• 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

Select what represents your view?

  • I don't agree with Phil's comments and he had no right saying it.

    Votes: 4 3.8%

  • I don't agree with Phil's comment's but defend his right to say it.

    Votes: 41 39.4%

  • I agree with Phil's comments and defend his right to say it.

    Votes: 26 25.0%

  • A&E had no right to suspend Phil.

    Votes: 3 2.9%

  • A&E has a right to suspend Phil but I don't agree with it.

    Votes: 44 42.3%

  • A&E has a right to suspend Phil and I agree with it.

    Votes: 26 25.0%

  • It's a question of "freedom of speech" and very important.

    Votes: 13 12.5%

  • Phil's beard is too weird, which makes him a slave to fame.

    Votes: 12 11.5%
  • Total voters
    104
  • Poll closed .
Its truly saddening how so many people here don't actually understand how free speech works.

Social consequences for an unpopular opinion does not impede free speech.
 
tacomancer said:
Its truly saddening how so many people here don't actually understand how free speech works.

Social consequences for an unpopular opinion does not impede free speech.
Click to expand...

I agree. It's also sad how many people flip-flop on whether what happens outside of work should be addressed by employers, mostly based on their political opinion of what the individual did. If you believe A&E was reasonable in their actions (even if they put such in a contract), a Christian employer should be allowed to let someone go for publicly supporting homosexuality.
 
Mathematician said:
I agree. It's also sad how many people flip-flop on whether what happens outside of work should be addressed by employers, mostly based on their political opinion of what the individual did. If you believe A&E was reasonable in their actions (even if they put such in a contract), a Christian employer should be allowed to let someone go for publicly supporting homosexuality.
Click to expand...
That would be a yes. A&E is a secular network and doesn't appreciate its employees using their platform of fame to spread their religious beliefs. Explicitly religious employers would and should have similar expectations.
 
Mathematician said:
I agree. It's also sad how many people flip-flop on whether what happens outside of work should be addressed by employers, mostly based on their political opinion of what the individual did. If you believe A&E was reasonable in their actions (even if they put such in a contract), a Christian employer should be allowed to let someone go for publicly supporting homosexuality.
Click to expand...

I somewhat agree. The specific case here is that duck dynasty and A&E have branding concerns which can effect the bottom line. This, for me, is a legitimate basis for discharge. I would be just as supportive in the hypothetical case of lets say the trinity network firing a commentator who supported gay rights.

If its a factory or some other industry where the concerns affecting the bottom line are different, I would have taken the stance that Phil should have been left alone.

There is a lot of context in this scenario.
 
Legally he has a right to speak his mind and face no legal penalty. If they try to outlaw his speech and put him in prison for it, it will violate the first amendment, but that is not what happened here. A private company placed a man on hiatus for espousing views contrary to the image they want to portray.

The separate issue here is whether or not companies have a right to fire people for their religious or political views. He possibly has a case if he claims he stated his views on the issue from a religious perspective, because I think religious discrimination is banned. It's a fine line to walk. We can't allow ourselves to become a society where employers are allowed to dictate our political and religious beliefs (and I say this as a free market conservative), but Phil was not just a guy working in the mailroom, he was a public figure designed to represent their company. Presumably he has a contract and in that contract it says he cannot represent the company by discriminatory actions or statements.

For the record, I am a conservative although I disagree with most other conservatives on LGBT issues. My own stance on it is that equality before the law means equality before the law. It is that simple. I have my Bible and I believe homosexuality is contrary to it, but it is a church discipline issue, within the realm of the state it is no business of government. I'm guessing Phil and I have different views on the issue, but I wouldn't fire him for this. A and E chose to put an outspoken conservative Christian southern family on TV. Do they expect these people to be wine and cheese liberals? You can't put somebody like that on TV and build an entire TV show around that image but then expect them not to express the views that people like that typically hold.
 
Well, they're still makin' money. A friend bought a DD t-shirt just to troll.
 
a351 said:
That would be a yes. A&E is a secular network and doesn't appreciate its employees using their platform of fame to spread their religious beliefs. Explicitly religious employers would and should have similar expectations.
Click to expand...

I missed this, and I agree with it. I think if an employer makes it very clear that they are religiously oriented employer they should have that right, up to a point. As should secular ones.
 
Mathematician said:
I agree. It's also sad how many people flip-flop on whether what happens outside of work should be addressed by employers, mostly based on their political opinion of what the individual did. If you believe A&E was reasonable in their actions (even if they put such in a contract), a Christian employer should be allowed to let someone go for publicly supporting homosexuality.
Click to expand...

If the employment contract with said Christian allowed for it I would agree.
 
ecofarm said:
Well, they're still makin' money. A friend bought a DD t-shirt just to troll.
Click to expand...

