[ SECRET POST #2551 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2551 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.
[Resident Evil movies]


__________________________________________________



03. http://i43.tinypic.com/bg9zlf.gif
[moving .gif]


__________________________________________________














[ ----- SPOILERY SECRETS AHEAD ----- ]













04. [SPOILERS for something but idk what]



__________________________________________________



05. [SPOILERS for Frozen]



__________________________________________________



06. [SPOILERS for Bioshock Infinite]



__________________________________________________













[ ----- TRIGGERY SECRETS AHEAD ----- ]















07. [WARNING for rape]

[Martin Freeman]


__________________________________________________



08. [WARNING for rape]



__________________________________________________



09. [WARNING for domestic abuse]















Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 00 pages, 000 secrets from Secret Submission Post #363.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 1 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

nayrt

IIRC he said that African-Americans in the South under Jim Crow were contented and that the end of Jim Crow was the result of "outside agitation". So while it's not explicitly saying "bring back Jim Crow", it is saying that Jim Crow wasn't bad and that the process of ending it was not because of people who actually lived under it. And the distance between those two positions is not very far and I think a reasonable person could recognize that.

Also I don't understand why you're super loading up to defend the fucking Duck Dynasty guy and be aggro about it, but w/e, do your thing

[(Anonymous)]

I don't even care about this guy, I just think most people who are jumping to point fingers at him should know why they're doing it. Because GLAAD was upset? News flash: people have the right to offend others. Organizations, at least in America, do not have the right to threaten people or companies, which is exactly what happened. And companies cannot bring action against employees for their religious beliefs, which is what A&E did when GLAAD pressured them. It's illegal and that's why his suspension has been nullified.

[(Anonymous)]

Are you fucking kidding me?

People have the right to offend others. Yes. Absolutely. I support fully Robertson's political right to say what he did. I also have the right to say that his statements were stupid and the position he's espousing is wrong and harmful and idiotic. I don't know in what fucking way this 'right to offend others' is supposed to shield him from that. And that's what's going on here. His suspension was a separate thing, and if it was illegal, then it should have been nullified. But there's no fucking right he has that can stop me from saying that his positions and beliefs are wrong and harmful and that he's a bigot.

[(Anonymous)]

And companies cannot bring action against employees for their religious beliefs

You can't fire them for their religious beliefs, but you can sure as hell discipline them for their actions. A&E suspended that dude because his mouthing off got them negative publicity, and they reinstated him because the suspension got them more negative publicity. It had nothing to do with their action being illegal, nor was his suspension "nullified."

Try getting your news from an actual news source, and your legal information from somewhere that knows about the law.

[(Anonymous)]

DA

There's this little thing called the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that you might want to look up. It most definitely was illegal for them to suspend him for stating his religious beliefs in response to a question about his religious beliefs.

I haven't heard anything about them paying him for the suspension but the word I keep reading all across newsites is "cancelled."

[(Anonymous)]

And there's a little thing called "bona fide occupational qualification" you may want to look up.

Seriously, does it not make sense to you that a person who has been hired as an entertainer or to represent commercial brands can be be disciplined or fired at will by his employer if he starts saying things that piss off large numbers of people? Take your nose out of NewsMax for 15 minutes and apply some common sense.

That's the worst part

[insanenoodlyguy]

When I say worst part, I mean of A&E's actions, not the actual incident that started it off. I'd have been fine if A&E did nothing. I'd have been fine if they suspended him. But this kind of pathetic action makes everybody hold you in contempt. Going either way would have allowed them to keep some respect and be seen as having some power. Now they've shown weakness and I've little doubt it's gonna bite them in the ass come next contract negotiation cause they've just told everybody they need these guys. And even if they do they never should have shown that.

Re: That's the worst part

[(Anonymous)]

IDEK who this Duck dude is b/c I never watch A&E anymore, I'm just here for the MF part of the secret. I disagree that duck dude is getting any of whatever he said from the Bible buuuuuuttttt as execrable as his choice of religion is, he still has the right, in the USA (other places definitely don't have this right) to practice whatever religion he chooses. Even if it is a bad religion. That was kind of the whole point of the US, even if they don't seem to be living up to those standards very much anymore.

Re: That's the worst part

[(Anonymous)]

Where is anyone denying him his right to practice his religion? What A&E--his employer--did was temporarily suspend (i.e., not pay) him for saying something that went against their stated corporate ideals. Moreover, he is under contract and probably, like many entertainers, has a ton of clauses stipulating what he can say and do while representing A&E.

The Constitution of the United States does not require anyone to pay others to voice opinions they don't agree with, or to provide airtime for those opinions. That's a fundamental misunderstanding of First Amendment rights.

[(Anonymous)]

The freedom to say offensive things does not guarantee you the right to freedom from any consequences from what you say.

[(Anonymous)]

THIS.

Freedom of speech does not equal freedom from consequences.

[(Anonymous)]

My lawyer heart weeps at your ignorance.