Garin, just provided this example. In Federal Court, a corporations "hand book" does NOT carry any weight when it restrict(s) the First Amendment. I think we should all be happy it is set up this way.

Like I said, all groups ( Gov / Corps / Entities ) must follow the Rules of the Road.

None of this matters now anyhow as word from inside A&E says they are just waiting until the Holidays get by so everyone forgets about it and they can quietly drop their Phil-ban, which they are now calling a suspension and not a firing.

Didn't they always call it a suspension? They know their cash cow, despite his controversies. It's not as though they did it know what they were getting into. Also, I doubt much of the Duck Dynasty audience is offended by what he said. What he said to GQ was obtuse and dumb, but not particularly offensive. Some of the other videos floating around are worse.

The article don't make mention of any contract between the company and the plaintiff. I wonder what arrangement they had.

...the Constitution OVER-RIDES any contract or law.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ "shenanigans" ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I hope they leave A&E and go somewhere else. A&E will just have to find their next honey boo boo. God help us all. And as for Cracker Barrel I hope their patrons see them for what they really are spineless. UNtil Christians start taking up for themselves they will just continued to be discriminated against by the left and the small minorities that hate them.

New testament references only please. You can't pick and choose what Jewish Law you want to follow today.

Its all God's word if it weren't important it wouldn't have been written.

None of this matters now anyhow as word from inside A&E says they are just waiting until the Holidays get by so everyone forgets about it and they can quietly drop their Phil-ban, which they are now calling a suspension and not a firing.

I thought it was a suspension from the start, this is the only place where I saw it said fired.

Its all God's word if it weren't important it wouldn't have been written.

No bacon for you then.

Its all God's word if it weren't important it wouldn't have been written.

So you take literally everything that's in the Bible?

You don't have a constitutional right to a tv show. He government didn't step in, or prohibit his speech. He wasn't jailed. He wasn't silenced. He spoke his mind, and his employer, or an entity he is contractually obligated to, apparently didn't like it. His rights weren't violated unless A&E violated a portion of their contract, which we are not privy to. So no, his "civil rights" are not in question.

Chadanth / onthestrip , does the example of Garin in Seattle, help your understanding of the First Amendment in Federal Courts? ...and their position w/ corporations? ...re: Religous Practices.

Chadanth / onthestrip , does the example of Garin in Seattle, help your understanding of the First Amendment in Federal Courts? ...and their position w/ corporations? ...re: Religous Practices.

Maybe. I'd still be curious about provisions in their contract regarding media appearances. We'll see how it shakes out.

I don't understand how so many people can think this is a free speech issue. It's not. The Constitution doesn't guarantee the man's right to be employed by A&E. Remember this next time there is a high profile case where somebody is fired for being gay and you are standing up for that employer's right to at-will employment.

Maybe. I'd still be curious about provisions in their contract regarding media appearances. We'll see how it shakes out.

Also, when Phil said "this is what the Bible says", is different than ( This is how Phil would do it ). The first is a "witness for Christians" and the other is an opinion. That falls into the category of common religous practices for Christians.

SEATTLE (AP) — A Seattle-area Muslim man who said his former employer fired him because of the beard he wears for religious reason has been awarded more than $66,000, although most of that will go to attorney fees.

Abdulkadir Omar said he doesn't care about the money.

"It's not even about the money," he said. "It's about standing up for something you believe in."

In 2011, Omar filed his federal lawsuit in Seattle against Sacramento, Calif.-based American Patriot Security, seeking back pay and unspecified damages for emotional pain and loss of enjoyment of life, among other reasons.

According to the lawsuit, Omar was hired by a local manager of the security company in May 2009 and earned $9 an hour guarding a FedEx warehouse in Kent, Wash. He said he started the same day he was hired, and was not told about the clean-shaven policy.

In November 2009, a supervisor from headquarters told him he had to shave his beard because of the policy. Omar refused, saying his beard is part of his religious beliefs. He was suspended, and fired the following spring, the lawsuit said.

