the expensive litigation of a breach of contract suit when there is still a lot of money to be made from their "cash cow".
Click to expand...
:doh
If they chose to say the same thing, it would not be a breach of contract.

It would be A&E exercising their moral clause if they have one.


So again.
They absolutely should, to force A&E's hand.
As I doubt A&E would cancel their cash-cow.
 
Excon said:
:doh
If they chose to say the same thing, it would not be a breach of contract.

It would be A&E exercising their moral clause if they have one.


So again.
They absolutely should, to force A&E's hand.
As I doubt A&E would cancel their cash-cow.
Click to expand...
Again... what you feel they "should" do and what is smart to do are two entirely different things.
They are rich but they are not stupid.
 
Buck Ewer said:
Again... what you feel they "should" do and what is smart to do are two entirely different things.
They are rich but they are not stupid.
Click to expand...
:doh

A&E is not going to cancel their own cash-cow, so the smart move is to force their hand into rehiring Phil, by all saying the same thing.
 
Excon said:
:doh

A&E is not going to cancel their own cash-cow, so the smart move is to force their hand into rehiring Phil, by all saying the same thing.
Click to expand...
Again I don't believe that they are that stupid and I don't believe that the brothers are assholes like Phil is.
If they were they would have already acted like assholes.
They haven't.
Everyone said that The Food Network would never cancel their "cash cow" ...
But Paula Deen is still out of work.
 
Buck Ewer said:
Again I don't believe that they are that stupid and I don't believe that the brothers are assholes like Phil is.
If they were they would have already acted like assholes.
They haven't.
Click to expand...
OyVey.
Believe what ever the camera tells you. D'oh! iLOL


If this suspension is real and not just something designed to bring publicity, all saying the same thing would not be stupid.
It would force A&E's hand. Either suspend/fire all, or un-suspend Phil.
And as it is not likely they would cancel their cash-cow, it would result with their un-suspension of Phil.


Frankly, after all this uproar, it is highly likely they are going to reverse their decision anyways.
Just like Cracker Barrel.
 
I predict that Rodeo Girls will soon eclipse Duck Dynasty as A&Es top show.
DD has run it's course .
Who would rather watch five bearded actors acting goofy in camos and gay bashing when they could be watching pretty girls riding horses in bikinis?
rodeo-girls-key-art-ae.jpg
Sex will always trump religion and glamour will always trump goofiness.
 
Buck Ewer said:
I predict that Rodeo Girls will soon eclipse Duck Dynasty as A&Es top show.
DD has run it's course .
Who would rather watch five bearded actors acting goofy and gay bashing when they could be watching pretty girls riding horses in bikinis?
Click to expand...
As they were not gay bashing, obviously many would.
 
Buck Ewer said:
I predict that Rodeo Girls will soon eclipse Duck Dynasty as A&Es top show.
DD has run it's course .
Who would rather watch five bearded actors acting goofy in camos and gay bashing when they could be watching pretty girls riding horses in bikinis?
View attachment 67158877
Sex will always trump religion and glamour will always trump goofiness.
Click to expand...

Please provide a clip of where they gay bashed on the show.

I am sure you will have no problem finding one on you tube.
 
Dr. Chuckles said:
you realize free speech as a concept exists independently of the first amendment? The former is rather broad and can certainly apply to a case where non-govt groups are trying to censor speech through economic boycott, the later involves the govt
Click to expand...

Sure, but you start running into the area of where one person's right ends and another begins. If someone wanted to put a sign on my yard that said "Bristol Palin for President," am I silencing their free speech by not allowing that? It is my yard after all. The same kind of principle is at play here, while Phil may have the right to say what he wants, A&E has the right not to broadcast it don't they?

Everybody screams about "their freedom" when it's their side. There was something not too long ago about a coffee shop owner having some kind of policy about Obama voters having to pay more. Conservatives at that time were all about "His business, his right." Now that it's happening to someone who says what they want to hear it's all about the concept of "freedom of speech!"
 
rocket88 said:
Sure, but you start running into the area of where one person's right ends and another begins.
what?

