Duck Dynasty Star Booted

[ILG]

I hope A&E gets a ton of backlash, the Robertson's stick together, and for once, the media doesn't win.

[KeptByTheWord]

Originally Posted by ILG

I hope A&E gets a ton of backlash, the Robertson's stick together, and for once, the media doesn't win.

[n david]

I was discussing with my wife whether or not this was a ploy to boost ratings which backfired on A&E.

The show is going to begin its 5th season next month. Filming is already complete, so Phil won't lose much, if any, time on the show. The GQ magazine article is the January edition. Most shows begin to lose interest in the 4th or 5th year, especially reality shows. A&E was aware of the GQ interview and had to approve it, since it was about the show.

In order to keep the high ratings, A&E may have decided to stir the pot before the 5th season premieres. By setting up an interview with Phil and GQ, they knew something would be asked regarding Phil's views, and they likely knew the answer would be "controversial."

A&E thought they would have a win/win situation, where they could stand up for GLAAD and at the same time generate interest in what would happen in the new season starting in a month.

Except A&E wasn't prepared for the backlash. They probably thought people would agree with their decision. They read the polls and thought that they were true -- that a majority of Americans were accepting of LGBTs.

What happens now doesn't matter. I believe A&E was ready to drop the show after this season. End on a high note. They just wanted to boost ratings for this season, and that's exactly what will happen.

[SiblingRevelry]

You know, it's interesting how everyone latched on to the homosexuality, but nobody has said a word, a PEEP about something else Phil Robertson mentioned in the same interview. And that would be his casual approval of Jim Crow-era racism.

And I quote:

“I never, with my eyes, saw the mistreatment of any black person. Not once. Where we lived was all farmers. The blacks worked for the farmers. I hoed cotton with them. I'm with the blacks, because we're white trash. We're going across the field.... They're singing and happy. I never heard one of them, one black person, say, ‘I tell you what: These doggone white people’—not a word!... Pre-entitlement, pre-welfare, you say: Were they happy? They were godly; they were happy; no one was singing the blues.”

http://www.gq.com/blogs/the-feed/2013/12/the-gospel-according-to-phil.html#ixzz2o2FDWWhl

At best, that statement is ignorant and tone-deaf. At *best.* It ignores the reality of black life pre-Jim Crow--of course no African-American was going to cross a white person, do you know what would happen? I have to wonder if people would be nearly as up in arms about this casual racism as they are about the anti-gay remarks. (Personally, I expected the latter and am dismayed by the former.) And, seriously, where does Phil Robertson think the Blues came from, anyway?

And, as far as I'm concerned, it's an employer-employee issue governed by a contract none of us happen to be privy to (although I have been told the contract likely had a non-disparagement clause where Robertson was required to not do things that might bring the "Duck Dynasty" brand into disrepute). I CAN tell you what would happen at MY job if I were to say the same things Phil Robertson did. I would be in for so much HR counseling it would be coming out of my ears--if I wasn't canned immediately because I live in an at-will employment state.

Finally, it's been stated already but I'm going to say it again: this is not a free speech or First Amendment issue. The First Amendment only applies to government, not to business or private life. Sarah Palin and Bobby Jindal may have been or currently are governors, but they don't understand this fundamental Constitutional jurisprudence that the First Amendment doesn't apply to business. A&E can do what it wants...what can happen afterwards is people can boycott their show and their advertisers, but this is not, I repeat, NOT a government action.

[ILG]

Originally Posted by n david

I was discussing with my wife whether or not this was a ploy to boost ratings which backfired on A&E.

The show is going to begin its 5th season next month. Filming is already complete, so Phil won't lose much, if any, time on the show. The GQ magazine article is the January edition. Most shows begin to lose interest in the 4th or 5th year, especially reality shows. A&E was aware of the GQ interview and had to approve it, since it was about the show.

In order to keep the high ratings, A&E may have decided to stir the pot before the 5th season premieres. By setting up an interview with Phil and GQ, they knew something would be asked regarding Phil's views, and they likely knew the answer would be "controversial."

A&E thought they would have a win/win situation, where they could stand up for GLAAD and at the same time generate interest in what would happen in the new season starting in a month.

Except A&E wasn't prepared for the backlash. They probably thought people would agree with their decision. They read the polls and thought that they were true -- that a majority of Americans were accepting of LGBTs.

What happens now doesn't matter. I believe A&E was ready to drop the show after this season. End on a high note. They just wanted to boost ratings for this season, and that's exactly what will happen.

Could be.

[ILG]

Originally Posted by SiblingRevelry

You know, it's interesting how everyone latched on to the homosexuality, but nobody has said a word, a PEEP about something else Phil Robertson mentioned in the same interview. And that would be his casual approval of Jim Crow-era racism.

