Duck Dynasty Family: We Can’t Imagine Going Forward Without Phil Robertson
So one side says, hey, Phil Robertson had a right to say what he said about gay people. True enough.
And the other side says, OK, and A&E had a right to suspend an employee that embarrassed them. Also true.
You know what else is true? The family has a right to say: hey, maybe we don’t want to do this show any more:
We want to thank all of you for your prayers and support. The family has spent much time in prayer since learning of A&E’s decision. We want you to know that first and foremost we are a family rooted in our faith in God and our belief that the Bible is His word. While some of Phil’s unfiltered comments to the reporter were coarse, his beliefs are grounded in the teachings of the Bible. Phil is a Godly man who follows what the Bible says are the greatest commandments: “Love the Lord your God with all your heart” and “Love your neighbor as yourself.” Phil would never incite or encourage hate.We are disappointed that Phil has been placed on hiatus for expressing his faith, which is his constitutionally protected right.We have had a successful working relationship with A&E but, as a family, we cannot imagine the show going forward without our patriarch at the helm. We are in discussions with A&E to see what that means for the future of Duck Dynasty. Again, thank you for your continued support of our family.
Anybody who didn’t see this coming, was not thinking it through. This seemed obvious to me the second I heard about it. Maybe the A&E people are surprised by it, because maybe the A&E people don’t quite get family bonds.
Or maybe they do. Maybe A+E Networks is fully prepared to throw the whole show overboard, even though it is a ratings smash and their strongest-performing property.
After all . . . that is their right.
P.S. Technically, the family’s “right” to quit may be burdened by contractual obligations. Don’t get all technical on me.
P.P.S. Anyway, it’s hard for me to look at a picture of the guy
On indefinite hiatus
without thinking of one of my favorite Norm MacDonald jokes. Imagine the joke being said in Norm MacDonald’s voice:
“Every girl’s crazy about a sharp dressed man. But you know what every girl’s not crazy about? Long gross beards!”
maybe we need a very special episode of Duck Dynasty where daddy duck explores his feelings about anuses and vaginas in a lot more depth and nuance
happyfeet (8ce051) — 12/19/2013 @ 8:46 pmhere is Jamie Lynn’s song about an opposite-sex relationship she had with a guy who had an anus
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mdbyfWseIiw
happyfeet (8ce051) — 12/19/2013 @ 8:50 pmIt doesn’t seem like he would care what a bunch of suits in NY or wherever think about him, I gather,
narciso (3fec35) — 12/19/2013 @ 8:55 pmGood.
nk (dbc370) — 12/19/2013 @ 9:03 pmHis brother Si, served 25 years in the army, I reckon he doesn’t care either,
narciso (3fec35) — 12/19/2013 @ 9:06 pmThe most ironic thing to me is that the gay community’s reaction is an admission that its orientation is a sin in Biblical terms.
Yet, they condemn an individual for stating the same because somehow Jesus loves everyone while he does not exist as the Son of God.
I love liberals.
Ag80 (eb6ffa) — 12/19/2013 @ 9:08 pmnarciso, you should repost that pat Archbold link that you put on 209 at the other DD thread. I think it’s spot on and tracks well with this post.
elissa (78bee9) — 12/19/2013 @ 9:08 pmA&E’s entire prime time tonight was reruns of DD. I can’t imagine the levels of outrage there must be in their corporate suites! Basically, there was none.
The moron execs who decided to involve themselves in this now have little choice but to pawn this property off on an affiliate cable network. Comcast must be ever so peacock proud.
Ed from SFV (3400a5) — 12/19/2013 @ 9:11 pmspeaking of contracts, if his didn’t have a clause about public statements, etc, A&E might be the one on the short end of the litigation stick.
he’s free to say whatever he wants to say, as long as he’s okay with the outcome, just as A&E is free to do as they wish, as long as they’re okay with the outcome as well.
personally, i hope A&E goes under as part of this… i wonder what their viewer numbers look like for the last few days?
redc1c4 (abd49e) — 12/19/2013 @ 9:11 pmbecause maybe the A&E people don’t quite get family bonds.
