Douglas County Sheriff will not cooperate with A&E going forward

posted at 11:01 am on December 22, 2013 by Jazz Shaw

The Duckathon continues through the weekend, showing no signs of slowing down. In the wake of A&E’s somewhat suicidal business decision (more on that below), another voice has weighed in on the situation. The Sheriff of Douglas County – home to the Duck Dynasty crew – is no longer interested in doing any business with the network.

The suspension of “Duck Dynasty” star Phil Robertson by the A&E Network after making controversial remarks in GQ magazine regarding homosexuality has been called a business decision. But now Douglas County Sheriff Phil Miller is making a business decision of his own.

Miller announced on his personal Facebook page Friday night that A&E would no longer be welcomed to film or produce any of its programs or series with the help of the Douglas County Sheriff’s Office or its facilities…

“I know it will not matter to A&E, but it will make me feel better. A&E has produced more than a half dozen programs with the assistance of the Douglas County Sheriff’s Office. They will not do any more with my assistance while I am sheriff. It is time for someone other than Hollywood and the news media to stand up for what is right!”

I’m not sure if it “won’t matter” to A&E that the Sheriff’s department will no longer cooperate with them. Assuming the show continues at all, reality series rely on that full range of “local flavor” to bring their stories to life. In the case of this show, just as with many other such series like Moonshiners, local law enforcement can be a part of that tapestry. It may not shut down production entirely, but it certainly doesn’t help. (And that’s not even going into questions about getting film permits or how much of a blind eye the law will turn to disruptions caused during filming, etc.)

From a broader perspective, a few offerings from Rick Moran at the American Thinker.

I don’t think we’ve seen this kind of backlash against the coercive imposition of public speech codes before. The opposition goes far beyond the evangelical community to become an issue with many other Christian churches.

Beyond the religious aspect, there is a cultural facet to the controversy. The GQ “profile” of Robertson was a hit piece – smarmy, snarky, and subtly dismissive. Many Americans are equally perturbed by the elitist and superior attitude found in the GQ article – holding Robertson out to be a typical ignorant red neck not worthy of being taken seriously by the smart folks in coastal America.

Hard to say what will become of this controversy. GLAAD is raising money hand over fist and is suffering no ill effects for its PC policing of speech. Perhaps the flap has awoken middle America and they will now begin to fight back against the stifling of free speech and freedom of religion that goes along with it.

On a more general note, I have to wonder what A&E is thinking about their decision at this point. They’ve surely noticed that their ratings – particularly for their last weekend marathon – have been down since this situation blew up. Curiously, I was seeing some of the most liberal people on Twitter – particularly ones who like to refer to Robertson as “hateful, homophobic, bigoted” etc. – crowing over the ratings drop. Seriously? They seem to think that a drop in viewers must reflect some sort of judgement by the audience rejecting Robertson’s opinions.

That’s the part which is so puzzling to me, and it’s something I believe A&E should have taken into account before acting. While I’m not sure there are any measurable metrics to check on this, I don’t think the people complaining about Robertson are Duck Dynasty’s target demographic which provided their record breaking ratings. Do you really imagine that there is an army of Pajama Boys out there, snuggling up in their Slankets with a cup of cocoa to binge watch a season of Duck Dynasty? To the contrary, if the ratings are falling I would imagine that it’s Robertson’s defenders turning off A&E in droves.

Either way, the Douglas County Sheriff’s Department decision is only the latest in a string of bad press stories for A&E. This looks like short sighted, poor planning on their part, and it will likely hit them hardest over the long run right where it hurts the most… in the wallet. But hey, that’s just capitalism in action, folks.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

Unrelated to the current debate, but I heard on the radio last nite that this “stupid redneck” has a Master’s degree from Louisiana Tech, and was the quarterback for the football team. And his backup?

Terry Bradshaw.

“That guy with the beard kept me on the bench for two years.

PointnClick on December 22, 2013 at 4:04 PM

You don’t know what “considering his history with A&E” means, do you? He was a very known (religious) quantity to A&E, and gave an honest answer to a question asked of him about his religious beliefs.

I don’t believe A&E will come out of this well if Robertson decides to take them to court (as I think he should.) :)

Anti-Control on December 22, 2013 at 3:54 PM

I don’t care about his history with A&E. I don’t care that his beliefs came from his religion or if they came voices in his head. It doesn’t matter, he expressed them as his beliefs. I don’t think there is any legal problem for A&E whatsoever.

That said, I would love to see an opinion backlash against A&E. Even though it may have seemed like a good business move for them I personally hope that their political correctness winds up costing them in the end. But my desire to see them punished does not mean that they are legally at fault for anything.

MJBrutus on December 22, 2013 at 4:11 PM

As I’ve said b/f, A&E is blocked from all of my TV’s on Dish (4…now since husband bought another) and will be until A&E treats Phil in the same manner as they do with some of their noxious programs such as Bonnie & Clyde, the disgusting Bates Motel (which hints at incest)……all that is just A-OK with A&E, it seems.

I’ve written them to say so.

avagreen on December 22, 2013 at 4:14 PM

This is a germane topic. Written by a conservative gay.

The Gaystapo

One of the Left’s most effective tools is the goon squad of gay party-line enforcers called “The Gaystapo”, a term coined here on HillBuzz.org in 2011.

Gays are used by the Left most often to attack, malign, and persecute Christians…as “enemies of the gay community”. The desired impact of this is to depict gays as perpetual victims of bullying by Christians so that other members of the public turn their backs on Christianity in support of these alleged-victims…when, in reality, it’s the gays who are attacking Christians and all of their “righteous indignation” is cover for the fact that gays are just employed as goon squads for the Left in this manner.

A classic observation of the Left is that they often accuse others of doing whatever bad thing they are actually doing to others themselves. So, when you see gay “community leaders” screaming about Christians bullying or persecuting gays…just know that this is, in reality, an effort on the part of the Left to bully and persecute Christians by using gays as pawns and goons….

hillbuzz.org/the-left-2/the-gaystapofeedbackaetv@aenetworks.com

avagreen on December 22, 2013 at 4:18 PM

I don’t care about his history with A&E. I don’t care that his beliefs came from his religion or if they came voices in his head. It doesn’t matter, he expressed them as his beliefs. I don’t think there is any legal problem for A&E whatsoever.

That said, I would love to see an opinion backlash against A&E. Even though it may have seemed like a good business move for them I personally hope that their political correctness winds up costing them in the end. But my desire to see them punished does not mean that they are legally at fault for anything.

MJBrutus on December 22, 2013 at 4:11 PM

Do you know what the purpose of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was? How can A&E seriously claim that his expression of his religious beliefs was hurtful to them, and not discriminatory, when they already knew for what he stood when he was employed by them?! lol he has a strong case against them…

I am glad you want an opinion backlash against them…to get an idea of what will happen, I hope you’ve seen what’s been going on with Cracker Barrel. :)

Anti-Control on December 22, 2013 at 4:20 PM

A&E as much as admitted they suspended Phil Robertson indefinitely for expressing his religious beliefs. I don’t think the Robertsons care to the degree that they would drag the issue into court, but they have standing and a pretty good case to be made if they decide to.

gryphon202 on December 22, 2013 at 4:33 PM

FYI, I’m not gay.
MJBrutus on December 22, 2013 at 3:42 PM

no just anti-religious.
unseen on December 22, 2013 at 3:53 PM

And anti fetus/baby/comatose. Next we’ll find oct that he’s anti octogenarian and anti retiree-at some point you have to realize that you’ve lived long enough and just need to go ahead and die. Culture of death is his realm.

AH_C on December 22, 2013 at 4:34 PM

Anti-Control on December 22, 2013 at 4:20 PM

Imagine this: Chris Mathews wakes up one morning and discovers some common sense. He goes to the MessNBC studios for his show and announces that Barrack Obama is the most disgraceful, incompetent, dishonest, duplicitous politician to ever take the oath of office. Would MessNBC have the right to take him off of the air? What if he says that gawd told him those things and he that’s why he believes them?

MJBrutus on December 22, 2013 at 4:36 PM

AH_C on December 22, 2013 at 4:34 PM

And baby seal pups. Can’t stand ‘em and would love to personally go club some to death.

MJBrutus on December 22, 2013 at 4:37 PM

Imagine this: Chris Mathews wakes up one morning and discovers some common sense. He goes to the MessNBC studios for his show and announces that Barrack Obama is the most disgraceful, incompetent, dishonest, duplicitous politician to ever take the oath of office. Would MessNBC have the right to take him off of the air? What if he says that gawd told him those things and he that’s why he believes them?

