idiots

Scott Depot, WV

#25 Dec 27, 2013
http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/religion.cfm

Here I even looked it up so you can edumicate yourself before you go spreading misinformation, cough cough Zaphod, cough cough.
idiots

Scott Depot, WV

#26 Dec 27, 2013
Religious discrimination involves treating a person (an applicant or employee) unfavorably because of his or her religious beliefs. The law protects not only people who belong to traditional, organized religions, such as Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, and Judaism, but also others who have sincerely held religious, ethical or MORAL beliefs.

The law forbids discrimination when it comes to any aspect of employment, including hiring, FIRING, pay, job assignments, promotions, layoff, training, fringe benefits, and any other term or condition of employment.

For those to lazy to click...
098

Huntington, WV

#27 Dec 27, 2013
Phil will be back for the next season of duck dynasty. The American people is finally starting to stand up for themselves, and letting the whiny ass, PC, liberal nazis, that they don't have to right to tell us we have to approve of or agree with the things we see as wrong.
4 posts removed
that greek guy

Stafford, VA

#32 Dec 28, 2013
idiots wrote:
The first amendment does protect you from being fired. According to the first posters logic, it would be ok to fire a gay for expressing his belief in gay rights, as long as the gay isn't imprisoned... ignorance of the law at its finest. Or to fire a black for expressing his belief in equal right's for blacks. It's the same as firing someone being black, gay, or christian...
Goodness, you are misinformed. There are other laws that protect you from being fired in some situations, but the 1st amendment doesn't do anything for you in private employment. There are some states protecting gay rights now, but they are not a protected class in any federal law. In Phil's case you are talking pure contract law. There are no "rights" about it except as to the four corners of his contract. Sorry to disappoint you.
2 posts removed
jw

Huntington, WV

#35 Dec 28, 2013
Meanwhile.. Gay Marriage was legalized in New Mexico and Utah! Bloop!

Furthermore, an old nasty man is going to hell for not keeping his beard groomed. There's a scripture that condemns men with unkept hair! Yet another example of white trash picking only a few things out of the bible to live by. Hypocrites who live in a bubble and have no concept of reality! The rest of the country and the world are moving forward and could give a shit less about a group of ugly men who paid for their wives.(another sin)
well

Madison, WV

#36 Dec 28, 2013
_-zaphod-_ wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong.
Don't be so lazy. How is he wrong? I think he may have a bit of a point, and I'll admit I overlooked it initially myself.

If the company hiring him to do the show included in his contract a clause saying that he cannot make comments like he did in public media, then that would govern how the hiring party would, and could, react. If not, then the company unilaterally punished him for stating his religious beliefs.

I assume you're an atheist. Hypothetically, if you made some public statement saying "God is a fairy tale" or something similar, would your employer be right in firing or suspending you for it? Fear of this kind of reprisal shouldn't govern how people think religiously in America.
Lobo

Sutton, WV

#37 Dec 28, 2013
He's back now. Looks like A&E caved. Good for Phil !
2 posts removed
well

Madison, WV

#40 Dec 28, 2013
_-zaphod-_ wrote:
<quoted text>
How is he wrong? The first amendment doesn't protect anyone from getting fired. It deals with the government, not private businesses.
It also doesn't protect the business from getting a civil suit for trying to fire someone like that. The guy could probably even bring suit for damages now, even though he was reinstated. GLAAD would advocate the same thing if the shoe was on the other foot.
2 posts removed
well

Charleston, WV

#43 Dec 29, 2013
_-zaphod-_ wrote:
<quoted text>
Depends on his contract. There's probably a morals clause that protects the company. From what I've read it's pretty standard to put that in to be able to can people for doing or saying something stupid.
And for this particular situation, I would love to see how that would protect them in suit.
that greek guy

United States

#44 Dec 29, 2013
well wrote:
<quoted text>And for this particular situation, I would love to see how that would protect them in suit.
It'd protect them just fine.
THE LAST WARRIOR POET