An email inquiry to the security company on Wednesday was not immediately returned.

"I truly hope that my case shows millions of American Muslims when they stand up whether it's at work or school, that they will win," Omar said. "I stood up and I won. I want my case to serve as an example."

Born in Yemen, Omar said he immigrated to the United States when he was 10.

"I grew up in this country, I've been living here all of my life. Just like everybody else, I'm an American," he said.

The default judgment says that more than $50,000 of the $66,000 award is for attorney fees, while most of the rest goes to Omar, who said he was unemployed for nine months after being dismissed by American Patriot.

Omar sued the security firm with the help of the Washington chapter of the Council for American-Islamic Relations.

"Religious freedom is the law of the land," said Arsalan Bukhari, executive director of the Washington state CAIR office. "I think religious freedom is what makes American unique and we have very clear laws that states employers, schools must accommodate religious observances."

bchris, this is exactly where this issue is. A Freedom of Religion, Constitution issue w/ "religous practices" in the Christian Belief.

I don't understand how so many people can think this is a free speech issue. It's not. The Constitution doesn't guarantee the man's right to be employed by A&E. Remember this next time there is a high profile case where somebody is fired for being gay and you are standing up for that employer's right to at-will employment.

No it does not, the Constitution is bigger than employment w/ companies. The Federal Courts will be happy to help A&E gain a "clearer" understanding of their role as employers re: Religous practices.

Seems he was also being selective on what sins he doesn't like.
No. You quit reading too early.

“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,” he says. Then he paraphrases Corinthians: “Don’t be deceived. Neither the adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlers—they won’t inherit the kingdom of God. Don’t deceive yourself. It’s not right.”
Duck Dynasty's Phil Robertson Gives Drew Magary a Tour (http://www.gq.com/entertainment/television/201401/duck-dynasty-phil-robertson#ixzz2oKCOyqgD)

bchris, this is exactly where this issue is. A Freedom of Religion, Constitution issue w/ "religous practices" in the Christian Belief.

He has the right to believe that all he wants, but to be outspoken about that belief is another issue depending on A&E's terms of employment, especially if A&E has a specific set of values they are trying project and Mr. Robinson's personal beliefs oppose those values. People have every right to be racist, but racism in the workplace isn't tolerated and in most workplaces you can be shown the door if you are outspoken about it. Let's reverse the situation. Would you want the Federal government forcing a Christian film company to cast an openly gay actor as the lead star of a Christian movie?

Chadanth / onthestrip , does the example of Garin in Seattle, help your understanding of the First Amendment in Federal Courts? ...and their position w/ corporations? ...re: Religous Practices.
It tells me nothing. There are no relevant details provided in the article and I dont have a copy of Phil's contract with A&E or what state A&E is based. These details probably matter. For all I know this is an apple oranges comparison.

No it does not, the Constitution is bigger than employment w/ companies. The Federal Courts will be happy to help A&E gain a "clearer" understanding of their role as employers re: Religous practices.
Well I guess we should see this in court soon huh? Once again, you have no idea what you are talking about.

No. You quit reading too early.

Duck Dynasty's Phil Robertson Gives Drew Magary a Tour (http://www.gq.com/entertainment/television/201401/duck-dynasty-phil-robertson#ixzz2oKCOyqgD)


I still think he's being selective in what sins he doesn't like. The Bible is probably full of sins he does but chooses not to acknowledge them.

Let's see, Phil was Not at the "workplace" & "off hours", so all the corporate law does not apply. Phil was speaking about "his faith", not your faith / belief, but HIS personal faith / belief. That (seperates) this cconversation between Civil rights (as an individual) & Corporate Law.

Perhaps you need to pull out your pocket Constitution and reread your First Amendment. Pay particular attention to the first four words.