MJBrutus on December 22, 2013 at 4:36 PM

MessNBC can take Chris Matthews off the air for whatever reason they want, as long as it doesn’t involve age, gender, race, sexual orientation, or religious beliefs.

gryphon202 on December 22, 2013 at 4:40 PM

gryphon202 on December 22, 2013 at 4:40 PM

But his knowledge of Obama’s shittlness came straight from his gawd, which makes it a religious revelation.

MJBrutus on December 22, 2013 at 4:42 PM

gryphon202 on December 22, 2013 at 4:40 PM

Here, let’s make my thought experiment a little more concrete for you. Suppose that he wakes up and realizes, Christian the he is, that abortion is bad and starts saying so. Could MessNBS axe him for that?

MJBrutus on December 22, 2013 at 4:46 PM

MJBrutus on December 22, 2013 at 4:36 PM

MessNBC can take Chris Matthews off the air for whatever reason they want, as long as it doesn’t involve age, gender, race, sexual orientation, or religious beliefs.

gryphon202 on December 22, 2013 at 4:40 PM

yeap. I think MJbrutus just doesn’t understand the difference between regular speech and religous expression. If Chris Mattews goes on air says he has a conversion to Christianity and will follow Jesus teachings from that point on and MSNBC fires him because he is now a christian and expresses his christian beliefs they are in for a world of lawsuits. of course the lions don’t care.

unseen on December 22, 2013 at 4:48 PM

Imagine this: Chris Mathews wakes up one morning and discovers some common sense. He goes to the MessNBC studios for his show and announces that Barrack Obama is the most disgraceful, incompetent, dishonest, duplicitous politician to ever take the oath of office. Would MessNBC have the right to take him off of the air? What if he says that gawd told him those things and he that’s why he believes them?

MJBrutus on December 22, 2013 at 4:36 PM

That isn’t comparable to what happened with DD and A&E, and I’m not interested in discussing it further…because of what A&E already knew about him, I think Robertson has a near-slam-dunk case, and you are freer to agree with me or not than either you or A&E has been with Robertson! :)

Anti-Control on December 22, 2013 at 4:48 PM

Anti-Control on December 22, 2013 at 4:48 PM

Enjoyed the debate with you :-)

MJBrutus on December 22, 2013 at 4:51 PM

I think MJbrutus just doesn’t understand the difference between regular speech and religous expression. If Chris Mattews goes on air says he has a conversion to Christianity and will follow Jesus teachings from that point on and MSNBC fires him because he is now a christian and expresses his christian beliefs they are in for a world of lawsuits. of course the lions don’t care.

unseen on December 22, 2013 at 4:48 PM

Because there isn’t any difference. Saying you believe X and saying you believe X because your religion tells you to say you believe X are the same thing.

MJBrutus on December 22, 2013 at 4:53 PM

PointnClick on December 22, 2013 at 4:04 PM

While raising a kid. He married Kay when he was 16. She was 15.

wolly4321 on December 22, 2013 at 4:53 PM

gryphon202 on December 22, 2013 at 4:40 PM

Here, let’s make my thought experiment a little more concrete for you. Suppose that he wakes up and realizes, Christian the he is, that abortion is bad and starts saying so. Could MessNBS axe him for that?

MJBrutus on December 22, 2013 at 4:46 PM

Why do I need to be interpreting the law for you? The law is plain in what it says. I believe that Phil Robertson and the Robertson family have standing to sue. I also believe they have a case to be made. If I was sitting on a jury knowing the case as I do now, my instinct would at least initially be to find for the Robertsons. Your “thought exercise” is meaningless speculation at best.

Now, if I’m an executive with A&E, my best line of defense would be, “They were under contract. And in that contract, they agreed not to bring disrepute to A&E or any of its advertisers.”

And of course if I’m a lawyer for the Robertsons, I shoot back with, “Given the tumble that your ratings have taken since you suspended Phil Robertson, do you think they were bringing your station or advertisers into disrepute, or do you think you’ve harmed yourself?”

MJ, you know Chris Matthews will never have that “come to Jesus” moment. Seriously. I don’t even know why you’re talking about that here. Furthermore, it doesn’t matter. The Robertson’s won’t sue A&E. Getting rid of Phil was a real dick move on their part, but I am utterly convinced that it will turn out for the best as far as the Robertsons are concerned, anyway. A&E needs them a lot worse than they need A&E, as evidenced by A&E’s decision to run the Duck-a-thon uncut. Which, by the by, is further utterly damning evidence that they were not in fact harmed by a single word Phil Robertson said beyond being made to feel uncomfortable.

gryphon202 on December 22, 2013 at 4:54 PM

Good!

COgirl on December 22, 2013 at 4:57 PM

Why do I need to be interpreting the law for you? The law is plain in what it says. I believe that Phil Robertson and the Robertson family have standing to sue. I also believe they have a case to be made. If I was sitting on a jury knowing the case as I do now, my instinct would at least initially be to find for the Robertsons. Your “thought exercise” is meaningless speculation at best.

Do you believe that because your religion tells you to believe it or did it come to you from some other source. Apparently there’s a big difference :-)

MJ, you know Chris Matthews will never have that “come to Jesus” moment. Seriously. I don’t even know why you’re talking about that here.

gryphon202 on December 22, 2013 at 4:54 PM

It’s a called a thought experiment and is a very, very common and effective way to discuss legal principles. I constructed an analogy that mirrors the circumstances of the Duck dude only reverses the roles of (social) liberal and (social) conservative. You can ignore it or you can answer.

MJBrutus on December 22, 2013 at 5:00 PM

Because there isn’t any difference. Saying you believe X and saying you believe X because your religion tells you to say you believe X are the same thing.

MJBrutus on December 22, 2013 at 4:53 PM

It is clear you have no understanding of religion nor relgious views.

unseen on December 22, 2013 at 5:08 PM

unseen on December 22, 2013 at 5:08 PM

Thank gawd!

MJBrutus on December 22, 2013 at 5:08 PM

It’s a called a thought experiment and is a very, very common and effective way to discuss legal principles. I constructed an analogy that mirrors the circumstances of the Duck dude only reverses the roles of (social) liberal and (social) conservative. You can ignore it or you can answer.

MJBrutus on December 22, 2013 at 5:00 PM

Thought experiments don’t hold up in a court of law as evidence. But since you want me to argue this to its conclusion, it would be up to Chrissie Tinglelegs to prove that he was let go for his religious views. In order to be able to speculate on that kind of lack-of-thought experiment, I would have to know in some detail about the evidence against MessNBC. It is because of the evidence against A&E (the Duck-a-thon uncut, their statement to the press) that I believe Phil Robertson has a case. You can’t let someone go because of their religious beliefs. And I don’t give a flying fig if it’s Phil Robertson or some hypothetical skittles-shitting unicorn who’s had a come to Jesus moment. The law works the same for everyone.

gryphon202 on December 22, 2013 at 5:09 PM

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

unseen on December 22, 2013 at 5:10 PM

Unrelated to the current debate, but I heard on the radio last nite that this “stupid redneck” has a Master’s degree from Louisiana Tech, and was the quarterback for the football team. And his backup?

Terry Bradshaw.

“That guy with the beard kept me on the bench for two years.“

PointnClick on December 22, 2013 at 4:04 PM

I wouldn’t call Phil Robertson a sophisticate by any stretch, but the man’s no dummy. It’d be awful hard to start a business and make a cool million on duck calls while walking around in a semi-vegetative state. We’re not talking hollywood movie making here. It’s real work! ;)

gryphon202 on December 22, 2013 at 5:12 PM

Thank gawd!

MJBrutus on December 22, 2013 at 5:08 PM

have no idea who this gawd you keep thanking is. maybe it would be better if you thank a golden calf.

If it wasn’t a desire/need for people to express their relgious beliefs without threats and punitive actions the USA would never have been founded.

unseen on December 22, 2013 at 5:14 PM

gryphon202 on December 22, 2013 at 5:09 PM

Maybe you don’t care if the roles were reversed. One nice thing about an experiment like this is that it helps to take such bias out when it exists.

What evidence does Chrissy need aside from pointing to the Christian bible and saying, “I believe that?” But let’s suppose that he can provide evidence that his opinion is based on a religious change of heart compelling enough to convince even you that he is sincere. Are you seriously trying to say MessNBC would be required to keep him on the air to spew his hateful anti-woman views (as they see it, of course) and lose the last 2 viewers they have left?

