Duck Dynasty

[dcontroversal]

seriously? What is known is that you are surely not a Constitutional Scholar...........the 1st Amendment, freedom of speech certainly applies in that Phil Robertson has the Constitutional right to express his personal views/beliefs.

The SCOTUS has always held that the 1st Amendment applies to the Private Sector as well as the Public Square. Case law is full of such rulings....considering pornography, art, literature, billboards, etc...No one is arguing that he has a Constitutional right to be on a TV Program, but that he has a Constitutional right to publicly state his beliefs. That is FULLY protected under the 1st Amendment.

Now, that isn't the "focal point" of the whole mess, the focal point is the Word of God. Robertson quoted/paraphrased Scripture from the Bible, and was demonized as a "bigot," a "racist," and other demeaning things for publicly speaking the Word of God. All that can be determined from these attacks is that The Word of God has been deemed "hate speech."

Is that, "Thus saith the Lord" hahah just teasing

 

[p_rehbein]

Yeah it does. Mystdancer50 said:



He was referring to the Civil Rights era, before and after, and I demonstrated that by showing that in terms of time/place, he was certainly alive then and there and these are the times he was talking about.

Does it prove anything else? Of course not. But it proves this one thing, which was my point.

Ok, missed your first statement..........but there is good reasoning behind both your comments........and my point is that he was not in the smack-dab center of the whole thing, because I grew up in the smack-dab nearly center and Louisiana is two States west of me.

So, I suppose we both proved a point.

 

[st_sebastian]

The SCOTUS has always held that the 1st Amendment applies to the Private Sector as well as the Public Square. Case law is full of such rulings....considering pornography, art, literature, billboards, etc...No one is arguing that he has a Constitutional right to be on a TV Program, but that he has a Constitutional right to publicly state his beliefs. That is FULLY protected under the 1st Amendment.

And that right was not infringed, so the 1st Amendment is not pertinent here. He lost his job, not his ability to state his beliefs publicly.

Now, that isn't the "focal point" of the whole mess, the focal point is the Word of God.

Then I wish people would stop bringing up free speech (and sometimes the 1st amendment explicitly) as if it were pertinent.

 

[p_rehbein]

Is that, "Thus saith the Lord" hahah just teasing

......and I appreciate humor.......

 

[st_sebastian]

and my point is that he was not in the smack-dab center of the whole thing, because I grew up in the smack-dab nearly center and Louisiana is two States west of me.

No, your point was that I "proved nothing." That bit about where the center was exactly was just a side-note.

Can I trust you'll start reading my comments in the context of the people I'm responding to? Because yes, some people are saying he wasn't alive during the Civil Rights era. Yes, some people are saying the 1st Amendment should have protected him in this case.

 

[p_rehbein]

And that right was not infringed, so the 1st Amendment is not pertinent here. He lost his job, not his ability to state his beliefs publicly.



Then I wish people would stop bringing up free speech as if it were pertinent.

His "right" was certainly "infringed" upon.................HE WAS FIRED! That's infringing in my opinion.

I didn't bring it up.............but that does not take away from it being a "footnote" to all this mess............but, as I stated, for me the REAL issue is how those demonizing Robertson are actually demonizing the Word of God. On the Orilley Factor last night, this Berine Goldberg guy called the Bible "STUPID." and "Ignorant." and NOT FACTUAL.

And his comments are far less critical than some that have been spoken.

 

[dcontroversal]

Is that, "Thus saith the Lord" hahah just teasing

What you said is true..the word of God and what it teaches is now "hate" speech and the truth is the more "contrary" society becomes the more WE ALL WILL BE persecuted for standing for ANY PRINCIPLE that we believe in by those who view us as narrow minded, religious fanatics, bible thumpers and or any other such labeling.

 

[st_sebastian]

His "right" was certainly "infringed" upon.................HE WAS FIRED! That's infringing in my opinion.

He can still put out his views publicly and the government did not fire him. In no way is the 1st Amendment pertinent.

I do not know how many more times this must be stated before it sinks in.

 

[p_rehbein]

No, your point was that I "proved nothing." That bit about where the center was exactly was just a side-note.