I find it interesting that over 60 to 70 years since the advent of television in the US, that most cable TV networks — comparatively new arrivals to the scene — are based in the New York City area. So the political bent of that part of American society tends to filter down generation after generation. Even the similarly liberal-berserk LA area or the West Coast didn’t latch onto the newest form of TV broadcasting, meaning that the head honchos of the MSM have long been and remain infused with Northeastern leftism.
Mark (58ea35) — 12/19/2013 @ 9:13 pmthis one, elissa?
redc1c4 (abd49e) — 12/19/2013 @ 9:14 pminstead of doing a show maybe they could work more harder helping Monroe
my god that place is the armpit of louisiana and that’s really really saying something
West Monroe where they live is a little better but that only even exists cause Monroe proper is such a ghastly impoverished train wreck what is destitute of hope and smells like childhood obesity and rotten cabbage
happyfeet (8ce051) — 12/19/2013 @ 9:16 pmThat’s the one. The brass wanted honey boo boo with beards so everyone would point and snicker–Instead they got an American family that America related to and fell in love with–non PC and all.
elissa (78bee9) — 12/19/2013 @ 9:16 pmYes, that’s the one,
they Captain Tupolev’ed themselves, not waiting for reaction from sponsors, or the actual audience;
narciso (3fec35) — 12/19/2013 @ 9:16 pmCertain people are praised for their convictions, unless you have the wrong ones,
narciso (3fec35) — 12/19/2013 @ 9:20 pmbtw: i just read that, and i think it’s likely a VERY accurate take on what’s happening.
redc1c4 (abd49e) — 12/19/2013 @ 9:20 pmIt’s easy for the rest of the family to get out of any contract: simply state more biblical beliefs that offend liberals. I wouldn’t be surprised if several other conservative artists do so in the next week.
Cartman (8405b8) — 12/19/2013 @ 9:32 pmStories like the one about A&E and Phil Robertson, even more so in the context of the US circa 2013, are why I have an even greater sympathy for social-cultural conservatism and conservatives. Of course, having a bisexual ultra-liberal US president who’s trying to politicize the upcoming Winter Olympics in Russia also affects my sentiments.
Mark (58ea35) — 12/19/2013 @ 9:38 pmTMZ points out videos of Phil Robertson saying similar and harsher things about homosexuality from back in 2010. TMZ is saying that surely A&E knew about his past statements and any outrage from A&E is fake.
Jeez. When you are on the left and lose TMZ…
I also found this statement from the NAACP:
We want to be clear why Phil Robertson’s remarks are not just dangerous but also inaccurate. Mr. Robertson claims that, from what he saw, African Americans were happier under Jim Crow. What he didn’t see were lynching and beatings of black men and women for attempting to vote or simply walking down the street. And his offensive claims about gay people fly in the face of science. In fact, it’s important to note that every single leading medical organization in the country has said that there is absolutely nothing wrong with being [lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender] — it’s not a choice, and to suggest otherwise is dangerous.
First of all I will note that most blacks do not support gay marriage. Second I think it is weird to see the NAACP take umbrage with a man’s personal experience as white trash hoeing cotton with blacks in the fields around Vivian, LA pre entitlement, pre welfare.
steveg (794291) — 12/19/2013 @ 9:43 pmRobertson says he personally never saw a black person being mistreated, and they lose their minds.
According to this report, the Duck Dynasty contract extends for several more seasons if A+E wants them. So that seems bad for the Robertsons. In addition, this report suggests Phil Robertson was likely suspended under the morals clause of the contract (assuming there is one, and there probably is). If so, that basically puts A+E in the driver’s seat regarding Phil’s participation in the program and his return.
I’m not sure whether Phil Robertson would sue over this but I think this could lead to even bigger problems for A+E, apart from the PR problems. This has become a big story, and I wouldn’t be surprised if reporters rushed to interview the other members of the family on their views. I assume most if not all of the Robertson family members tend to agree with Phil. Thus, I wonder if A+E will suspend other members of the clan if they express similar views, and thus effectively end its own show?