MJBrutus on December 22, 2013 at 5:14 PM

have no idea who this gawd you keep thanking is.

unseen on December 22, 2013 at 5:14 PM

See irony. It is a form of humor.

MJBrutus on December 22, 2013 at 5:15 PM

unseen on December 22, 2013 at 5:10 PM

Congress didn’t take him off TV. Keep trying.

MJBrutus on December 22, 2013 at 5:17 PM

Maybe you don’t care if the roles were reversed. One nice thing about an experiment like this is that it helps to take such bias out when it exists.

If you’re so big on thought experiments, let me ask you this: If Phil Robertson had said, “I think homosexuality is wrong because it serves no useful biological purpose,” do you think there would have been the same amount of uproar about it? Or more to the point, should there have been?

Are you seriously trying to say MessNBC would be required to keep him on the air to spew his hateful anti-woman views (as they see it, of course) and lose the last 2 viewers they have left?

MJBrutus on December 22, 2013 at 5:14 PM

I’m saying the law is clear. If you can prove to a jury’s satisfaction that you were fired for your religious beliefs, you have a case for damages. What MSNBC is “required” to do in my opinion is immaterial. Thought experiments don’t hold up in court as evidence.

Let’s face it, folks. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was mostly passed to protect non-Christians in a majority-Christian nation at a point in time when Democrats could take credit for it. I’m okay with that in-theory (although the legal and constitutional implications of it tend to be murky, but I digress), but it’s not the non-Christians that need protecting now. Not while we have a President in the White House who celebrates the end of Ramadan.

gryphon202 on December 22, 2013 at 5:20 PM

I’ve got the perfect solution to all this. Well, I like it anyway. Phil Robertson should announce that he is going to address this matter in a news conference. Rumors should then be put out that he is going to profusely apologize. Phil Robertson, with all the members of the Duck Dynasy with him, should then announce at the press conference that he and the whole Duck Dynasty have seen the light … … and … … are converting to Islam. With the other members of the Duck Dynasty all shouting “Allah Be Praised” and “Allah Akbar!”, he should then read several passages from the koran about gays.

VorDaj on December 22, 2013 at 5:23 PM

See irony. It is a form of humor.

MJBrutus on December 22, 2013 at 5:15 PM

stupidity is not a form of humor. Being stupid isn’t funny it’s sad to all but the one unable to understand his joke isn’t funny.

I always wonder how people that have no faith think they can talk about faith from a intelligent POV. It is clear you don’t know the difference between reglious belief and personal thoughts. How actions and words and deeds are impacted by relgion and how they are impacted by personal choices. How people submit to their God even when they may not agree with Him or his dictates.

Your though experiment is a joke. If Chris Mattews went to GQ and was asked what he considered sins and he gave the same res[ponse and MSNBC fired him for those views then CM could sue the hell out of MSNBC. Because they fired him for his relgious views.

unseen on December 22, 2013 at 5:23 PM

gryphon202 on December 22, 2013 at 5:20 PM

Actually, thought experiments are used in court routinely to argue cases. By avoiding the Mathews analogy you are simply indicating that you have no counter argument. You know full well that MessNBC would can his a$$ in a heartbeat. Whether or not they would be required to pay him damages has nothing to do with religion. It would come down to what his contract states. Same for Mr. Duck.

MJBrutus on December 22, 2013 at 5:26 PM

Congress didn’t take him off TV. Keep trying.

MJBrutus on December 22, 2013 at 5:17 PM

So wait a minute A&E doesn’t have to follow the consitution? A&E can act however they want irregardless of the laws of the land. A&E is bound by The 1964 civil rights act nor the 1 st amednment of the COTUS. It isn’;t bound by state laws FORBIDDEN discrimadtion against reglious beliefs. All laws backed up and supported by that 1st amendment that has been incoorpated into state law.

So A&E can pick and choose which freedoms are protected and which are firing offence.

good to know….

unseen on December 22, 2013 at 5:28 PM

Actually, thought experiments are used in court routinely to argue cases. By avoiding the Mathews analogy you are simply indicating that you have no counter argument. You know full well that MessNBC would can his a$$ in a heartbeat. Whether or not they would be required to pay him damages has nothing to do with religion. It would come down to what his contract states. Same for Mr. Duck.

MJBrutus on December 22, 2013 at 5:26 PM

Thought experiments are used to sway juries. And sometimes they are successful. But usually when they are successful in high profile cases (cf. John Edwards’ entire career and the OJ Simpson case), they are mocked as emblematic of what is wrong with civil law. Ideally, as set forth in jury instructions almost universally, only the facts of the case are to be considered.

And I believe the whole source of this mess is that the Robertsons’ contract did not prohibit them from discussing religion. They would not have agreed to it if they did. And if their contract discriminates against them on the basis of religion, there are both clauses in the Civil Rights Act and case law that would render it null-and-void, as you can bet your sweet atheist ass there would not be such a restriction placed on, say, a Muslim family (Oh! There’s another thought experiment!).

What A&E did, and I can tell on the basis of their public statement cutting Phil loose, is use a catch-all “moral turpitude” clause in their contract which is standard legal boilerplate. It’s an insinuation that they would be suffering damage by letting Phil continue. Problem is, they’re still going ahead with the Duck-a-thon and the fourth season. How are they suffering damages by letting Phil continue?

See, I’m not completely against thought experiments when they’re grounded in truth. But the whole “What would happen to Chrissie Tinglelegs” business is disingenuous to say the least. There is damning evidence that A&E violated the Civil Rights Act, and all the thought experiments in the world won’t change that.

gryphon202 on December 22, 2013 at 5:34 PM

So wait a minute A&E doesn’t have to follow the consitution? A&E can act however they want irregardless of the laws of the land. A&E is bound by The 1964 civil rights act nor the 1 st amednment of the COTUS. It isn’;t bound by state laws FORBIDDEN discrimadtion against reglious beliefs. All laws backed up and supported by that 1st amendment that has been incoorpated into state law.

So A&E can pick and choose which freedoms are protected and which are firing offence.

good to know….

unseen on December 22, 2013 at 5:28 PM

A&E is not bound by the constitution. The Bill of Rights specifically says what Congress may not do. Even incorporation holds that state governments are bound by the bill of rights, if you wanna go that far. But no, this is not a first amendment issue. We can make it a freedom of speech issue without making it a first amendment issue.

gryphon202 on December 22, 2013 at 5:36 PM

But if the Robertsons had done the interview with upfront pride and conviction and been willing to repeat it in every public forum available, nothing could have been “sabotaged.” This is a war. Don’t these people get it? Are they that out of it? The only way to fight and win a war is engage the enemy, not do half-as* interviews on the sly and then moan about them “going public” and hope you don’t get exploited. Like I said, I don’t understand.

When you say what you believe and back it up and refuse to be intimidated, nothing can “go wrong.”

rrpjr on December 22, 2013 at 3:24 PM

I can’t speak to the business deal that A&E had with them regarding the interview. The article from the Daily Mail states that there were “A&E reps” at the interview. Perhaps promises or assurances were made.

I understand what you are saying. However, not everyone is looking for a fight and would rather be able to state their beliefs or make a comment without having a sh!tstorm occur.

If you want to see what is coming, google “Justine Sacco”. This just happened in the last two/three days. Between her and Robertson, everyone should be downright frightened. Not everyone can withstand it. Could you be a worldwide pariah? Are you willing to put your family there?

kim roy on December 22, 2013 at 5:53 PM

…local law enforcement can be a part of that [location production] tapestry. It may not shut down production entirely, but it certainly doesn’t help. (And that’s not even going into questions about getting film permits or how much of a blind eye the law will turn to disruptions caused during filming, etc.)

Oh, it can go into a LOT more than that. All it takes is one deputy detaining one camera truck for a missing tail light (or who knows what, gotta run the registration through Baton Rouge, takes a while) to screw up a whole day’s shooting schedule.

And the locals can get in on this too! As every Los Angeles resident knows, it is YOUR constitutional right to sit in YOUR front yard– or even on county property if the sheriff’s already said he’s staying out of it– right next to where the production crew is shooting, and play your boom box at the loudest possible volume (bring two for an interesting stereo effect), and there goes production sound, and shooting for the day.