They were making money before the TV show. Not that we all don't want more, I don't think they needed it.

Phil just speaks his mind without a filter, which is honest but a little socially crass and naive.
 
Gaius46 said:
If the employment contract with said Christian allowed for it I would agree.
Click to expand...

I think we need a universal standard. Either any employer should be able to include it in a contract that if you represent views contrary to their values in the public square they can fire you, religious or secular, or we ought to make all speech by employees 100% protected, no matter how controversial it is, as long as it outside the workplace. Pick one.
 
grip said:
Phil just speaks his mind without a filter, which is honest but a little socially crass and naive.
Click to expand...

Happy, happy, happy.
 
a351 said:
That would be a yes. A&E is a secular network and doesn't appreciate its employees using their platform of fame to spread their religious beliefs. Explicitly religious employers would and should have similar expectations.
Click to expand...

Durin said:
I missed this, and I agree with it. I think if an employer makes it very clear that they are religiously oriented employer they should have that right, up to a point. As should secular ones.
Click to expand...

Gaius46 said:
If the employment contract with said Christian allowed for it I would agree.
Click to expand...

So, similarly, Hobby Lobby should be able to include the condition that if you work for them then they aren't going to provide insurance which includes abortion coverage. Business is about mutual agreements. Just make sure you get details well documented. I have no issues with what A&E did, but I expect similar for those with different beliefs. Those who don't like an employer's stance can boycott, as many are currently doing to A&E.
 
Mathematician said:
So, similarly, Hobby Lobby should be able to include the condition that if you work for them then they aren't going to provide insurance which includes abortion coverage. Business is about mutual agreements. Just make sure you get details well documented. I have no issues with what A&E did, but I expect similar for those with different beliefs. Those who don't like an employer's stance can boycott, as many are currently doing to A&E.
Click to expand...
Two entirely difference scenarios though. Non-religious corporations should not be able to use their own personal religious beliefs to limit others healthcare coverage or access to contraceptives. Strictly religious entities meanwhile have received carve outs for that exact purpose.
 
America is far too obsessed with celebrity.

Who really cares and what does it matter?
 
a351 said:
Two entirely difference scenarios though. Non-religious corporations should not be able to use their own personal religious beliefs to limit others healthcare coverage or access to contraceptives. Strictly religious entities meanwhile have received carve outs for that exact purpose.
Click to expand...

Companies are not required to provide health insurance (yet), so what they do provide is considered a benefit, not a right...
 
AlabamaPaul said:
Companies are not required to provide health insurance (yet), so what they do provide is considered a benefit, not a right...
Click to expand...

Good evening V1.1 - in case I don't see you again before next week, I wish you and your family a Merry Christmas and a happy, healthy, and prosperous new year.
 
AlabamaPaul said:
Companies are not required to provide health insurance (yet), so what they do provide is considered a benefit, not a right...
Click to expand...
And? Insurance companies are required to offer contraceptives as part of their coverage. Hobby Lobby wishes to provide healthcare for their employees yet wish to whittle down the contents to suit their personal religious agenda. That's the issue at play here.
 
This has absolutely nothing to do with freedom of speech.

He was free to speak his words.

A and E was free to tell him to duck off.

I do not approve of what he said, but frankly I would rather know who the judgmental narrow-minded folk are rather than have them hidden.
 
Captain America said:
He has EVERY right to speak his mind. Remember the Dixie Chicks? So did they. Where were you guys then? Getting YOUR panties in a wad maybe?

The hypocrisy is evident from all sides of the fence.
Click to expand...
Couple of things.
1) The Dixie Chicks spoke out against an American action on foreign soil
2) Phil Robertson was asked his opinion, so he gave it
3) No one asked the Dixie Chicks to talk politics at the concert, they decided to do that on their own
4) The Dixie Chicks spoke against their core audience, then lost them, and radio stations refused to play them.

In both cases freedom of speech was not violated, in the case of the Dixie Chicks they ruined their own career by pissing off their audience unprovoked. Duck Dynasty may or may not go on(I don't care, I don't watch the show) but the Robertson family is loaded already, Duck Commander is a popular brand.
 
grip said:
I'm not sure he'd say it quite the same way. The Robertson's don't appear unintelligent and there may have been a more diplomatic way to get an opinion across.
Click to expand...
They are business men with their own brand of hunting gear, most notably the Duck Commander calls, I think the uncle is the only one who didn't go to college but did serve in 'Nam. They aren't stupid or uneducated people by any stretch of the imagination.
 
The Daily Mail (so it must be true!) has pictures of the gang pre-fame, and clean-shaven. The last question on the poll is correct!

article-2465571-18CDA38900000578-920_634x437.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom