# Will "Duck Dynasty" survive this mess Phil created?



## Alfer (Aug 7, 2003)

So A&E isn't happy with the family patriarch Phil for his comments in GQ magazine recently. He's been put on "hiatus" from being on the show.

So will DD survive this flap and keep on keeping on or do you think this well be similar to the Paula Dean mess, meaning they lose their show and sponsors etc?

They are a juggernaut right now for A&E/Wal-Mart etc. So I'm thinking they will make it through this PR mess but of course the hater spotlight will be on the whole family for some time to come I'm sure.

Full story:


> Is this man simply expressing his beliefs or spewing bigotry?
> 
> Either way, Phil Robertson, the patriarch in A&E's "Duck Dynasty," won't be duck calling on air anytime soon. The network suspended him after he made controversial remarks about gays in a magazine interview.
> 
> In the January issue of GQ, Robertson says homosexuality is a sin and puts it in the same category as bestiality and promiscuity.


http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/19/showbiz/duck-dynasty-suspension/index.html?hpt=hp_t2


----------



## ClutchBrake (Sep 5, 2001)

This thread isn't going to last long...

The man has the right to be a bigot. A&E has the right to protect their image.

(And his comments about blacks were just as bad if not worse!)


----------



## Hoffer (Jun 1, 2001)

Homosexuality probably is a sin in the bible. I'm not exactly up on my bible scripture. I bet this guy Phil performs 100 other sins every day. So nice of him to choose which sins are the really bad sins.

I've never seen the show and it sounds like I'm not missing much.


----------



## betts4 (Dec 27, 2005)

I have barely an idea of who Phil is or what he said (I have seen DD but was not all that interested). 

That said, he does have a right to his thoughts, but also yes, I am glad A&E did what they did. I think the whole show should be shut down though, not just keeping him off of it. I mean the duck people have a quadzillion dollars anyway so what does it matter.


----------



## cmontyburns (Nov 14, 2001)

Alfer said:


> but of course the hater spotlight will be on the whole family for some time to come I'm sure.


Uh, I think there are more reasons to have issues with what the guy said than just "being a hater".


----------



## Eitel (Aug 25, 2003)

Never seen the show, so I could care less what happens to it. (Not a fan of reality tv).

But pretty much what Clutch said. He has the right to be a jerk, and A&E has the right to drop him for being one.


----------



## DeDondeEs (Feb 20, 2004)

I bet sales of the Duck Dynasty Chia-Heads will plummet as a result. Can we please have more shows about engineers, doctors, and scientists. Instead of this prevalent trash that glorifies being an ignorant *******? The bible also has some language about gluttony in there as well.


----------



## flyers088 (Apr 19, 2005)

ClutchBrake said:


> This thread isn't going to last long...
> 
> The man has the right to be a bigot. A&E has the right to protect their image.
> 
> (And his comments about blacks were just as bad if not worse!)


Not sure what anyone was expecting him to say differently when asked the question? If you read his books or watched the show I don't know how you would be shocked by his views. Agree or not he has the right to them and in the end A&E is really the only one's hurting themselves by ruining the cash cow that is Duck Dynasty. I wish the family would breach their contract (I know they won't because A&E would sue and win) and stop doing the show in support of Phil. They have enough money that this could all go away and they would be fine.


----------



## brettatk (Oct 11, 2002)

flyers088 said:


> Not sure what anyone was expecting him to say differently when asked the question? If you read his books or watched the show I don't know how you would be shocked by his views. Agree or not he has the right to them and in the end A&E is really the only one's hurting themselves by ruining the cash cow that is Duck Dynasty. I wish the family would breach their contract (I know they won't because A&E would sue and win) and stop doing the show in support of Phil. They have enough money that this could all go away and they would be fine.


This. It shouldn't be a surprise to anyone familiar with Phil or the show.


----------



## Alfer (Aug 7, 2003)

Eitel said:


> Never seen the show, so *I could care less* what happens to it. (Not a fan of reality tv).
> 
> But pretty much what Clutch said. He has the right to be a jerk, and A&E has the right to drop him for being one.