In fact, a hostile community can pretty much insure a miserable time for the entire location production staff and crew. But, hey, as long that cute office intern back at A&E is happy…

de rigueur on December 22, 2013 at 5:56 PM

If you want to see what is coming, google “Justine Sacco”. This just happened in the last two/three days. Between her and Robertson, everyone should be downright frightened. Not everyone can withstand it. Could you be a worldwide pariah? Are you willing to put your family there?

kim roy on December 22, 2013 at 5:53 PM

For whatever it’s worth, I’m sure the Robertsons can weather the storm. They’re self-professed rednecks, after all.

gryphon202 on December 22, 2013 at 5:59 PM

For whatever it’s worth, I’m sure the Robertsons can weather the storm. They’re self-professed rednecks, after all.

gryphon202 on December 22, 2013 at 5:59 PM

I’m sure they can. Who is next? What stupid comment or bad joke will land one of us in the middle of one of these? Justine Sacco had about 100 followers on twitter. Someone from Buzzfeed somehow saw it and tweeted it to 100,000 people.

Would any of us want what we post here to be sent to our employers? Sure, most of us will stand by it. I know I would and this is my real name, but why should we have to be in that situation.

kim roy on December 22, 2013 at 6:04 PM

For whatever it’s worth, I’m sure the Robertsons can weather the storm. They’re self-professed rednecks, after all.

gryphon202 on December 22, 2013 at 5:59 PM

I’m sure they can. Who is next? What stupid comment or bad joke will land one of us in the middle of one of these? Justine Sacco had about 100 followers on twitter. Someone from Buzzfeed somehow saw it and tweeted it to 100,000 people.

Would any of us want what we post here to be sent to our employers? Sure, most of us will stand by it. I know I would and this is my real name, but why should we have to be in that situation.

kim roy on December 22, 2013 at 6:04 PM

We shouldn’t. What infuriates me the most is the folks like MJBrutus who imply that Christians should not have the same protections against religious discrimination that most minority religions in America have. But such it is, I suppose.

gryphon202 on December 22, 2013 at 6:08 PM

We shouldn’t. What infuriates me the most is the folks like MJBrutus who imply that Christians should not have the same protections against religious discrimination that most minority religions in America have. But such it is, I suppose.

gryphon202 on December 22, 2013 at 6:08 PM

Well, I’m still waiting for someone to file a lawsuit that they couldn’t get pork/pork products at a Muslim establishment and cite the Oregon case as precedent.

Christians really need to fight back. Maybe soon enough will be enough.

kim roy on December 22, 2013 at 6:12 PM

In fact, a hostile community can pretty much insure a miserable time for the entire location production staff and crew.
de rigueur on December 22, 2013 at 5:56 PM

I am not in favor of anyone interfering with anyone else’s right to conduct business. It may be within their legal power, but that does not make it right. And it is especially wrong for a sheriff to be involved.

Where did the sheriff say he would block them from filming? If he said that, then that would be an abuse of political power. But it is not an abuse to withhold assistance.
AH_C on December 22, 2013 at 2:04 PM

When local law enforcement refuses to cooperate, then the result is virtually the same as if the Sheriff were actively blocking them. When a public official refuses to offer assistance that would otherwise be available, that is a form of harassment. When it comes from law enforcement it is an abuse of power.

I have no more right to be nicer to people I like than those I dislike, either, right? ROFL
This opinion of yours is one of the stupidest I’ve seen on HA…
Anti-Control on December 22, 2013 at 3:25 PM

First, you have a right not to be nice, but that doesn’t mean that you are right to not be nice.
Second, your rights as an individual are not necessarily the same as what is appropriate behavior for a public official. Analogy fails.
Third, Sheriff Miller went far beyond saying he wouldn’t be “nice”. He said that A&E would no longer have his assistance with regard to producing programming in Douglas County.
Fourth, it takes a special kind of attitude to think that any idea you disagree with is stupid. I have read many well thought out comments that disagree with mine that I don’t write off as stupid. Try doing the same and others will think you more thoughtful.

He was going out of his way to cooperate. That’s not “using police power to punish” at all.
You are an idiot.
Adjoran on December 22, 2013 at 3:26 PM

With regard to police power, please see my previous response to Anti-control.
With regard to my being an idiot, you will appear much more intelligent if you refrain from ad hominem attacks.

topdog on December 22, 2013 at 6:46 PM

gryphon202 on December 22, 2013 at 6:08 PM

You’re demanding special rights:

Say something offensive and get canned is OK.

Say something offensive, blame it on Jesus and get canned is illegal.

MJBrutus on December 22, 2013 at 6:53 PM

Cracker Barrel
5h
Cracker Barrel announces it will put all its Duck Dynasty products back in its stores – @CrackerBarrel
read more on facebook.com
==========================

Cracker Barrel Old Country Store · 1,534,637 like this
7 hours ago ·
==============

Dear Cracker Barrel Customer:

When we made the decision to remove and evaluate certain Duck Dynasty items, we offended many of our loyal customers. Our intent was to avoid offending, but that’s just what we’ve done.

You told us we made a mistake. And, you weren’t shy about it. You wrote, you called and you took to social media to express your thoughts and feelings. You flat out told us we were wrong.

We listened.

Today, we are putting all our Duck Dynasty products back in our stores.

And, we apologize for offending you.

We respect all individuals right to express their beliefs. We certainly did not mean to have anyone think different.

We sincerely hope you will continue to be part of our Cracker Barrel family.

https://www.facebook.com/CrackerBarrel/posts/602887726427665
=============================================================

canopfor on December 22, 2013 at 7:02 PM

However, not everyone is looking for a fight and would rather be able to state their beliefs or make a comment without having a sh!tstorm occur.
kim roy on December 22, 2013 at 5:53 PM

Too late for that. We’re living in a sh*tstorm. Face it or drop out of public life. My point is they should have known this. You don’t give an interview with a major magazine — or any magazine including your local church clarion — without taking responsibility for your words and thoughts and standing behind them full-throatedly (or, in event you honestly misspoke, recanting with due humility). You can’t complain about how you were sandbagged.

I perfectly understand that the Ducks have no wish or will to be engaged in a culture war. But like it or not they’re in it. They forfeited the luxury of innocence or removal when they became TV stars. They are now pivotal players in a war against their religion.

What will they do about it?

rrpjr on December 22, 2013 at 7:12 PM

First, you have a right not to be nice, but that doesn’t mean that you are right to not be nice.

You’re evading my point.

Second, your rights as an individual are not necessarily the same as what is appropriate behavior for a public official. Analogy fails.

No, it didn’t.

What’s accurate is that you didn’t follow my point.

Third, Sheriff Miller went far beyond saying he wouldn’t be “nice”. He said that A&E would no longer have his assistance with regard to producing programming in Douglas County.

Does that make you cry?

As long as he himself acts morally and legally towards A&E, does he not have the right to decide for himself whether or not to treat A&E as “kindly” as they might expect to be treated? Why, yes, he does have that right!

What you don’t understand is that generosity is a gift; you are miserably acting as though it’s an obligation.

Fourth, it takes a special kind of attitude to think that any idea you disagree with is stupid.

Do I believe that every idea with which I disagree is stupid? Why, no, I don’t…I just happened to think that your opinion was one of the stupidest I’ve seen on HA, and going by your response to me here, my mind isn’t changing! :)

I have read many well thought out comments that disagree with mine that I don’t write off as stupid. Try doing the same and others will think you more thoughtful.

topdog on December 22, 2013 at 6:46 PM

What good reason do you believe you can offer as to why I should care about the reactions of demanding, self-centered people, who erroneously choose to personalize impersonal criticisms?

You have an entitlement mentality & you’re immature, more than you care to admit…

Anti-Control on December 22, 2013 at 7:38 PM

You’re demanding special rights:

Say something offensive and get canned is OK.

Say something offensive, blame it on Jesus and get canned is illegal.

MJBrutus on December 22, 2013 at 6:53 PM

I’m not demanding special rights for anyone. I’m demanding that the law apply equally to Christians as it does to non-Christian faiths. You can bet your sweet ass that if it were a Muslim talking about jihad and the requirement to snuff out the infidels, they wouldn’t be losing a TV spot over it. And that, my friend, is a “thought experiment” much more relevant to this case than anything you can speculate about Chrissie Tinglelegs.

gryphon202 on December 22, 2013 at 7:57 PM

topdog on December 22, 2013 at 6:46 PM

Stop while you’re ahead. Your 1st post was a good question of ethics but since then you doubled and tripled on stupid. It’s one thing if done out of ignorance but another after having it explained just what the sheriff was denying. Sheriff is in no way obliged to assist A&E. They come into 5own and ask for special assistance and it’s up to him whether to do so or not. The sheriff wasn’t opining in the vacuum of theoretical outrage. He’s had experience assisting them on multiple occasions and said enough is enough and he won’t do it any more.