Can I trust you'll start reading my comments in the context of the people I'm responding to? Because yes, some people are saying he wasn't alive during the Civil Rights era. Yes, some people are saying the 1st Amendment should have protected him in this case.

Be happy to.........but it is your responsibility to QUOTE the comment you are replying to.......not mine to hunt through umpteen pages of comments to find it.............I've been back three full pages and have not found Mystic's comment yet.

So, in the interest of "clarity," QUOTE" the comment you are referring to.............and I still hold that you and Mystic had some good info.............

 

[megaman125]

And that right was not infringed, so the 1st Amendment is not pertinent here. He lost his job, not his ability to state his beliefs publicly.



Then I wish people would stop bringing up free speech (and sometimes the 1st amendment explicitly) as if it were pertinent.

It is against federal law for an employer (A&E), to put Phil in a hiatus, due to his religious beliefs. This is posted in every workplace throughout the country, as per federal employment laws!

 

[p_rehbein]

He can still put out his views publicly and the government did not fire him. In no way is the 1st Amendment pertinent.

I do not know how many more times this must be stated before it sinks in.

It is not ONLY in the instance of a person being fired by the Government that they may seek redress.......the 1st Amendment is pertinent in that he is being "openly persecuted" for exercising his Constitutional right to free speech. The Government is not the ONLY entity that can "wrongly persecute" someone. The Private Sector can be guilty of this as well.

So, you have failed to prove this point..............I'll give you the other, but not this one.

 

[st_sebastian]

Be happy to.........but it is your responsibility to QUOTE the comment you are replying to.......not mine to hunt through umpteen pages of comments to find it.............I've been back three full pages and have not found Mystic's comment yet.

So, in the interest of "clarity," QUOTE" the comment you are referring to.............and I still hold that you and Mystic had some good info.............

This is where I quote Mystdancer50 and begin responding. It is two messages up from the one you quote. Casually browsing through the thread, it looks like the original comment has been deleted; it had been heavily edited a few minutes after I responded.

It is not ONLY in the instance of a person being fired by the Government that they may seek redress.......the 1st Amendment is pertinent in that he is being "openly persecuted" for exercising his Constitutional right to free speech. The Government is not the ONLY entity that can "wrongly persecute" someone. The Private Sector can be guilty of this as well.

As far as I know, this is not the case unless it is working closely with governmental bodies. In 1925, state legislatures were also prohibited from enacting similar laws. In Burton v. Wilmington Parking Authority this case a private company was able to do state action, but only because it worked closely with the government and because the state itself was involved in the deprivation. From here:

As a general matter, the Court has moved to a position that requires, regardless of the general economic or operational relationship between the government and the private entity, that the government have played a significant role in the specific policy or action at issue.

<...>

“[t]he one unyielding requirement is that there be a ‘close nexus’ not merely between the state and the private party, but between the state and the alleged deprivation itself.”

In the second case that page discusses, it is only because police got involved that the private institution violated the guy's 1st Amendment rights. If they hadn't involved government officials, the guy's removal would have been legal:

“The direct role of the Columbia police in enforcing [the private organization’s] speech restrictions provided the critical nexus between the challenged conduct and the exercise of state authority.”

In the third case, it is only because there had been an (alleged) agreement between a private company and the city to arrest certain people identified by the private company:

“based on an agreement between the City and Lincoln Center to chill speech urging greater access to the Great Lawn, the police would arrest those who advocated greater access to the Great Lawn and were identified by the Lincoln Center Defendants.”

There are some notable exceptions. Shopping centers in California are more open to the public (Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins) and states can provide broader protections than the 1st Amendment (ibid). These protections were not adopted by all states and some even clamped down on them; e.g. in apartment complexes.

Even under the 1st Amendment, you can be fired for blogging, if you're a public employee you can be fired for comments made on the job, private employees can be fired on account of politics and friendship, etc., etc. In 2006 (Garcetti v. Ceballos) we were still discussing public employees making speech pursuant to their official duties.

 

[st_sebastian]

From here: Notably, the First Amendment only pertains to actions of the government. In other words, private corporations or individuals can – and often do – engage in activity that would otherwise violate First Amendment freedoms, without repercussion.