How much less could you care?


----------



## doom1701 (May 15, 2001)

This morning I figured "Eh". I do agree that Phil (who is actually a very intelligent, well read man, as is just about everyone on the show--they pull off the "*******" act very well) has the right to believe whatever he wants, and A&E has the right to do with the show whatever they want.

This morning I figured "eh" because I thought:
1. Nobody is surprised by Phil stating this. He is a very devout Christian.
2. Nobody is surprised by A&E pulling him from the show
3. Nobody is going to boycott Duck Dynasty because of this, because the bulk of the people really into that show know Phil's beliefs, and most probably share those beleifs.
4. A&E isn't going to hurt, because it's not like their other programming pulls in the same kinds of people as DD.

It's #4 where I was wrong--I didn't realize that A&E had apparently become the "******* Reality Channel".


----------



## vman41 (Jun 18, 2002)

DeDondeEs said:


> I bet sales of the Duck Dynasty Chia-Heads will plummet as a result. Can we please have more shows about engineers, doctors, and scientists. Instead of this prevalent trash that glorifies being an ignorant *******? The bible also has some language about gluttony in there as well.


They are rich ignorant ********. I think the point of the show is they are a successful, non-dysfunctional family, in spite of (or because of, not sure) being ********.


----------



## jgickler (Apr 7, 2000)

This doesn't really surprise me at all, other then maybe the A&E reaction was a little more then I expected. I have a friend who is involved with a ministry that has worked with some of the Robertson's. I don't know if Phil was one of them, I know he works with Willie. But it was very obvious to me that faith is a big part of that family, and that they were going to leverage their fame in order to share their faith with others. 

Honestly, I think that Phil tolerates the show, interviews and the attention, Willie and the others are more enthusiastic about promoting and marketing. So I think he will be gone for a while, then eventually come back with a much smaller role.


----------



## Adam1115 (Dec 15, 2003)

> Robertson caused controversy with his comments, in which he grouped gays with "drunks" and "terrorists," and said that they won't "inherit the kingdom of God."
> 
> Asked what he considered sinful, Robertson told the magazine, "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."


I get why his comments are offensive, but he didn't say them on the show. He said them in an interview where he is specifically asked about his views. Should he have lied? Or not answered?

And who is surprised that a ******* from the South thinks being gay is a sin?


----------



## ClutchBrake (Sep 5, 2001)

What about this gem from the article?



> In addition to his comments about homosexuality, Robertson also spoke about race and growing up in Louisiana before the civil rights era.
> 
> "I never, with my eyes, saw the mistreatment of any black person. Not once," he told GQ. "Where we lived was all farmers. The blacks worked for the farmers. I hoed cotton with them. I'm with the blacks, because we're white trash. We're going across the field. ... They're singing and happy. I never heard one of them, one black person, say, 'I tell you what: These doggone white people' -- not a word!
> 
> "Pre-entitlement, pre-welfare, you say: Were they happy? They were godly; they were happy; no one was singing the blues," GQ quoted Robertson as saying.


----------



## dthmj (Mar 12, 2002)

From reading the article - http://www.gq.com/entertainment/television/201401/duck-dynasty-phil-robertson?currentPage=1 - it doesn't appear he was asked "Do you think homosexuality is a sin?" - It looks more like he took the opportunity to say whatever he wanted.



> Out here in these woods, without any cameras around, Phil is free to say what he wants. Maybe a little too free. He's got lots of thoughts on modern immorality, and there's no stopping them from rushing out. Like this one:
> 
> "It seems like, to me, a vagina-as a man-would be more desirable than a man's anus. That's just me. I'm just thinking: There's more there! She's got more to offer. I mean, come on, dudes! You know what I'm saying? But hey, sin: It's not logical, my man. It's just not logical."


I'm not a Duck Dynasty fan. I watched it a few times, but then learned most of the stuff is fake. For the Robertsons, the show is just a vehicle to spread the word.