No it does not, the Constitution is bigger than employment w/ companies. The Federal Courts will be happy to help A&E gain a "clearer" understanding of their role as employers re: Religous practices.


What part of the Constitution has been violated here by either side?

SEATTLE (AP) — A Seattle-area Muslim man who said his former employer fired him because of the beard he wears for religious reason has been awarded more than $66,000, although most of that will go to attorney fees.

Abdulkadir Omar said he doesn't care about the money.

"It's not even about the money," he said. "It's about standing up for something you believe in."

In 2011, Omar filed his federal lawsuit in Seattle against Sacramento, Calif.-based American Patriot Security, seeking back pay and unspecified damages for emotional pain and loss of enjoyment of life, among other reasons.

According to the lawsuit, Omar was hired by a local manager of the security company in May 2009 and earned $9 an hour guarding a FedEx warehouse in Kent, Wash. He said he started the same day he was hired, and was not told about the clean-shaven policy.

In November 2009, a supervisor from headquarters told him he had to shave his beard because of the policy. Omar refused, saying his beard is part of his religious beliefs. He was suspended, and fired the following spring, the lawsuit said.

An email inquiry to the security company on Wednesday was not immediately returned.

"I truly hope that my case shows millions of American Muslims when they stand up whether it's at work or school, that they will win," Omar said. "I stood up and I won. I want my case to serve as an example."

Born in Yemen, Omar said he immigrated to the United States when he was 10.

"I grew up in this country, I've been living here all of my life. Just like everybody else, I'm an American," he said.

The default judgment says that more than $50,000 of the $66,000 award is for attorney fees, while most of the rest goes to Omar, who said he was unemployed for nine months after being dismissed by American Patriot.

Omar sued the security firm with the help of the Washington chapter of the Council for American-Islamic Relations.

"Religious freedom is the law of the land," said Arsalan Bukhari, executive director of the Washington state CAIR office. "I think religious freedom is what makes American unique and we have very clear laws that states employers, schools must accommodate religious observances."

bchris, ....read this again, you may have missed this. The Federal Courts have already spoken on this issue. A&E or any employer must follow the Rules of the Road.

. . . is totally out of touch with reality?
(objection, yer honor . . . Counsel is leading the Witless . . . )

I haven't taken inventory of the whole thread, but that it is 10+ pages and some still clearly think that Robertson has any kind of case against A&E for the violation of his civil rights is just...well...wrong. That doesn't mean that maybe Robertson can find a lawyer to take the case, he's just not going to win it. A&E or any company can terminate employees who bring their employers under harsh public scrutiny.

What part of the Constitution has been violated here by either side?

None.

None.

There are some who think otherwise and I was curious how they reached that conclusion.

Didja ever notice that the only time reactionary right wingers throw around "freedom of speech" rights is when someone is called out for anti gay or anti racial minority comments? No protests when Charlie Sheen called out his producer or Gilbert Gottifried fired from AFLAC.

Using Muslims as a source of how the government separates church and state is a non-starter. Muslims have special considerations that aren't afforded any other religion.

On taxpayers' tab: Muslim prayer room, foot baths at San Francisco International Airport - Washington Times (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jun/10/taxpayers-tab-muslim-prayer-room-foot-baths-san-fr/)


California taxpayers have footed the bill for Muslim airport cabbies to have their very own prayer room and foot baths at the San Francisco International Airport.

Muslims are required to pray five times a day — a ritual that also calls for a ceremonial cleansing, the San Francisco Gate reported.

Royal Cab driver Hasan Khan, a Pakistani immigrant, petitioned the airport for a proper place of prayer, to which it easily obliged, the San Francisco Gate said.

“The way we look at it … this was in the interest of maintaining a good relationship with ground transportation providers,” airport spokesman Doug Yakel told the San Francisco Gate.

