Phil Robertson is suspended for speaking his mind. What is your opinion on it?

1. 37

   thomasczechposted 11 years ago

   Phil Robertson is suspended for speaking his mind. What is your opinion on it?
   
   Phil is suspended from the Duck Dynasty by A&E. Phil was asked certain questions in an interview, he gave his opinion in a respectful manner. Do you agree with the decision by the network or is free speech taken away?
   
   

   replyreport
2. 60

   FatFreddysCatposted 11 years ago

   I can't believe people are surprised by his views. Wow, an elderly redneck doesn't like gay people? That's shocking news. In other shocking news, the sun is hot, and water is wet.

   replyreport
   1. 37

      thomasczechposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Every time he has been asked, he says that he loves all the people. He didn't make a negative or bad comment toward the people. Phil said that he doesn't agree with the lifestyle. Does he not have the right to answer honestly when asked a question?

      replyreport
   2. 85

      gmwilliamsposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Of course, he does.

      replyreport
   3. 70

      dashingscorpioposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Yes he has the right but his employer has rights just as well. Even children know what not to say to stay out of trouble with their parents. Anyone who could cost their employer potentially millions of dollars in revenues should know better.

      replyreport
   4. 60

      FatFreddysCatposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Of course, he's got the right to say it. By the same token the TV network he appears on has the right to protect its a$$.
      
      ...and I have the right to find the whole thing silly. It must be a really slow news day for this story to get such traction.

      replyreport
   5. 85

      gmwilliamsposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Yep.

      replyreport
   6. 70

      crazymom3posted 11 years agoin reply to this

      I agree with thomas you. he was simply expressing his opinion about the lifestyle. Every one has a right to their own beliefs but it seems the only ones allowed to openly express their lifestyle are those who support gay rights

      replyreport
3. 70

   dashingscorpioposted 11 years ago

   One must always keep in mind that their words, deeds, and actions oftentimes have a negative impact on their employer or what the employer wants to be known for. This is especially true if you are on a TV show where sponsors boycott or  could pull out because they don't want their customers believing they support those views.
   Even with common everyday people working for everyday companies have to be conscious of what they post on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram these days. The line between professional and personal life is rapidly fading away.
   Some opinions are better off kept to ourselves. Most of us would be fired from our jobs if we told our boss what was really on or mind. Having a "mental edit button" is a sign of maturity especially if what you have to say could affect your employer's bottom line! Potential loss of advertisers means loss of cash.

   replyreport
   1. 37

      thomasczechposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      true, but the network knew about their life and beliefs prior to hiring them. to suspend someone now just because they do not agree does not seem fair to me. I believe in always answering honestly. What else do u think he could have done?

      replyreport
   2. 70

      dashingscorpioposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      It's  not that they did not know about their life. It's just that he put his opinion out there. TV shows make their money from advertisers. If advertisers withdraw their sponsorship everyone loses out. Cash is king!

      replyreport
   3. 62

      jstfishinmanposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      TV shows make their money from advertisers based on Neilson ratings, the amount of viewers. It is a two edged sword, A&E was not counting on the backlash from the viewers. Duck Dynasty will be on somewhere and the advertising dollars will follow.

      replyreport
4. 75

   tsadjatkoposted 11 years ago

   
   
   His mistake is he offended the wrong group - had he said even worse things about a conservative as Martin Bashir or others have done in the past he may have gotten a slap on the hands but not removed by his employer. He should have learned a lesson from the firing of Alec Baldwin after his gay slur remark. When it comes to knocking gays, the left will even eat their own.
   It does boggle the mind how he would even go there in an interview knowing how sensitive the subject is to people. I suppose the President isn't the only person living in "the bubble" these days.

   replyreport
   1. 91

      Jackie Lynnleyposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      I believe it is his religious belief from his bible, although I could be wrong about why he believes the way he does, since I have not heard all the details concerning that. I am just assuming.

      replyreport
   2. 95

      ziyenaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      I remember a time when homosexuals were beat and even murdered  for their sexual preferences.  For the most part, this tragedy is isolated and  rare ... now all you have to worry about is negative commentaries?  Wow!  Rise above it and be happy ...

      replyreport
5. 0

   JThomp42posted 11 years ago

   NO. He was only answering honestly according to his beliefs in the "Bible." Freedom of speech is not apparently for those who have something that people need to hear. It is only for those who say what people "want" to hear.

   replyreport
   1. 75

      tsadjatkoposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      You are absolutely right but given the fact that he is in the public light don't you think he could have expressed his opinion a little more tactfully, maybe included something like what he said later in his answer to complainants? BUBBLE!

      replyreport
   2. 70

      dashingscorpioposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      This has nothing to do with free speech or a difference of opinions. It has everything to do with MONEY or the potential loss of it. E TV is not going to risk losing sponsors. Free speech simply means you won't be arrested.

      replyreport
   3. 0

      JThomp42posted 11 years agoin reply to this

      dashing... that is the point I am trying to make. They take away your free speech in order to keep "others" happy. In Phil's case, they have messed with the wrong man of God. He will not back down. Screw Duck Dynasty! At least he is keeping to his mo

      replyreport
   4. 0

      Larry Wallposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      As I have stated, when your persona is associated with a entity such as a TV show to such a point, they are one and the same, the comments you make are not your own, they are the character you portray. They may be the same and cannot be separated.

      replyreport
6. 60

   Laramy74posted 11 years ago

   What ever happened to free speech?  What ever happened to tolerance of another opinion on a subject?  If he had negative comments or any criticism  on Christian values: who would object?  The homosexual community, a minority in any society, demands that any negative comments, or for that matter anything but absolute capitulation, is a negative bias.  The Liberal community, demanding an all inclusive expression of all lifestyles, exclude anything negative or perceived as such, to their base.  Their idea of the ideal media is no religion, no values of  traditional families and no freedom of speech, unless it meets the holy Liberal grail.   
   What he said was his opinion.  If you don't like it, don't support the show.
   I don't watch MSNBC.

   replyreport
   1. 75

      tsadjatkoposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      http://www.albertmohler.com/2013/12/19/ … -307218314

      replyreport
   2. 70

      dashingscorpioposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      His show is on E TV. Free speech is alive and well. No one got arrested. If a TV station is afraid of losing millions of adverting $ they're going to seek to protect themselves. If you disagree with your boss it's often best to remain $ilent.

      replyreport
   3. 76

      jlparkposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Laramy -please don't lump all gays together, it's offensive when done to Christians so why continue it?. I am all for free speech including Phil's. He likely broke contract, so is being dealt with accordingly. He can say what he likes at home.

      replyreport
   4. 0

      Larry Wallposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      jlPark--An excellent answer that sums up the situation.

      replyreport
7. 67

   maxoxam41posted 11 years ago

   And who are the rednecks listening to him? Who would spend hours of their precious time listening to him? Is he a scholar? No, so the media is proposing me to connect with a caveman? No thanks. As for what he thinks it is the least of my problem. What do people expect from such individual? A paradigm?

   replyreport
   1. 0

      JThomp42posted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Yes.. You might call him a scholar. He has an MD. And is a very intelligent man. What really bothers me is when people make assumptions and have no idea of whom or what they are talking about.

      replyreport
   2. 67

      maxoxam41posted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Scholar at your level, not mine.

      replyreport
   3. 85

      gmwilliamsposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      JT, you're WRONG.  He does not have an MD.  He has a Masters Degree in Education and was a teacher.  Please get YOUR facts straight, JT.

      replyreport
   4. 0

      JThomp42posted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Regardless... He is more successful than you or any one of us will be. He is a very intelligent person and a "FINE" Christian man.

      replyreport
   5. 61

      fpherj48posted 11 years agoin reply to this

      max....I believe you may have swallowed your foot. These men(Phil, in particular) have all  graduated college and are quite INTELLIGENT.  Do not let their down-home lifestyle delude you. "Red neck" is not an insult, but a compliment to some.

      replyreport
8. 0

   sheilamyersposted 11 years ago

   I think it's a shame the man can't voice his opinion when he was asked a question. It's not like he walks around saying that kind of thing during every episode. And what did they expect? You tape a real life show, you're going to get real life answers. Why are they punishing this one man for doing the same thing (to a very much lesser extent) that entire documentaries cover that are shown on A&E? Is it because of the particular group he offended? If one statement is going to get an individual suspended, then they need to stop airing documentaries featuring white supremacists, people who are bashing Christian beliefs, making statements that lead people to believe that all Muslims are terrorists, and on and on. Need I say more?

   replyreport
9. 0

   dragonflycolorposted 11 years ago

   As much as we hate hateful expression, it is our 1st amendment right.  We cannot say, "I can say this word, but you cannot."  What Phil said is the opinion of many individuals in our country who are excessively verbal about it in other mediums.  For example, the Westboro Baptist church exercises their freedom of speech to spread anti-gay and anti-military propaganda all over our nation, even picketing and protesting funerals of fallen soldiers or even children who have died from cancer. 
   
   So, why isn't that church being arrested for inciting hate that leads to violence?  It is because the law protects them and most people have the ability to choose not to react negatively to their hateful platform.  Phil is not being arrested or fined (that I know of), he is being treated as an outcast because he is considered a public figure who has a contract with a national network.  The same scenario happened with Paula Deen.   
   
   If the terms of his contract say it, then he has to be suspended.  If there is no legal explanation stated in his contract about what he can or cannot do, then his suspension should be lifted. 
   
   I do not encourage hate speech or other forms of hateful expression, but I also do not want to relinquish my rights to spread messages against them.  You cannot have one without the other.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      sheilamyersposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      dragonfly: I never gave a thought to what the contract might state. You're right! If the contract he signed stated there were certain things he wasn't allowed to say, then the punishment is just.

      replyreport
   2. 0

      dragonflycolorposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Sorry I didn't get back to you sooner.  Yes, a contract is a binding document and even if it infringes on your constitutional rights, you are legally obligated to abide by its terms or accept the consequences.  Hopefully, this issue will be resolved.

      replyreport
10. 82

    bethperryposted 11 years ago

    I don't agree with Robertson's opinion, I don't agree with his religion, heck I don't even like his unkempt beard and the ridiculous hippie-looking headbands he wears. But he has a right to believe whatever he wants and to speak his opinion. I didn't like it when networks treated people like children that had to be protected from gay lifestyles being openly discussed or portrayed on television, and I don't like them acting like we need watchdogs now to protect us from conservative religious speech. He isn't advocating harm or discrimination, so in my opinion, he is simply an unfortunate victim of our modern cultural witchhunt.

    replyreport
11. 60

    duffsmomposted 11 years ago

    Well let me think--the man has an unpopular opinion and all of a sudden they toss him out on his ear.
    
    Any more our society tends to bully people who have an unpopular opinion. It is ridiculous. All people have to do if they do not like his opinion is to not watch his show, or buy his products.
    
    We are quickly losing the ability to have an opinion that is unpopular. I remember the good old days when one could have an opinion and if someone disagreed with it, that was okay.

    replyreport
    1. 76

       jlparkposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       Differing opinions often help people to further their knowledge - allowing them to learn from another + vice versa. Stopping that as we do now is stifling growth. If he hasn't broken contract - then yes i agree, just stop watching. Simple really!

       replyreport
    2. 78

       cyoung35posted 11 years agoin reply to this

       I think that is what the network is afraid of, that they will lose viewers unless they do something about it. But something tells me that this show isn't watched largely by the demographic he offended.

       replyreport
12. 83

    Alphadogg16posted 11 years ago

    You ask a 60 or 70 year old country bumpkin from the backwoods of Louisiana what he thinks & A & E is surprised of his answer? A Reality show that punishes for telling the truth.... Go figure....everyone should have the right to voice their opinion.... & are suppose to have it..... But in actually we don't.

    replyreport
    1. 95

       ziyenaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       His only crime is that he put his foot in his mouth ... he had a right no matter how ignorant the way he put it  lol

       replyreport
    2. 85

       gmwilliamsposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       Correct.  I WASN'T surprised at Mr. Robinson's statement.

       replyreport
    3. 61

       fpherj48posted 11 years agoin reply to this

       I repeat: The Robertsons are NOT "backwoods country bumpkins." Phil originally entered college on a Football Scholarship, but turned it down, bcuz he preferred to duck hunt. To LOOK & LIVE differently than us does not equate to Morons.  Read BIOS

       replyreport
13. 76

    jlparkposted 11 years ago

    As a gay woman, you'd expect me to be offended by his comments. I'm not. He is as entitled to his opinion as I am to mine. He is also entitled to FREE SPEECH....however, this is not FREEDOM from CONSEQUENCES of that speech. He can say what he like but he must deal with the consequence.
    
    He is not inciting violence against me or other gay people, nor is he being threatening towards us. Therefore he SHOULD be fine.
    
    BUT he is an EMPLOYEE of A + E - they have contractual obligations he must adhere to those stipulations, or face the consequences.  A lot of entertainment industry contracts have 'behavioural' clauses in them - much so they can distance themselves from the bad behaviour of those "celebrities" as quickly as possible to save the company from potential ruin etc. Remember Paula Deen and the racial wedding? Remember Charlie Sheen and Two and a Half Men - even though he was the lead??? 
    
    So, Phil will most likely have signed something of this sort to get his place on Television - so, if he has stepped over the line according to his contract, he should be punished according to his contract - just as I would be should I over-step something in my contract as a registered nurse.
    
    It's unfortunate it's become a "gays" vs "Christians" thing - as all Christians hate to be lumped together, so do all gays, It's more a "personal opinion interfering with work obligations" thing. We all have these issues - and most of us manage to get through a day dealing with them without letting them let us lose a job.
    
    So, he can say what he likes in his home, with the cameras off, but when he is on someone else's dollar, or representing someone else - he has to go by their rules...or face the consequences.
    
    I don't have a problem with personal free speech, even in relation to gays (but will correct misinformation if necessary - not ursurping your free speech) - as long as it's not inciting violence (then it's not free...). BUt I do have respect for contractual obligations.
    
    If he hasn't broken any - un-suspend him, and let him say what he likes.  If he's broken obligations contractually - then let him be punished as we all would be

    replyreport
    1. 60

       IDONOposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       I agree, except for calling an unpopular opinion, bad behavior. It's not. A&E could care less what his opinion is, but they do care how it will effect their advertisers that financially support them. It's a business decision. Nothing more. Noth l

       replyreport
    2. 95

       ziyenaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       Very mature approach ... freedom isspeech is the most important aspect of our society ... to lose it would be devasting to a FREE people.  Thanks for your input

       replyreport
    3. 76

       jlparkposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       IDONO - If there is a clause against speaking on controversial subjects whilst representing A+E, then it could be simplified as 'bad behaviour" knowingly going against the contract. Otherwise, I agree but I understand it also

       replyreport
    4. 0

       JThomp42posted 11 years agoin reply to this

       JlPark...... If you were doing an interview for a magazine and they asked you the same question would you be honest? "OF COURSE" you would. You would be defending your beliefs honestly, I GUARANTEE YOU THAT!! Exactly as Phil did. Contract or not.

       replyreport
    5. 78

       cyoung35posted 11 years agoin reply to this

       I agree 100% with you. If you are employed by a company, you must adhere to their policies or face being fired. Like it or not the company you work for is not a democracy.

       replyreport
    6. 61

       fpherj48posted 11 years agoin reply to this

       JThom....EXACTLY. He was just being honest. The only other thing he may have done was say he chose not to discuss particular topics in an interview.  He's an uncomplicated gentle man who doesn't hurt people intentionally.

       replyreport
    7. 76

       jlparkposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       JThomp - I sign contracts for my job knowing if I bring the profession into disrepute, even in my 'off time", i can be struck off. So i don't do those things. My contracts as a nurse differ from Phils, but a contract is a contract

       replyreport
14. 96

    peeplesposted 11 years ago

    I disagree with everything he said. However they knew what they were getting when they hired them. So he should not be suspended. The network should have thought the inevitable through before putting the show on the air. They didn't. That was their error not Phil's. I don't watch the show, but his opinion will not make me less likely to watch the network.

    replyreport
    1. 76

       jlparkposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       Depends on what is in his contract.  If he signed it, and it has a clause in it that he has broken then they have every right to suspend him. If he broke it after signing it (even if he didn't read it) it's on him.  If there is no contract, it's them

       replyreport
15. 60

    Angela Kaneposted 11 years ago

    Although I believe in freedom of speech, I do think if you are representing a popular mainstream brand you are obligated to keep unpopular beliefs and opinions to yourself for the sake of the brand itself, the advertisers, the sponsors and any persons who may be connected or impacted by the brand. Unpopular opinions are held by everyone, but most people are not in the public eye and their opinions don't matter.

    replyreport
    1. 0

       Larry Wallposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       If you are being paid to represent a brand, you have a contractual obligation to say nothing that would tarnish that brand. More that one celebrity has lost an endorsement contract for out of place comments or actions.

       replyreport
16. 64

    mintinfoposted 11 years ago

    His opinions are the byproduct of a flawed concept. You have to be smart enough to know how to adapt your concept to the changing times if you want your concept to survive. The Pope would never make such statements because the Pope is smarter than that. Whenever such a mistake is made the perpetrator will always looks for support. From friends and from the organization he defends, If the head of the organization would not make such a mistake then the perpetrator is saying that he is more righteous than the organization.
    
    He admitted that his God made Gays so he is right therefore to  insinuate that being Gay is not a choice. If he allows them to coexist with him then he is wrong to degrade them. What he is actually admitting is that he fears their proliferation. A person confident in his beliefs has nothing to fear.
    
    On the subject of "Black people", he is wrong also. He is saying that his God was pleased with the condition of Black people and Black people were happy having faith in the promise of a better life in death. Mandela saved Desmond Tutu from retribution at the hands of Blacks in South Africa for insinuating the same thing. What king of god is pleased seeing people suffer day in, day out doing hard labor, not able to vote or walk down the street without fear of being lynched because of their skin color. Anyone who thinks like that is a tool for a crooked system

    replyreport
17. 91

    Jackie Lynnleyposted 11 years ago

    He has a right to his opinion as everyone does. As far as who it will hurt I think A&E may be sorry they voiced an "opinion" since they are the ones with much to lose. These guys are the hottest thing they ever had and now it looks like these guys have many more places calling their number.
    If we ever lose our right to voice our opinion it hurts everyone. Don't listen to what you don't want to hear as long as no one is racist or threatening which this guy is neither.

    replyreport
    1. 0

       Larry Wallposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       I always thought A&E could do better. I am a native and resident of Louisiana. I have never watched the show, but I do not watch any reality show, since there is nothing real about them. The best thing A&E ever had was its Biography series.

       replyreport
18. 95

    ziyenaposted 11 years ago

    Phil had a right to his own opinion.  When he spoke about the gay community, although uncouth in his approach, he still has a right to state his opinion, and in no way manipulated a DIRECT personal attack, defaming any individual in particular.
    
    Martin Bashir personally attacked Sarah Palin.  Directly to one person is DEFAMATION ... Big difference.  You dont say to someone that they deserve to get crapped on while bound in chains as slave.
    
    The Duck Dynasty character spoke about his religion, that he prefers one body part to another (terrible analogy on his part) ... if he believes the gay community is going to the Devil ... so what.  There are Gays out there that believe Christians are idiots ... so what!    Get a grip people and tune out if you dont like it  ... tired of all the "my feelings got hurt because I'm this" police!!! 
    
    Christians have always believed that homosexuality is immoral ... Amish have always believed Yankees are ungodly .... Muslims have always believed we are infadels ... straight people have always believed gays are disgusting and gays have always believed that Christians are digusting! 
    
    Why cant we worry about what really matters???  Children are getting abducted and murdered ... nuclear arsenals are secretly accumulating ... there is so much evil in the world that is unspeakable and all the media worries about is sexual orientation.  Had it up to here with ignorance

    replyreport
19. 81

    junksellerposted 11 years ago

    This is not a free speech issue. It is an issue of promoted speech. A&E provides a platform, they have a right to that platform, not him. Off that platform, he can say what he wants. On it, he is bound by what is acceptable to them.
    
    And he was suspended, not fired. Wouldn't be surprised if he is back with higher ratings.

    replyreport
    1. 0

       JThomp42posted 11 years agoin reply to this

       Including his whole life and everywhere he goes? This was an independent interview with a magazine. Nothing to do with the show whatsoever.

       replyreport
    2. 81

       junksellerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       It is their platform, they can establish any criteria they like. A "morals clause" is fairly common in such contracts (whether is is the case here, who knows), but they are intended to protect an agent from being tainted by a character's disrepute.

       replyreport
    3. 0

       Larry Wallposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       When you represent a show, and your image is identified with that show, there is an implied restriction that has been upheld in court many times.

       replyreport
20. 83

    Georgie Loweryposted 11 years ago

    Phil Robertson is not the first entertainer to be suspended or fired for saying or doing stupid things. He represents the network he works for and they have a responsibility to their sponsors.
    
    Because he made remarks that are championed by some yet offensive to others, it's a big deal. If he'd gone off on a hate filled diatribe about anything or anybody, no one would be screaming about his right to free speech.
    
    The whole thing is very hypocritical to me.

    replyreport
21. 0

    CalebSparksposted 11 years ago

    I think the whole situation is quite humorous. As others have said, what did the network or anyone else really expect? Phil Robertson has on several occasions demonstrated his commitment to his beliefs. Christian beliefs seem to be the favorite target of the media. Whether you agree with his beliefs or not, the man should be admired for his courage.
    
