jump to last post 1-23 of 23 discussions (303 posts)

Do you think Phil Robertson should be banned from A&E

  1. Onusonus profile image86
    Onusonusposted 2 years ago

    Following remarks he made to GQ magazine concerning the Bible and condemning  homosexuality, Phil Robertson was recently suspended from the series Duck Dynasty. Do you think his rights to free speech have been violated?

    1. 0
      Beth37posted 2 years ago in reply to this

      I think the less ppl say words like "anus" and "vagina" in public, the better off they'll be. lol

      1. Onusonus profile image86
        Onusonusposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        I think the less they show T&A in public magazines the better.

        1. 0
          Beth37posted 2 years ago in reply to this

          You mean the Duck Dynasty cast? Im sure most would agree no one wants to see that.

          1. Onusonus profile image86
            Onusonusposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Well, I meant in general, but now that you mention it... EWWWWWWWW!!!!!!!!

            1. 0
              Beth37posted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Well now you've learned what Phil learned. Words are a powerful thing.

          2. wilderness profile image96
            wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            I've never seen the show, but IF you are correct and "most would agree no one wants to see that." then it will be taken off the air as no one is watching because they don't want to see it.  Management is rather attuned to that (as are advertisers), and will not pour money into a show that no one watches.

            1. 0
              Beth37posted 2 years ago in reply to this

              I think you missed something. smile

              1. wilderness profile image96
                wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                Probably - it's not unusual.

                Been off trying to do the Obamacare thing, and just popped in.

                1. 0
                  Beth37posted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  Politics will do that to you.

      2. 0
        Rad Manposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Didn't you just say those words in public or at least type them?

      3. 60
        retief2000posted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Beats the more vulgar alternatives.

        1. 0
          Beth37posted 2 years ago in reply to this

          More vulgar? Really? lol

          I fully believe this guy has a right to share his beliefs. I mean, they hired him, fully knowing everything he stood for.

          I personally don't like the way he said it. His first remark was ugly. However, as I stated earlier, this group was not hired for their social graces, so why would his network all of a sudden act surprised when he makes a remark like this? B/c they fear losing money. If gay bashing were in style, they would have given him a raise. Let's not pretend the media is about anything else.

          I liked his clarification remarks once he took the time to think thru his first comment, but who knows if it is too late. I personally don't care if they lose their jobs, it's just TV, but I do care that the homosexual community knows that God sent His son for them as He did for everyone else. That would have been the msg. worth sharing imo.

          1. 0
            Rad Manposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            It's always entertaining when people take parts out of the bible that reflect their beliefs and then hid behind the bible. You most likely work on Sundays, when the bible says the punishment for that is death. But I guess you don't feel that's a big deal, but homosexuals need to hear that God hates them right?

            1. 60
              retief2000posted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Where is God's hatred of homosexuals in the Bible?  Where is the condemnation of homosexuality as a sin without the condemnation of all kinds of other actions as sinful?  Perhaps the bruised feelings of the perpetually offended class would be helped by the application of a little ice.

              1. 0
                Rad Manposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                It's interesting when people use the bible to defend their bigotry. Do you use the bible to defend slavery as well and then tell the slaves to apply ice?

            2. 0
              Beth37posted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Do you not remember me posting a page worth of verses that share that it's acceptable, according to the new law, to work on Sundays? I don't like repeating the same old arguments over and over again.

              Lastly .... that God hates them? Why would I ever want to post that msg. when I believe the exact opposite? I have also shared that, at length. If you're never going to listen to a word I say, it is pointless to ever try and communicate.

              1. 0
                Rad Manposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                Are you aware that in North America there are no laws against being gay? Yet while you work on Sunday because of secular laws you continue to say that while you don't dislike gays they are sinning if they act on that sin. Why are you not still sinning by working on Sunday? You hold onto whichever laws suite your needs. According to the bible working on Sunday is a sin, but you don't think it's a sin because our new laws. How convenient?

                1. 0
                  Beth37posted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  Do you cover the screen with your hand when you see my posts? It's the same as plugging your ears and saying, "I can't hear you!"

                  1. 0
                    Rad Manposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    Does that mean you are not going continue to say that it's a sin to be gay because we have new laws just as you say it's no longer a sin to work on Sundays because we have new laws?

    2. rhamson profile image77
      rhamsonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Absolutely not! He has not lost any rights granted him by the constitution because some commercially based enterprise does not wish for him to make comments while in their employment. He can talk until the cows come home. But if he wants a job with the producers of the show he will have to watch what he says. Remember homosexuals are consumers too and they can choose who they buy from and what they wish to purchase as well. If they don't like the comments they can also choose to not watch the program or at the very least not buy what the sponsors are selling. Freedom of speech is not guaranteed by the employers nor should it be.

      1. Onusonus profile image86
        Onusonusposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Robertson made the comments during an interview with GQ magazine, and not during the filming of Duck Dynasty.
        Do you think it is right that the employer fired him for expressing his opinion on his own time? And if so should Oprah also be fired for making racial comments in her off time?

        1. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Hard to fire Oprah as she owns the show.

          But in either case, did the comments cause harm to the employer?  If so, that employer certainly has the right to terminate their contract with an employee that hurts their business.  Employees are paid to increase profits, not cut them.

        2. rhamson profile image77
          rhamsonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          It does not matter who he said it to or when he said it. He is a reality television star and many people can't or won't distinguish between the two. Who does that hurt? It hurts the commercialization of what he is selling, his persona. If he were a movie actor not connected to a series there probably would be no problem even though I think the producers would not take too kindly to their intellectual property perhaps being negatively affected. In this day and age of polarized thinking one cannot express oneself unless you are somebody like Charlie Sheen or Alec Baldwin who seem to have the publics sympathy no matter what they say or do.

          1. Onusonus profile image86
            Onusonusposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            It would seem to be that it would depend on the crowd that the people pander to. For example the band "Green Day" can dedicate an entire album to bashing Bush and it won't hurt them, in fact it might boost their standing because of the crowd they pander to. The Dixie Chicks, however took a big hit for doing the same thing because of a very different crowd they pander to.
            But the crowd that follows Duck Dynasty, I would think, wouldn't have as much as an issue with it.

            1. Zelkiiro profile image83
              Zelkiiroposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              You know what Green Day, The Dixie Chicks, and Duck Dynasty do have in common?

              They suck. Hard.

      2. wrenchBiscuit profile image87
        wrenchBiscuitposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Absolutely right.I don't care for the show and I think it's a ridiculous waste of time to watch this kind of trash.I'm not overly fond of Louisiana rednecks either,but to me it seems pretty straightforward.Let Phil say what he wants to say and then let the producers and sponsors decide yea or nay.Furthermore,if enough people are offended and stop watching the show he'll get voted out by the dollars and cents.Political Correctness is a form of "soft" fascism, and should it turn viral,it will be very difficult to change that particular channel.

