To me it means something different. But yes, legally, that is entirely correct.Originally Posted by Jinx
To me it means something different. But yes, legally, that is entirely correct.
This post brought to you by the power of boobs. Dear lord them boobs. Amen
Just because you choose to interpret it one way does not mean the definition of Freedom of Religion has changed and we must all start being okay with the hateful things that come from religion.
Like Jinx said, Freedom of Religion is not freedom from criticism.
And he is hurting people. He's preaching that homosexuals "invent new evils." Yes, I get it, he read that in a book. Now what I need you to get is that getting that information from a book does not make that information immune to other people saying it's smurfed up.
No it doesn't, but in a polite and advanced society we shouldn't hate someone for being incorrect.
This post brought to you by the power of boobs. Dear lord them boobs. Amen
I think we've been over this in another thread. There's nothing wrong with being incorrect. There's something wrong about being incorrect and being vocal and hateful about your incorrectness and expecting everyone to accept your incorrectness as their way of life.
Do you see anyone saying they hate him? I'm just stating he's incorrect. He's inciting hatred against a minority group, using the Bible to justify it, and I think I have at least a right, if not an obligation, to state that what he's doing is wrong.
I'm sorry if I'm misunderstanding. I felt from the posts in this thread that some people hate the guy simply for being religious.
This post brought to you by the power of boobs. Dear lord them boobs. Amen
Only assholes hate people for "simply" being religious. If anyone hates him, it's for using his religion to justify being a bigot.
Well then, I guess conflict resolved.
Have a wonderful day.
This post brought to you by the power of boobs. Dear lord them boobs. Amen
I wonder what his beard smells like.
Well, he's been quoted as saying "I take regular baths, every Saturday" so if that's any inclination...
I think it's a bit silly for A&E to suspend an elderly, hick redneck that they hired to be an elderly, hick redneck for... being an elderly, hick redneck. That doesn't remotely justify any of Robertson's bigotry and his disturbing lack of empathy for black people in the pre-Civil Rights era, but I'm just not sure why this became such a big deal to begin with.
Of course, none of that remotely justifies that manufactured outrage of the religious right over "discrimination!" and "free speech!" and other such buzzwords. A&E has the right to refuse to give Robertson a platform under the exact same free speech principles that give Roberston the right to spout off in the first place. The First Amendment does not protect you from social consequences that others voluntarily inflict on you in response to your speech. You have the right to say what you want, and everyone else has the right to react to it in the legal manner of their choosing.
To sum up my opinion: everyone is being stupid. That seems to be the case in many controversies manufactured by the media.
Instead of going into more detail, I'll just bug all of you to read Popehat's take, which, as usual, is among the best and most reasoned responses on the internet. I especially want to highlight two parts:
2. The phrase "the spirit of the First Amendment" often signals approaching nonsense. So, regrettably, does the phrase "free speech" when uncoupled from constitutional free speech principles. These terms often smuggle unprincipled and internally inconsistent concepts — like the doctrine of the Preferred+ First Speaker. The doctrine of the Preferred First Speaker holds that when Person A speaks, listeners B, C, and D should refrain from their full range of constitutionally protected expression to preserve the ability of Person A to speak without fear of non-governmental consequences that Person A doesn't like. The doctrine of the Preferred First Speaker applies different levels of scrutiny and judgment to the first person who speaks and the second person who reacts to them; it asks "why was it necessary for you to say that" or "what was your motive in saying that" or "did you consider how that would impact someone" to the second person and not the first. It's ultimately incoherent as a theory of freedom of expression.
[...]
Discussions about corporate decisions in the wake of controversy are dominated by (1) people who normally excoriate corporate decision-making but suddenly applaud it when the outcome suits their political beliefs, and (2) people who normally celebrate the market and promote the privilege of corporate decision-making but suddenly find it unpalatable when it produces a result that offends their politics. Some of the people applauding A&E are people who last week were furious at the concept that companies have First Amendment rights. Some of the people trying to conflate A&E and the government are people who last week were vigorously arguing that companies should not have to insure birth control if it offends their religious sensibilities.
Last edited by Raistlin; 12-22-2013 at 07:55 PM.
He has a bachelor's in Physical Education and a masters in Education. I wouldn't really say he's uneducated.I think it's a bit silly for A&E to suspend an uneducated, hick redneck that they hired to be an uneducated, hick redneck for... being an uneducated, hick redneck.
Also his contract apparently included a moral clause which told Robertson to shut up about LGBT issues.
Oh fair, enough, I must correct myself. I actually have no idea about him personally and only know of him through what I've heard of Duck Dynasty. Though I'm not sure that impacts whether A&E really anticipated that he held any contrary view about homosexuality.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