Elkins, WV

#45 Dec 29, 2013
jw wrote:
Meanwhile.. Gay Marriage was legalized in New Mexico and Utah! Bloop!
Furthermore, an old nasty man is going to hell for not keeping his beard groomed. There's a scripture that condemns men with unkept hair! Yet another example of white trash picking only a few things out of the bible to live by. Hypocrites who live in a bubble and have no concept of reality! The rest of the country and the world are moving forward and could give a shit less about a group of ugly men who paid for their wives.(another sin)
. Have you been an idiot all your life? It's people like you that give people like me a bad attitude! The best part of you ran down your Mommas leg...just saying.
1 post removed
well

Charleston, WV

#47 Dec 29, 2013
Just because they didn't sue doesn't mean they couldn't/can't sue. I haven't seen the contract so it's purely speculative as to whether it would protect A&E. The reason I would be interested in how the suit would play out would be how a "morality clause", assuming one is there, would help them when the basis of alleged immorality in his comments is very subjective.
nunya

Philadelphia, PA

#48 Dec 29, 2013
well wrote:
Just because they didn't sue doesn't mean they couldn't/can't sue. I haven't seen the contract so it's purely speculative as to whether it would protect A&E. The reason I would be interested in how the suit would play out would be how a "morality clause", assuming one is there, would help them when the basis of alleged immorality in his comments is very subjective.
Would it help to wrap your brain around the concept if we called it a "don't act like a jackass and embarrass the network" clause?

Saying someone can or can't sue for something displays a level of ignorance or lack of experience with litigation. Anyone can sue for anything they wish; it doesn't mean they have a valid cause of action.
well

Charleston, WV

#49 Dec 30, 2013
nunya wrote:
<quoted text>
Would it help to wrap your brain around the concept if we called it a "don't act like a jackass and embarrass the network" clause?
Saying someone can or can't sue for something displays a level of ignorance or lack of experience with litigation. Anyone can sue for anything they wish; it doesn't mean they have a valid cause of action.
So that is how you approach someone in your first post? Aren't you a classy guy.

The network knew the whole family were Christians and very religious at the onset of the show. I've seen very little of the show and it's pretty evident. The fact that one of them would get interviewed and say something like that should be no shocker to A&E. And "don't embarrass the network" is, again, very subjective. It obviously didn't embarrass enough people, and in fact did the exact opposite and endeared many people to the family. Again, I'd love to see what the contract says about it.

As far your litigation comments, I'm not sure where you're going with that since it seems like you rephrased what I just said. People with no case sue all the time, and there are people with a winnable case you never see in the court. For all we know a suit was threatened already.
nunya

Nashville, TN

#50 Dec 30, 2013
well wrote:
<quoted text>
So that is how you approach someone in your first post? Aren't you a classy guy.
The network knew the whole family were Christians and very religious at the onset of the show. I've seen very little of the show and it's pretty evident. The fact that one of them would get interviewed and say something like that should be no shocker to A&E. And "don't embarrass the network" is, again, very subjective. It obviously didn't embarrass enough people, and in fact did the exact opposite and endeared many people to the family. Again, I'd love to see what the contract says about it.
As far your litigation comments, I'm not sure where you're going with that since it seems like you rephrased what I just said. People with no case sue all the time, and there are people with a winnable case you never see in the court. For all we know a suit was threatened already.
1. Not a guy.
2. Not my first post. I was posting under "that greek guy" as a joke on another topic and didn't really care to change it.
3. When being interviewed by a high profile magazine, do all "very religious" people go into graphic detail about the preference of anuses to vaginas, and how the slaves really didn't have it that bad ? Or is it just mouth breathing cave dwelling very religious people who can't figure out how to shave? Or are you like most of the simpletons out there and didn't read the actual source article, so you think he just said "I don't agree with gay people" and caused all liberals to foam at the mouth?
4. You said "Just because they didn't sue doesn't mean they couldn't/can't sue." That's obvious. Anyone can sue for anything. What I said was in no way a paraphrase of what you said, since the sentence I quoted above and all of your other musings about them suing indicates that you think "suing" and "winning," or even "not being laughed out of court," are the same thing. If you know better and intended otherwise, you should say what you mean in the future.
Zzz

