Obviously, the author of the article, "Freedom of speech doesnt entitle Duck Dynasty star to reality TV show | Jill Filipovic | Comment is free | theguardian.com,"doesn't understand Freedom of Speech and more importantly in this case, Freedom of Religion under the US Constitution, as intended when the Bill of Rights was enacted. You can't fire a person in the US for being a member of a protected class. Christians are a protected class. Anti-homosexuality is inherent in authentic Christianity (adhering to Jesus's words), always has been, always will be. The Christian teaching is that males sodomizing each other and preforming any other sex acts upon each other is intrinsically disordered (a sin). Of course, one doesn't need Jesus to explain that males shouldn't be sodomizing one another. That such behavior, and even such desire, is a mistake is prima facie.
"Yes, everyone is entitled to express his or her views. Not everyone is entitled to keep their jobs, though, if they decide to express views that are entirely odious and potentially costly to their employer." Oh yes he is or she is if expressing protected speech and exercising his/her religion (proselytizing), especially when off the job, which Phil Robertson did.
"...people who can't tell the difference between promoting tolerance and respect of all human beings, and objecting when someone makes a comment that demonizes an already marginalized group...." Is the author not promoting intolerance and the demonization of Christians? Sure she is. That's exactly why the Bill of Rights and the First Amendment dealt with religion first to protect marginalized Christians (persecuted even unto death under the King, the state, etc.) from the likes of Jill. The logical conclusion of Jill's teachings is that Phil would be marginalized right to his deathbed. I have no doubt though that Phil, on the other hand, would reach down and help her though, as the Good Samaritan helped the one who fell in among thieves.
Where does Jill's selective "tolerance and respect" end? Does she respect pedophiles in their pedophilia? It's an honest question because pedophiles have been only a few steps behind the homosexual activists in clamoring for "equal" rights, which equality has quickly become dominance in many quarters where homosexuals are concerned. It's clearly on display in the case of Phil. The Homosexual Movement has been headed up by the very deceptive and cunning. They sway the naive and gullible who then become infected and work to spread the fascistic, anti-Christ disease. It's a contagion. Pedophiles are no less so. Do you have the necessary antibodies to ward off the illness? Phil believes he does.
If a person can be fired for being a Christian and for spreading the truth, the word, the Gospel, which includes that homosexuality is an error, then that person can be fired from any job for exercising his or her religion up to the point where he or she is put under economic duress including to the point of not having enough to even live. It is either cave in and renounce the religion of Christianity or die. It doesn't work that one claims that the fired person can just go get another job. If the protection isn't there concerning each and every job, including as a reality-show star, then any employer, even all employers, can refuse to employ the person and even governments could decide not to subsidize the unemployed, starving Christian or whatever the person's religion.
Can A&E fire a homosexual for expressing in GQ his or her anti-Christianity? Why is the reverse acceptable when religion is enshrined in the US Constitution as protected even while homosexuality is not enumerated? Jill can't respond to that with any semblance of rationality.
This article calls Robertson a bigot while the author is clearly bigoted against him, his religion, his protected views, which views are supported not only by the Gospel text but by present-day science and medicine.
"How another man's interest in other men's underwear-parts impacts Roberts is beyond me." Yes, it's beyond her. She doesn't understand why anything in the Gospels matters. It shouldn't interest anyone that society headed in the direction of this author is mis-teaching children, as she has been mis-taught. Men having sex with each other is a mistake with very often obviously grave consequences that no amount of so-called "safe sex" can circumvent. The very structure and function of the brain matter is altered by the behavior such that riskier behavior becomes more and more likely. Promiscuity becomes rampant, which it is. Depression and drug and alcohol addictions become rampant, which they are. No amount of "acceptance" and coddling of the licit behavior saves the infected. It is not love on par with married heterosexuals but lust first. We shouldn't tell the children that though according to this anti-Christ author, Jill Filipovic. We should just completely ignore the fact of the slippery slope she's obviously on without knowing it, or without caring, and to society's and her peril.
As for the rest of her article, she strays completely off the thesis. I don't agree with everything Robertson said, but I don't agree with what Filipovic is saying either. Should she therefore be fired? She offends me. She offends my religion. Am I calling for her megaphone to be taken away because of that?
She mistakenly conflates Louisiana with Christianity. Christians do not murder. Anyone who kills fellow humans is being anti-Christianity. I don't know the degree to which Robertson thinks that way; but it's my position, and I shouldn't be fired for expressing anti-homosexuality any more than Phil should have been or this Jill Filipovic should be for expressing her offensive and bigoted views against Jesus.
Jill just doesn't get it. A&E can hire whomever for all the ratings they want, but they can't turn around and terminate the relationship over supportable religious views. They can't terminate someone who is Jewish who offends Christians by saying that Jesus wasn't the Messiah. Homosexuals' overly sensitive feelings are not to trump Jesus. Anyone who thinks they are is the asinine one.
Jill sounds like she's for allowing triple-x rated porn on in primetime for the youngest children. Rules be damned. Anything goes. Who cares? Let's all go to hell. Let's choose it "freely" or have it rammed down our throats. Jill is sick and not nearly as bright as she thinks she is or the Guardian thinks she is.
"What he's not entitled to is a reality show." What he is entitled to is to not be fired from starring in a reality show for expressing clearly supportable teachings of Jesus Christ. It is either that or there is no Freedom of Religion no matter how "balanced" the competing rights of people of different views and persuasions. Jill wants Christians to be an underclass to the homosexuals. She's treating Phil Robertson as a second-class citizen at the very least.
Once you go there, everything is fair game for being taken away. The sociopaths will have free rein, will reign, and the Earth will be completely Hell, save for God saving the righteous from it all.
I want no part of Hell. If Jill wants it, let her go there without dragging the whole planet with her.
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
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.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)