____________________________________________
Though it may not be popular, I think it will be helpful to start this post with a confession. I believe A&E has should have the right to fire Phil Robertson. I don’t fault them for that decision at all. But we should also learn a lesson from them: anti-discrimination laws are a shoe that doesn’t fit when they’re on the other foot.
A Quick Review
In case you aren’t familiar with the story, Phil is the father of the Robertson family and one of the stars in the hit reality TV show called “Duck Dynasty.” The show is wildly popular in part for the zany antics of the Robertson family and in part because of the family values that characterize the show.Phil recently got into some trouble over some remarks regarding homosexuality made during an interview with GQ magazine. A local newspaper in New Orleans summarized his most offensive remarks in the following paragraph.
"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," 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." (His comments about preferring heterosexuality over homosexuality, based on respective male and female anatomy, were pretty graphic.)The A&E network quickly responded to distance themselves from Phil’s comments. In a press release they stated,
We are extremely disappointed to have read Phil Robertson’s comments in GQ, which are based on his own personal beliefs and are not reflected in the series Duck Dynasty. His personal views in no way reflect those of A&E Networks, who have always been strong supporters and champions of the LGBT community. (Quote taken from Al Mohler)So, to make this long story short, A&E has fired, or at least temporarily suspended, Phil Robertson for clearly and publicly stating his religious and moral views concerning homosexuality.
Can they Do This?
It seems to me that this could be the fodder for a rather tricky legal debate. Many people will suggest that this is a free speech issue and appeal to the First Amendment, however I think the First Amendment is only tangentially related. The real sticking point will be the anti-discrimination laws that began with Title VII of the Civil Rights act in 1964 and is still being debated with acts such as the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), which essentially extends the protections of the Civil Rights Act to Lesbian, Gay, Bi-sexual, and Transgender (LGBT) people.
The reason that these laws appear to be relevant is because Phil Robertson is clearly being fired for expressing his religious views. As A&E made clear in their statement, they are supporters of the LGBT community and they believe that the religious convictions that he shared are offensive to that community. This is the reason they have fired him. However, anti-discrimination laws (EEO) make it illegal to take retributive action on someone because of his or her religious views.
The Shoe On the Other Foot
I see a heaping dose of irony in this whole situation. The LGBT community has championed these anti-discrimination laws, particularly in the face of small businesses that refuse to participate in homosexual weddings. One recent example is the Colorado baker, Jack Phillips, who refused to bake a wedding cake for a homosexual couple because it violated his religious convictions. The Civil Rights Commission brought suit and a Colorado judge, Robert Spencer, found that Phillips was in violation of anti-discrimination laws. Phillips was put under a court order to bake the cake or face up to 12 months of jail time.
However, now A&E wants to discriminate against Robertson for the same reason Phillips wanted to discriminate against the homosexual couple. Phillips felt a responsibility to distance himself from a homosexual wedding, so he refused to produce a wedding cake that would promote, celebrate, and involve him with something he felt was immoral. Similarly, A&E feels the responsibility to distance themselves from someone who is religiously opposed to homosexuality. They do not want to produce a show that would promote, celebrate, or otherwise involve them with Phil Robertson's ideas. It’s the same shoe, it’s just on a different foot.
The Way Forward
I am thankful for the progress that came with the Civil Rights Act of 1964. I think it was morally reprehensible to refuse a person dinner because of the color of their skin. However, I believe that today we are seeing that the Act, in its current form, is untenable. It is wrong to force a baker to be involved in something he believes is immoral, even if he is wrong. It’s would be just as wrong to require a company that is decidedly pro LGBT to produce and promote ideas that are contrary to their message.
Tolerance is a virtue. But tolerance isn’t accomplished by legally requiring everyone to promote the other side's ideas. Give the Colorado baker the freedom to bake cakes that don’t violate his conscience and give A&E the freedom to produce and promote shows and actors who don’t violate their conscience. Let’s trust progress to come through the conversation, not through forcing everyone to wear the same shoe.
______________________________
Sources and Suggested Reading:
Joe Carter, "Duck Dynasty Star Fired Over Remarks on Homosexuality," The Gospel Coalition, December, 2013.
Ken Kewklowski, "Baker Faces Prison for Refusing to Bake Same Sex Wedding Cake," Breitbart, December 2013.
Drew Magary, “What the Duck?,” GQ, January 2014.
Al Mohler, "You Have Been Warned: The Duck Dynasty Controversy", albertmohler.com December 2013.
Russell Moore, "Duck Dynasty?," Moore to the Point, December 2013.
James Poniewozik, “Why Phil Robertson Got Suspended from Duck Dynasty,” TIME, Wednesday, December 18, 2014.
