Quite near Duck Dynasty on my "give a crap" scale is the gay rights lobby/movement/jihad. I generally tend to believe that what we do with our privates is, um, private, and I do not like the idea of people not being able to do things that others can simply because of what they do with their privates. I have no affinity for the actual mechanics of what gay people do with their privates, but that is neither here nor there.
That these two trends/interest areas have come in conflict lately has been somewhat amusing, with the right taking to their ideological ramparts to defend "free speech" and the left taking to theirs to decry "gay bashing". I write this today only because several readers have asked me my views on the subject, and I thought it would be a way to kill a little time.
Let's face it folks, the system worked. A private citizen employed by a non-governmental, capitalist corporate entity, expressed his personal opinions, influenced though they were by his religious beliefs. Presumably employed at will, the corporation made a decision to disassociate itself from him. No one's free speech was abridged. Mr. Duck Dynasty said what he wished, and the corporation did what it wished. Everyone wins.
Did A & E make a good decision? I really don't know. What I do know is that they made a business decision, and time will tell whether it was a good one or not. Did Mr. Duck make a good decision? I don't know. What I do know is that he expressed a personal opinion that his employer--one beholden to an audience--believed was anathema to its corporate goals. Should Mr. Duck's contract have been abridged in an actionable way by the employer, I would support his filing suit. But I suspect his contract was at will, or at the very least, contained language which appropriately empowered his employer to terminate him.
The Freedom of Speech we enjoy under the first amendment applies to the CONGRESS specifically and government generally, and their inability to make laws abridging the same. A &E is not the government.
I think you're missing the point CW. This is not a Constitutional issue. Phil Robertson has a right to say whatever the hell he likes and I suppose A&E has a right to fire him if he does. No this is a little deeper than that.
ReplyDeleteThis is about power, and who has it. The gay rights lobby is the most aggressive, most intransigent, most outrageously authoritarian and dogmatic in their views and behavior that I can only compare them to Bolsheviks, Nazis and Mullahs. They don't like Christians and will only tolerate them if they keep their mouths shut. The gay lobby is trying to make an example of Phil Robertson. You don't really think the timing (just before Christmas) of this controversy is a coincidence do you? The interview was in GQ magazine for Pete's sake.
And it's also about fairness. Phil Robertson didn't rant about fags or queers and how we should persecute them. No, he expressed his deeply held religious convictions against homosexuality as anybody who has seen the show would expect. But in the world of the New York-Los Angeles entertainment complex his views are unacceptable. Oh they don't mind putting lowlifes and rednecks on the tube to be laughed at (and to make a few bucks), but they need to keep their opinions to themselves.
Well this go round the elites may have bitten off more than they can chew. The Robertsons might be rednecks but they ain't stupid. These guys aren't those pack of scum Jersey Shore bunch or the Botoxed Housewives of Beverly Hills. These guys are smart and they're real. And they have great old fashioned values (independence, self sufficiency, generosity) and that obviously strikes a cord with many Americans. It reminds them of what we once were...and could be again.
American do not want homosexuals discriminated against but they also have spoken loud and clear on issues like gay marriage (which is being instituted by a corrupt judiciary). But with the gay lobby you either agree 100% with their views or you are a bigot to be ruined/marginalized if possible. Phil stood up for our views now we need to stand up for him. And if A&E wants to fire Phil Robertson then go ahead, but if they do they will pay a price.
No pun intended but Hammer nailed it.
ReplyDeleteAnd I think you're missing the point; at least my point. Well, not really, because your summary paragraph encapsulates it completely: "American do not want homosexuals discriminated against but they also have spoken loud and clear on issues like gay marriage (which is being instituted by a corrupt judiciary). But with the gay lobby you either agree 100% with their views or you are a bigot to be ruined/marginalized if possible. Phil stood up for our views now we need to stand up for him. And if A&E wants to fire Phil Robertson then go ahead, but if they do they will pay a price."
ReplyDeleteLet them pay the price! Let the "free market" punish them, and punish them with the same vengeance that the gay rights lobby pursues its agenda. I suspect you are right about the degree to which this has struck a cord with Americans, as it still seems to dominate my Twitter feed. Let them have at A and E, and those who influenced them.
My point was to address the "free speech" nature of this issue, and your stating that it "...is not a Constitutional issue..." in no way impacts the degree to which people who share your view were wielding the "free speech" and "free practice of religion" phrases.
So if an employee of Duck Commander went before the media and indicated that he preferred a man's anus to good ol' fashioned vagina, and he was fired for it, everything would be OK, right? Right?
ReplyDeleteWere he an "at will" employee, then yes, no problem.
ReplyDeleteTubby - you may have hit on a good idea for their next episode. The facial reactions of the Robertsons when one of their employees reveals such a twist would be priceless.
ReplyDeleteOn Greta last evening they had a couple of Hollywood types chiming in and one made the point that A&E president (some chick) worked with a lot of gays and how could they be expected to do their jobs under these circumstances. I've got the answer sweet-britches...because it's their friggin' jobs, jobs they are paid to do!!
ReplyDeleteThis is just the other side of the bigotry coin. The what's mine is mine and what's your's is negotiable.
Can you imagine some guy in private industry or the military saying he (or she) couldn't handle gays therefore sanction them? Everybody would go ballistic. The left is all about the "one size fits all", except when their side is offended. Like the man said "Evil preaches tolerance until dominant, then seeks to silence good".