If someone wanted to put a sign on my yard that said "Bristol Palin for President," am I silencing their free speech by not allowing that?
Click to expand...

what does that have to do with the discussion? No one's right's are impeded in anyway by the statements someone gives in a magazine interview, and as a hypothetical it couldn't have less bearing on the point of discussion

It is my yard after all.
Click to expand...

Yeah, no ****. But what does that have to do with anything here?

The same kind of principle is at play here, while Phil may have the right to say what he wants, A&E has the right not to broadcast it don't they?
Click to expand...

No one denied they did, but you are intentionally ignoring that A&E's actions were in response to a threatened commercial boycott

Everybody screams about "their freedom" when it's their side.
Click to expand...

Oh please, stfu with your usual moronic partisan bitching. I don't care what conservatives did in some totally vague and unrelated incident.

Conservatives at that time were all about "His business, his right." Now that it's happening to someone who says what they want to hear it's all about the concept of "freedom of speech!"
Click to expand...

I suggest you look up the term "guilt by association". Other than that, I don't need to validate or answer for what other conservatives do or say
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Kobie said:
Wrong again. It's not a free speech issue because a private employer is under no Constitutional mandate to continue said employment if you make comments that reflect poorly on the company.



Why did it "have to happen"? Curious as to your rationale for that statement.
Click to expand...

Because he was not on A&E time when giving the interview. It would be the same if a company decided to fire you for drinking if they were in fact against drinking while away from your job.
 
Korimyr the Rat said:
You have your right to your own opinion, no matter how ****ing stupid it is, and to speak that opinion in public.

You don't have the right to a job, and if you publicly embarrass your employer, they are well within their rights to fire you.
Click to expand...

so lets say your company catches you drinking it public, it is against their wishes, think they should fire you?
 
TheNextEra said:
So you should be able to call your boss and asshole and not be fired right? I mean you wouldn't want to be against free speech.
Click to expand...

I have called my boss an asshole many times, are we talking about DD or being ballless, I am confused now
 
notquiteright said:
Except he has not been re-instated, the TV shows all ready in the can (fourth season) will air but the head quacker is still suspended from further filming (fifth season).

Should make the CONs who thought A&E was practicing poor business sense- the shows already bought and paid for will air.
Click to expand...

You haven't been paying attention, it was on the news a few days ago, it is almost like it never happened. I imagine they received a letter from a law firm, and they would have lost in court. Employers do not control your beliefs especially when it comes to religion, they would have lost miserably
 
Rocketman said:
Because he was not on A&E time when giving the interview. It would be the same if a company decided to fire you for drinking if they were in fact against drinking while away from your job.
Click to expand...

That doesn't matter; his comments are still in the public eye. He doesn't stop being an A&E employee when he steps off the set.
 
Dr. Chuckles said:
what?



what does that have to do with the discussion? No one's right's are impeded in anyway by the statements someone gives in a magazine interview, and as a hypothetical it couldn't have less bearing on the point of discussion



Yeah, no ****. But what does that have to do with anything here?



No one denied they did, but you are intentionally ignoring that A&E's actions were in response to a threatened commercial boycott



Oh please, stfu with your usual moronic partisan bitching. I don't care what conservatives did in some totally vague and unrelated incident.



I suggest you look up the term "guilt by association". Other than that, I don't need to validate or answer for what other conservatives do or say
Click to expand...

So you don't care about hypothetical, don't want to talk about A&E's rights, and suddenly are all about no "guilt by association." Because it leads to an inconvenient place for you politically.

A&E is not bound by any law to put Phil Robertson on TV. End of story. They don't have to do that, and are well within their rights to say no.
 
Kobie said:
That doesn't matter; his comments are still in the public eye. He doesn't stop being an A&E employee when he steps off the set.
Click to expand...

A courtroom says he does, unless that contract shows compensation for 24 hours/365 days per year.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom