that dude from duck dynasty is held to at least three standards that i know of:
1-american
2-christian
3-employee/public face of a brand.
in accepting these three roles he has that has placed him under an outside authority and agreed to abide by its standards.
it's obvious he can say whatever he wants under standard #1. no one is trying to imprison him or sue or accuse him of breaking any law. no one is upset at him because of the implications of free speech. and we all know and understand that as an american his right to say what he pleases is stringently protected.
i am assuming that he signed a contract or agreed to some terms outlining what he agreed to do/not do as a representative of the network when he agreed to and received payment for placing himself under standard #3.
i believe the network, A&E, is upset and took action based on standard #3 alone. lots of people on the internet (in my circle many of these seem to be fairly outspoken conservative christians) are defending his words under standard #1 (and the rights inherently conferred by it).
here are my questions and stream of consciousness in thinking through this (i am working through this myself as i go).
is anyone saying that he got fired because he violated the first amendment or did anything wrong related to it? i had understood that A&E is upset because he didnt live up their (stated or not) standard of how their employees behave or speak in public because they are representatives of the network. is that right?
so i guess i am confused because it seems like it's missing the point to defend him against what the network is treating as a breach or failing in standard #3 based on the rights guaranteed by standard #1. no one said he couldnt say what he did, did they? i thought they just said that they couldnt have him representing their business while he let those remarks stand. legally, that is their choice as the employer, right?
and just to double down on the controversy, isnt A&E's choice the exact same one taken by Chickfila when they made their corporate beliefs known through the personal values of their chief? didn't many people speak up and show up to support and defend Chickfila as a business for expressing its own unique values and standing by them?
so then should we, under standard #1, be just as willing to defend A&E's right to have values as a brand/company and to defend them as we/you/yall were to defend Chickfila's?
or is the the fuss is because he was suspended because of expressing his personal beliefs on homosexuality, while it is illegal for (and woe betide) an employer to suspend or fire someone for their sexual orientation? restated: is the problem that homosexuals are protected from employers by the law, but people who are morally against homosexuality are not?
ok i can see that. so then you would have a problem under standard #1 and would be wanting to change the law...am i getting that right?
ok i can see that. so then you would have a problem under standard #1 and would be wanting to change the law...am i getting that right?
another angle: if we're dealing with legality (under #1 or #3) sexual orientation is protected by law as something that cannot be discriminated against. so then maybe it seems like the duck dynasty guy is being discriminated against for his religious beliefs (which are also legally protected so that would be illegal)? but hasnt he been loud and proud with his christian faith on and off the show from the get-go?
if so, then it seems like A&E doesnt have a problem with him saying that his reading of the bible leads him to believe homosexuality is sinful, but moreso that they have a problem with HOW he communicated these beliefs in a printed magazine interview (along with--not gray area here--wildly ignorant comments he also made in this interview about black people).
(while we're exercising: what if the pope or any neighborhood pastor had "expressed his views" in this manner? i think he would at the very least be reprimanded and likely fired by his christian employers/flock. this is why i dont think i see it as discrimination against christian beliefs so much as the callous and crude way they were expressed.)
so that is as far as my tiny brain gets on the issues that spring out of the constitutionality and employee/employee legality of this thing. but those i dont care so much about.
and maybe i am not looking in the right places (and the place i am looking most is my facebook newsfeed...genius), but i am not hearing a lot of conversation about his remarks in relation to standard #2: that of christ.
isnt that a higher/greater/better/purer/RIGHTER standard than the other two? shouldnt we leave #1 and #3 to people who either A: know what the law and the employment contract say and/or B: the ones who dont yet hold themselves to standard #2?
thats sort of where i have landed.
and maybe i am not looking in the right places (and the place i am looking most is my facebook newsfeed...genius), but i am not hearing a lot of conversation about his remarks in relation to standard #2: that of christ.
isnt that a higher/greater/better/purer/RIGHTER standard than the other two? shouldnt we leave #1 and #3 to people who either A: know what the law and the employment contract say and/or B: the ones who dont yet hold themselves to standard #2?
thats sort of where i have landed.
the bible talks a A LOT about words and about how dangerous they are and about how we need to guard our tongues. and some of that is definitely applicable here, but the main problem i have with this entire thing is how it fits in with jesus' "greatest command" to love one another like he loves us. to show his love to the world by our love.
and in all of my readings of jesus' encounters with sinners, and from firsthand experience of his dealings with me (a certified sinner) i just cant see him ever showing his love by talking to or about someone in the way that phil robertson does in this interview:
“Everything is blurred on what’s right and what’s wrong. Sin becomes fine…Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men,”“It seems like, to me, a vagina—as a man—would be more desirable than a man’s anus. That’s just me. I’m just thinking: There’s more there! She’s got more to offer. I mean, come on, dudes! You know what I’m saying? But hey, sin: It’s not logical, my man. It’s just not logical.”
of course i want expression of the christian faith to be protected legally. i think it is worth defending. but i guess i just disagree that the statement above is in anyway an expression of the christ i know.
i just had a lot of thoughts bubbling up in me about this as it hits close to home on several fronts. i am just trying to figure all of this out. but i DID want to make that one clear statement while i am here.
i know that a scattered blog post wont change anyone's mind (just like a million facebook debates wont either), i am not trying to put a rainbow flag into the hand of a conservative or to evangelize an atheist or to marry a gay man to a woman (i should try a post like that though! sounds like a flippin' blast). i am also definitely not trying to slam a man who has, for the most part, been a refreshing example of a believer in pop culture. if i was a public figure, i would have been burned in effigy so many times by now for the ignorant, rash, unthinking, sinful, dumbhead things i say all the time.
i know that a scattered blog post wont change anyone's mind (just like a million facebook debates wont either), i am not trying to put a rainbow flag into the hand of a conservative or to evangelize an atheist or to marry a gay man to a woman (i should try a post like that though! sounds like a flippin' blast). i am also definitely not trying to slam a man who has, for the most part, been a refreshing example of a believer in pop culture. if i was a public figure, i would have been burned in effigy so many times by now for the ignorant, rash, unthinking, sinful, dumbhead things i say all the time.
no, i wrote this publicly more for the people who might not have personal experience with the bible or with jesus and who might only hear about him in these sorts of controversies in the hopes of bringing a different voice into the storm and just to say publicly that, as a christian, i dont think these kinds of words are particularly worth defending in jesus' name.
thought you should know...
but there are lots and lots of word that i think are worth jesus' name, and i need to be better about saying/writing/living them extra loud.
UPDATE:
1. turns out it isnt illegal in most states for employers to discriminate based on sexual orientation.
2. really well-written, concise takes from christian perspectives: my friend clay / Rage Against the Minivan /
UPDATE:
1. turns out it isnt illegal in most states for employers to discriminate based on sexual orientation.
2. really well-written, concise takes from christian perspectives: my friend clay / Rage Against the Minivan /