        1. psycheskinner profile image81
          psycheskinnerposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Anti-PC (saying he should stay on regardless because 'freedom of speech") is no different or better.

          1. wrenchBiscuit profile image87
            wrenchBiscuitposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Apparently,aside from being misinformed,you have misunderstood my post. Political Correctness is not a function of the mainstream.It is a function of special interests that are usually seeking  to influence the political or moral attitudes of the mainstream.When the mainstream gives in to the pressure of such groups, this often places constitutional freedoms in jeopardy.Furthermore,if you re-read my post you will see that I did not suggest that Phil stay on the air "regardless". Once again; his fate should be decided by the producers,the sponsors,and the viewing public's disaffection.Not by any particular group that may be offended by his behavior.

    3. WillStarr profile image83
      WillStarrposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      It's liberal bigotry:

      big·ot·ry

      noun
      1.bigoted attitudes; intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself.

      Liberals are the worst sort of bigots because they simply refuse to tolerate any opinions other than their own, including, as we see, Phil Robertson's opinions. Robertson was asked his opinion as a Christian on homosexuality, and he gave it truthfully. It wasn't hateful at all if we read the entire quote.

      BTW, it was an obvious setup on the part of GQ.

      1. Zelkiiro profile image83
        Zelkiiroposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        ...You didn't read what he said, then.

        If he said, "I believe it's wrong and I don't like it," then there'd really be no issue. But what he did say was:
        “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.”

        And if you have a brain in your head, I shouldn't have to explain all the many things that are wrong in that statement.

        1. WillStarr profile image83
          WillStarrposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Pretend that I don't have a brain in my head and explain why you are so intolerable of Robertson expressing his opinion.

          1. Zelkiiro profile image83
            Zelkiiroposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            He outright states that all homosexuals commit bestiality. And people are trying to defend this degenerate.

            http://i287.photobucket.com/albums/ll145/Zelkiiro/Forum%20Junk/No.jpg

            1. The Frog Prince profile image77
              The Frog Princeposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              That isn't what he said at all.  Do some research before shooting off your pie hole.

          2. Onusonus profile image86
            Onusonusposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            http://www.behindtheblueline.ca/blog/blueline/wp-content/uploads/troll.jpg

      2. Onusonus profile image86
        Onusonusposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        That is what I thought. As soon as a reporter starts asking about what someone with Christian convictions defines as sin, the Christian typically quotes passages of the Bible. And at the first opportunity they they jump all over him as soon as issues of homosexuality, fornication, and adultery arise.

        1. Zelkiiro profile image83
          Zelkiiroposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Well, you know what they say about people who turn to Christianity:

          “Start with worshippin' God and just morph out from there, Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men.”

          Sucks being on the receiving end, doesn't it?

      3. 60
        retief2000posted 2 years ago in reply to this

        But look at the commercial success of the interview. 

        GQ has been discussed in households where it has never been mentioned before. 

        It has sold more issues than ever. 

        A&E has been the topic of discussion for days, something that has NEVER happened. 

        Walmart is selling out of "Duck Dynasty" merchandise.

        A&E ran a "Duck Dynasty" marathon. 

        People who would never have watched that show or that network are tuning in. 

        People are openly discussing all kinds of IDEAS stirred up by the controversy, such as, what is the difference between tolerance and acceptance, between recognizing sin and condemning sinners, what constitutes a violation of free speech, etc....

        It is likely that the Robertson family will terminate their relationship with A&E and take their show elsewhere costing A&E its most profitable property in a way that the interview never could.

        Karma is a bitch

    4. 0
      MysticMoonlightposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Free speech should be protected but when you use that free speech to hurt others, there may be consequences. I'm sure he wishes he had worded things differently now, at lest I hope he does. I mean, you can use your free speech to state your feelings about something all you want, sure, he could have easily said, 'I don't like or agree with that lifestyle' and then left it at that. No harm done, he is entitled to his opinion and who cares, right? He went overboard when he made the bestiality remark, he did not have to be hurtful, he chose to be. But maybe he said it before he realized the impact it would have? I know I've done things like that before, saying things before realizing how it may affect others and let me tell you, I felt like a jerk because I was being a jerk. But then again, maybe he is a gallzillionaire and just don't give a damn what people think. We don't know.

      If you shoot your mouth off, even with free speech and being a Christian millionaire, there is going to be a hub-bub. His religious stance and multi-millionaire status does not make him above reproach nor does it give him the right to use those platforms to be a jerk.

      1. The Frog Prince profile image77
        The Frog Princeposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        So explain how he "hurt" others?  This should prove interesting.

        1. 0
          MysticMoonlightposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          "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.” Phil Robertson

          One could imagine that being grouped in or anywhere near with bestiality is inflammatory and hurtful.

          Edit: And of course, all gay people just sleep around with anyone, anything and everyone, right? Straight people, no, but gays, you bet, correct? That's not hurtful in any way whatsoever, huh?

      2. 82
        Education Answerposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Much of this is true, but should what he says outside of his work result in his termination?  If so, half of America better get ready to have a jobless Christmas.

        1. 0
          MysticMoonlightposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          No, I don't think he necessarily should've been fired but corporations usually worry about backlash from such shenanigans so they tend to sever ties, damage control, etc. to save their own butt. I'm just not surprised is all.

        2. MelissaBarrett profile image61
          MelissaBarrettposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Yes, the other half of America would know to not piss people off.

          1. 82
            Education Answerposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            They would know not to piss off the people with power, their bosses.  If stating your opinion does that, then there seems to be a problem with our freedoms.

            1. MelissaBarrett profile image61
              MelissaBarrettposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Nope, our freedoms are the same as they ever were.

              Government can't retaliate. Individuals/private entities can. Sorry, this isn't anything new. It's not personal freedoms disappearing... it's the way it's always been.

              1. 82
                Education Answerposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                You are gravely mistaken here.  Private entities cannot fire somebody based on their religion. Do you really want to debate this one?

                1. MelissaBarrett profile image61
                  MelissaBarrettposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  Yes actually. A private entity cannot hire or fire a person based on them holding a faith, however they can fire them based on actions that harm the entity, regardless of whether those actions were influenced by faith or not.

                  I'll play WestLaw search engine treasure hunt if you'd like. But I think you understand the difference.

                  1. 82
                    Education Answerposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    It's a fine line of distinction that puts the burden of proof on the business.  Can A&E prove that this statement would result in Mr. Robertson's inability to be filmed or that ratings would decrease?  Can A&E prove that companies will pull their paid commercials and that those companies cannot be replaced with others that will pay the same or more?  To be clear, Mr. Robertson has not been fired as of yet, and that lends credibility to A&E's case.

