Duck Dynasty Star Banned Indefinitely for Anti-Gay Comments

[Houtei]

This kind of stuff is one of the reasons you cant trust what actors say on talk shows or whatever.   To many interviewers with the bait questions and if you answer it truthfully there will be all kinds of backlash.  I guess he should of just lied or said move on to the next question.  I dont beleive the same way at all but I respect someone who doesn't back down on their beliefs so easily and was truthful about it.

 

On a side note I have 2 gay aunts and they were outraged that he was suspended over stating beliefs when ASKED even if it was saying he thought what they do was a sin. 

[snaphat (Myles Landwehr) Member]

On a side note I have 2 gay aunts and they were outraged that he was suspended over stating beliefs when ASKED even if it was saying he thought what they do was a sin. 

 

:rofl:, nice appeal to authority there

[mudslag]

So much for freedom of speech or expression in America.

 

Now I know what they mean by the word Abomination = ObamaNation.

 

 

retarded post is retarded....this has nothing to do with freedom of speech and even more so it has nothing to do with Obama. How you make that jump is just asinine and shows pure ignorance on your part. 

 

.....................

 

 

 

On another note, ratings will prob end up jumping on this and in the end will be a win for both sides.

[Ian S.]

 

That's not how free speech works, "freedom of speech" protects you from the gov infringing on your Right to say what you want, not from private companies who you work for and who's businesses are affected. 

 

 

Being fired/suspended for beliefs is OK? If a gay person who had to actively tell everyone and the media that he was gay and as a result, was fired, or refused service from a restaurant/shop, then you would probably say that's not fair etc. etc. Right?

[TPreston]

Being fired/suspended for beliefs is OK? If a gay person who had to actively tell everyone and the media that he was gay and as a result, was fired, or refused service from a restaurant/shop, then you would probably say that's not fair etc. etc. Right?

:facepalm; Why is it so difficult for people to understand this ?

godhatesfags != imgay

Now if he asked his boss if he would like to (insert expletive here) he wouldn't be fired for being gay but for being a tool.

Employment Discrimination is fireing anyone because they are gay,old,female,jewish etc.

This isn't the above. You have no case.

[Growled Member]

I hope he sticks to his beliefs. I hate it when people say they believe in something and then when there is a flap like this, they backtrack. Not that I believe what he believes, but at least grow a pair and stand up for what you believe.

[mudslag]

Being fired/suspended for beliefs is OK? If a gay person who had to actively tell everyone and the media that he was gay and as a result, was fired, or refused service from a restaurant/shop, then you would probably say that's not fair etc. etc. Right?

 

 

Whether or not it was right for A&E to fire him has nothing to do with "Freedom of Speech". They are two separate issues. If you work for a business and you make public comments that could potentially hurt said business, that business can do with you as they please. Lastly, just because you can say something does not in anyway mean you are not responsible for what you say. He was not fired because of beliefs, he was fired because of what he said could affect a business and that is within their Right to protect. 

[snaphat (Myles Landwehr) Member]

Being fired/suspended for beliefs is OK? If a gay person who had to actively tell everyone and the media that he was gay and as a result, was fired, or refused service from a restaurant/shop, then you would probably say that's not fair etc. etc. Right?

 

Your scenario is about someone who was coerced against their will into going to the media...  :huh:. Also, you can't refuse someone a service based on sexual orientation or religion. Just like how you can't refuse to hire people based on their sexual orientation or religion. You are making false analogies. Neither of this things is the same as getting fired from a place of business for making potentially offensive comments. If you are public figure and you are interviewing for the purpose of promoting your show (i.e. your place of work), you can't say whatever you want without repercussions. Just like how if you are at physically at work you can't say whatever you want without repercussion. The case is cut and dry because of that.