Give you a good example of the show ‘Fast and Loud’ where the owner had a bet to deliver a ‘bandit’ Pontiac Trans Am to New Orleans by a certain time. For bonus, there would be a $25k extra if they got Burt Reynolds to autograph the car. As a private citizen Burt would well be within his rights to sign or not sign. Just as the sheriff would be within his rights to allow the multiple driving infractions that were performed in the ‘dream sequence’ where the star dreamed he was the Bandit and various members played characters from the movie. At the very end with minutes to go before the deadline, the car ran a couple of stop lights and did a burnout turning the wrong way on a one way street to pull up in front of the destination with a minute to go.

In this case the sheriff could facilitate by blocking traffic to allow the crew to commit illegal driving acts or he could say no dice-you will obey all traffic laws or I will stomp you. In neither case is the sheriff untoward in his action. Either he will help them or he won’t, in this case he won’t facilitate their filming. That said it also doesn’t mean that if something horrible or criminal happened against the crew that he won’t impartially enforce the law.

Just give it up already.

AH_C on December 22, 2013 at 7:59 PM

You’re demanding special rights:

Say something offensive and get canned is OK.

Say something offensive, blame it on Jesus and get canned is illegal.

MJBrutus on December 22, 2013 at 6:53 PM

Having thin skin–not my problem.

Violate civil rights–illegal.

davidk on December 22, 2013 at 8:02 PM

In fact, a hostile community can pretty much insure a miserable time for the entire location production staff and crew.
de rigueur on December 22, 2013 at 5:56 PM

I am not in favor of anyone interfering with anyone else’s right to conduct business. It may be within their legal power, but that does not make it right. And it is especially wrong for a sheriff to be involved.

topdog on December 22, 2013 at 6:46 PM

Actually, the boom boxers ARE conducting business. The production company usually pays them off to shut down. Just as they pay off homeowners whose driveways are blocked by their trucks. 9 times out of 10 it’s someone whom the production company should have dealt with in some way prior to using the location– “interference” with someone’s rights or business can cut both ways– and the universe of potential beneficiaries of production company largesse increases as the citizenry gets over the “ooooh, it’s Hollywood in OUR town!” giddies and realizes how much of a community’s resources a production company will co-opt for free if it can– when it could and should be paying it.

Film companies don’t come to town vested with plenary rights to do anything they want– in the interests of conducting business. Not only are they subject to the same laws as every one else, in addition to whatever licensing, insurance and other requirements are attendant to shooting in a particular locale, they rely enormously of the goodwill of officials and the community in which they work, and they ignore local sentiment to their peril.

Not saying that local obstructionism is right, but it IS a reality, and only an idiot channel like A&E would fail to take it into account. Nobody will force them to remain in Louisiana. They can, after all, yank their whole show out of Louisiana altogether and run back to Indian Dunes in Malibu (where a production chopped off actor Vic Morrow’s head) or they can take local sentiment into account if they expect to keep shooting on location.

As for local official obligation and participation in production, AH_C on December 22, 2013 at 7:59 PM, sums it up very well.

de rigueur on December 22, 2013 at 8:38 PM

A&E is not bound by the constitution. The Bill of Rights specifically says what Congress may not do. Even incorporation holds that state governments are bound by the bill of rights, if you wanna go that far. But no, this is not a first amendment issue. We can make it a freedom of speech issue without making it a first amendment issue.

gryphon202 on December 22, 2013 at 5:36 PM

I think the religious aspect of it (due to the resulting civil rights laws) MAY make it a first amendment issue. but most people making it a first issue only think about the speech part and not the religious freedom part.
not that it matters, I don’t expect this to ever go to court UNLESS A&E tries to force a contract issue.

dmacleo on December 22, 2013 at 8:47 PM

Not saying that local obstructionism is right, but it IS a reality, and only an idiot channel like A&E would fail to take it into account. Nobody will force them to remain in Louisiana. They can, after all, yank their whole show out of Louisiana altogether and run back to Indian Dunes in Malibu (where a production chopped off actor Vic Morrow’s head) or they can take local sentiment into account if they expect to keep shooting on location.

As for local official obligation and participation in production, AH_C on December 22, 2013 at 7:59 PM, sums it up very well.

de rigueur on December 22, 2013 at 8:38 PM

I remember that Vic Morrow business. It was during the filming of “Twilight Zone: The Movie.” And the criminal trial that acquitted director John Landis took until 1991 to resolve, I think.

gryphon202 on December 22, 2013 at 8:48 PM

MjBrutus idiotic as usual. So much hate filled pretend play at logic.

CWchangedhisNicagain on December 22, 2013 at 8:49 PM

A&E is not bound by the constitution. The Bill of Rights specifically says what Congress may not do. Even incorporation holds that state governments are bound by the bill of rights, if you wanna go that far. But no, this is not a first amendment issue. We can make it a freedom of speech issue without making it a first amendment issue.

gryphon202 on December 22, 2013 at 5:36 PM

I think the religious aspect of it (due to the resulting civil rights laws) MAY make it a first amendment issue. but most people making it a first issue only think about the speech part and not the religious freedom part.
not that it matters, I don’t expect this to ever go to court UNLESS A&E tries to force a contract issue.

dmacleo on December 22, 2013 at 8:47 PM

It makes it a civil rights issue viz-a-vis the Civil Rights Act of 1964. But the first amendment is very plain in its language: Congress shall make no law… Etc. And I don’t think this particular case will ever see the inside of a court room. Not as long as A&E is free to make money off of what’s already been filmed. In not being allowed to film a fifth season, it’s Phil Robertson that is suffering actual economic harm.

gryphon202 on December 22, 2013 at 8:50 PM

First, you have a right not to be nice, but that doesn’t mean that you are right to not be nice.

You’re evading my point.

I don’t think so. Unless I got lost in what I took to be sarcasm, I think your point is that you have a right to be nicer to some people than to others, and if you have that right, then so does the Sheriff. Did I misunderstand you?

Second, your rights as an individual are not necessarily the same as what is appropriate behavior for a public official. Analogy fails.

No, it didn’t.
What’s accurate is that you didn’t follow my point.

If I misunderstood your point, please explain it to me and type very slowly so I can understand you.

Third, Sheriff Miller went far beyond saying he wouldn’t be “nice”. He said that A&E would no longer have his assistance with regard to producing programming in Douglas County.

Does that make you cry?

No, I just think it is an abuse of the power of his office.

As long as he himself acts morally and legally towards A&E, does he not have the right to decide for himself whether or not to treat A&E as “kindly” as they might expect to be treated? Why, yes, he does have that right!

Why no! This is not a matter of kindness. His previous cooperation was part of his job. Otherwise, he had previously acted inappropriately in expending county resources just to be “kind”.

What you don’t understand is that generosity is a gift; you are miserably acting as though it’s an obligation.

Actually, I think it is obligatory for me to be kind to everyone, but also to receive all kindness as a gift. Would that be a paradox?
In fairness to BOTH of us, The sheriff was vague about exactly just how unwelcoming he would be. My impression was that it was somewhere between not going out of his way to be helpful, on one hand, and being uncooperative with such routine matters as temporary street closings and crowd control, on the other. It certainly makes a difference what he meant!

Fourth, it takes a special kind of attitude to think that any idea you disagree with is stupid.

Do I believe that every idea with which I disagree is stupid? Why, no, I don’t…I just happened to think that your opinion was one of the stupidest I’ve seen on HA

My bad. I generalized from a sample size of one, and assumed that you were equally rude to everyone with whom you disagree.

, and going by your response to me here, my mind isn’t changing! :)

The feeling is mutual! :P

I have read many well thought out comments that disagree with mine that I don’t write off as stupid. Try doing the same and others will think you more thoughtful.
topdog on December 22, 2013 at 6:46 PM

What good reason do you believe you can offer as to why I should care about the reactions of demanding, self-centered people, who erroneously choose to personalize impersonal criticisms?
You have an entitlement mentality & you’re immature, more than you care to admit…
Anti-Control on December 22, 2013 at 7:38 PM

Impersonal criticisms? If you are referring to me, then that’s a good one, since you called my comments… was it stupid?… and now added demanding, self-centered, immature and entitled; again, that is if you were referring to me!
I am curious why you think I have an entitlement mentality. To what do you think I consider myself entitled?
I am also curious why you think me immature.
Please go into as much detail as possible, because I am always trying to improve myself (and no, that wasn’t sarcasm).

topdog on December 22, 2013 at 9:10 PM

To the contrary, if the ratings are falling I would imagine that it’s Robertson’s defenders turning off A&E in droves.