                    A&E did not say that he was fired for these reasons, business reasons.  Instead, A&E said, "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. The network has placed Phil under hiatus from filming indefinitely.”

    5. aliasis profile image95
      aliasisposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      He is a public figure that represents them. It's not a matter of free speech - no one is arresting him. But a company has every right to distance themselves from an individual that represents them.

      A lot of people seem to not understand what "free speech" means. I hear a lot of complaining after people say something outrageous, then expect there to be no consequences for that.

      For a private entity - and an entertainment one at that that is represented by these celebrities - it's a business decision. They are not suspending him for being a Christian. They are not even suspending him for not being pro-LGBT. His comments were over the top and offensive, and they don't want those comments speaking for them as a company.

    6. vehnh profile image60
      vehnhposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      http://s4.hubimg.com/u/8591047_f248.jpg

    7. bBerean profile image59
      bBereanposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      People have the right to be stupid, and so do companies, as illustrated by the foolish actions and position of A&E.  They need Duck Dynasty more than the Roberstons need the show.  They were successful before A&E came along. 

      A&E and in fact, the liberals, are now going to learn something about demographics in America.  I think it is great that this is transpiring the way it is, as political correctness needs this.  Folks are tired of the path this country is on and are finally speaking up about it.  I admire the Robertsons for not compromising their principles for money.  I have never even watched the show, and now I am sure I am just one of many whose attention they've drawn.

      1. vehnh profile image60
        vehnhposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        A&E owns a lot of networks including Lifetime and the History Channel. They'll do just find without those bigoted inbreeds.

        1. bBerean profile image59
          bBereanposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Define "just fine" and see if the shareholders agree.  They are the ones the management is accountable to, since it is their money that pays for the foolish decision A&E made, and the resulting losses.

          You may be giddy over the choice, but it's not your portfolio to damage.  As for "bigoted", their actions are the very definition of the word, applying perfectly to them and any who agree with their intolerance and superior attitude.

          "Those bigoted inbreeds" - just listen to yourself. What do you think "bigoted" means?

    8. 60
      retief2000posted 2 years ago in reply to this

      A & E is a private enterprise.  He is in their employ.  They are not the Federal Government.  He lost no rights.  A & E exercised its right to employ who it chooses, just as viewers are within their rights to no longer watch A & E.  Tempest in a teapot.

    9. MG Singh profile image83
      MG Singhposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Yes. He should not have been penalized for stating what millions feel is true. Everybody is entitled to his opinion and I see no reason why any action should be taken

      1. 0
        Rad Manposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Because it perpetuates the hatred of homosexuals to feeble minded people who are incapable of original thought. Just my opinion.

  2. Zelkiiro profile image83
    Zelkiiroposted 2 years ago

    It falls under hate speech, even if it is mild. By itself, it's really no different from saying "being black is an abomination" or "being autistic is an abomination." And I can (hope to) guarantee that you would never defend him if he said either of those.

    And to top it all off, I'm biased in this matter, anyway. I despise Duck Dynasty with a passion. It's yet another disgusting waste of space that's destroying brain cells and pop culture. just like Pawn Stars and American Pickers.

    1. 82
      Education Answerposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      It falls under freedom of speech, whether or not you feel it is hateful.  I despise seeing people burn the American flag, but hey, it's a free country, right?  Just because we may disagree with something somebody says, it doesn't mean we have to squash their freedom of speech.  Otherwise, many things could be considered hate speech.  Isn't burning our flag a form of hate speech?

    2. 60
      retief2000posted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Hate speech is not illegal, is it?  If it is then that is a clear violation of rights, just as the thought crime called "hate crime."  Did you read the interview?

      1. 0
        Rad Manposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Not being allowed to cause other to hate you with words is a violation of your rights?

        Is not being allowed to beat someone over the head with a bat a violation of your rights?

        1. 60
          retief2000posted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Is there a point there?  If someone says something offensive to you is it the responsibility of the State to soothe your poor ruffled feathers?

          1. 0
            Rad Manposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Doesn't that depend on how much they have harmed me? Have they effected my livelihood? Have they affected my marriage? If someone declares me a pedophile I think it should be up to the state to un-ruffel my feathers.

            1. 60
              retief2000posted 2 years ago in reply to this

              There are laws about slander and civil courts to determine damages.  That is hardly what lefties call "hate speech."  The example here is that someone who accepts the New Testament repeats the recognition of sin contained there in and that is labeled hate speech.

              1. 0
                Rad Manposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                Would you feel that if someone declares that blacks should be slaves and are inferior and evil because of what is said in the bible  would that not be hateful speech? When people are being hurt because of speech (and people are being demonized here) don't you feel they shouldn't be hiding behind an old book?

                1. MelissaBarrett profile image61
                  MelissaBarrettposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  That's a good point... does it matter why someone hates someone else? Should all action promoted by someone's faith be accepted, just because it is part of their faith?

                  If so, why all the drama over 911, they were just practicing their faith.

                  1. 60
                    retief2000posted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    Who defends the brutal murder of homosexuals, abortion providers, etc?  Who blames every Muslim for the brutal murders of homosexuals, women, Jews, Catholic priests, etc...?  Don't we consider all these distortions of religion unacceptable?  Who maintains that Black slavery is justified by the Old Testament?  The tiniest, most extreme, most rejected are the ones who do these things.

                2. 60
                  retief2000posted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  Who is being demonized?  Did you read the interview?  Slavery has always been one of the abuses to which men have subjected each other and it continues, in many forms.  There were those who have distorted the Old Testament to their own vile ends, that is not what is happening here.  It isn't a matter of individual interpretation.  We have become a society of thin skinned narcissists incapable self examination, excepting criticism and altering the behaviors we enjoy, regardless of how destructive, because we cannot be wrong.

                  1. 0
                    Rad Manposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    Ahhhhhh, telling a bunch of bible thumping Christians that homosexuals are causing harm and sin is certainly demonizing them. Is that what you are doing? Are you casting the fist stone?

                  2. wilderness profile image96
                    wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    "We have become a society of thin skinned narcissists incapable self examination, excepting criticism and altering the behaviors we enjoy, regardless of how destructive, because we cannot be wrong."

                    You are correct, though perhaps not in the manner you intend.  The modern Christian is all too often so "right" in their belief of their god and what it wants they are incapable of change.  Unable (or unwilling) to accept criticism of or alter the behavior of demanding that all others also believe and live the same lifestyle.  Thin skinned to the point of claiming persecution when others object to such treatment even though all it would take to end the "persecution" would be to keep their religion to themselves.  Narcissistic beyond reason as the only holders of truth and salvation, forever trying to push it onto anyone around them and forever unwilling (or unable) to objectively examine their own belief system.