----------



## betts4 (Dec 27, 2005)

dthmj said:


> From reading the article - http://www.gq.com/entertainment/television/201401/duck-dynasty-phil-robertson?currentPage=1 - it doesn't appear he was asked "Do you think homosexuality is a sin?" - It looks more like he took the opportunity to say whatever he wanted.
> 
> I'm not a Duck Dynasty fan. I watched it a few times,* but then learned most of the stuff is fake. *For the Robertsons, the show is just a vehicle to spread the word.


Most of the stuff is fake on ALL those 'reality' shows. I learned this when a friend of mine was chosen to be on one of the shows where they come to your house and look at your collectibles. She was told to 'go along with' what the host said and then when he offered her a price for the item she was supposed to not give in right away but go back and forth on the price and then concede. Not 100% script, but enough of one to make me not want to watch them anymore.


----------



## flyers088 (Apr 19, 2005)

Adam1115 said:


> I get why his comments are offensive, but he didn't say them on the show. He said them in an interview where he is specifically asked about his views. Should he have lied? Or not answered?
> 
> And who is surprised that a ******* from the South thinks being gay is a sin?


In the world we live in now he should have just not answered. Having an opinion can only get you in trouble in this society unless the vocal minority agrees with your opinion.


----------



## zuko3984 (May 4, 2002)

Adam1115 said:


> I get why his comments are offensive, but he didn't say them on the show. He said them in an interview where he is specifically asked about his views. Should he have lied? Or not answered?


He should have either not done the interview or set up guidelines before the interview on what topics are off limits. Lots of celebrities set up off limit topics before interviews. People trying to sell things should usually avoid controversial topics. He has hurt the Duck Dynasty brand. How bad he hurt it remains to be seen but he has hurt it. Why would anyone want to damage something that has made them lots of money.


----------



## Hoffer (Jun 1, 2001)

betts4 said:


> Most of the stuff is fake on ALL those 'reality' shows. I learned this when a friend of mine was chosen to be on one of the shows where they come to your house and look at your collectibles. She was told to 'go along with' what the host said and then when he offered her a price for the item she was supposed to not give in right away but go back and forth on the price and then concede. Not 100% script, but enough of one to make me not want to watch them anymore.


I was really into the first 2 seasons of Survivor and Big Brother. I just got sick of it because reality TV was anything but reality and I didn't enjoy watching a fake reality show.


----------



## dthmj (Mar 12, 2002)

You can't not answer a question that wasn't asked. As I linked above - it appears he gave all of his opinions unsolicited. He wasn't asked what his views were - he just opened his mouth and started talking.

After he mentioned sin, it was only then that the reporter asked who he thought were sinners.


----------



## Shaunnick (Jul 2, 2005)

ClutchBrake said:


> This thread isn't going to last long...
> 
> The man has the right to be a bigot. A&E has the right to protect their image.
> 
> (And his comments about blacks were just as bad if not worse!)


About as simple as it gets. And I agree.


----------



## dthmj (Mar 12, 2002)

betts4 said:


> Most of the stuff is fake on ALL those 'reality' shows. I learned this when a friend of mine was chosen to be on one of the shows where they come to your house and look at your collectibles. She was told to 'go along with' what the host said and then when he offered her a price for the item she was supposed to not give in right away but go back and forth on the price and then concede. Not 100% script, but enough of one to make me not want to watch them anymore.


But she actually had collectibles to start with.

One episode of Duck Dynasty was about how they bought a winery. They did not such thing - it was all made up.


----------



## zuko3984 (May 4, 2002)

flyers088 said:


> In the world we live in now he should have just not answered. Having an opinion can only get you in trouble in this society unless the vocal minority agrees with your opinion.


You can have an opinion, but when you are trying to sell something, if it's a tv personality trying to get people to watch the show or a movie star trying to get people to see the new movie they are in or a restaurant chain trying to get people to eat at the restaurant it's not a good idea to get involved in a controversial topic.


