Backwoods Hillbilly Removed From Show About Backwoods Hillbillies For Being A Backwoods Hillbilly.

[Boris Godunov]

He whipped them. I was underplaying it there.

"And He found in the temple those who were selling oxen and sheep and doves, and the money changers seated. And He made a scourge of cords, and drove them all out of the temple, with the sheep and the oxen; and He poured out the coins of the moneychangers, and overturned their tables." (John 2:14-15)

That doesn't say he whipped them. It says he drove them out. One could easily do that without striking a single person.

[Boris Godunov]

STOP QUOTING BEN
STOP ARGUING WITH BEN
IGNORE BEN
YOU WILL NEVER EVER CHANGE HIS MIND
HE WILL NEVER ADMIT HE IS WRONG
YOU ARE WASTING YOUR TIME

If everyone put him on ignore like the sane among us do, he'd eventually go away. He is like a malevolent spirit who feeds only on attention from arguments. Ignoring him would cause him to whither away.

[Berzerker]

and Poly would sink a bit further into oblivion

[kentonio]

Or would it? Without his crap you'd probably see a lot more posting. He does tend to destroy promising threads.

[Berzerker]

If Ben is evil to y'all, might that explain the origin of the devil? Even God needs to be challenged or provoked, its just how life is and not even God is immune. Yin and Yang

I mean Yin and Troll

[Berzerker]

Or would it? Without his crap you'd probably see a lot more posting. He does tend to destroy promising threads.

Hmm...didn't think about that. I guess I'm guilty too, sorry about that guys. I used to be even worse but Jesus is making headway with me

[Sava]

If Ben is evil to y'all, might that explain the origin of the devil? Even God needs to be challenged or provoked, its just how life is and not even God is immune. Yin and Yang

Nah. Ben is a liar with no morals. If there is ever an opinion or belief rooted in a loving attitude, he holds the opposite viewpoint. Ben isn't evil to me. He is objectively evil based upon our understand about what love and goodness is.

And I do think he has some value. Like you intimated, without contrast, we wouldn't know what good is. But Ben isn't the only example of bad in the world. There are plenty of other awful people we can look to for that lesson.

[Ben Kenobi]

You have no idea how ****ing stupid you sound right now.

That may be the case, but I'd like to see evidence that his contract specifically bars him from citing the bible.

Any employee of a sizeable media company pretty much without fail has written into their contract clauses about not harming the reputation of that company.

Again, I think the Robertsons have a pretty solid case against breach of contract given the success of the show. I would find it difficult to parse biblical citations on the show from biblical citations in this interview.

That's the case in Europe

Europe!= America. You also have laws banning religious speech and you also arrest pastors for quoting the bible.

so the idea that it wouldn't be the same in America is pretty goddamn dumb.

I find it telling that when you lack evidence for your position, we see, "that's dumb", and "that's stupid".

Media companies are hugely defensive about their public relations and reputations.

Sure. I can't see how A+E has a case given that the GQ interview was in October.

If their company name gets tainted with homophobic or racist statements by their employees then they risk being hit by boycotts by customers, lose large advertising clients and a whole raft of other financial penalties that have a very real impact on their bottom line.

The interview would have never garnered the attention that it did had A+E not suspended Pat Robertson. The attention generated is self-inflicted. Again, the interview with GQ was given in October. It's only now that it's receiving media attention. I would argue that A+E has damaged their own brand by alienating the audience of their flagship show by suspending Pat Robertson.

Please try and avoid making stupid statements about things you have no knowledge of and clearly do not understand.

Where's the evidence that his contract has a clause barring him from citing the bible in public. I would love to see evidence for this.

[Ben Kenobi]

Nah. Ben is a liar with no morals. If there is ever an opinion or belief rooted in a loving attitude, he holds the opposite viewpoint. Ben isn't evil to me. He is objectively evil based upon our understand about what love and goodness is.