                    Yes, a good description of Mr. Robertson and those that raise a voice of support for his nasty accusations and insinuations.

  3. Zelkiiro profile image83
    Zelkiiroposted 2 years ago

    Oh, how classy of you. "He doesn't believe that gay people rape dogs?! He must be a troll!"

  4. 0
    Beth37posted 2 years ago

    For the record, this was his response after his first remark hit the fan, so to speak.

    Robertson issued a statement through A&E to Fox411 saying he "centered my life around sex, drugs and rock 'n' roll until I hit rock bottom and accepted Jesus as my Savior."

    He said his mission now is to "tell people about why I follow Christ and also what the Bible teaches, and part of that teaching is that women and men are meant to be together."

    "However, I would never treat anyone with disrespect just because they are different from me. We are all created by the Almighty and like Him, I love all of humanity. We would all be better off if we loved God and loved each other."

  5. MelissaBarrett profile image61
    MelissaBarrettposted 2 years ago

    I think there is confusion over what free speech is. Free speech is not the ability to say whatever you'd like with no consequences. It just means the government won't come after you.

    The wonderful thing about freedoms is everyone has them. He had the right to say what he said. A&E had the right to fire him.

    I have the right to say he's a homophobic old redneck with barely enough brain cells to keep his beard growing and got exactly what he deserved.

    Ain't freedom grand?

    1. 82
      Education Answerposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      "The wonderful thing about freedoms is everyone has them. He had the right to say what he said. A&E had the right to fire him."

      I understand what you are saying, but there is a lot of room for abuse here.  Where are our resident socialists when you need them?  Couldn't those "evil" corporations erroneously terminate employees based on any number of statements that an employee might make in public?  For that matter, couldn't the government do the same thing to its employees?  When we start advocating the termination of employees based on opinions they expressed OUTSIDE of work, we run the risk of censoring our citizens, violating freedom of speech.

      1. MelissaBarrett profile image61
        MelissaBarrettposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Private businesses should be able hire and fire whomever they want for whatever reason they feel like... Note I said private businesses.

        If you're a business on the government teat, you have to play by it's rules.

        Free speech, once again, doesn't mean that you can say whatever you want without consequences. That's not free speech.

        1. Onusonus profile image86
          Onusonusposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          So you don't think they should have to fill a quota to satisfy gender and racial outcries against inequality?

          1. MelissaBarrett profile image61
            MelissaBarrettposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Absolutely not. I've said so many times on here.

            Again, unless they are government funded. Then it's the g'ments rules.

        2. 82
          Education Answerposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Yes, most employers are able to fire at will.  However, under federal law, it’s illegal to terminate workers because of their age, race, religion, sex, national origin, or a disability IF it does not influence their job performance.  Mr. Robertson's comments do not influence his ability to be filmed.  Further, Mr. Robertson was very clear that his views on homosexual activity are based on his religion; he articulated this extensively.  Thus, this might be construed as a violation of both Mr. Robertson's ability to exercise his freedom of speech and his freedom of religion.  One can't terminate an employee, legally, based on the employee's religious convictions.

          What's next, we'll fire somebody because they are or aren't Christian?

          1. MelissaBarrett profile image61
            MelissaBarrettposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Nope. Sorry, you have a shallow understanding of the law.

            Employers can't fire someone based on their religion, but they can indeed fire someone based on their actions, even if those actions are supposedly excused by their religion.

            Say Bob bombs an abortion clinic because of his "religion", yes, he get's fired. Say I am a satanist (protected relgion) working for an animal shelter (because they couldn't discriminate) and I had a facebook page full of pictures of me sacrificing a cat... or hell even me saying that everybody should sacrifice cats...

            Yeah, they can fire me. Or are you saying they shouldn't be able to?

            1. tirelesstraveler profile image86
              tirelesstravelerposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Teachers in California who are convicted of child molestation can't be fired.  Sometimes they stay on school payrolls for a couple of years.  It takes at minimum 2 years to fire a teacher in California, but you say something about religion, administrators and the union will make your life so awful you will resign.

              1. MelissaBarrett profile image61
                MelissaBarrettposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                1. Would love links on convicted child molesters still working at schools.
                2. Making one's life awful and them resigning is a) their choice and b) a direct consequence of their actions.

                In addition, none of this has anything to do with the subject, as he wasn't fired for being a Christian, he was fired for making anti-gay remarks. There's a difference.

                1. tirelesstraveler profile image86
                  tirelesstravelerposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  If he weren't a Christian he wouldn't have used the bible reference in Corinthians to support his point of view. If he wasn't a Christian he would have just been blown off as a loud mouth.

                  1. MelissaBarrett profile image61
                    MelissaBarrettposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    No, I don't think so. Comparing Beastiality to homosexuality is excessively offensive. It's also a common tactic of any gay-basher. GLAAD would have gone bats**t if Richard Dawkins said it.

                    In addition, being a homophobe is not required by Christianity. Nor does Christianity make you a homophobe. Lots of people use the Bible to justify hatred, it doesn't make the hatred justifyable. If he would have said that all black people should be slaves and justified it using the Bible (which was done, btw, and is still done by hate groups) would that have been OK?

                    I personally am offended, as a Christian, by people assuming that he was just following his religion. I don't want my faith to be associated with hatred. So his statements offended me both as a bisexual, and as a Christian. He pulled off offending me as a human being too, so it's a hat trick.

                    But regardless, It's still not about him being a Christian. It's about him making homophobic statements. A&E loved that the family was Christian. They milked it. They used it in publicity... so I'm going with his views on homosexuality as the cause.

            2. 82
              Education Answerposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Melissa,

              I understand the laws regarding how to fire somebody.  My understanding is far less shallow than you might think.  I hold a master's degree in educational leadership, a business degree for principals.  I've had plenty of law classes and fully understand the intricacies of hiring and firing employees, both certified and classified.  That doesn't mean I have to agree with the law.  IN MY OPINION, Mr. Robertson got a raw deal.  If he can't express his religious views outside of work, without being fired, then something is wrong.  Just because it is legal to fire him, that doesn't make it right.  It's a violation of his freedoms, regardless of whether or not the courts agree with my "wisdom" in this matter.  Now, I know that you have and will provide some extreme examples that make more sense, but my entire point is that this is a slippery slope.  Largely, I find it wrong that somebody can be fired for expressing their beliefs on their own time and away from work.

              I believe he has a case; I articulated my position in my last post.  You disagree with that position, and that's fine.  I'm sure the courts would disagree with my position too.  I still disagree. 

              http://www.krem.com/news/local/Venture- … 91221.html

              By the way, administrative leave typically means paid leave. TIRELESSTRAVELER didn't say they continue working in schools.  He said, " Sometimes they stay on school payrolls for a couple of years."

              If this example doesn't work for you, there are many more.

              1. MelissaBarrett profile image61
                MelissaBarrettposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                I see that he was placed on Administrative Leave. It didn't say whether he was being paid or not, but I admit the point.

                Now as far as being a violation of his freedom, that still confuses me. No one stopped him from saying anything.

                I'm more concerned about the slippery slope of lack of responsibility for one's own actions. I mean yes, say what you like... but be prepared to deal with the consequences.

                It is unreasonable to say something that pisses people off, then be confused when they are pissed off. That's like my kid calling me a name and then being confused when I ground him.

                In addition, I'm concerned that MORE people don't respect A&E's right to run their business as they see fit. It really is a slippery slope when we start taking hiring and firing choices away from a privately owned company. To be completely honest, if I was told that my business decisions were to be made by a group of people that considered Duck Dynasty quality entertainment, I would move my business to China.

                1. 82
                  Education Answerposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  I know that you consider yourself an independent, but don't you find the lines that both sides have drawn a bit interesting?  I find it a bit ironic that so many, often from the left, are defending the business's (A&E) right to hire and fire.  So many from the right are defending the employee's rights. 

                  A&E has every right to hire and fire "at will," but it, along with every other business in America, can't hire or fire based upon religion, race, sex, or age.  That is against the law.  The only question is whether or not the courts would consider this to be a violation of his religious freedom.  While I doubt Mr. Robertson would win in court, I believe he has a compelling argument.

                  1. MelissaBarrett profile image61
                    MelissaBarrettposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    Actually I do find that interesting. smile In my defense, I'm not flip-flopping here. You will find threads where I have defended a company's right to hire and fire long before this. I was called a Conservative Libertarian for it wink

  6. maxoxam41 profile image80
    maxoxam41posted 2 years ago

    What about DUCK DYNASTY to be banned from cable? It would simplify the debate about trash TV!

    1. Zelkiiro profile image83
      Zelkiiroposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      I would love nothing more than to see Duck Dynasty taken off the air, along with Pawn Stars, Ice Road Truckers, American Pickers, Here Comes Honey Boo Boo, Swamp People, Cajun Pawn Stars, Only in America with Larry the Cable Guy, Top Gear, Counting Cars, and so on and so forth...

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=utDHcbiOfKY

      1. MelissaBarrett profile image61
        MelissaBarrettposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        American Pickers isn't that bad. There's some educational value there.

        1. Zelkiiro profile image83
          Zelkiiroposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Maybe a 15 second blurb in the span of its 26-minute runtime. Nowhere near enough to justify its existence on the History Channel.

          I want more Ancient Discoveries. I want more Cities of the Underworld. I want more Decoding the Past, The Naked Archaeologist, Engineering an Empire, The Universe, and even the repetitive WWII in HD.

          1. 0
            MysticMoonlightposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            I don't even mind 'Ancient Aliens' on H2 because it touches on so much history. I also like 'Decoded'  and 'Clash of the Gods' as well. I want 'Vikings' back ASAP!

            1. Zelkiiro profile image83
              Zelkiiroposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Decoded is a pretty interesting show, but so much of it is filler. It could be a half-hour long and you'd not have to cut anything out.

              I like the idea of Clash of the Gods, but once again, they pad the hell out of it. While a summary of the myth they're tackling is mandatory for a show like this, they spend way too much time making it like a mini-movie; in the end, they leave only, like, 2 minutes at the very end to establish what the real-life equivalent of the myth could have been, when it should be the other way around--spend 2 minutes summarizing what the myth says and spend the rest of the show researching and investigating what its origins are.

              As for Ancient Aliens, it's hard to sit through even for what modicum of historical data they even do use, because they lie (or are just plain misinformed) about a lot of it. Some guy actually spent a lot of time digging into the claims being made on the show and made a 3-hour monstrosity of a film debunking merely a fraction of them.

              As far as Vikings goes, I never saw it, so I can't comment much.

      2. WillStarr profile image83
        WillStarrposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        And what were you saying about others being intolerant?

      3. 0
        MysticMoonlightposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        I agree with all but Top Gear. I don't mind it...plus Tanner Foust makes me smile

  7. 0
    Beth37posted 2 years ago

    Now I don't watch the show, but I have heard a little about it.

    A bunch of backwoods hillbilly types, known for everything, but their social graces, were put on national TV and eventually they said something that offended a certain majority of America.

    Someone alert the media... oh wait.

    So there's some kid named honey boo boo, right? Similar kind of circumstances? When she hits 16... are we all gonna act surprised again?

    These folks were not hired for their ability to spin things. They were hired because their strengths and weaknesses were easy to manipulate. I guess they'd ridden high long enough. Now it's time to tear the big top down. This is how our world works. Let's not pretend we don't know what goes on behind the curtain. We're all one big mess.

  8. WillStarr profile image83
    WillStarrposted 2 years ago

    Apparently, support for Phil Robertson is huge, including some of the show's sponsors. This is backfiring on A&E. America is tired of liberals. political correctness, and censorship.

    1. MelissaBarrett profile image61
      MelissaBarrettposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Depends on who you're talking to mate.

      The opinions I've heard today are all on the other side. People are glad he got fired.

      I guess it just depends on what slant the media wants to take and who you have chosen to listen to.

  9. tirelesstraveler profile image86
    tirelesstravelerposted 2 years ago

    For every one time a conservative says the truth the opposites say "hate" 50 times.  Its about standing on principles.  When families stick together like the Robertson family the opposites are brutal.  When Miley Cyrus or Lindsay Lohan make messes of their lives the opposites spread the news all over and make them big celebrities.  The Robertson family doesn't need A&E.  If A&E gets rid of Phil it will be the end of the network. It's about time somebody stood up to the opposites.

    1. Paul Wingert profile image79
      Paul Wingertposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      A&E did fine before Duck Dynasty and will do just fine without them. They'll just add some stupid reality BS to their lineup.

  10. WillStarr profile image83
    WillStarrposted 2 years ago

    Leftist definitions:

    Tolerance: You agree with us

    Diversity: Opinions we agree with

    Hate speech: Opinions that we do not like

    1. Paul Wingert profile image79
      Paul Wingertposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Are you done?

  11. WillStarr profile image83
    WillStarrposted 2 years ago

    A&E made a hasty decision that I suspect they will long regret when they knee-jerk fired Phil. The rest of the family, as I immediately predicted, will not go on with the show if Phil is out. So now, A&E has to decide whether they will eat crow and bring Phil back or lose the most popular cable show ever produced.

    Merry Christmas, A&E!

    1. Zelkiiro profile image83
      Zelkiiroposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      The fact that it even is the most popular cable show ever produced is proof that humanity has no hope. The film Idiocracy was right.