They may be turning the channel, but they’re still paying A&E for access.

All the more reason to support cable unbundling legislation in Congress. Get that passed and you can get A&E’s hand off your wallet for good.

Dusty on December 22, 2013 at 9:10 PM

“That guy with the beard kept me on the bench for two years.“

[PointnClick on December 22, 2013 at 4:04 PM]

What a bunch of great stories in 2 minutes. That was so funny.

Thanks for putting that up.

Dusty on December 22, 2013 at 9:19 PM

No, I just think it is an abuse of the power of his office.

This is utterly ridiculous/stupid.

Why no! This is not a matter of kindness. His previous cooperation was part of his job. Otherwise, he had previously acted inappropriately in expending county resources just to be “kind”.

This is BS…it’s called, “discretion,” the same kind officers are legally allowed to have when they decide to write up traffic violations as warnings, or as tickets.

You act like it’s unethical for officers to ever use this legal discretion, which is one of the reasons I said that you are demanding & self-centered – the world doesn’t, not shouldn’t, revolve around your opinions!

Actually, I think it is obligatory for me to be kind to everyone, but also to receive all kindness as a gift. Would that be a paradox?

Who in their right mind would be equally as generous with an ungrateful stranger as they would with a close family member, or friend?

In fairness to BOTH of us

I don’t need nor want you to speak for me. :)

The sheriff was vague about exactly just how unwelcoming he would be. My impression was that it was somewhere between not going out of his way to be helpful, on one hand, and being uncooperative with such routine matters as temporary street closings and crowd control, on the other. It certainly makes a difference what he meant!

As long as he’s acting legally, no, it doesn’t make a difference – he’s not morally obligated to be equally warm & giving to everyone, and you are a lunatic if you believe otherwise.

My bad. I generalized from a sample size of one, and assumed that you were equally rude to everyone with whom you disagree.

This makes you sound stupid, and not just the opinion of yours I categorized this way.

Impersonal criticisms? If you are referring to me, then that’s a good one, since you called my comments… was it stupid?… and now added demanding, self-centered, immature and entitled; again, that is if you were referring to me!
I am curious why you think I have an entitlement mentality. To what do you think I consider myself entitled?
I am also curious why you think me immature.
Please go into as much detail as possible, because I am always trying to improve myself (and no, that wasn’t sarcasm).

topdog on December 22, 2013 at 9:10 PM

I initially called your opinion stupid; I didn’t insult you nor your intelligence. The personal commentary I’ve made about your immaturities came about only because of how I’ve judged you from your responses to me.

Anti-Control on December 22, 2013 at 9:59 PM

You act like it’s unethical for officers to ever use this legal discretion, which is one of the reasons I said that you are demanding & self-centered – the world doesn’t, not shouldn’t, revolve around your opinions!
Anti-Control on December 22, 2013 at 9:59 PM

Actually, I agree with Sheriff Miller’s opinion, but I don’t think the world should revolve around my opinion or his. I do believe in legal discretion, but not when it depends on which side of the aisle the object of that discretion sits on.

I wish I knew how not to take it personally when someone says my ideas are stupid, especially when I have put effort into them. As a wise man once said, “Stupid is as stupid does” and stupid people say stupid things. Intelligent people can disagree respectfully.

Sorry I have run out of time. Would love to discuss further.

topdog on December 22, 2013 at 10:31 PM

Might I remind TopDog and the other pu$$ies to whom this might be uncomfortable: Sheriffs are elected officials, subject to all the vagaries of running for office, albeit a nonpolitical one. If the voters of Douglas County are uncomfortable with how their sheriff is behaving in this regard, they are free to make their displeasure known. (HINT: They’re not uncomfortable in the least)

gryphon202 on December 22, 2013 at 10:34 PM

Its proof positive A&E doesn’t like/want its reality shows to be real, lol… Then again I’ll never understand why libs support gay rights and muslims (knowing muslims hate gays) while bashing christiantity! And how stupid are gays to embrace libs bashing christiantity when its christians willing to turn other cheek (only the issue of marriage being man/woman). So it sounds like gays are being used by libs/dems for pc or political points when in actuality gays will never be accepted by muslims. Its crazy out there alright.

soapyjeans on December 22, 2013 at 10:38 PM

But hey, that’s just capitalism in action, folks.

Until the O’bozo administration makes duck hunting illegal or lowers the bag limit to 1

WryTrvllr on December 22, 2013 at 10:45 PM

How hard is it to remember Louisiana has parishes, not counties?

Christien on December 22, 2013 at 10:52 PM

I do believe in legal discretion, but not when it depends on which side of the aisle the object of that discretion sits on.

IOW, “I do believe in legal discretion, except for when I don’t!”

Take a step back – you aren’t making sense.

I wish I knew how not to take it personally when someone says my ideas are stupid, especially when I have put effort into them.

I’ll try to help you: every one of us has had false beliefs/ideas/opinions at some point in our lives, right? Some of these false beliefs/ideas/opinions are stupider than others – big deal! :)

You should stop and think more about how & why Adjoran called you an “idiot,” yet I did not…

As a wise man once said, “Stupid is as stupid does” and stupid people say stupid things.

Smart people sometimes say stupid things, too…who you are as a person is not your beliefs/ideas/opinions; you should depersonalize them, and see them as removable clothing, which can change over time.

Intelligent people can disagree respectfully.

Sorry I have run out of time. Would love to discuss further.

topdog on December 22, 2013 at 10:31 PM

That’s right, but how are you going to define “respect”?

Anti-Control on December 22, 2013 at 11:16 PM

Go sheriff!

To the winner goes the spoils.

Liberty loving Americans beat the PC fascists! This battle is over! The good guys won! The liberal losers are doing themselves no favors by continuing to try and fight this one. The American people have spoken. Everyone likes the Duck guy and hates you pajama boys on the left. This is not in dispute. Go cry to one of your daddies. This one is done. You lost.

BoxHead1 on December 22, 2013 at 11:36 PM

This is not the county Duck Dynasty films in. In fact it isn’t even the same state.
This a Georgia Sheriff saying A&E is no longer welcome in his county. They film other shows there.

A&E not welcome here

Curmudgeon on December 22, 2013 at 12:19 PM

Really? So which county is Duck Dynasty in?

(Ok, that’s a trick question. There are no counties in Lousiana, PERIOD! Louisiana is divided into parishes, not counties.)

There Goes the Neighborhood on December 22, 2013 at 11:47 PM

How hard is it to remember Louisiana has parishes, not counties?

Christien on December 22, 2013 at 10:52 PM

Might as well try telling people Virginia is a “commonwealth” and not a “state.” ;)

gryphon202 on December 22, 2013 at 11:47 PM

I am more than a little uncomfortable with the Douglas County Sheriff use of police power to punish a company because their beliefs don’t agree with his. A&E is a private company, and wrong or right they have a legal right to do what they did.

Sheriff Miller has no more right to do this than does the IRS or the FBI have a right to pick on political foes. I am sympathetic with Miller, but still this is just plain wrong.

I am disappointed that nobody else has expressed this opinion. Am I alone in thinking a public law enforcement official has no business using his office to punish someone he disagrees with?

topdog on December 22, 2013 at 1:11 PM

Since they’re not his constituents and he’s not their sheriff, none of that matters at all. He has no particular responsibility to cooperate with A&E. Nor is he punishing them by not doing business with them.

There Goes the Neighborhood on December 23, 2013 at 12:14 AM

You don’t know what “considering his history with A&E” means, do you? He was a very known (religious) quantity to A&E, and gave an honest answer to a question asked of him about his religious beliefs.

I don’t believe A&E will come out of this well if Robertson decides to take them to court (as I think he should.) :)

Anti-Control on December 22, 2013 at 3:54 PM

I don’t care about his history with A&E. I don’t care that his beliefs came from his religion or if they came voices in his head. It doesn’t matter, he expressed them as his beliefs. I don’t think there is any legal problem for A&E whatsoever.

That said, I would love to see an opinion backlash against A&E. Even though it may have seemed like a good business move for them I personally hope that their political correctness winds up costing them in the end. But my desire to see them punished does not mean that they are legally at fault for anything.

MJBrutus on December 22, 2013 at 4:11 PM

Your take is wrong, because you start out with the presumption that A&E simply didn’t like what an at-will employee said, and fired him for it.