So what is the good then Sava? How do you come to the conclusion as to what exactly is objectively good?

[Ben Kenobi]

That doesn't say he whipped them. It says he drove them out. One could easily do that without striking a single person.

With a scourge? I have to say the evidence isn't very strong for your position...

[snrjefe]

STOP QUOTING BEN
STOP ARGUING WITH BEN
IGNORE BEN
YOU WILL NEVER EVER CHANGE HIS MIND
HE WILL NEVER ADMIT HE IS WRONG
YOU ARE WASTING YOUR TIME

Thank you, sir. I took your shouted advice and it has indeed made this little slice of the internet more pleasant to read.

[Ming]

That may be the case, but I'd like to see evidence that his contract specifically bars him from citing the bible.

Yeah... at this point, there is no public record of the contract... However, multiple legal experts have said that, if Robertson’s contract contained a morals clause — as is often the case with on-air talent — than the reality TV star has little in the way of legal recourse.

Again, I think the Robertsons have a pretty solid case against breach of contract given the success of the show. I would find it difficult to parse biblical citations on the show from biblical citations in this interview.

Again... expert media lawyers say "Often, such morals clauses note that, if talents speaks or acts in a way that insults or denigrates people, the producer reserves the right to suspend or terminate that talent.

And typically, defining such language or actions is left to the discretion of the studio — basically, “if we say it is so, it is.” Tough to mount a legal argument against that.

Sure. I can't see how A+E has a case given that the GQ interview was in October.

While the intervew was in October, it was featured in the January 2014 issue of GQ which was just released on line and on the newstands just a week ago.

The interview would have never garnered the attention that it did had A+E not suspended Pat Robertson. The attention generated is self-inflicted.

BS... he was suspended AFTER the uproar over the release of the interview. The attention was already there.

Again, the interview with GQ was given in October. It's only now that it's receiving media attention.

Moron, don't you understand the long lead times involved in publishing a magazine. Only those involved with the interview and the magazine were aware of the contents.
So IT COULDN'T RECEIVE MEDIA attention until it was released just a week ago.

Where's the evidence that his contract has a clause barring him from citing the bible in public. I would love to see evidence for this.

Again... from another REAL LEGAL EXPERT, Eugene Volokh, a professor at UCLA School of Law...

And what of the possibility of arguing religious discrimination? While it’s true that Robertson’s anti-gay comments were couched in the context of Robertson’s religious beliefs, Volokh doesn’t see that as a likely success.

“It doesn’t sound like they were taking him off the show because they don’t like the fact that his message is religious; I think they don’t like the fact that his message is anti-gay,” Volokh said. “And people of various religions and no religions, some of them are anti-gay. and i imagine if an atheist on an A&E show said things that A&E thought disapproved of homosexuality, they would deal with it the same way.”


So yeah, at this time, there is NO EVIDENCE of exactly what is written in the contract, but it is highly likely that A&E has a STANDARD morals clause in the contract.

From two other legal experts...

“My guess is that they [suspended Robertson] on the basis of a morality clause,” one entertainment attorney told TheWrap on Wednesday. “Once you sign a reality show contract, they own you.”

Entertainment attorney Neville Johnson also noted that talent agreements generally tend to favor the networks. “If you see these talent agreements, they basically say they can do everything except torture you,” Johnson said.

[DaShi]

Nah. Ben is a liar with no morals. If there is ever an opinion or belief rooted in a loving attitude, he holds the opposite viewpoint. Ben isn't evil to me. He is objectively evil based upon our understand about what love and goodness is.

And I do think he has some value. Like you intimated, without contrast, we wouldn't know what good is. But Ben isn't the only example of bad in the world. There are plenty of other awful people we can look to for that lesson.

While there are many people who do worse things than Ben, they often have one or two admirable traits.

[Kidlicious]

While there are many people who do worse things than Ben, they often have one or two admirable traits.

What have you done now?

[DaShi]

Nothing that can be traced back to me.