 

Think about it, if I attend a conference, do I get to say and do whatever I want in the presentation I'm presenting at said conference because I'm not in my place of employment? No, I don't. I'm representing my place of employment if it is work related and I can't just go around doing whatever I want regardless of whether I'm being paid to attend the conference or not. I can't just say "well, it is my religious opinion so you are discriminating against me and I can do what I want."

[Growled Member]

I don't know if they realize this or not, but they are just making him an even bigger "star" than he is already. Not only will people who have never heard of him know who he is now, but he'll be a poster child for the many Americans who believes as he does but refuse to speak out.

[spenser.d]

I don't know if they realize this or not, but they are just making him an even bigger "star" than he is already. Not only will people who have never heard of him know who he is now, but he'll be a poster child for the many Americans who believes as he does but refuse to speak out.

I would argue the opposite, that very few people (apart from those that watch the show) will remember this even happened next week. It's not actually a big deal, just a fresh talking point until the next one.

[Ian S.]

Your scenario is about someone who was coerced against their will into going to the media...  :huh:. Also, you can't refuse someone a service based on sexual orientation or religion. Just like how you can't refuse to hire people based on their sexual orientation or religion. You are making false analogies. Neither of this things is the same as getting fired from a place of business for making potentially offensive comments. If you are public figure and you are interviewing for the purpose of promoting your show (i.e. your place of work), you can't say whatever you want without repercussions. Just like how if you are at physically at work you can't say whatever you want without repercussion. The case is cut and dry because of that.

 

:ermm: My scenario was someone who actively decided on their own to "come out" knowing that the media would make waves about him or her. They were not pressured to say anything, but they did anyways and they still retain a job after that while the public tolerates all these stories. Meanwhile, this guy from A&E makes a statement on his beliefs and gets fired/suspended by doing so. Your double-standard makes not sense. Are you going to say that you would defend a gay person over a religious person if he was fired?

 

 

 

Think about it, if I attend a conference, do I get to say and do whatever I want in the presentation I'm presenting at said conference because I'm not in my place of employment? No, I don't. I'm representing my place of employment if it is work related and I can't just go around doing whatever I want regardless of whether I'm being paid to attend the conference or not. I can't just say "well, it is my religious opinion so you are discriminating against me and I can do what I want."

 

Going to a conference represents the company, he represented himself and himself only. He didn't even say anything about his family, yet GLAAD attacked them. (again you and practically everyone else here are ignoring that, as you refuse to believe A&E and GLAAD have taken the best response). 

 

 

Now the media has accused him of being racist tv.yahoo.com/blogs/tv-news/-duck-dynasty--star-phil-robertson-digs-his-hole-a-little-deeper-by-also-stinging-african-americans-173821415.html

 

However, he only said that those African Americans that he met where friendly and happily singing and humming. He never said they weren't treated badly.

 

Also, if you read the comment on that site and others, people who are gay and are African American* have come out and defended him and his freedom to speech without it resulting in a loss of a job (and presumably income)

 

*I personally believe that African American is a racist term towards them, and they (like everyone else) should be called Americans, we need to work together as one not divided. 

[benthebear]

The Robertson's official statement...

 

We want to thank all of you for your prayers and support.  The family has spent much time in prayer since learning of A&E's decision.  We want you to know that first and foremost we are a family rooted in our faith in God and our belief that the Bible is His word.  While some of Phil?s unfiltered comments to the reporter were coarse, his beliefs are grounded in the teachings of the Bible. Phil is a Godly man who follows what the Bible says are the greatest commandments: ?Love the Lord your God with all your heart? and ?Love your neighbor as yourself.? Phil would never incite or encourage hate.We are disappointed that Phil has been placed on hiatus for expressing his faith, which is his constitutionally protected right.We have had a successful working relationship with A&E but, as a family, we cannot imagine the show going forward without our patriarch at the helm.  We are in discussions with A&E to see what that means for the future of Duck Dynasty.   Again, thank you for your continued support of our family.

 

http://duckcommander.com/news/robertson-family-offical-statement

[hagjohn]

Too many people like to talk out their *** without knowing what they are talking about. That seems to include Pat Robertson as well.

[scumdogmillionaire]

A nearly 70 year old hunter from the south had some disparaging comments on homosexuality? Quick, get him a beer and ask him his opinions on black people!

 

If you're going to put people like this in the spotlight don't be shocked when they shoot from the hip without a PR guy there. Get over it.

[Rohdekill]

Never watched the show and never will. No big loss to me.

[compl3x]

It seems this comes down to confusing your right to freedom of speech and the expectation that your speech will have no consequences.

[NightmarE D]

Questions for the ones in this thread that are against what he "said":

1.) Did you take time to actually read the full interview?

2.) Have you ever watched more than one episode?

About #1, the same condensed, out-of-context version is going from site to site. He never once compared homosexuality to beastialty or went into one long rant. He also made it pretty clear he was just voicing his opinion and didn't imply/force it on anyone. Read the full article before commenting. It's very clear a good chunk of people here and elsewhere didn't read it.

About #2, there have been episodes to feature people who are clearly gay. Not once did he talk down to them, but he clearly knew and treated them with respect. Not to mention that John Luke is possibly a closet gay or bisexual at the least. He's a little too obvious in some episodes more than others and that's his grandson.

To those saying nobody but Chriatians are complaining about him being fired, go look at any Robertson family members or A&E's Facebook and twitter accounts. Robertsons got atheists and gays openly support Phil. I have 2 gay nephews ###### about it myself and an atheist friend who isn't thrilled.

Seriously, a good chunk of you don't have a clue what he actually said.

[bradsday]

Phil Robertson released his own statement responding to the controversy.

 

?I myself am a product of the 60s; I centered my life around sex, drugs and rock and roll until I hit rock bottom and accepted Jesus as my Savior. My mission today is to go forth and 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.?

[snaphat (Myles Landwehr) Member]

:ermm: My scenario was someone who actively decided on their own to "come out" knowing that the media would make waves about him or her. They were not pressured to say anything, but they did anyways and they still retain a job after that while the public tolerates all these stories. Meanwhile, this guy from A&E makes a statement on his beliefs and gets fired/suspended by doing so. Your double-standard makes not sense. Are you going to say that you would defend a gay person over a religious person if he was fired?

 

If that's your scenario then you worded that really poorly, because you said "had to" as if the hypothetical person were being forced to. I don't actually have a double standard, you are just arbitrarily making assumptions about how I would feel if it was a LBGTQ person (or how I feel in the first place for that matter). If a public figure (LBGTQ or not) comes out and makes untactful statements, etc. and then loses their job, I really don't care either way. Similar, I don't care whether this guy loses his job or not. That's my honest opinion. 

 

The problem I have is that you treating this as a religious issue and freedom of speech issue when it is not, it is a publicity issue. You have to placate your viewership otherwise the network will do damage control. I'll even offer you an alternative scenario that would likely result in suspension that has a hypothetical gay minister in it. Imagine if you were one of those celebrity ministers on radio/tv and then you came out and said you were gay all of a sudden, do you think you would keep your talk radio show or retain your contract? Probably not because you aren't placating your base and you are generating bad publicity from your viewership.

 

 

Going to a conference represents the company, he represented himself and himself only. He didn't even say anything about his family, yet GLAAD attacked them. (again you and practically everyone else here are ignoring that, as you refuse to believe A&E and GLAAD have taken the best response). 

 

He was by definition representing his show and the network. He's a public figure under contract for a hit television series. Do you think GQ Magazine did an article on him just because they wanted to know about him because he is an interesting person out of the blue? Of course not, they interviewed him because he is famous for Duck Dynasty. Anything he says on *any* interview always represents and reflects the show and the network. 

 

I don't particular care what GLAAD or A&E said or did. Don't misconstrue my arguments (strawman me).  As far as I'm concerned, GLAAD is completely irrelevant and A&E just did some form of damage control. The only arguments I made were to point out that this is not illegal and is not free speech issue and that you aren't even allowed to go around saying what you want without consequences when you are representing an entity that you work for.