  12. WillStarr profile image83
    WillStarrposted 2 years ago

    Romans 1: 26-27

    26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.

    The new liberal 'Christianity' simply ignores that which interferes with what they like.

    1. Zelkiiro profile image83
      Zelkiiroposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      And the blind fundamentalist Christians keep on preaching Paul's writings, despite the fact he was sent in by the Roman government to tame the Christian movement and fill it with inoffensive pro-Roman doctrine so that it would no longer be a threat to the empire.

      Rather, they should be digging furiously to find the Gnostic writings that were actually (supposedly) written by Jesus' disciples. Because, you know, Jesus was kind of a big deal for the Christian movement. His teachings are kinda important to them.

    2. MelissaBarrett profile image61
      MelissaBarrettposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Deuteronomy 14:1-29

      “You are the sons of the Lord your God. You shall not cut yourselves or make any baldness on your foreheads for the dead. For you are a people holy to the Lord your God, and the Lord has chosen you to be a people for his treasured possession, out of all the peoples who are on the face of the earth. “You shall not eat any abomination. These are the animals you may eat: the ox, the sheep, the goat, the deer, the gazelle, the roebuck, the wild goat, the ibex, the antelope, and the mountain sheep.

      Leviticus 11:9-12

      “These you may eat, of all that are in the waters. Everything in the waters that has fins and scales, whether in the seas or in the rivers, you may eat. But anything in the seas or the rivers that has not fins and scales, of the swarming creatures in the waters and of the living creatures that are in the waters, is detestable to you. You shall regard them as detestable; you shall not eat any of their flesh, and you shall detest their carcasses. Everything in the waters that has not fins and scales is detestable to you.

      Acts 10:28

      And he said to them, “You yourselves know how unlawful it is for a Jew to associate with or to visit anyone of another nation, but God has shown me that I should not call any person common or unclean.

      The old conservative 'Christianity' simply ignores that which interferes with what they like as well, apparently.

  13. wilderness profile image96
    wildernessposted 2 years ago

    I have not weighed in here because the call is so murky to me.  Certainly Robertson can express his beliefs, but do those beliefs reflect on his employer?  When he is a public figure do they do so?  Does his "star" position affect his free speech?

    But there is another side to the ethics question here - one that no one seems to have addressed.  While a small business owner certainly has the right to operate their business within their own ethical (and legal) position does the management of a corporation have the same right? 

    Management has a fiduciary duty to the stockholders; to produce the best rate of return for them.  They are not there to make morality decisions themselves and apply them to the business owned by others.

    History gives us two pretty plain examples of this same basic call (is homosexuality OK?) in Starbucks and Chick-fil-A.  Starbucks came down on the positive side and stockholders have lost 6 Billion dollars since then.  Chick-fil-A supported the negative, hateful, side of the question and had the best sales day in their history.

    Bigotry and hatred are alive and well in the country, with people desiring that the businesses they frequent have the same attitudes they do.  Does that business, then, have the ethical right to take a positive stance on a moral issue if experience shows there will be a financial loss to owners? 

    Or should a CEO guide the business down the path of hate, but also financial gain for the owners he has a duty to support?  Where does a corporation's ethics lie here?  In a "keep quiet" middle of the road, anything goes position?  Or should a corporation take a stand on moral issues and hope it is that of the majority of it's shareholders so management can keep their jobs?

  14. WillStarr profile image83
    WillStarrposted 2 years ago

    The left demands that corporations decide based on the new moral standards of the left, where Hobby Lobby must pay for the birth control it opposes, and A&E must fire Phil Robertson for opposing the homosexual acceptance agenda.

    1. wilderness profile image96
      wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      And the right demands that their bigotry, hatred and religion be reflected in the business model.

      So where does the ethics of the CEO lie?  Right, left or ignore both for an emphasis on financial gain?

    2. 82
      Education Answerposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      You keep making a lot of great points.

      1. MelissaBarrett profile image61
        MelissaBarrettposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Yes, because birth control is completely relevant to a discussion about anti-homosexual remarks... After all, they need it so often.

        1. 82
          Education Answerposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Yes, it is totally relevant when WILLSTAR is stating that there is a double standard; a conservative can't get away with saying what a liberal can.

          How many of these liberals lost their job or had any kind of sanction for what they said, one or two?

          Look at how much it took for Charlie Sheen to say and do before he was fired.

          Look at what President Obama said about the Special Olympics. 

          George Clooney said he was glad that Charlton Heston had Alzheimer's.

          Martin Bashir said somebody should sh*t in Sarah Palin's mouth.

          How many remarks against gay people did Alec Baldwin have to make before getting any kind of reprimand? 

          Look at what Joe Biden said about what race you have to be to go to a 7-11.

          Piers Morgan said that Tea Partiers are similar to the mobs that supported Adolf Hitler.

          Paul Krugman stated Connecticut Senator and former Democratic Vice Presidential candidate Joseph Lieberman should be hung in effigy.

          I could keep going here.  There are plenty of statements against LGBT, women, different races, etc.  If you are a liberal, you get a free pass.

  15. Cody Hodge5 profile image83
    Cody Hodge5posted 2 years ago

    Personally, I don't really care what he thinks about what the Bible says as I have my own views about the Bible, religion and how we should treat others.

    What people don't seem to understand is that science is quickly starting to close in on why some people are attracted to others of the same sex. (Hint: It's not a choice)

  16. 0
    Motown2Chitownposted 2 years ago

    Here's the deal as I see it:  anyone with any knowledge of the show is well aware of the religious views held by the Duck Dynasty family.  In truth, it's been a huge selling point for viewers.  Now, it's suddenly a problem?  A&E may be shooting themselves in the foot by reacting this way.  Whether you agree with the man's views or not, he's never made them a secret and A&E has capitalized on it.  It will be interesting to watch it play out.

    1. MelissaBarrett profile image61
      MelissaBarrettposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      I love ya 'Mo, but saying someone is Christian and saying they are homophobic are two different things. We can't get mad if someone calls us homophobic because we say we are Christian when we say it's A&E's fault that they differentiated.

      1. 0
        Motown2Chitownposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Oh, I'm not excusing it.  I'm simply saying that if A&E didn't see this coming somewhere down the road, they're idiots...who are now trying to backtrack to save their own asses.  That's all. 

        And the DD family isn't just Christian...they're fundy Christians.  The kind who say and do this sort of thing as a matter of course.  That's all I'm saying.

        smile

        And you know I love you too!

        1. MelissaBarrett profile image61
          MelissaBarrettposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Point acknowledged smile

    2. WillStarr profile image83
      WillStarrposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      That's it in a nutshell. They wanted reality TV, so why complain when they actually get reality? Most people do think homosexual acts are a sin.