If so, I guess A+E could argue the Robertsons are in breach of contract for violating the morals clause and shutting down the show. Wiki says A+E TV is a joint venture between Hearst and Disney, operated out of NYC. The contract probably provides the venue for any lawsuit will be in New York. That seems like more bad news for the Robertsons, but it would still be A+E suing them for believing in Christian doctrine that A+E finds immoral. What a lawsuit that would be.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 12/19/2013 @ 9:50 pmBy the way, Phil Robertson has been saying for awhile that he doesn’t want to do the TV show anymore. That’s why I’m not sure whether he would sue. I don’t see him suing to get back in a TV show he doesn’t want to do.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 12/19/2013 @ 9:52 pmWell, it is a reality show. And the other family members are not going to ostracize Phil because A&E’s cameras are running. What will A&E do? Pixilate him out? Sounds awkward.
nk (dbc370) — 12/19/2013 @ 10:01 pmA+E probably wants Phil out, especially, because he prays at the end of the show. Others can and have given the prayer but it’s what Phil is known for. It’s very symbolic to push him out.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 12/19/2013 @ 10:25 pmAlso, several family members are excluded from filming because they aren’t part of the 20 family members under contract. The oldest brother was excluded for the first 3 seasons and you never saw him at all. They simply don’t film if anyone not in the contract is around.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 12/19/2013 @ 10:26 pmIf homosexuality is not a “choice” and thus morally OK, than logically so is pedophilia or incest or rape or adultery or murder or robbery or bestiality or bullying or lying or driving way past the posted speed limit and/or cutting other drivers off or rear-ending drivers who are driving too slow for your liking or ….
We all have urges, the difference is whether we choose to control these urges or not. Apparently those on the left side of the political spectrum don’t have that same choice.
MSL (5f601f) — 12/19/2013 @ 10:27 pmWell, that was stupid of me. I should have said they don’t put anyone not under contract in the show. They probably film many family members but anything about those not under contract ends up on the cutting room floor.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 12/19/2013 @ 10:34 pmI’m not all that shook up that a man who literally lived off of the waters and land talks about vaginas and the anus.
Robertson has probably gutted thousands of male and female animals and fish and knows nothing good comes out of the anus. I saw one episode where Phil guts a wild pig in about two minutes and trust me, nothing about that anus was good.
I’m also not worried about how inartful he sounds. Robertson and his son Jase sound like two guys who are making a concerted effort to not speak with what is probably an almost indecipherable accent. They sound like educated men intending to insert and enunciate proper terms and words into their speech. They grew up barefoot white trash, living in a shack, speaking a nearly impossible regional dialect and fought their way out of poverty.
steveg (794291) — 12/19/2013 @ 10:39 pmI think it is amazing that a less than dirt poor family sent 6 out of 7 children to degrees from the university and the 7th to a career the military. The two older brothers who are on TV still speak like two guys who grew up dirt poor in the woods outside a small town in NW La. (That one brother Si makes no sense at all) yet they have enough self confidence in who they are and in what they believe athat they can speak their mind plainly and not give a rats anus if you don’t like it.
happyfeet, by stock in astroglide.
mg (31009b) — 12/19/2013 @ 10:43 pmThis is not Duck Dynasty’s morals clause, but it’s about as broad a one as you can get:
“If Artist has committed or commits any act which is a felony, or a misdemeanor of moral turpitude, or commits an act which offends the community or any segment thereof and/or public morals and decency that may, in the reasonable judgment of the Advertiser, cause a diminution in the value of the Advertiser’s commercial association with Artist and which is of sufficient magnitude to require, for commercial reasons, the discontinuance of the Commercialization of Artist’s Persona hereunder, then Advertiser shall have the right to immediately terminate this Agreement on written notice to Artist.”
The other thing I heard these reality shows have is a non-disclosure/non-disparagement clause with a liquidated damages (penalty) provision. The participants are not allowed to talk about the production of the show at all except in approved promotional releases and such.
This “reality” is more interesting than the show to me, actually. I wonder if they’ll work something out where A&E and the Robertsons are before Judge Judy, or on Jerry Springer, or even televise the real court proceeding if it gets that far. That last would be groundbreaking. Might even mean a comeback for Nancy Grace. And what’s Greta doing these days? Heh!
nk (dbc370) — 12/19/2013 @ 11:00 pmIt’s my understanding that it’s almost impossible to obtain a morals clause that could cover what Phil Robertson did. Basically you have to commit a crime involving moral turpitude to violate a morals clause.