I haven't taken inventory of the whole thread, but that it is 10+ pages and some still clearly think that Robertson has any kind of case against A&E for the violation of his civil rights is just...well...wrong. That doesn't mean that maybe Robertson can find a lawyer to take the case, he's just not going to win it. A&E or any company can terminate employees who bring their employers under harsh public scrutiny.

No, you are wrong. In Federal Court, this is a Freedom of Religion re: Commom Religous Practices like ( Witnessing in the Christian Faith ). When Phil said "The Bible says"...then that put this entire conversation under Federal Jurisdictionas a Religous Freedom (ie quoting the Bible). NO corporation can hide from it. Look at the example Garin provided in Seattle, this is the same thing. The court ruled in favor of the plantiff.

And you still haven't answered as to whether a Rastafarian can be exempt from a dirty pee test under your freedom of religion trumps employer rights.

No, you are wrong. In Federal Court, this is a Freedom of Religion re: Commom Religous Practices like ( Witnessing in the Christian Faith ). When Phil said "The Bible says"...then that put this entire conversation under Federal Jurisdictionas a Religous Freedom (ie quoting the Bible). NO corporation can hide from it. Look at the example Garin provided in Seattle, this is the same thing. The court ruled in favor of the plantiff.

Did A&E prevent him from saying any of those things? How was his freedom of religion violated?

No, you are wrong. In Federal Court, this is a Freedom of Religion re: Commom Religous Practices like ( Witnessing in the Christian Faith ). When Phil said "The Bible says"...then that put this entire conversation under Federal Jurisdictionas a Religous Freedom (ie quoting the Bible). NO corporation can hide from it. Look at the example Garin provided in Seattle, this is the same thing. The court ruled in favor of the plantiff.

Ha! Is this like when Ricky Bobby says that if you say "with all due respect" before you say something it allows you to say anything you want? Its in the Geneva Convention!

Once again, always funny to see non-lawyers argue with actual lawyers.

...the Constitution OVER-RIDES any contract or law.
I don't think there is a lick of actual knowledge of constitutional law in this statement or any of those made previously.

Here a good summary of how employement law really works:

Where Free Speech Goes to Die: The Workplace - Businessweek (http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-08-03/where-free-speech-goes-to-die-the-workplace)

Ha! Is this like when Ricky Bobby says that if you say "with all due respect" before you say something it allows you to say anything you want? Its in the Geneva Convention!

Once again, always funny to see non-lawyers argue with actual lawyers.

Even funnier when the non-lawyer cites "Garin" as the controlling case.

Even funnier when the non-lawyer cites "Garin" as the controlling case.

Pretty much the kiss of death of any credibility.

In Federal Court, you would find that "legal contract" would be thrown-out and Non-binding in Phil's case. He is "practicing" his belief in a NON work related location or event. Witnessing as a Christian is a common practice. The Constitution / First Amendment buries ANY contract (or law) that prevents a person's access to that right.

Have you tried yelling "FIRE!!!" in a public place recently.... Go out and give it a try and see how far the 1st Amendment buries any law.

No, you are wrong. In Federal Court, this is a Freedom of Religion re: Commom Religous Practices like ( Witnessing in the Christian Faith ). When Phil said "The Bible says"...then that put this entire conversation under Federal Jurisdictionas a Religous Freedom (ie quoting the Bible). NO corporation can hide from it. Look at the example Garin provided in Seattle, this is the same thing. The court ruled in favor of the plantiff.

RFRA? What kookoo source have you been reading? RFRA has time and again had its applicability weakened. It now basically only applies to the internal operations of the federal government. It was originally created in reaction to a few cases which held that the states could prosecute peyote smokers of Native American religions so long as those laws are of general applicability and are neutral. The legislature has worked to restore the power of the RFRA and in so doing, have made it basically a creative legal argument sometimes used in Indian law cases, most recently in a challenge to using reclaimed water in a ski resort expansion on the theory that the Natives believed that it would cause them "ghost sickness."

RFRA has absolutely no applicability here. To suggest so is to admit that you don't know what the RFRA did and further to admit that you didn't do my homework assignment. Read the first four words of the First Amendment. What are they?