    In reality, the Robertsons don't have much to lose. They don't need A and E's money...they did A and E a favor. They were already multimillionaires before their TV series, and I don't think Phil's comments will diminish their hunting supply business. If anything, their business will increase. (I don't even watch Duck Dynasty, but hey...I might even buy one of their products just for the sake of it
    
    Economic considerations aside, it would probably be better for the Robertson family to leave the limelight anyway...fame can be hard on family life.

    replyreport
    1. 61

       fpherj48posted 11 years agoin reply to this

       Caleb..you are 100% correct! These are healthy, happy, simple-living.(NOT simple-minded) people. They acquired wealth via  honest work.They enjoy a Faith-based life & are all about FAMILY. Just too natural & tame for the public.Too bad 4 the

       replyreport
22. 36

    ChristinSposted 11 years ago

    It isn't a violation of free speech.  He said what he wanted to say and that's fine.  He hasn't been arrested or jailed etc. that would be a violation of free speech.  With free speech also comes responsibility and accountability.  A&E is fully within their rights to terminate someone who they feel reflects badly on their image.  If I have an employer and I get caught saying something that reflects badly on my employers image I would get fired.  I was free to say what I said and my employer was free to can me for it. 
    
    That being said, I believe this is a publicity stunt designed to give both this guy and the network attention.  When it blows over the network will reinstate him and ratings will go through the roof.  It's a ploy.  I'll be surprised if it turns out otherwise.
    
    For those crying free speech about this - I would say ask the Dixie Chicks about free speech.  Remember when the right was proudly getting people to boycott them for simply stating they were ashamed to be from the same state as Bush? Funny how it's only a controversy of "free speech" when it's someone we agree with isn't it?

    replyreport
    1. 0

       Larry Wallposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       ChristinS, you are correct. As a reporter who depended on freedom of speech & press, I know people have a right to their opinions. They can be restricted by contracts. The client-doctor-clergy privilege is a prime example of restricting free spee

       replyreport
    2. 0

       Mklow1posted 11 years agoin reply to this

       1st of all, the dixie chicks were not wrongfully fired. 2nd Phil's beliefs were well known be4 he was hired, so he cannot be fired for saying them.

       replyreport
    3. 36

       ChristinSposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       it was a publicity stunt by A&E as for the dixie chicks point being everyone calling for their heads for stating a belief - the same types of people who defend this fellow - it's hypocritical.

       replyreport
    4. 67

       JRScarbroughposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       There is a huge divide between Phil and the Dixie Chicks. They were verging on treason by hurling propaganda against their president while on foreign soil and to foreigners. Phil stated his philosophical belief. DC were inciting anti-Americanism.

       replyreport
    5. 0

       Mklow1posted 11 years agoin reply to this

       Christin, 1st how do u know who backed the dixie chicks and duck dynasty? any answer from u would b a guess/assumption. 2nd, u r assuming it was a publicity stunt as if u were n the meeting? Do u work 4 A&E? 3rd, the dixie chicks didn't get fired

       replyreport
    6. 67

       JRScarbroughposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       Their fans decided they no longer wanted to be fans. Dixie Chicks chose that fate. They knew who their fans were. AND we were at war and they were viscously attacking their president. Big difference here. Phils fans are his fans. A&E were bigoted

       replyreport
    7. 36

       ChristinSposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       and this guy is promoting bigotry.  Saying you are ashamed of the president is hardly treasonous. You all prove the point. It's only a "freedom of speech" issue when its someone you agree with.  He wasn't fired, he was "suspended"

       replyreport
    8. 0

       Mklow1posted 11 years agoin reply to this

       If u r going to haggle over a word, then fine; the dixie chicks were not "suspended". There, u happy? BTW, just because u don't agree with his opinion does not mean he is being bigoted. Fact is that if he did anything wrong, he wld still b suspended

       replyreport
    9. 0

       JThomp42posted 11 years agoin reply to this

       Christin.... you are right. This was just another knit pick ploy by the gay community to have something to run their mouths about. But, Praise God look who prevailed. Phil and his beliefs prevailed this time.

       replyreport
    10. 67

        JRScarbroughposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        Actually, when on foreign soil during war time it is considered treasonous to defame the president. Iy is considered aid and comfort to the enemy. Phil was asked about his thoughts, he gave them and A&E reprimanded him. DC’s audience left them.

        replyreport
    11. 0

        Mklow1posted 11 years agoin reply to this

        Christin said:"You all prove the point. It's only a "freedom of speech" issue when its someone you agree with."
        Again, u r making assumptions. U have no idea who I have agreed w/ b4.Technically  U haven't even asked me. U just put words n my mouth.