But either way I find it a harsh indictment of our society that Phil Robertson could violate a contract for speaking his mind and by doing so essentially restate biblical principles, and there’s virtually nothing Lindsay Lohan can do to violate a contract.
http://www.opposingviews.com/i/entertainment/lindsay-lohan-admits-she-has-no-morals#
Steve57 (e607ae) — 12/19/2013 @ 11:01 pmnk, this is a reality show about the Duck Dynasty family. It violates the morals clause of the contract for the Duck Dynasty family to publicly discuss the reality of the Duck Dynasty family.
My head is spinning.
Steve57 (e607ae) — 12/19/2013 @ 11:05 pmFormer Conservative and Mr. Feets – How do the Muslims feel about gays and gay marriage and anuses? Why do folks like you never talk about that?
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 12/19/2013 @ 11:06 pmThe suits are stunned, stunned I tell you, to discover that they recruited a family to do a reality show that aren’t attention whores like Snookie from Jersey Shore or the entire Kardashian family.
In other words, they have a reality show on their hands that’s actually real. That’s never happened in the history of reality shows.
Steve57 (e607ae) — 12/19/2013 @ 11:08 pmBasically you have to commit a crime involving moral turpitude to violate a morals clause.
No. See my comment 29.
But either way I find it a harsh indictment of our society that Phil Robertson could violate a contract for speaking his mind and by doing so essentially restate biblical principles, and there’s virtually nothing Lindsay Lohan can do to violate a contract.
Our society? Nope. The entertainment industry, and like I said yesterday, Robertson dived into that sewer of his own free will.
nk (dbc370) — 12/19/2013 @ 11:09 pmIf Team D just admitted they hate religion (including Islam), babies and white people I would be fine with that. Unfortunately they are too dishonest to take a stand.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 12/19/2013 @ 11:09 pmdaleyrocks, I have the perfect snark for happyfeet. Butt f*** it. I won’t say it.
nk (dbc370) — 12/19/2013 @ 11:12 pmWe all have urges, the difference is whether we choose to control these urges or not.
The non-monogamous nature of a high percentage of males (straight or non-straight) is a far more common trait in the human population in general than that of homosexuality, whether it involves males or females. Therefore, if accommodating innate human characteristics — or behavior that supposedly isn’t a choice but ingrained — is so important, than the idea of polygamy truly is far more relevant and appropriate than that of the idea of same-sex couples.
Mark (58ea35) — 12/19/2013 @ 11:17 pmdaleyrocks
Islam, you mean the Islam that puts the gays to death? How dare you talk about their pet like that!
No the real enemy is Phil and his elk. Even though he won’t cut their heads off, he is still to be hated because he dares to speak.
MSL (5f601f) — 12/19/2013 @ 11:26 pmMerry anus, happyfeet.
mg (31009b) — 12/19/2013 @ 11:26 pmnk, I saw your comment. Not before I wrote my comment at #30. But my understanding is that it’s very difficult to get a morals clause even that broad. In fact in the entertainment industry the past decade it’s become known as the behavior clause. It hasn’t merely been narrowed to crimes of moral turpitude. But those felonies and misdemeanors involving moral turpitude have to be such that they’re likely to cause a diminution of the value of the commercial relationship.
So if a celebrity commits a felony involving a crime of moral turpitude, but it isn’t likely to diminish the value of the commercial association, then the advertiser or in this case the broadcaster would have no right to terminate the commercial association.
That’s the indictment of our society. Who would enter into a contract with Lindsay Lohan and not include a morals clause? Either a company that had an incompetent legal team or a company that was appealing to a segment of the population that wouldn’t be deterred no matter how much of a mess Lindsay Lohan made of her personal life. Essentially, a company that would decide there was nothing she could do that would diminish the value of their relationship given the demographic they were trying to appeal to. As in there’s no such thing as bad publicity. Who knows, maybe the company decided a few more arrests would enhance the commercial value of their relationship.