But that’s not at all what happened. GLAAD was the organization that took offense at Robertson’s statements, and demanded he be fired.

So what you have here is GLAAD demanding that statements critical of homosexuality be banned, and that anyone who makes such statements be punished. They want criticism of homosexuality to be beyond the pale.

This is a case of bullying to take away your right to free speech. A&E caved. Which is not surprising. Most sizeable corporations would rather roll over and submit to such bullies rather than take a stand for free speech and risk losing a little revenue.

And the proper response to this is to MAKE them care. When some group like this tries to control the speech of others, it’s vitally important to stand up to them. If A&E is too craven to accept that people have a right to free speech and freedom of religion, then let them pay the price of their cravenness.

This is exactly like the attempts in Canada to silence Steyn and Levant for speech they termed, “offensive.” Since there is no Human Rights Commission in the US to attempt to enforce control of their speech, GLAAD tries to do it through pressure on corporations allergic to public criticism.

Frankly, it doesn’t even matter whether A&E was right or wrong legally. What matters is they are wrong morally. And that people who love free speech fight back, rather than making nice distinctions that stifling free speech is okay, as long as it’s not the government doing it.

There Goes the Neighborhood on December 23, 2013 at 12:55 AM

Since they’re not his constituents and he’s not their sheriff, none of that matters at all. He has no particular responsibility to cooperate with A&E. Nor is he punishing them by not doing business with them.

There Goes the Neighborhood on December 23, 2013 at 12:14 AM

Except that A&E does have a history with Douglas County. They’re not filming anything there at the moment, but they have before.

gryphon202 on December 23, 2013 at 1:03 AM

Frankly, it doesn’t even matter whether A&E was right or wrong legally. What matters is they are wrong morally. And that people who love free speech fight back, rather than making nice distinctions that stifling free speech is okay, as long as it’s not the government doing it.

There Goes the Neighborhood on December 23, 2013 at 12:55 AM

It does matter legally if equal protection under the law means jack-shit. Brutus accused me of seeking special privileges for Christians, but as things stand now, it’s the Muslims and the Atheists standing above Christianity in the eyes of the law courts. I just want the Civil Rights Act enforced as-written.

gryphon202 on December 23, 2013 at 1:04 AM

Since they’re not his constituents and he’s not their sheriff, none of that matters at all. He has no particular responsibility to cooperate with A&E. Nor is he punishing them by not doing business with them.

There Goes the Neighborhood on December 23, 2013 at 12:14 AM

Except that A&E does have a history with Douglas County. They’re not filming anything there at the moment, but they have before.

gryphon202 on December 23, 2013 at 1:03 AM

I just googled it. A&E’s most recent production season of “Beyond Scared Straight” took place right in the Douglas County jail. No way in hell could that have happened without the explicit cooperation of the county sheriff.

gryphon202 on December 23, 2013 at 1:05 AM

Perhaps the flap has awoken middle America and they will now begin to fight back against the stifling of free speech and freedom of religion that goes along with it.

If only “middle America” could be “awakened” by like..homelessness or something. Rather than whether the massively wealthy Phil Robertson is on their TV or not…

libfreeordie on December 23, 2013 at 1:11 AM

If only “middle America” could be “awakened” by like..homelessness or something. Rather than whether the massively wealthy Phil Robertson is on their TV or not…

libfreeordie on December 23, 2013 at 1:11 AM

It’s not middle America that needs awakening to the need for charity. It’s wealthy liberal douchebags. Try again.

gryphon202 on December 23, 2013 at 1:16 AM

If only “middle America” could be “awakened” by like..homelessness or something. Rather than whether the massively wealthy Phil Robertson is on their TV or not…

libfreeordie on December 23, 2013 at 1:11 AM

Middle America…cities right in the middle like Chicago, Detroit? You’re right, they should be “awakened” to issues such as homelessness, poverty, murder, decay. And awake me as soon as the wealthy liberals who run those cities do something about it.

Erich66 on December 23, 2013 at 2:04 AM

Perhaps the flap has awoken middle America and they will now begin to fight back against the stifling of free speech and freedom of religion that goes along with it.

.
If only “middle America” could be “awakened” by like..homelessness or something. Rather than whether the massively wealthy Phil Robertson is on their TV or not…

libfreeordie on December 23, 2013 at 1:11 AM

.
Get government out of it, and we’ll do something about it.

listens2glenn on December 23, 2013 at 8:56 AM

My personal take on all this is that the left is horrified that the right has finally discovered their own Murphy Brown.IOf you recall, Dan Quayle was hung at the stake for complaining rightfully about the left’s use of TV programming to corrupt and inculturate the masses and destroy the family, and now the worm has turned, and I can only say to them what they said to Quayle. Get over it. It’s only TV, for goodness sake.
Word for word, it’s only TV for goodness sake and that’s what the diabolical left is trembling about.

Don L on December 23, 2013 at 9:44 AM

If only “middle America” could be “awakened” by like..homelessness or something. Rather than whether the massively wealthy Phil Robertson is on their TV or not…

libfreeordie on December 23, 2013 at 1:11 AM

TRILLIONS of dollars have been spent by your gawd, the federal government, to eradicate poverty. Go away.

I don’t understand all the animosity towards A&E. It was their decision as a private entity to suspend Phil based on what he said in the interview. They don’t support it. A&E even came out and said they are huge backers of the LGBTHAOFDPADJDAFS community. They should have that right just like any other private business. I don’t support what they did in any way. I don’t watch A&E anymore and I won’t watch in the future. They have shown their stripes, but that is what they get to do in America.

JAGonzo on December 23, 2013 at 9:49 AM

I learned something new this past week. I learned that if you say that the black peopel that you worked with back in the day seemed happy that it makes you a racist.

DethMetalCookieMonst on December 23, 2013 at 9:52 AM

Unrelated to the current debate, but I heard on the radio last nite that this “stupid redneck” has a Master’s degree from Louisiana Tech, and was the quarterback for the football team. And his backup?

Terry Bradshaw.

“That guy with the beard kept me on the bench for two years.”

PointnClick on December 22, 2013 at 4:04 PM

Thanks for sharing that.

ITguy on December 23, 2013 at 10:40 AM

To the contrary, if the ratings are falling I would imagine that it’s Robertson’s defenders turning off A&E in droves.
They may be turning the channel, but they’re still paying A&E for access.

All the more reason to support cable unbundling legislation in Congress. Get that passed and you can get A&E’s hand off your wallet for good.

Dusty on December 22, 2013 at 9:10 PM

I pray for the day that these cable providers and dish providers can longer bundle. Adios to LOGO, OWN, Al Jazeera, A&E, MSNBC, CNN, etc…They will sink like a stone which is why I would imagine they have lobby groups willing to pay millions to keep this legislation from ever passing. This is why is is vital to try to put as many true conservatives in office as possible. They at least would be open to this type of legislation.

neyney on December 23, 2013 at 11:29 AM

AH_C on December 22, 2013 at 7:59 PM

You mean that wasn’t real!?! I can’t believe I got sucked into that drama :/

/

cptacek on December 23, 2013 at 12:06 PM

Is Douglas County, Georgia, home to DD? I believe it’s West Monroe, LA, in Ouachita Parish. Douglas County is just west of Atlanta and has been a filming locale at times for some other A&E shows.

Laddy on December 22, 2013 at 11:19 AM

Are you ever going to address this Jazz? I assume you saw it since it just preceded a comment you responded too some time later.

DarkCurrent on December 23, 2013 at 1:37 PM

Look at how democrats stereotype gay men!! This is the gay equivalent of an ad aimed at blacks showing happy darkies singin’ in the cotton fields and munching watermelon and fried chicken. Also, notice the gingerbread house, yuk!! Even the Log Cabin homosexuals are upset about it.

Dollayo on December 23, 2013 at 2:01 PM

To the contrary, if the ratings are falling I would imagine that it’s Robertson’s defenders turning off A&E in droves.

They may be turning the channel, but they’re still paying A&E for access.

All the more reason to support cable unbundling legislation in Congress. Get that passed and you can get A&E’s hand off your wallet for good.

Dusty on December 22, 2013 at 9:10 PM

While it is true that A&E gets some payment, the game is over who gets more hits than another show on the same channel. Ratings are given on various programs on each channel, with the high ones getting their contracts extended.

I read the Fox ratings last week (while trying to see how my only guy I watch on Fox…Stuart Varney……..was faring )it said his program along with two others will be retained in a certain time period.

