Nothing you have said challenges the notion that this is a horrible precedent.
This is enervating for multiple reasons. Many of the same people quoting a part of the Constitution that declares that âCongress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religionâ would very much like Congress to do just that, by appealing to the Bible to justify the criminalization of much if not all of the private lives of homosexuals. Furthermore, A&E is a private company, and private companies have enormous latitude in terms of punishing employees for their speech. In fact, due partly to pro-business and anti-union legislation pushed by Republicans, employers can not only intimidate you into voting a particular way and punish you for political speech around fellow employees, you can sometimes even be âcommanded to pee or forbidden to pee.â
Contractual obligations to which said signers must adhere is NOT a horrible precedent, it is the Rule of Law which governs all commerce of which enterainment is one. You are quite the alarmist, arenât you.
Yeah, he sucks. Heâs using the good book as a convenient excuse for his bigotry. Just like every other person who scours it for stuff about gays while ignoring all the other parts that are covered much more extensively.
1 Like
Jeff, you only came here to create an account and defend a bigot, so lemme guess where you stand on issues like thisâŚ
I find the firestorm about this guys commentâs disingenuous. First of all itâs reality show about guys who are clearly rednecks from the South. Any personal statements from the cast regarding race, sexuality, religion and womenâs rights should be expected and not a shock. Itâs really time realized why we have so many angry white males in this country. This is just another example of gasoline being poured onto the unregulated hatred that embraces our country today. The man has a right to his opinion, whether itâs offensive or not. Itâs also our right as minorities, gays and or women not to watch something we already know from experience will be offensive to us. It sure as hell would be nice if all of us could grow-up and realize everyone does not and will not accept you just because laws have been passed to alleviate inequalities. Trust me living in my black body, the last thing I would think of doing would be to visit the land of Duck Dynasty with my family, much less on my own.
One day, gays minorities and women will stop over reacting to slights and garner far more support by being concerned with the real problems that have robbed us of our humanity.
2 Likes
What do you mean âweâ, Kemosabe?
2 Likes
He didnât say it on the show in the heat of the moment. He said it in an interview with GQ.
In case youâre wondering, GQ stands for âGentlemanâs Quarterlyâ. Why they were interviewing a bigot from Duck Dynasty is beyond me.
I am not talking contractual obligations; I am talking the general notion that what one does outside of work has much at all to do with oneâs performance at work and their employability.
Youâre just deliberately obtuse, arenât you, Mr. âRule of Lawâ? (Why the caps?)
Or, to summarize: Christ, what an asshole.
Are you, by any chance, a lawyer?
Ah; I see now the error of my ways: assuming you are a reasonable person. By the way you misrepresent my arguments, you clearly arenât.
Please accept my apologies for assuming you were a reasonable person.
Heâs not some anonymous schlub working at a factory or something. His value to the network is based on his public image. If he does something to publicly tarnish that image, itâs perfectly understandable why the network wouldnât want to pay him for it anymore.
4 Likes
Redneck man is redneck man and gets fired for it?
Seems unreasonable to me.
Donât get me wrong: I donât agree with his sentiment. I am not defending him. I am just strongly in opposition to the notion that it should be remotely legal to fire someone for their conduct outside of their employment, because what happens is that there is all kinds of legal mission creep with all laws everywhere. The fact that this is allowed to happen at all is what allows the anonymous âschlub working at a factoryâ (very noble choice of words, btw, to class a lot of people together) to get fired for toking up off hours. Or moonlighting as an internet pornographer. Or whatever. It happens, in the real world. To real people.
I am of the opinion that it shouldnât. By law. Particularly when it is someone expressing their (1) religious (2) opinion, both things that are protected by the First Amendment.
Now granted, we are all adults and should know that the Constitution protects us from the government, not from private entities. But it is highly alarming to me that people would defend the firing of someone for expressing a bigoted opinion on their own time in a public forum. Of course, there are tons of concern trollies here on BoingBoing, so though it is alarming, perhaps it shouldnât be surprising.
1 Like
A) No one is surprised.
B) No one is denying him of his opinions.
C) This story is about the admirable actions of a commercial entity turning its back on a bigoted employee.
D) We are free to criticise him as he is free to criticise us.
Would it be better if we just ignored anything regarding inequality? Whatâs your suggestion?
6 Likes
Iâm presuming he wasnât hired because the network really wanted to showcase some bigotry.
I love how people are defending him by saying heâs a redneck and we shouldnât expect any better.
Why the hell not?
6 Likes
Oh, my mistake. I didnât realize that he expressed these views on A&E.
/sarcasm
What most people do outside of work has no bearing on their value as an employee. If you work at a factory, you donât become less effective at operating machinery based on what kinds of things you say outside of work. If you work as a file clerk, itâs none of your employerâs business whether youâre a fixture in the local S&M scene. But if you work as a TV personality, your value is inexorably tied to your public image. THAT is the difference here.
3 Likes
You realize that he only got that show in the first place because of things that he did when he wasnât actually appearing on A&E, right? They paid him for the image he cultivated around himself. That image became tainted and they didnât want to pay him for it anymore. Itâs not really that complicated.
2 Likes
Thatâs what I was hoping you would say. 
So what youâre saying is that his value dropped because he said something that isnât nice. Well, certainly bigots wouldnât think his value droppedâtheyâd say it went up. And some people just donât care. But you, and the people here who are lauding A&E, those are the people who think his value went down.
So in effect, you are arguing that people who have nasty opinions should be restricted to certain types of employment?
How very unBIGoted of you.
How is he restricted?Is he banned from TV now?
Should A&E have no choice over who they employ?
3 Likes
So does he pay his employees daily, as per Leviticus 19:13? [Quoted from the King James version on gutenberg.org.]
19:13 Thou shalt not defraud thy neighbour, neither rob him: the wages of him that is hired shall not abide with thee all night until the morning.
And does he drain all the animals he hunts of their blood and cover the blood with dust?
17:12 Therefore I said unto the children of Israel, No soul of you shall eat blood, neither shall any stranger that sojourneth among you eat blood.
17:13 And whatsoever man there be of the children of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among you, which hunteth and catcheth any beast or fowl that may be eaten; he shall even pour out the blood thereof, and cover it with dust.
17:14 For it is the life of all flesh; the blood of it is for the life thereof: therefore I said unto the children of Israel, Ye shall eat the blood of no manner of flesh: for the life of all flesh is the blood thereof: whosoever eateth it shall be cut off.
After all, if heâs following Leviticus shouldnât he follow ALL of Leviticus?
4 Likes