 

 

Now the media has accused him of being racist tv.yahoo.com/blogs/tv-news/-duck-dynasty--star-phil-robertson-digs-his-hole-a-little-deeper-by-also-stinging-african-americans-173821415.html

 

However, he only said that those African Americans that he met where friendly and happily singing and humming. He never said they weren't treated badly.

 

Also, if you read the comment on that site and others, people who are gay and are African American* have come out and defended him and his freedom to speech without it resulting in a loss of a job (and presumably income)

 

*I personally believe that African American is a racist term towards them, and they (like everyone else) should be called Americans, we need to work together as one not divided. 

 

I'm sure the media has called him racist. They want their ratings. Saying things like LBGTQ and African Americans have come out to defend him is just an appeal to authority (logical fallacy). An arguments for/against X isn't suddenly better or worse because of the person who said it...

 

I personally believe that "race" relations are a joke in this country (and throughout the world). We continue to lump people by their skin color regardless of the fact that race itself is a social construct and has no genetic basis. But the reality is that we live in a racist world and that isn't going to go away just because we refer to to everyone as solely "Americans" in some attempt to blanket away differences or a sense of misplaced justice. Perhaps people don't want their differences washed away because for whatever reason they take pride in their ethnicity, ancestry, and cultural differences. The same as people who take pride in their sexual orientation, gender, and the types of people they identify with. It isn't an easy problem to solve and there isn't any easy answer.

[snaphat (Myles Landwehr) Member]

Questions for the ones in this thread that are against what he "said":

1.) Did you take time to actually read the full interview?

2.) Have you ever watched more than one episode?

About #1, the same condensed, out-of-context version is going from site to site. He never once compared homosexuality to beastialty or went into one long rant. He also made it pretty clear he was just voicing his opinion and didn't imply/force it on anyone. Read the full article before commenting. It's very clear a good chunk of people here and elsewhere didn't read it.

About #2, there have been episodes to feature people who are clearly gay. Not once did he talk down to them, but he clearly knew and treated them with respect. Not to mention that John Luke is possibly a closet gay or bisexual at the least. He's a little too obvious in some episodes more than others and that's his grandson.

To those saying nobody but Chriatians are complaining about him being fired, go look at any Robertson family members or A&E's Facebook and twitter accounts. Robertsons got atheists and gays openly support Phil. I have 2 gay nephews ****ed about it myself and an atheist friend who isn't thrilled.

Seriously, a good chunk of you don't have a clue what he actually said.

 

The reality is that most people in this thread were arguing solely that it isn't a freedom of speech issue so none of this stuff you are saying is even relevant. Stop strawmanning the viewpoints of everyone to be the against him, yada yada yada.

 

Making an argument of authority doesn't make your argument valid. Whether you are homosexual or not is not relevant to your argument.

 

Man people are terrible at making valid arguments  :pinch:. 

[HawkMan]

Being fired/suspended for beliefs is OK? If a gay person who had to actively tell everyone and the media that he was gay and as a result, was fired, or refused service from a restaurant/shop, then you would probably say that's not fair etc. etc. Right?

For a regular worker no, but for a person who by his role represents the company, like an actor always does, yes.

But as was said before, he wasn't fired for his belief, he was fired for his ridiculously offensive statement that homosexuality leads to bestiality and worse.

[HawkMan]

It's funny how they say they base their belief on the bible. When all the anti gay stuff is Old Testament stuff. And when you point out all the stupid facts and stuff you're supposed to do according to the Old Testament Christians point out that Jesus removed all the sins by sacrificing himself and supposedly the Christian version of god is a nice forgiving one as opposed to the vengeful Old Testament one. But apparently Jesus selectively chose what sins he forgave I guess...

[ThaCrip]

in short... He should have a right to say what he said without being penalized for it. period.