Steve57 (e607ae) — 12/19/2013 @ 11:26 pmGeorge Takei on Facebook:
Former Conservative (6e026c) — 12/19/2013 @ 11:27 pmWell, the entertainment industry is all about just giving people what they want. I wonder what the morals clause in the contract for the reality show Teen Mom looked like. “If [Celebrity] fails to keep getting knocked up or otherwise begins to make responsible lifestyle choices likely to cause a diminution in the value of [Advertiser’s] commercial association with [Celebrity], then [Advertiser] shall have the right to terminate this Agreement …”
As far as Roberson walking into this sewer of his own free will, are you sure? I know for a fact that if an interviewer wants to play gotcha with someone they’ll spend six hours on various unrelated topics just to get the one 30 second soundbite that was their objective all along. They get unsophisticated interview subjects that way all the time.
Steve57 (e607ae) — 12/19/2013 @ 11:35 pmRemember when Connie Chung was interviewing Newt Gingrich’s mom, and she was trying to draw out some damning thing about her son?
And when mom said she couldn’t tell her anything that Newt had told her about Bill and Hillary! she said “Just whisper it into my ear. Between you and me.”
Mom took it that it was off the record. She whispered to Connie that Newt thought Hillary! was a b***h.
Then CBS used that one quote to advertise the entire show.
Did she walk into that sewer entirely of her own free will?
Steve57 (e607ae) — 12/19/2013 @ 11:40 pm“here is Jamie Lynn’s song about an opposite-sex relationship she had with a guy who had an anus”
Mr. Feets – How dare she sing a hateful antagonizing song about a relationship between a woman with a vagina and an anus and a man with a penis and an anus!
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 12/19/2013 @ 11:43 pmI didn’t mean the interview with GQ. I meant agreeing to do the reality show, Duck Dynasty. That’s the sewer — A&E and its ilk.
But still, have you seen a less likely candidate for GQ than Phil? I used to sell the thing and its coverboy was always of a type — twenty-something Robert Redford body double in twelve shades of earth tone from his chestnut hair, to his sunlamp tan, to his sharkskin jacket to his khakis to his Guccis. The kind of guy who wouldn’t be caught dead on unmowed lawn.
nk (dbc370) — 12/19/2013 @ 11:44 pmA&E may have forgotten that they aren’t the only distribution option around…
http://www.glennbeck.com/2013/12/19/its-not-about-money-its-about-freedom-of-speech-glenn-responds-to-duck-dynasty-controversy/
redc1c4 (abd49e) — 12/19/2013 @ 11:59 pmI’ve seen GQ. I think it’s a fair bet Phil Robertson hasn’t. It could very well be he had no clue as to what he was walking into.
Steve57 (e607ae) — 12/20/2013 @ 12:09 amPhil Robertson is merely stating a viewpoint that the ancient philosopher Plato apparently didn’t understand and acquire until later in life. So a “bumpkin” from the American south is more savvy about human nature than a famous figure of Greek history was, at least before he became illustrative of the saying that “with age comes wisdom.”
Mark (58ea35) — 12/20/2013 @ 12:43 amGrandma got run over by an anus.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 12/20/2013 @ 12:47 amNote they have just finished a season “in the can” and A&E originally said Phil’s “hiatus” would be from “filming” – the unnamed sources said he wouldn’t be edited out of the upcoming season. They may have thought by the time the following season began production, it would have all blown over.
But if anyone supposed Phil’s sons and brother would throw him under the bus for a few bucks, that person should not be in a position of responsibility. It was never going to happen.
No one knows the contractual situation. The first two seasons are usually locked down by the producer, but hit shows can renegotiate very different terms. The Robertsons may very well be able to walk away.
And the history of non-competitive clauses is not good when challenged.
Estragon (19fa04) — 12/20/2013 @ 1:57 amIt should also be noted that the much-hyped finale of Breaking Bad drew an audience of 10 million, but the average episode of Duck Dynasty draws 14 million, easily the best cable audience in history.