        replyreport
23. 50

    tbHistorianposted 11 years ago

    Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.
    While A&E may disagree with Phil's statements, nothing stated by Phil was detrimental to any individual or group.  Phil did not request that society cleanse itself of the immoral and evil behavior exhibited by those that have protested his statements.  In fact, Phil only suggested that those who have protested rethink their decisions to participate in and support immoral and evil acts.
    Therefore, the discrimination shown by A&E in response to the protestors further supports such immoral and evil actions within the moral community.  This discrimination now leads another effort by the immoral and evil to further destroy the moral society.  The immoral is then extended as a parasite bloodsucker that degrades the society with its evil ways.

    replyreport
    1. 0

       Larry Wallposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       I lost my job of 22 years in 2010. My separation agreement has a clause stating that I would make no comments to damage the reputation of the company. I do not wish to do that. I did not like being dismissed, but the work of the company is solid.

       replyreport
    2. 50

       tbHistorianposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       Larry - sorry to hear you lost your job. If the company separated you based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin then they broke the law. A&E has not been damaged by Phil's statements but did discriminate by suspending him.

       replyreport
24. 72

    LoisRyan13903posted 11 years ago

    I think A&E is violating his Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Religion.  However, he probably should have reword it a little better.  Though I just read parts of the interview and did not read the whole.  I did hear that this might just be a publicity stunt and will probably be back on the show sometime in January.  Just don't quote me on this it might be just a rumor.

    replyreport
25. 67

    JRScarbroughposted 11 years ago

    I think, no matter what, we all have the right to feel about anything any way we feel about it and can speak our mind on it at any time we wish. I don’t think we need corporations telling us what i permitted to think and say.
    
    It can’t be denied that the bible agrees with Phil. Their argument is with the bible and not with Phil Robertson of all people.

    replyreport
26. 63

    peachwithasmileposted 11 years ago

    Phil worked for the network.  Any job has guidelines that must be followed.  Anything that can offend a person is usually written in the handbook as a no no.  His freedom was speech was not taken away.  He spoke just fine, but he forgot about his job.

    replyreport
27. 68

    BuffaloGal1960posted 11 years ago

    I think GQ was probably hoping for an increase in sales. I think they knew the controversy would sell their magazine.   I  think A&E made a bad choice, as did Cracker Barrel who quickly realized that their customers are people who care about free speech. Their customers are not rednecks who never eat out. Some would have you believe that only insignificant viewers of the show are not contributing society members.  Wrong!
    
    Overall, I think this issue is about Christians having the right to voice their opinions and quote the Bible when they choose to.  Nobody has ever died from HEARING a Bible quote, after all, but plenty have died for QUOTING it!  We must not allow differing opinions to be a reason for a hanging.  Christians do not force their beliefs on others but ask for a right to them.  Many Christians have been sleeping too long.  This is a great lesson that we can still voice our opinion and make a difference.
    
    Piers Morgan uses his show as a platform to ban guns.  Oprah used her show for a platform of politics (Obama) and other messages.  Robertson was not on his show at the time of the comments, but doing an interview with a separate entity. Why can some voice their opinions and others cannot?  Because Christians are hated - that's why.  Thanks to idiots like the Westboro group, it gives good Christians a bad name much like a radical Muslim tarnishes that religion. I, like Phil, hate no group or individual.
    
    I am not a Duck Dynasty viewer. I have never seen the show. But my hat is off to Phil Robertson because he stands FIRM.  Unlike Cracker Barrel, unlike many Christian preachers who buckle under pressure!   I say he should run for President!

    replyreport
    1. 83

       Georgie Loweryposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       In the same interview, he alluded to his belief that black folks were much happier before civil rights and welfare. I'm glad to know you support that stance as well.

       replyreport
    2. 37

       thomasczechposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       Georgie> to look at his statements correctly, one would actually say that he worked alone side the black people and during that time he never saw them unhappy, they smiled and sang songs. He was speaking from his experience.

       replyreport
    3. 83

       Georgie Loweryposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       thomas, you're seeing what you want to see. Actual quote: "Pre-entitlement, pre-welfare, you say: Were they happy? They were godly; they were happy; no one was singing the blues.”