      1. psycheskinner profile image81
        psycheskinnerposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Reality shows get cancelled all the time.  Mainly because they do something a lot of viewers don;t like or are bored by.  So I think you assumption about this might be wrong.

        1. WillStarr profile image83
          WillStarrposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Duck Dynasty is the most popular show cable TV has ever had, so it is far from being a failure that must be cancelled. A&E has made a big mistake.

      2. wilderness profile image96
        wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        "Most people do think homosexual acts are a sin."

        That would be untrue for just the US, let alone for the world wide audience of A&E.  And even fewer think that their personal religious beliefs needs to apply to everyone else, or that homosexuality can so easily be expanded to such a wide variety of "sins".  Robertson is firmly in the minority here.

      3. MelissaBarrett profile image61
        MelissaBarrettposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        No,actually most people don't. Not anymore. Sorry, check your polls.

        1. WillStarr profile image83
          WillStarrposted 2 years ago in reply to this
          1. MelissaBarrett profile image61
            MelissaBarrettposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            So did I.

            http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/11/politics/ … -marriage/

            From your link even...

            The random-sample survey of more than 2,000 Americans asked, "Do you believe homosexual behavior is a sin?" Forty-four percent said yes ...

            You do realize that 44 percent isn't most...right?

          2. MelissaBarrett profile image61
            MelissaBarrettposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            LMAO! Did you actually read your supporting article?

            "Men and Americans without a college degree were more likely to say homosexuality is sinful"

            "Gallup reports 56 percent of Americans consider gay and lesbian relations morally acceptable,"

            "Americans who never attend a place of worship strongly leaned negative in their response to the impact of a church teaching homosexual behavior is sinful. Those who never attend a place of worship were most likely to say this teaching would have a negative impact on them visiting or joining the church if they were considering it (72 percent) compared to only 21 percent of those who attend worship services more than once a week."

            People in large (44 percent) and small (43 percent) cities were more likely to say a church's teaching against homosexuality would impact their decision negatively than those in suburbs (32 percent) and rural areas (26 percent).

            So basically, Your supporting article said that uneducated, indoctrinated men in rural areas were the most likely to be homophobic.

            Thanks!

      4. 0
        Motown2Chitownposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        I wouldn't agree with that.  I would agree that it's possible that most fans of DD agree with that view, so who is A&E really concerned about offending?  The money.  That's it.

        1. psycheskinner profile image81
          psycheskinnerposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          They are in business to make money (this is reality TV, not Shakespeare in the Park, after all).  So that concern seems quite reasonable to me.

          1. 0
            Motown2Chitownposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Me too.  This isn't about them defending the LGBT community, though.  It's about possible loss of sponsorship from the backlash.  That's all I'm saying.  They're hardly being valiant and heroic in an attempt to end bigotry.

  17. 61
    ChrisArcposted 2 years ago

    The Bible also says the homosexuality is a sin just like prostitution, adultery, polygamy,...

    1. wilderness profile image96
      wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Your point?

    2. psycheskinner profile image81
      psycheskinnerposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      It also says not to cut your hair, that owning slaves is fine, and to kill your children if they are disobedient.

  18. WillStarr profile image83
    WillStarrposted 2 years ago

    Homophobic: A derogatory term invented by the left to attack anyone who believes homosexuality is a perversion.

    The left loves to label their enemies, and anyone who does not agree with them is an enemy.

    1. MelissaBarrett profile image61
      MelissaBarrettposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Yeah, I call people who hate blacks racists too.

      Damn me and my labels.

      "The Left" A phrase invented by Will to label all people who disagree with him on homosexuality.

      1. wilderness profile image96
        wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Homosexuality or anything else, I do believe.

        1. MelissaBarrett profile image61
          MelissaBarrettposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Gee... I wonder what would happen if he found out we shared the same viewpoint on something else... would that make him "the left" or would it cancel out my "leftedness"? Or would the event trigger a paradox that ripped apart all space and time?

          1. wilderness profile image96
            wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            I don't know, but please make it a point to never agree.  I don't want to be ripped apart! smile

            1. MelissaBarrett profile image61
              MelissaBarrettposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              I'll try, I'll try.

              Is there a list of opinions I should have somewhere that all line up with "left"? Apparently Will has the list, so there must be. Could I get a copy of that?

              1. wilderness profile image96
                wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                That would be anything not found on the list from the radical Christian right.

                1. MelissaBarrett profile image61
                  MelissaBarrettposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  Ah... that's on Fox new's website... right?

                  1. wilderness profile image96
                    wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    Well, that and the Westboro baptist pulpit.  Just compile the two into one.

    2. psycheskinner profile image81
      psycheskinnerposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Translation: 'Bigot: A derogatory term invented to attack anyone who believes some type of person is a less than a person.'

      I personally don't care if someone wants to marry taxidermy wombat.  That's between them and the wombat.  Exactly where they would stick their private parts is not something I would spend much time thinking about.

      1. bBerean profile image59
        bBereanposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Doesn't sound to me like the wombat had a choice.

        1. psycheskinner profile image81
          psycheskinnerposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Taxidermy wombats are notoriously randy.

          1. bBerean profile image59
            bBereanposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            I never knew.  wink

  19. WillStarr profile image83
    WillStarrposted 2 years ago

    AP bans 'homophobia' term


    “It’s just off the mark,” AP deputy standards editor Dave Minthorn told Politico. “It’s ascribing a mental disability to someone and suggests a knowledge that we don’t have. It seems inaccurate. Instead, we would use something more neutral: antigay, or some such, if we had reason to believe that was the case.”

    1. psycheskinner profile image81
      psycheskinnerposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      I don't think any of us write for AP.   But if you like we can default to "bigotry".

      1. MelissaBarrett profile image61
        MelissaBarrettposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        I could do that... would baseless hate based on something that is none of their business work too? It's a little long...

      2. bBerean profile image59
        bBereanposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Most using the term have already defaulted to and emulate bigotry.

  20. WillStarr profile image83
    WillStarrposted 2 years ago

    In any case, the arguments are getting circular, so I bid you a Good Day!

  21. Disappearinghead profile image88
    Disappearingheadposted 2 years ago

    Ah "only in America" as we say. It's a storm in a teacup really.

    They make a reality programme featuring rednecks then get upset when they resort to type. Helloooo. This is what happens when ratings, focus groups, and perceived public opinion drive everything. I imagine that the TV company was far less interested in what he said than the opinions of potential advertisers who themselves are worried that people would stop buying their products because of a perceived association with this redneck's comments.