Did A&E prevent him from saying any of those things? How was his freedom of religion violated?

No, the real question is what has Congress done here.

Yes, God decided and just so there was no confusion, it was written down for us. If you choose not to believe it, that's up to you, but you won't be able to use the "no one told me" defense.

Anyhow, we already had this portion of the debate on another thread so no point in repeating all of that.

Back to topic, it appears that A&E is retracting their ban on Phil and now they are just crafting the strategy to announce it.

CdE0043WyfE

Sure I can. I believe in God also (or 2 million of them, whichever it is). I just have no recollection of God saying in any of my religious texts that a certain group of people are sinners because they believe something different. But you're right, back on topic we go!

I not all businesses are there to cater to all people. Cracker Barrel has a huge following and is generally very busy. Their business has grown significantly. The stock price has nearly doubled this year and revenues are up nicely which is hard to do in the restaurant business. I can say I really like the food but the financials really contradictory t your opinion that their food "blows." You're very much in the minority.

I'm in the minority in the Deep South, perhaps, but probably not elsewhere. There are more than 300 million people living in the United States. How many of those people like Cracker Barrel? A tiny sliver. I don't dine at Cracker Barrel, joining about 98% of Americans. Hardly the minority, chief.

In reference to Garin's quote (I have him on iggy because I've never once seen him say anything of substance and believe he's generally just a troll), Phil Robertson isn't going to fall within EEOC's Title VII (which is what the case he referenced was about) unless Robertson was an employee of A&E. Generally, a network isn't going to place talent like that directly on the payroll. They're generally not going to have any contractual or civil rights recourse. Those Hollywood lawyers are pretty good at drafting contracts.

No, the real question is what has Congress done here.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...

You argued in the past that the Constitution also applies to state and local government (see 10 Commandments on State property). A corporation is a creation of the state. So should the Constitution apply to a corporation?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...

You argued in the past that the Constitution also applies to state and local government (see 10 Commandments on State property). A corporation is a creation of the state. So should the Constitution apply to a corporation?

It depends. Through the Commerce Clause, certain things like 14th Amendment Equal Protection and Fundamental Liberty Interests can kick in to regulate the ability of, for example, a restaurant choosing to only serve whites. That doesn't mean that, for example, the mall can't tell you to leave your gun at home as the 5th Amendment does not apply to it. Really understanding the Constitution is a nuanced thing and in most cases, a little research is even required by those of us who have undertaken doctoral-level academic pursuits in the area and some of us who use it quite a bit.

That's probably because the constitution has been misinterprted by so many judges over the years that it has almost lost all original meaning on most subjects. Now it is mostly a "make it up as you go" system.

Care to cite an actual law or court decision to back up your claim that he cannot be sanctioned by his employer?
The issue is who really employed him? Was he contracted to A+E Networks or was he contracted to Gurney Productions who owns the show. Were there stipulations in the A+E contract with Gurney Productions that determined "behavior" of the show participants? It is really difficult to know what the real situation is without knowledge of all those contracts.


I haven't taken inventory of the whole thread, but that it is 10+ pages and some still clearly think that Robertson has any kind of case against A&E for the violation of his civil rights is just...well...wrong. That doesn't mean that maybe Robertson can find a lawyer to take the case, he's just not going to win it. A&E or any company can terminate employees who bring their employers under harsh public scrutiny.
Just as with the case in the cake baker here in Colorado and Oregon or the photographer in New Mexico there are state laws (civil rights in this case) which go beyond Federal law and are more restrictive. Depending upon the laws in whatever state has jurisdiction (California, Louisiana?) there could be a case for violation of the state civil rights code.

Behavior? The man was witnessing to another person , once again just shows that Christians are targeted every chance the libs get.