Estragon (19fa04) — 12/20/2013 @ 1:59 am49- daleyrocks-lmao, spewing coffee.
mg (31009b) — 12/20/2013 @ 2:49 amOnly way to hurt a&e is to cut the chord.
mg (31009b) — 12/20/2013 @ 3:22 amApparently, they could get Sullivan to rant either, but now that the Huntress has gotten involved, well probably not even that.
narciso (3fec35) — 12/20/2013 @ 3:37 amA&Es principled stand also includes continuing to hawk all manner of DD gear on their website. Priorities and all I guess.
D-lo (d68dbe) — 12/20/2013 @ 4:15 amSo quoting the Bible violates morality clauses?
mer (fe4339) — 12/20/2013 @ 4:41 amDoesn’t the family have more money than God?
Richard Aubrey (c411da) — 12/20/2013 @ 5:05 amWhat if they decide to buy A&E?
What is telling is that Robertson’s sin is meaningless unless he’s grossly misquoted.
If I have my dates right, he was born in 1964. If he was hoeing fields at the age of 16, that would have been in 1980. Freedom Summer was long gone and Greyhound was integrated, as was practically everything else except the schools rich libs sent their kids to.
You’re about 18 years off on your dates, Richard Aubrey.
Crimso (07c89d) — 12/20/2013 @ 5:25 amI would be surprised if Phil Robertson didn’t know what he was getting into. Even if he never knew about GQ, I have to assume he does have some professional legal counsel and management and such to handle contracts and such.
As Rushbo and I assume others have said, and alluded to above, this family likely doesn’t “need” the fame or the money from the show, and if they take their faith seriously, which it seems they do, they likely did the show more as a way to communicate their faith to the audience.
I was going to say A+E was surprised to find someone who stood by their principles, but on second thought, as someone already alluded to above, it is more they were surprised that someone would stand by principles that were not the same as theirs (the management at A+E), including promoting homosexuality.
As far as legal stuff goes, you folks are the lawyers, but in my limited experience what happens in legal battles and proceedings is more about theatre, who has more money for better performers, and the zeitgeist in the room where decisions are being made. It would be interesting to see A+E try to make the family continue to make DD in a way that would not offend the gay lobby or say they were violating their contract. If they could make that stick that would be the tombstone on the culture.
I think the NAACP called Phil “dangerous” for his comments about black people and white people doing just fine together prior to the “Great Society”.
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 12/20/2013 @ 5:45 amCrimso.
Richard Aubrey (c411da) — 12/20/2013 @ 5:51 amSo if you mean he was born in 1946, that means he’s about as old as I am.
I did two summers of civil rights work in MS, 67 and 68. Sort of at the end of things.
We worked in Marshall County. They have a plaque in the courthouse to Sheriff Osborne Bell, a black guy, killed in the line of duty in 1987. You don’t get elected sheriff coming out of nowhere, so he was somebody for years before that. Well, he had been coroner, during which term he refused to drop the case of a cop shooting a black kid, sparking the Byhalia boycott.
IOW, even in deepest Mississippi, things were going differently than sometimes presumed by the time R. was sixteen, which would have been in 1962, if I get your point about his age.
I did some work with the parks department in Holly Springs. Helped the caretaker of the pool put up a new diving board. I noted the thing had been shipped to “Colored Municipal Pool”. Cue the requisite undergrad outrage. Then I figured that my hometown, a prosperous ‘burb of Detroit, didn’t have any pool at all. The benighted redneck citizens of Holly Springs, although they wanted separation, had ponied up for a pool for their second-class citizens, a pool they’d never use.
Conundra.
I get a kick out of being instructed on such matters by people who’d piss themselves at the thought of going south of Cincinnati.
A heterosexual male was terminated because he is heterosexual and said so! This is scandalous news in 2013? I guess it must be for leftards…
Another fine example of the principals of “Progressive Hope and Change” at work.
“You are free to believe anything we tell you to believe…”
WarEagle82 (b18ccf) — 12/20/2013 @ 7:07 amRe: the liberal media and gotcha journalism:
How many of you remember GQ’s interview with Marco Rubio right after the 2012 elections in which the mag asked the senator, “How old do you think the earth is?”
Gee, I wonder what the interviewer was driving at?
Whitey Nisson (7ddaff) — 12/20/2013 @ 7:28 amEasy, Whitey… it’s as old as dirt.