The others…..gone.

avagreen on December 23, 2013 at 2:41 PM

I am absolutely astounded by the people who are conservative who are suddenly all for expanding the definition of free speech to include private employers.

As many people have pointed out, if A&E wants to fire someone for saying something – they can. We can argue it is “morally wrong” for them to do so and we can protest and refuse to watch A&E or even organize a boycott of A&E’s advertisers. I have no problem with any of that.

But, arguing that “free speech” should mean a private company can’t fire someone based on their speech? That is completely anti-conservative.

For instance, what if Robertson had said “all n**gers should be put back into slavery”?

Does A&E have the right in that instance to suspend or fire him for saying that?

If yes, why? I’ll tell you why – because in that case you would agree that the speech was “beyond the pale”. It comes down to you subjectively judging what is and is not beyond the pale. You may disagree with where the line is drawn, but it is not your decision as to that line – each individual/company gets to draw their own line. A&E – and any company or person, should be allowed to decide who they want to hire, fire, associate with, etc. And people’s statements are fair game for making those decisions. We, as conservatives, should be arguing for more freedom in that regard, not less (i.e., clubs, organizations, etc. should be able to exclude/not-hire people they want to exclude – freedom of association and speech should allow for that). In contrast – the left is going the way you are arguing for – making more and more “protected” categories that can’t be fired, have to be allowed in any club or organization, etc.

Now, we as conservatives don’t like that we are losing the culture war such that A&E is suspending him for what is essentially a non-controversial statement of religious dogma. It seems absurd.

But, should Hobby Lobby be forced to continue the employment of someone who goes around bashing Christ and Christians and saying abortion is wonderful?

It is fine to argue that A&E should not fire/suspend Robertson. But to argue that the first amendment should protect people’s speech with regard to private decisions is absurd. As a conservative you should know this. You are implicitly arguing for more gov’t control over speech – i.e., some kind of cause of action for a right to say whatever you want and keep your job.

that is not conservative at all. Conservatives for years have argued that speech may be free – but it also has consequences. That is true even if we agree with the speech and disagree with the consequences.

Lawyers have a saying “bad facts make bad law” – this is for cases where the plaintiff is sympathetic but the current legal standard does not provide for recovery. In such cases, courts will often develop some new (and stupid) theory of law to allow the sympathetic plaintiff to recover. that is exactly what you are doing here. You are trying to create a broad-line legal/moral argument to support the end you want.

Do I disagree with A&E suspending Robertson for saying what is essentially what the vast majority of Christian churches teach? Yes. I think it is absurd. Do I think we should create some expanded definition of first amendment freedom which allows people to say things with no consequences from their private employers? No, absolutely not.

Monkeytoe on December 24, 2013 at 8:33 AM

I am absolutely astounded by the people who are conservative who are suddenly all for expanding the definition of free speech to include private employers.

As many people have pointed out, if A&E wants to fire someone for saying something – they can.
We can argue it is “morally wrong” for them to do so and we can protest and refuse to watch A&E or even organize a boycott of A&E’s advertisers. I have no problem with any of that.

But, arguing that “free speech” should mean a private company can’t fire someone based on their speech? That is completely anti-conservative.Do I disagree with A&E suspending Robertson for saying what is essentially what the vast majority of Christian churches teach? Yes. I think it is absurd. Do I think we should create some expanded definition of first amendment freedom which allows people to say things with no consequences from their private employers? No, absolutely not.

Monkeytoe on December 24, 2013 at 8:33 AM

What you are saying is absolutely false, legally.

This is more than a simple 1st Amendment issue…whether you like it or not, under the the Civil Rights Act of 1964, a business can’t fire/punish an enmployee for their religious views, which is obviously what A&E did in this case. They knew what he believed when wooing him, and knew he wouldn’t let them restrict him religiously when they signed him to a contract. To come out now and say his expression of his religious beliefs has hurt them somehow? ROFL@A&E! :)

With pretty much a slam-dunk case, I think Robertson should go after them in court, to teach them a lesson – he’s the one with the credible case of whom was harmed, not A&E. Do you think if Robertson chose this course of action that A&E wouldn’t try to settle out of court? lol

Anti-Control on December 24, 2013 at 10:43 AM

Anti-Control on December 24, 2013 at 10:43 AM

You obviously know little about employment litigation. I seriously doubt that he will win a lawsuit based on religious discrimination. Perhaps, but it is hardly the slam-dunk case you seem to believe.

However, we also don’t know what his contract contains. there may be clauses in that that control that A&E violated.

But my comments are more general about the first amendment, not about potential religious discrimination issues. What I am responding to is not specific to a religious discrimination claim – but to people’s idiotic and anti-conservative arguments that the First Amendment should protect individuals against private employers for their speech.

As far as To come out now and say his expression of his religious beliefs has hurt them somehow? ROFL@A&E! :)

If you are rolling on the floor laughing about something I never said or argued – I guess the joke is on you. It doesn’t matter whether or not A&E was “hurt”. A private employer should have the right to fire someone based on things they say. Whether or not you agree with what the speaker said is irrelevant.

I also, personally, don’t believe that “freedom of religion” should protect anyone against a private employer. The conservative view has always been (and rightly so) that the constitutional rights protect a person against THE GOVERNMENT taking action based on your religion or speech. Not against private individuals/entities. that conservatives are now all for gov’t protection of your job so you can say whatever you want is troubling at best. You are basically arguing for more gov’t power and control. By your argument here you are implicitly agreeing that the Boy Scouts should be required to accept atheist Scoutmasters, for example. the list of bad outcomes from your position goes on and on.

Let me put it another way. Do you agree that a private employer should be required to allow a Muslim to wear a turbin, have facial hair, not touch women, refuse to talk to a women who is unaccompanied by a male, refuse to drive a cab-fare who is carrying liquor, and take breaks five times a day to pray? What if the business is privately owned by a very religious christian family? Whose “religious freedom” rights triumph there?

See, I believe that if I don’t want to hire a Muslim because I disagree with his religion, I should have that right. Or if I want to fire you because you say something I disagree with, I should have that right.

People need to think before they get emotional. Conservatives are now on the side of arguing that individuals and businesses should not have rights. That whatever protected class du jour liberals come up with should be allowed to do and say whatever they want and individuals and businesses just have to grin and bear it with no recourse.

Again, I am astounded by this foolishness. If this is truly conservatism new position on these types of issues, it is a 180 degree change from conservative positions in the past and is very much aligned with liberal positions as regards these issues.

Monkeytoe on December 24, 2013 at 11:37 AM

You obviously know little about employment litigation.

Yeah, like you do! lol

I seriously doubt that he will win a lawsuit based on religious discrimination. Perhaps, but it is hardly the slam-dunk case you seem to believe.

However, we also don’t know what his contract contains. there may be clauses in that that control that A&E violated.

This is crazy. A&E hired him knowing full well what he believed about Christianity; he had a known history of making anti-homosexual statements…not only that, his religious beliefs are an integral part of the show! For them to come out now, feign shock, and pretend that he violated some contractual agreement doesn’t pass the giggle test.

A&E got scared like Cracker Barrel did, made a mindless (illegal) decision, and should be held to account for it. As I said, if Robertson takes A&E to court, they will push to settle outside of it…

A private employer should have the right to fire someone based on things they say. Whether or not you agree with what the speaker said is irrelevant.

I also, personally, don’t believe that “freedom of religion” should protect anyone against a private employer.

Monkeytoe on December 24, 2013 at 11:37 AM

It’s clear you don’t understand how the law works in this area…you are arguing idealistically, ignoring legal realities, and I see no room for further discussion between us.

Anti-Control on December 24, 2013 at 11:58 AM

*anti-homosexuality statements

Anti-Control on December 24, 2013 at 12:01 PM

I am absolutely astounded by the people who are conservative who are suddenly all for expanding the definition of free speech to include private employers.

Monkeytoe on December 24, 2013 at 8:33 AM

It doesn’t matter what I’m for or against. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 says you can’t fire someone for their religious beliefs. And A&E as much as admitted that’s exactly what they did. This doesn’t have to be a first amendment issue to still be a free speech issue. Equal protection under the law is what America was built on, after all.

gryphon202 on December 25, 2013 at 7:38 AM

I wonder if TLC will be the first in line if/when A&E cancels DD. Unless they’re planning a similar drop-them-if-they-make-anti-gay-comments tactic with the Duggars.

TMOverbeck on December 27, 2013 at 1:30 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3