Proctorville, OH

#51 Dec 30, 2013
nunya wrote:
<quoted text>
....and how the slaves really didn't have it that bad ?...
I've seen similar statements in debates about his comments, but in the article he never referred to slaves. He spoke about growing up as poor 'white trash' and working in the fields alongside black people. His comments were about his interpretations of the attitudes he saw while doing so. Slavery wasn't discussed.
nunya

Nashville, TN

#52 Dec 30, 2013
Zzz wrote:
<quoted text>I've seen similar statements in debates about his comments, but in the article he never referred to slaves. He spoke about growing up as poor 'white trash' and working in the fields alongside black people. His comments were about his interpretations of the attitudes he saw while doing so. Slavery wasn't discussed.
Ok. I'll take another look at it. I think it said "pre-civil rights" so I just thought of slaves but you're right, they were probably "just black."
1 post removed
well

Danville, WV

#54 Dec 31, 2013
nunya wrote:
<quoted text>
1. Not a guy.
2. Not my first post. I was posting under "that greek guy" as a joke on another topic and didn't really care to change it.
3. When being interviewed by a high profile magazine, do all "very religious" people go into graphic detail about the preference of anuses to vaginas, and how the slaves really didn't have it that bad ? Or is it just mouth breathing cave dwelling very religious people who can't figure out how to shave? Or are you like most of the simpletons out there and didn't read the actual source article, so you think he just said "I don't agree with gay people" and caused all liberals to foam at the mouth?
4. You said "Just because they didn't sue doesn't mean they couldn't/can't sue." That's obvious. Anyone can sue for anything. What I said was in no way a paraphrase of what you said, since the sentence I quoted above and all of your other musings about them suing indicates that you think "suing" and "winning," or even "not being laughed out of court," are the same thing. If you know better and intended otherwise, you should say what you mean in the future.
It's pretty obvious you're unable to talk about this without making it personal. That's a shame. It's also a shame that you accused me of not even reading the man's statements like a "simpleton" and then were corrected on your own understanding of his statements a few posts later. There's no need to be so confrontational.
I didn't say they could win in court, nor did I say they would lose. It's quite possible they could lose. The network president at A&E is gay, and the Robertsons are obviously against that, meaning that one would think there would be some line in the contract about statements against homosexuality. Then again, as ironic as it is, the show is this network's cash cow, so maybe the contract doesn't say that in an effort to appease the Robertsons. It's because of A&E's willingness to not stick to their guns in lieu of profits that I am curious about what it actually says, because without something in that contract stating he can't say these things the man has a decent case. A&E cannot unilaterally decide what this man can or cannot say no more than any other employer. WV is an at-will employment state, but you or I would have a similar case if directly fired or disciplined as punishment for using protected speech.
idiots

San Jose, CA

#55 Dec 31, 2013
_-zaphod-_ wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong.
Right. First amendment w as used as legal basis for eocc laws that regulate PRIVATE business.
idiots

San Jose, CA

#56 Dec 31, 2013
_-zaphod-_ wrote:
<quoted text>
This has nothing to do with the first amendment. He wasn't suspended for being a Christian. He was suspended for making moronic comments and A&E has the right to protect their brand.
Did you even read the law or what I said? I never said he was fired for being a Christian, I even bolded the word ethical, and moral beliefs. He was suspended for stating his moral and ethical beliefs.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Huntington Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Justice for the drug dealer Freddie Gray 40 min MarkJ- 36
I was at champs tough guy 50 min -zapphod- 4
Special Metals INCO layoffs 56 min laid off 52
lets play one word (Aug '11) 56 min texas pete 2,293
Courtney Easthom from Waffle House rt60 (Dec '13) 1 hr Josh 21
riots 1 hr MarkJ- 7
The 2016 Presidential Runners What a JOKE 1 hr Go Blue Forever 197
Another News Hottie Jumps Ship At WSAZ (Aug '13) 19 hr ? 45
More from around the web

Huntington People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]