    Come on people get a grip. There are those with funny Christian views in opposition to yours, deal with it. Heck anywhere else and the TV company would have seen this as an opportunity to boost ratings. Why not keep the guy in, let him make his controversial comments, he could become a hero/villain at the same time. It could make for entertaining popcorn TV and a few spin-off programmes where D-list celebs interview a studio of wannabes about what they thought of the show.

  22. bBerean profile image59
    bBereanposted 2 years ago
    1. Onusonus profile image86
      Onusonusposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Dang.

    2. Zelkiiro profile image83
      Zelkiiroposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Well-put? It's a childish temper tantrum thrown by someone who not only doesn't understand how the First Amendment and private corporations work, but also thinks that a bunch of rednecks spouting one-liners that weren't even funny 45 years ago while shamelessly plugging overpriced hunting gear is quality television.

      Everything about this blog post is a summation of why America is on the bottom tier of education worldwide and practically rubbing elbows with Syria in terms of social progress.

      1. Onusonus profile image86
        Onusonusposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        That is by far the most ignorant thing I've heard you say yet.
        Syria? Really? Are you sure you want to invoke a country that imprisons people for being suspected of homosexuality, is a wash in blood and tyranny, harasses and imprisons human rights activists and other critics of the government? Are you sure America is rubbing elbows in social progress with a country that routinely tortures it's own people, kills their own children, women, medical personnel, indiscriminately drops shells on their own cities, on and on and on.

        1. Zelkiiro profile image83
          Zelkiiroposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          If the Religious Right has their way, yes. That's exactly what will happen.

          I mean, look at Syria!

          1. Onusonus profile image86
            Onusonusposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            The founders of America were so far to the right of you it would make your head spin. And yet they are the very reason that this country so successfully experiences religious freedom and economic prosperity. 

            People from the left are taught to believe that all inequality in the world stems out of American culture when America has been the the leader in breaking down those barriers.
            Gays are told not that this is one of the most inclusive and forgiving societies in the history of the world, but rather home to knuckle-dragging, murdering Neanderthals  when in plain sight, across the seas, one and a half billion Muslims routinely hang or stone or crush to death innocent people merely because of their sexual practices.

            Yes the people in the southern states used the Bible to justify slavery, but it was from pulpit preaching out of the same Bible in the Northern States that resonated in the people's hearts the idea that slavery was morally wrong. 

            And when you try to argue against this social weapon of theirs, this Narrative, this lie that they tell again and again, well then, prepare for their counter-attack, which is called Political Correctness the attempt to put the argument out of bounds before it can be had.

            They use terms like Hate Speech and Racism. They want to put our arguments and rebuttals out of bounds so that they don’t have to hear them or deal with them. They have to exclude those arguments because if they don’t, those arguments are going to kick their butts and they know it.

            1. MelissaBarrett profile image61
              MelissaBarrettposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              To be fair, the only argument the right has against homosexuality is the Bible. We've all read it. Why should the left listen to the same arguments over and over, if they didn't buy it the first time, they're not buying it the second time.

              In addition, I'm Christian and can list several reasons that I don't think the Bible really says what you think it does... but I digress. The point being the right hasn't even convinced all Christians.

              If you have a case against homosexuality other than the Bible, let's hear it.

              And in that vein, how often does the right listen to the left's arguments?

              1. Onusonus profile image86
                Onusonusposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                Why do you want me to build some case against Homosexuals? The left wants everybody to believe that conservatives are out to get gays simply because they advocate traditional marriage.

                The truth is an even more right wing concept is removing government from the marriage industry all together. But nope, Democrats are the ones who brought government into it in the first place. And for the soul purpose of denying interracial couples the right to marry.

                But naaah! Lets not do that! Lets give government more power over our lives. Let's sue the cake making industry, and Chick-fil-a and force our own morals down peoples throats.

                1. 60
                  retief2000posted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  It is a reflection of the lefty narrow mindedness to assume that all opposition from conservatives is rooted in the Bible and not in the long history of human society, its institutions and civilization.  Many kinds of human action are discouraged throughout human history including but hardly limited to promiscuity and homosexuality.  Human social institutions have evolved ( a favorite word among lefties though they seem to discard it when convenient) over thousands of years.  Homosexuality has always existed but what institution has evolved to set it in an honored place?  It is nothing more than another kind of behavior.  Where are the Drug users screaming for the heads of those who recognize drug and alcohol abuse as sinful?

                  1. MelissaBarrett profile image61
                    MelissaBarrettposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    He was replying to me and I'm a moderate. I was sincerely asking for other reasons, yet you get defensive.

                    So you believe that marriage should be between man and a woman only because of tradition. Which society's tradition? And should all traditions be upheld just because that are traditions?

                    Do you believe that established activity should remain the same for no other reason than it has been that way for a long time?

                2. MelissaBarrett profile image61
                  MelissaBarrettposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  So you would be OK with gays getting married in churches but aren't ok with the government recognizing any marriages whatsoever.

                  So if the government completely removed every benefit given to married individuals, including tax credits, survivors benefits, eliminated family courts (and custody of children) and community property, and hospitals allowed no one to visit a dying patient, health insurance didn't cover anyone but the employee, that would be great to you?

                  Everyone would have equal rights then and anybody can be claimed to be married if they have gone through a ceremony, that would be ok to you?

                  1. Onusonus profile image86
                    Onusonusposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    Yes, if a church wants to marry homosexuals some people would be offended, and if another church refused to marry homosexuals other people would be offended. Nobody has the right not to be offended, the government doesn't get involved, and the first amendment to the United States constitution remains fully in tact. 
                    Of course government has to be involved in divorce because there are property and custody issues, but what does divorce have to do with marriage? Absolutely nothing.

                    And why give so much power to hospitals? Are you aware that right now cases are on the rise where hospitals are actually removing custody of children from their own parents because they think they know what is better for the child?
                    In one case in Utah they actually misdiagnosed a child with cancer on purpose in order to keep government funding for their program. Doesn't this gradual overreaching of government power alarm you just a tad? And you would trade that for a couple of tax breaks? Remember less government equals less taxes.

                3. 0
                  Rad Manposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  Or lets only allow those who practice faith to marry. Lets give the church control who marries, we know that always goes well?

      2. bBerean profile image59
        bBereanposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Thank you, Zelkiiro.  I can think of no more glowing endorsement of the article.  Folks who might not have clicked may now know it is spot on and have a look!

  23. EncephaloiDead profile image59
    EncephaloiDeadposted 2 years ago

    Is it likely that the people who watch Duck Dynasty are the same people who would agree with Robertson's comments? Does the success of the show indicate there are a fair amount of people who would agree with Robertson? Does this entire ordeal really show what's wrong with America and how Christianity has such a negative affect? Did Duck Dynasty lose it's gay audience?

    This stuff is great, it openly reveals the problems we have with society and gets people talking about it.

 
working