----------



## cmontyburns (Nov 14, 2001)

Time media critic James Poniewozik has a good column on this today.



> There were enough of all kinds of fans - family viewers and comedy fans and fans of the culture - to make the show a massive cable hit. As long as the subtext was subtext. But with Phil doing an interview in a national magazine, talking gay people, anuses, damnation - oh, and how the Japanese fought us in WWII because they didn't have Jesus?
> 
> _That_ presents a problem. Now, you've got an issue with those of us who maybe just want to watch a family comedy about people outside a major city, but please without supporting somebody thumping gay people with their Bible. Or a problem with people with gay friends, or family, or, you know, actual gay A&E viewers.
> 
> ...


----------



## doom1701 (May 15, 2001)

I thougth Phil was planning to take a hiatus from the show anyway? I was told that he didn't really like it, as it cut into his ability to keep to himself and hunt.


----------



## jgickler (Apr 7, 2000)

On the Fox pregame show a month or 2 ago they had Terry Bradshaw talking with Phil about their college football experiences. Phil seemed really uncomfortable, and I wasn't sure if he just disliked Terry or hated being interviewed. I think it was the later. IMO, Phil would be very happy to be on hiatus indefinitely. 

I also find it interesting that no one is denying that he made those comments, or they were taken out of context or something. The way the article was written, it wasn't like a transcript, so you didn't really know what question was asked, what preceeded the question etc. If he wanted to contest the article, I think he probably could have, but at this point no one has. I think Phil's attitude is that this is who he is, take it or leave it, and his life will be more enjoyable if all this attention ends and he can just hunt, go to church, and spend time with his family.


----------



## flyers088 (Apr 19, 2005)

Not sure how they are really going to deal with Phil being on "hiatus" (fired) since the season that starts in January was shot well before this happened. I am sure they could go back and re-edit each episode to get rid of his image to not hurt someones eyes who might be offended by seeing him on screen but that will surely lead to some disjointed episodes. And I am not sure how keen the Robertson clan will be doing any re-shoots at the moment? If I were them I tell A&E to figure it out on their own.


----------



## scole250 (Nov 8, 2005)

doom1701 said:


> I thougth Phil was planning to take a hiatus from the show anyway? I was told that he didn't really like it, as it cut into his ability to keep to himself and hunt.


That is correct. Phil has a right to say what he wants. He would never harm anyone who does not believe in his views and those who don't believe in his views should not feel it's their right to harm him.


----------



## Ment (Mar 27, 2008)

Miss Kay will cook some squirrel and dumplings and it will blow over in a couple weeks.


----------



## Alfer (Aug 7, 2003)

Ment said:


> Miss Kay will cook some squirrel and dumplings and it will blow over in a couple weeks.


LOL...and give ol' Phil some extra special "lovin'".


----------



## Ment (Mar 27, 2008)

Alfer said:


> LOL...and give ol' Phil some extra special "lovin'".


Phil: "All I need in a house is a place to eat, sleep, and a back room to chase Miss Kay around and I can do that right here, NOOOOOOO Problem."


----------



## flyers088 (Apr 19, 2005)

Alfer said:


> LOL...and give ol' Phil some extra special "lovin'".


Only if he "bathes"! I can't wait for the special sensitivity training episode that A&E send the boys to as part of some setup.


----------



## Adam1115 (Dec 15, 2003)

His response-



> This was Phil's response to being let go! Robertson has issued a statement in response: "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."


----------



## Adam1115 (Dec 15, 2003)

zuko3984 said:


> He should have either not done the interview or set up guidelines before the interview on what topics are off limits. Lots of celebrities set up off limit topics before interviews. People trying to sell things should usually avoid controversial topics. He has hurt the Duck Dynasty brand. How bad he hurt it remains to be seen but he has hurt it. Why would anyone want to damage something that has made them lots of money.


Why? He didn't make any comments on his show, why is he not allowed to think that being gay is a sin? It's a common Christian opinion.

I don't think thinking being gay is a sin is the same as treating people poorly or calling them names. Or even hating anyone. It's not hateful to think someone else is sinning.


----------



## Alfer (Aug 7, 2003)

Phil's gonna be Phil, and I bet most of his show followers will stand right beside him all the way. Heck the show may actually see an INCREASE in viewers based on this. 

Just like what happened to Chik-Fil-A.


----------



## markz (Oct 22, 2002)

Phil absolutely has a right to believe and say anything he wants. I support that right 100%.

A&E absolutely has a right to not want a representative of their channel to be saying stuff like that publicly. I support that right 100%.

No one is taking away his right to free speech. He can go out there today and say it again. He was not jailed for it, beheaded for it, or put to death for it. 

The A&E channel is owned by the A&E Network. They also own the History channel , H2, the Biography Channel, Lifetime, Lifetime Movies, and Lifetime for Women. So their audience is quite a bit broader than just the Duck Commander crowd. Their audience may very well include the people that Phil spoke out against. They also have advertisers that may have been pressuring them to take him off the air.

No one that likes and supports DD and/or Phil's rights and beliefs is going to boycott the show because that would in turn hurt DD & Phil. However, the people that are offended by him, might boycott the other shows on those sister networks or the products they advertise.


----------



## scole250 (Nov 8, 2005)

markz said:


> ... However, the people that are offended by him, might boycott the other shows on those sister networks or the products they advertise.


So who's the real bully?


----------



## markz (Oct 22, 2002)

scole250 said:


> So who's the real bully?


Oh I don't know if there were actual boycott talks. I said they might. I don't get the newsletter, so I am not sure what the plans were.


----------



## Hoffer (Jun 1, 2001)

Is boycotting reallying bullying? If I decided to boycott McDonalds, are they being bullied by me?


----------



## scole250 (Nov 8, 2005)

Hoffer said:


> Is boycotting reallying bullying? If I decided to boycott McDonalds, are they being bullied by me?


Maybe not bullying in the sense they grabbed him and gave him wedgie, but wanting to inflict harm, such as ruining someone's career, along with their family, just because you take offense to their opinion is a selfish, childish, vindictive attitude. Yes, it is bullying.


----------



## markz (Oct 22, 2002)

scole250 said:


> Maybe not bullying in the sense they grabbed him and gave him wedgie, but wanting to inflict harm, such as ruining someone's career, along with their family, just because you take offense to their opinion is a selfish, childish, vindictive attitude. Yes, it is bullying.


I don't see how not wanting to spend your money with someone, equates to wanting to inflict harm or ruin their career along with their family.

Phil has already said previously that his time with the TV show would probably be coming to an end soon. And they own the Duck Commander and Buck Commander businesses. I think they will be okay. And the rest of the family is still on the show.


----------



## Goober96 (Jun 28, 2005)

A&E needs the Robertsons much more than the Robertsons need A&E. A&E made a huge mistake and it is ridiculous of them to pretend they didn't already know he held this view. He has made no secret of his Christian beliefs and quoting the Bible should have been expected when he was asked that question.


----------



## pmyers (Jan 4, 2001)

The network "suspended" somebody? LOL...what does that even mean? How does that even work, logisticaly? This isn't a sports team. Next season is already in the can.


----------



## uw69 (Jan 25, 2001)

A&E Management severely over reacted. I suspect they will regret their decision shortly. A simple statement indicating that Phil didn't speak for the network would have been appropriate.


----------



## Adam1115 (Dec 15, 2003)

markz said:


> Phil absolutely has a right to believe and say anything he wants. I support that right 100%.
> 
> A&E absolutely has a right to not want a representative of their channel to be saying stuff like that publicly. I support that right 100%.


Of course, but the whole show is a bunch of religious christian ******** from the south. Who is shocked to find out he thinks being gay is a sin?

No denying they have the right, I'm just surprised this is even news. Or some surprise to A&E.

