Phil Roberston Says Words

As you all know, Phil Robertson gave an interview to GQ whereby he espoused his feelings about homosexuality.  His interview reads (in part):

“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.”

First of all, if you find yourself uttering the phrase “a man’s anus” during the course of a magazine interview you may want to rethink your talking points. Obviously, Phil was eloquently conveying a sentiment shared by all heterosexual males and he has the right to do so without having his constitutional rights violated. Unfortunately for Phil, his employer disagreed with his opinions and decided to suspend him without pay. This turn of events was remarkable only because he is a wealthy reality-television personality and not a local plumber. 

Let’s say that I own a liquor store and I hired Phil to work the counter. Now let’s say every time someone comes in to purchase something he informs them that they are going to rot in Hell. While Phil’s actions are a direct result of his religious convictions (namely that the consumption of alcohol is a sin) I still have the right as the owner of the establishment to fire Phil and hire someone who chooses not to remind my customers of their eternal damnation each time they wish to procure some Chardonnay.

Have I violated Phil’s right to free speech by firing him? No. The first amendment reads as follows:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Let me give you an opposite scenario. Let’s say I was given a show on the Trinity Christian Broadcasting Network and during an interview with Rolling Stone I mentioned that God does not exist. Now it is highly likely that Trinity Broadcasting will disavow my comments and cancel my show because I expressed an opinion that is contrary to their business model and would offend many of their viewers. Does that mean my constitutional rights have been violated? No. Does that mean I exercised my right to free speech despite its detriment to my income? Yes.

A&E is a business and their objective is to create as large a viewership as possible to generate as much revenue as possible and when an employee jeopardizes that revenue stream they might find themselves on the business end of a pink slip. Were Phil to be charged with sedition and sent to a Federal penitentiary, then you would have an example of someone’s right to free speech being violated. There are people all over the world rotting in prison for daring to practice their religion or speak against a totalitarian regime so let’s not trivialize their struggle by placing Phil Robertson’s inability to appear on a television show in the same category.

That being said, anyone who agrees with Phil has the right to boycott A&E or the companies that control it. In A&E’s case that would mean avoiding any assets jointly owned by Disney and the Hearst Publishing Corporation like ESPN. These same individuals also have the right to identify his predicament as “religious persecution” and find themselves caught off-guard that the network responsible for Gene Simmons Family Jewels doesn’t adhere to higher moral standard.  

Either way this is a windfall for A&E and its parent corporations. All of this outrage does nothing but generate free publicity and increase viewership and, by extension, ad revenue. Once enough supporters sign enough online petitions and use enough hashtags, they will agree to bring him back. This “return” episode will be viewed by millions more than it would be under any other circumstance with many of them believing that by watching they are “supporting” Phil's views. All the while, both The Robertson’s and A&E will continue to line their pockets with fruits of a controversy that they themselves made possible. Ah, the beauty of capitalism.