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."
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."