 

as he even said while he's against supporting gays etc he won't treat them badly or anything and i am sure plenty of people feel that way including myself as there is a lot of people to where it's against their religious beliefs and he should NOT be penalized for that.

 

hell, it's like they (the gays etc) want their rights etc but when someone even slightly speaks against them they want them crucified basically instead of letting him say what he wants to as it's not like it's going to hurt them all THAT much at the end of the day.

 

the media etc is out of line nowadays as they support anything that used to be bad and are against the stuff that's been good like traditional family values etc. it's like the media has a forced to SUPPORT gays mentality and won't accept any other views and if you are of a different view they want you penalized for it. also, everyone is wayyyy to sensitive nowadays and you can get in trouble for saying basically petty crap.

 

besides... i am confident that of the 14million or so viewers that show see's per week that the vast majority are more inline with his type of views. even on the small chance they offend a small amount of people watching the show, they can just simply not watch the show anymore if what he said is that big of a deal to them.

 

 

 

Jesus removed all the sins by sacrificing himself and supposedly the Christian version of god is a nice forgiving one as opposed to the vengeful Old Testament one. But apparently Jesus selectively chose what sins he forgave I guess...

 

homosexuality is a mortal sin basically and it IS forgivable if they repent of their ways as you can't keep continuing to live that way.

 

but at the end of the day... only god can judge them.

 

But as was said before, he wasn't fired for his belief, he was fired for his ridiculously offensive statement that homosexuality leads to bestiality and worse.

 

well if people keep accepting more and more sinful actions... where does it end?

 

i think that's kind of what he was meant by that comment.

[mudslag]

in short... He should have a right to say what he said without being penalized for it. period.

 

as he even said while he's against supporting gays etc he won't treat them badly or anything and i am sure plenty of people feel that way including myself as there is a lot of people to where it's against their religious beliefs and he should NOT be penalized for that.

 

hell, it's like they (the gays etc) want their rights etc but when someone even slightly speaks against them they want them crucified basically instead of letting him say what he wants to as it's not like it's going to hurt them all THAT much at the end of the day.

 

the media etc is out of line nowadays as they support anything that used to be bad and are against the stuff that's been good like traditional family values etc. it's like the media has a forced to SUPPORT gays mentality and won't accept any other views and if you are of a different view they want you penalized for it. also, everyone is wayyyy to sensitive nowadays and you can get in trouble for saying basically petty crap.

 

besides... i am confident that of the 14million or so viewers that show see's per week that the vast majority are more inline with his type of views. even on the small chance they offend a small amount of people watching the show, they can just simply not watch the show anymore if what he said is that big of a deal to them.

 

 

 

 

homosexuality is a mortal sin basically and it IS forgivable if they repent of their ways as you can't keep continuing to live that way.

 

but at the end of the day... only god can judge them.

 

 

In short you're wrong, when you work for or represent a business and you say something that could have an effect on said business, then you have to face that fact that what you say could have consequences, period.

 

As for homosexuality being a mortal sin, that's subjective, period.

[ThaCrip]

As for homosexuality being a mortal sin, that's subjective, period.

 

well according to the catholic church it is (which is the true church of Christ). that's pretty credible if you ask me.

 

that's something that they can never change either no matter how low society goes.

 

 

 

In short you're wrong, when you work for or represent a business and you say something that could have an effect on said business, then you have to face that fact that what you say could have consequences, period.

 

Sure, but A&E ain't going to get in THAT much trouble over it as they could just simply say he does not represent A&E's views etc and that would be it and those who want him fired from the show probably don't even watch the show anyways as with 14million viewers the show clearly has a following and, like i have said, i am willing to bet most have similar views to himself or not that much different that watch the show anyways. or the ones who don't like it can simply not watch the show.

 

but with the promotion of the gay agenda in full swing nowadays (roughly the last decade or so) it's not surprising people get in trouble over petty stuff since like i say the media etc in general is against the traditional ways.