From here: Because of this requirement, it is impossible for private parties (citizens or corporations) to violate these amendments, and all lawsuits alleging constitutional violations of this type must show how the government (state or federal) was responsible for the violation of their rights. This is referred to as the state action requirement.

I'll add more as I find them.

 

[Nautilus]

Last time I checked the 1st amendment was supposed to guarantee free speech. Seems in America, there are certain topics that override the first amendment.

No one restricted his free speech. He was allowed to say what he wanted. What i think you fail to understand is that free speech somehow protects you from consequences of your actions? In which case you are utterly wrong. Perhaps a study of constitutional law would be beneficial before you try bringing up the first amendment in this context again.

 

[st_sebastian]

It is against federal law for an employer (A&E), to put Phil in a hiatus, due to his religious beliefs. This is posted in every workplace throughout the country, as per federal employment laws!

Yes!!! Title VII is infinitely more appropriate here!

 

[jag1977]

Another shell of bondage. Did they know Phil (moses)spirit? Do they know the spirit of whom(Pharisee) he persecuted? You be the judge and know completely? No Phil shall testify to you about his righteousness as was done. Your LAW now is corinthians 6:9-11. Judge you now! Sound familiar?

 

[st_sebastian]

The SCOTUS has always held that the 1st Amendment applies to the Private Sector as well as the Public Square.

Continuing to find cases. I definitely don't believe this statement is true. Always?

In Hudgens v National Labor Relations Board, SCOTUS decided that: a private shopping mall is not the functional equivalent of a town and, therefore, not a state actor subject to the requirements of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. SCOTUS in that case reversed the decision of Amalgamated Employees Union Local 590 v. Logan Valley Plaza, Inc.

Marsh v. Alabama is good reading too.

 

[KJV1611]

So, is that "thus sayeth the Lord?"

........goodness..........

What are the Duck Dynasty guys famous for?
Long Hair
Camouflage
Christians

All of the Old Testament types of antichrist have long hair... It is a shame for a man to have long hair.
What is a wolf in sheep's clothing? A wolf in camouflage pretending to be a Christian.

The signs are all over that show, but the one the really convinced me was when they partnered with the Trincheros to market "Duck Commander Wine". Is that a Christian thing to do? According to the bible it's not. They also use the "fusion of opposites" symbol -> the double D back to back.

666, sacred feminine, "as above so below", mark of the beast, "sons of god, daughters of men symbolism is everywhere we look, only most people can't see it.... they don't even know it exists even though they are exposed to it on a daily basis. I saw an avitar picture on here a week or so ago that had 666 (disguised) then John 3:16 on it. The person that had it had no idea what the picture symbolized and still probably doesn't.

God sheds the light for us, if we will just look.

 

[buckets]

I can't judge the DuckDynasty guys
judgement is for Christ the Father gave all judgement to him

I did see the one named Jase talking and he seemed to be Godly
not my place to question his faith he claimed

John the Baptist had long hair

Either way they are just men
I read what Phil said to GQ seems like he said lots of sin was bad and included homosexuality with other sins of the flesh
The Bible says this
I am not sure why he would be in GQ it seems to be a magazine not focused on God at all
maybe he explains that in the interview
if he says he loves God I have no reason to not believe him

Sad that anyone would get criticized for saying a sin is sinful
thats the way these days

All you can do is love everyone as Christ loves us

 

[KJV1611]

I can't judge the DuckDynasty guys
judgement is for Christ the Father gave all judgement to him

I did see the one named Jase talking and he seemed to be Godly
not my place to question his faith he claimed

John the Baptist had long hair

Either way they are just men
I read what Phil said to GQ seems like he said lots of sin was bad and included homosexuality with other sins of the flesh
The Bible says this
I am not sure why he would be in GQ it seems to be a magazine not focused on God at all
maybe he explains that in the interview
if he says he loves God I have no reason to not believe him

Sad that anyone would get criticized for saying a sin is sinful
thats the way these days

All you can do is love everyone as Christ loves us

I agree buckets, I can't question their faith either. But just like you, I see things that make me wonder. Maybe he just needs to grow in the Lord more and definitely we should love Phil and the homosexuals he spoke against.