Poor pitiful persecuted Christians. I hear Obama Is personally going door to door, coast to coast sending everybody with a bible to a FEMA concentration camp. It's like NAZI GERMANY to be a Christian in this country! There must be 300 million Christians in Obama's prisons already, right?

Behavior? The man was witnessing to another person , once again just shows that Christians are targeted every chance the libs get.

How so? Have you spent much time in jail for your beliefs? Maybe a little water boarding? Come on, something?

This isn't about the constitution. It really isn't much about the market because it is already signalling what side it is coming down on.

What this is about is popular culture and the "war" that is going on between the left and the right on the value given to speaking out on what we believe. The left, these days, is all about being PC and wants to shut down unpopular/offensive speech because they fail to distinguish between offensive actions and offensive words. They also fail to respect traditional Christianity. It is difficult to believe that this is the same party that supported the right of nazi's to march in jewish neighborhoods with many residents who had survived concentration camps and lost their entire families. The left used to be committed to the value of political speech, however offensive. No more unless it is toeing the party line. They are the most anti diversity crowd ever.

The right genuinely believes the appropriate (and traditional) remedy to offensive speech is more speech. They also believe traditional christianity has been unfairly singled out for its beliefs while other religions with similar beliefs are given a pass. The fundamental unfairness of the sanctimony of the left is infuriating.

This isn't about the constitution. It really isn't much about the market because it is already signalling what side it is coming down on.

What this is about is popular culture and the "war" that is going on between the left and the right on the value given to speaking out on what we believe. The left, these days, is all about being PC and wants to shut down unpopular/offensive speech because they fail to distinguish between offensive actions and offensive words. They also fail to respect traditional Christianity. It is difficult to believe that this is the same party that supported the right of nazi's to march in jewish neighborhoods with many residents who had survived concentration camps and lost their entire families. The left used to be committed to the value of political speech, however offensive. No more unless it is toeing the party line. They are the most anti diversity crowd ever.

The right genuinely believes the appropriate (and traditional) remedy to offensive speech is more speech. They also believe traditional christianity has been unfairly singled out for its beliefs while other religions with similar beliefs are given a pass. The fundamental unfairness of the sanctimony of the left is infuriating.

To me, it's not about nazis marching or speech being silenced. He was allowed to speak his mind. No government entity silenced him. His employer didn't like it, and backed away. The market responded, and his employer apparently recanted. No ones rights were trampled. No violation of first amendment rights occurred.

To me, it's not about nazis marching or speech being silenced. He was allowed to speak his mind. No government entity silenced him. His employer didn't like it, and backed away. The market responded, and his employer apparently recanted. No ones rights were trampled. No violation of first amendment rights occurred.
There are some state laws that the main intent is to suppress speech, that is pretty much what the "civil rights" lawsuits intent is. That is definitely the case in the academic world, free speech is verboten for the most part on a college campus.

There are some state laws that the main intent is to suppress speech, that is pretty much what the "civil rights" lawsuits intent is. That is definitely the case in the academic world, free speech is verboten for the most part on a college campus.

I'd agree, and hope that litigation brings that out. Most (obviously not all) colleges receive significant government money. They should abide by the same restrictions on government infringements, with the possible exception of living spaces.

This isn't about the constitution. It really isn't much about the market because it is already signalling what side it is coming down on.

What this is about is popular culture and the "war" that is going on between the left and the right on the value given to speaking out on what we believe. The left, these days, is all about being PC and wants to shut down unpopular/offensive speech because they fail to distinguish between offensive actions and offensive words. They also fail to respect traditional Christianity. It is difficult to believe that this is the same party that supported the right of nazi's to march in jewish neighborhoods with many residents who had survived concentration camps and lost their entire families. The left used to be committed to the value of political speech, however offensive. No more unless it is toeing the party line. They are the most anti diversity crowd ever.

The right genuinely believes the appropriate (and traditional) remedy to offensive speech is more speech. They also believe traditional christianity has been unfairly singled out for its beliefs while other religions with similar beliefs are given a pass. The fundamental unfairness of the sanctimony of the left is infuriating.