       replyreport
28. 62

    jstfishinmanposted 11 years ago

    A&E gets its advertising money based on its viewership. These two things work hand-in-hand.
    If viewership drops, the advertising money also drops. A&E and Duck Dynasty have benefitted each other, as in a marriage, for better or worse.
    Phil has been preaching and talking the same way since before A&E and I imagine will continue to talk the same after A&E.
    People talk about Phil, as if he is uneducated and a bumpkin, Phil has a Masters Degree in Education and a Bachelor Degree in Physical Education. I am sure that this is more education than most that ridicule him.
    Phil has never been, nor will he probably ever be, politically correct. He tends to be to truthful for most folks.
    Don't ask him a question, if you are not prepared of a truthful answer in Phil's honest way. He is blunt and what you see is what you get.
    I am sure this spat with A&E will get worked out, for the simple fact that A&E is hurting their advertising revenue if viewership drops from their #1 show. A&E will have to decide between their political view and revenue, and in business revenue usually wins.

    replyreport
29. 61

    fpherj48posted 11 years ago

    My opinion is that A&E is kissing the asses of the Politically Correct Czars.  It has ALL, simply gone much too far....to the point of beating a dead horse.......defying common sense, as well as, too many of our Liberties!
    Phil's comments WERE simple, clear and basically mild.  He didn't rant, rave nor curse.  He stated what is in his heart....his own personal beliefs.  He went further, to explain that it is his Faith and belief in the Bible that guides him.   Would the masses prefer he openly LIE or make totally false statements, to comply with ratings? 
    What little I have read since the big hoopla, I see that the family has made it clear, without Phil, the show is over.  Now, that's what I call FAMILY LOYALTY AND LOVE.  Reality:  They don't need the $$$, so they don't feel the need to KI$$ A$$.  Refreshing, to say the least. 
    There truly are people who worship something other than.....money??!
    Outrageous!!
    Before throwing rotten tomatoes......No where within my comment have I claimed that I agree with Phil's statement.  My final opinion is that I know damned well, we are all entitled to our own opinions!!   Peace & Happy New Year

    replyreport
    1. 67

       JRScarbroughposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       Why would anyone throw anything at you? It’s all just reversing the bigotry these days. It’s ok for people to call a Christian man bigoted names but not for that man to say e believes what the bible says. Isn’t that just unfair?

       replyreport
30. 0

    Lybrahposted 11 years ago

    I don't think he should have been suspended.  He is allowed to have his opinion.

    replyreport
31. 57

    shuaibvpposted 11 years ago

    THIS IS ABSOLUTELY A GIFT OF MOUTH-CUFF TO OBJECT FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION....

    replyreport
32. 0

    Mklow1posted 11 years ago

    At one time, I worked for the city of New York and I had a supervisor that did not believe in any deities. One day she overheard a conversation I was having with a co-worker on the topic of Christianity. Later, she took me into my office and told me that I should stop talking about offensive things or I will have to find myself a job. I was very comfortable that I was performing above the expectation of my duties, so I politely told her I was well within my rights to speak about my religious beliefs as was the countless others in the building that gladly shared their beliefs. Needless to say, I kept my job as did Phil. With that said, a person cannot be suspended/fired for just anything, especially for expressing their religious beliefs that, may I add, are not some well kept secret. A&E knew his beliefs when they hired him, allowed him to share his beliefs on the show, and no "moral clause" change that fact. A judge would laugh them out of the court and Phil would be laughing all the way to the bank.

    replyreport
    1. 59

       victoriasmith001posted 11 years agoin reply to this

       he became rich by his own mind. He is old so may be his tongue might be sleep. And according to me he is frank minded person. So i have no more problem about him or his speech..

       replyreport
33. 64

    TwerkZerkerposted 11 years ago

    I honestly don't feel this issue has anything to do with freedom of speech. I'm not saying that I agree or disagree with Mr. Robertson, but he wasn't taken of the air for "simply having an opinion". Mr. Robertson put A&E in an awkward position. He took a position on a hot, controversial issue and (quite understandably) A&E was either unwilling to endorse his view or unwilling to even get caught up in this issue. In any case, any company retains the right to dismiss someone who makes polarized claims that it can't/won't support.
    
    In fact, just the other day I say a very similar case where a pro football player was booted from his team after making very pro-gay statements. The issue isn't that these men had beliefs, it's that the companies that their words reflect back on aren't willing to support/endorse these beliefs (or to even get involved in the matter).
    
    We all have the right to say what we feel and believe, but that doesn't make us exempt of the consequences that follow--especially when our words reflect back on others who may not agree with us.

    replyreport
34. 80

    JBeadleposted 8 years ago

    Speaking causes actions.  He owns the words and thus the consequences.  We are free to speak freely and to judge those words just as freely.  His speech wasn't taken away he spoke his words and he got a reaction.

    replyreport