Colonel Haiku (2add70) — 12/20/2013 @ 7:29 amGiven it was GQ, ol’ Phil could have really gotten into trouble by sharing what he thinks of metrosexuality.
Colonel Haiku (2add70) — 12/20/2013 @ 7:33 am“If Artist has committed or commits any act which is a felony, or a misdemeanor of moral turpitude, or commits an act which offends the community or any segment thereof and/or public morals and decency that may, in the reasonable judgment of the Advertiser, cause a diminution in the value of the Advertiser’s commercial association with Artist and which is of sufficient magnitude to require, for commercial reasons, the discontinuance of the Commercialization of Artist’s Persona hereunder, then Advertiser shall have the right to immediately terminate this Agreement on written notice to Artist.”
Would hunting ducks in the nude qualify?
Colonel Haiku (2add70) — 12/20/2013 @ 7:36 am#65
Yes
steveg (794291) — 12/20/2013 @ 9:01 amMy segment of one of the population doesn’t want to see that
Remember when Connie Chung was interviewing Newt Gingrich’s mom
Didn’t work so well for Connie. The blowback from that ended her career.
Kevin M (536c5d) — 12/20/2013 @ 11:03 am65. Comment by Colonel Haiku (2add70) — 12/20/2013 @ 7:36 am (Morals clause)
This language is probably many decades old – but the interprertation may have changed. Still, notice the words in boldface:
It is not enough that it offends…any segment of the community, by which they meant religious conservatives by, for instance, engaging in extramartal or premarital sex. Note “public morals and decency.”
It also has to be an act, not words, that is, not merely voicing a possibly controversial opinion. Something somebody did, not said.
Also, it has to be of sufficient magnitide to… cause a diminution in the value of the Advertiser’s commercial association and the reasonable judgement of the advertiser.
Sammy Finkelman (9fe80b) — 12/22/2013 @ 8:45 amIt has to be for comemrcial reasons relating to a loss of value to an advertiser. A sports player turning out to have used steroids, maybe.
Not fear of a secondary boycott because a person said something if the advertiser doesn’t show its disapproval by dropping the person..
Sammy Finkelman (9fe80b) — 12/22/2013 @ 8:48 amA&E’s entire prime time tonight was reruns of DD. I can’t imagine the levels of outrage there must be in their corporate suites! Basically, there was none.
Tim (15965b) — 12/22/2013 @ 7:04 pmhttp://graphicsmystictoolkitvolume3.com/
The moron execs who decided to involve themselves in this now have little choice but to pawn this property off on an affiliate cable network. Comcast must be ever so peacock proud.
http://twitterbusinessinaboxreview.com/
One thing that everyone is missing in this latest contretemps in the cultural wars is that both sides have a point, to an extent.
GLAAD and it’s supporters on the left say that Christians should shun Phil Robertson because he seemed to condemn homosexuality as far as they are concerned. Regardless, homosexuals exist and, in Christianity, they are children of God and deserve the same compassion as anyone. So in that sense they are correct.
Robertson paraphrased Corinthians, but here is what the New Testament does say:
“Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men, nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.”
However, he also said sin has no logic. And about that he was exactly right according to Christian theology: Sin is sin.
Most Christians would never condemn a person for being homosexual. That is not the point. We all sin and all sins are equal in the sight of God.
That is where the left or humanists or whatever — I’m not quite sure of the right label — is eager to disagree with Christianity, Islam and to a lesser extent, Judaism.
Homosexuals do not want their identity to be considered a sin in any religion. I completely understand that.
In Christian belief, both Protestant and Catholic, sin originated in the fall of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. The Bible consistently recognizes sin from that event. And Jesus died to forgive sins for everyone.
So, here we are. One group insists that homosexuality is not a sin. Christians, by dogma, have to insist it is, but the sin does not prevent anyone from entering the Kingdom of Heaven any more than lying, killing another or cheating on your wife.
That is the folly of conflating culture and politics into religion.
With that bloviating, I wish you all a Merry Christmas, happy holidays, an eternal damnation in the hungry jaws of Cthulhu and a welcome break from me.
Ag80 (eb6ffa) — 12/22/2013 @ 8:52 pm