And if the CEO of a major company got up on the podium and quoted George Wallace in a whimsical reminiscing tone of better days gone by and said "Segregation now, segregation tommorow, segregation forever!"

They'd can his ass.

It's like that. Remember, back then, Christianity also used to stand for segregation. It's like that.

A person in robertson's position controls the capital of a company like A&E and also each of their advetisers in a very direct way. Prior to this, DD was an amusing show nobody really took that seriously and was highly likable as a result. Now it is symbol for a very contentious and rapidly taboo mindset.

The comparison to Montgomery, 1963 is spot on. What celebrity became more popular for being a hard segregationalist?


Remember Anita Bryant? She ruined her career for a very similar controversy. What sponsor want their product's market cut by the association with controversy?

This is the way market works and how convictions are tested. Robertson wants to crusade for his brand of morality. Now he gets to demonstrate the strength of his convictions in a way he probably hs never imagined he would have to. He has been literally preaching to the choir for many years. Now he gets to find out how the rest of the world reacts to his brand of biblical "truth."

It is sad that the loss of popularity this will cause will likely have implications for the family far beyond what any of them could think was possible.

Is it ironic that the right thinks the market is infallible only when it serves the wealthy but hates it when other constituencies benifit?

The same rules concerning topics of discussion at family gatherings apply to celebrities and interviews - keep your political and religious views to yourself and everyone will be better off.

The same rules concerning topics of discussion at family gatherings apply to celebrities and interviews - keep your political and religious views to yourself and everyone will be better off.

Amen to that

Hmmmm anyone think this is a violation of his 1st Amendment?

Colorado State defensive line coach Greg Lupfer was suspended for two weeks without pay on Monday due to his actions during the Rams’ 48-45 victory over Washington State in the New Mexico Bowl on Saturday.

Cameras caught Lupfer making an anti-gay slur to Cougars quarterback Connor Halliday from the sidelines during the game.

The punishment for Lupfer includes the suspension, plus mandatory anger management and diversity training to be paid by Lupfer. He will also receive a letter of reprimand and be put on a zero-tolerance status by the university.


“I accept these consequences — two weeks without pay and the training programs — and I am thankful for this second chance to continue coaching at Colorado State and be a part of the Ram Family,” Lupfer said in a statement. “I am deeply sorry for my behavior, which does not represent who I am or my values. I embrace the opportunity to participate in anger management and diversity sensitivity training. I was angry and careless with my words, and my words hurt many people. I sincerely apologize to the GLBTQ community for causing pain by using a slur without considering its meaning. I take ownership of my words and fully understand why people are very upset.”

Why aren't comedians and rappers held to this same example? Tosh says something about queers on his show nightly. And rappers say the dreaded n word every time that open their mouth. Pretty soon we'll all the bad words will be gone and life will be great.

I tried watching Duck Dynasty for the first time. I found the show so boring with poor acting, I had to leave it. For a reality show, "Call of the Wildman" on Animal Planet is more interesting with some drama as well as humor.

Why aren't comedians and rappers held to this same example? Tosh says something about queers on his show nightly. And rappers say the dreaded n word every time that open their mouth. Pretty soon we'll all the bad words will be gone and life will be great.

Haven't you learned, it's not what you say, it's who says it. If actions were the measuring the stick the Hollywood/Entertainment left would be the most hated and reviled people on the planet. Instead, they get award shows. BTW - Tosh wouldn't make those 'jokes' if his audience didn't think they were funny.

Anyhow, if you spend too much time trying to figure out the logic of crazy people it will drive you crazy.

I tried watching Duck Dynasty for the first time. I found the show so boring with poor acting, I had to leave it. For a reality show, "Call of the Wildman" on Animal Planet is more interesting with some drama as well as humor.

What d'ya mean "acting"? This is a "reality" show.