And I quote:



http://www.gq.com/blogs/the-feed/2013/12/the-gospel-according-to-phil.html#ixzz2o2FDWWhl

At best, that statement is ignorant and tone-deaf. At *best.* It ignores the reality of black life pre-Jim Crow--of course no African-American was going to cross a white person, do you know what would happen? I have to wonder if people would be nearly as up in arms about this casual racism as they are about the anti-gay remarks. (Personally, I expected the latter and am dismayed by the former.) And, seriously, where does Phil Robertson think the Blues came from, anyway?

And, as far as I'm concerned, it's an employer-employee issue governed by a contract none of us happen to be privy to (although I have been told the contract likely had a non-disparagement clause where Robertson was required to not do things that might bring the "Duck Dynasty" brand into disrepute). I CAN tell you what would happen at MY job if I were to say the same things Phil Robertson did. I would be in for so much HR counseling it would be coming out of my ears--if I wasn't canned immediately because I live in an at-will employment state.

Finally, it's been stated already but I'm going to say it again: this is not a free speech or First Amendment issue. The First Amendment only applies to government, not to business or private life. Sarah Palin and Bobby Jindal may have been or currently are governors, but they don't understand this fundamental Constitutional jurisprudence that the First Amendment doesn't apply to business. A&E can do what it wants...what can happen afterwards is people can boycott their show and their advertisers, but this is not, I repeat, NOT a government action.

I thought it was illegal to fire someone for their personal views. Unless it is in his contract.

[n david]

Originally Posted by SiblingRevelry

Finally, it's been stated already but I'm going to say it again: this is not a free speech or First Amendment issue. The First Amendment only applies to government, not to business or private life. Sarah Palin and Bobby Jindal may have been or currently are governors, but they don't understand this fundamental Constitutional jurisprudence that the First Amendment doesn't apply to business. A&E can do what it wants...what can happen afterwards is people can boycott their show and their advertisers, but this is not, I repeat, NOT a government action.

Correct. While the Bill of Rights was originally written for the government, the 14th amendment expanded it to state and local governments, and the SCOTUS has broadly included the first amendment in it's decisions regarding business and private life.

That aside, while some believe it's not a free speech issue, they cannot argue against it being a violation of the Civil Rights Act, which safeguards against religious discrimination. Suspending or firing someone because of their personal opinion is discrimination, plain and simple.

[SiblingRevelry]

Originally Posted by n david

That aside, while some believe it's not a free speech issue, they cannot argue against it being a violation of the Civil Rights Act, which safeguards against religious discrimination. Suspending or firing someone because of their personal opinion is discrimination, plain and simple.

Again, it would depend on what the Robertsons' contract says. If my friend is correct and there's a non-disparagement clause, then A&E may be able to put Phil Robertson on hiatus. It's possible that Robertson could overcome that with a showing of animus towards religion (which is a protected class, like race, sex and pregnancy).

However, I've seen those cases and it's got to be REALLY REALLY SUPER-EVIDENT that there was discrimination on the basis of religion. We're not talking a one-off thing, we're talking "you will lose your job if you (for example) don't practice Scientology" and it happens over and over. I'm using that as an example because there was an article about it just yesterday where a Florida chiropractor settled with the EEOC because he was forcing his employees to study Scientology.

http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/12/1...fice-must.html

I'd also note that a lot of discrimination is perfectly legal. In an at-will employment state (which I believe Louisiana is), an employer can fire you for any reason or no reason at all (outside of the protected classes just mentioned). So if your employer didn't like the fact that you parked in the vice president's covered parking spot at work or put your lunch on top of his in the communal refrigerator in the break room, or just thought your giggle was inappropriate, in an at-will state, he can fire you. No reason required. I suspect that Phil Robertson's contract gives him far more protection than the average at-will employee.

And, as someone mentioned, it might just be a way of drumming up ratings. Who knows? These people are devious in the ways of seeking publicity.

[n david]

A&E had a minder at the Robertson home during the interview...they knew all along what was said well before this blew up.

A network publicist was on site when GQ sent Deadspin writer Drew Magary to the Robertsons’ Louisiana home to hang out for a day.

So why did the minder sit there and let Phil say what he said? Most publicists would have stepped in and shut the interview down if they felt it was going south. Why didn't this one stop the interview or ask that the question be disregarded?

Source Link

[Sweet Pea]

Originally Posted by Tina

Am I the ONLY person who has never watched an episode of Duck Dynasty? I'm just frustrated because dozens of folks on my facebook newsfeed have Photos of this guy in the place of their regular photos and now I can't just look at the photo to know who said what.. I have to read the names on every post. LOL

Nope ... I've never seen it either.