I would guess that 90% of religious Christians have that view. How they handle that view is a different story. No doubt, if he was being a bigot or an *******, they should fire him. But just fore thinking being gay is a sin? I don't get it.


----------



## markz (Oct 22, 2002)

Goober96 said:


> A&E needs the Robertsons much more than the Robertsons need A&E.


I agree with that part.

I don't know what kind of clauses were in their contracts. He may have agreed to something that he then went back on. We are not privy to that information. And that may have nothing to do with it at all.


----------



## markz (Oct 22, 2002)

pmyers said:


> The network "suspended" somebody? LOL...what does that even mean? How does that even work, logisticaly? This isn't a sports team. Next season is already in the can.


I read in one of the articles that they have stated that he may show up in some of the already recorded scenes. If the whole thing is already done, I don't know how it works.



uw69 said:


> A&E Management severely over reacted. I suspect they will regret their decision shortly. A simple statement indicating that Phil didn't speak for the network would have been appropriate.


And maybe by the time the season starts, everything might be worked out, and maybe they will add a disclaimer that the views expressed on the show doesn't necessarily represent the views of the network.

It is too early to tell what will ultimately happen, and what the ramifications will be to Phil, the Robertsons, A&E, or the Duck Commander brand.


----------



## Jstkiddn (Oct 15, 2003)

I could be totally wrong, but I have a feeling that Phil Robertson doesn't give a rat's patootie if A&E walks out of his life tomorrow and never comes back. Strangely enough I don't think it has anything to do with him having amassed a lot of money. 

I honestly think he would be just as happy to be left alone and able to spend more time in the woods hunting. I don't think he cares at all.

Now, the *rest* of the family may have differing views.


----------



## Alfer (Aug 7, 2003)

uw69 said:


> A&E Management severely over reacted. I suspect they will regret their decision shortly. A simple statement indicating that Phil didn't speak for the network would have been appropriate.


+1000


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

I few weeks ago when MSNBC canceled Alec Baldwin's show in the wake of the uproar over a homophobic remark he made, Adam Carolla discussed this and basically said that it was just an excuse to cancel Baldwin's low-rated show, and that if Baldwin's show was actually doing well in the ratings, then MSNBC would have treated it very differently.

Here is a perfect test case of what Carolla was talking about. This is one of the highest-rated shows on all of TV. It would be hugely damaging to A&E if they canceled the show. So I think we're going to see that Carolla was exactly right, in that a TV network isn't going to cancel a highly-rated show over some comments made by one of the show's stars. 

Ultimately, it's all about ratings. If A&E wanted to cancel Duck Dynasty, they'd love to use this as an excuse. But since canceling the show is the last thing they want to do, they'll cloak this whole thing in PC talk and sensitivity training and well-crafted PR statements, but the show will continue, and Phil will likely continue to participate as much as he wants to (which it sounds like isn't very much anyway).


----------



## BrandonRe (Jul 15, 2006)

zuko3984 said:


> He should have either not done the interview or set up guidelines before the interview on what topics are off limits. Lots of celebrities set up off limit topics before interviews. People trying to sell things should usually avoid controversial topics. He has hurt the Duck Dynasty brand. How bad he hurt it remains to be seen but he has hurt it. Why would anyone want to damage something that has made them lots of money.


I would bet my next paycheck the answer is this:

Phil's mindset is that his faith is more important than any TV show or even the family's business. If there is a conflict, his faith will win out, and he will sacrifice the other "thing." His purpose in life is to spread the "Good News" to anyone he can. He has often stated that he views the show and the fame from it as a vehicle to do so. If the show somehow becomes an inhibitor of that purpose, then I have no doubt he would walk away willingly.

There are many people for whom their faith is THE central, foundational factor in their life. The Robertson clan seem to be included in this group. I'm guessing this isn't over. And I think you are wrong about hurting the brand. I think the supporters of the Robertsons and DD will be energized to increase that support. And I bet they will be vocal. And I bet they will be mocked by many who can't understand that someone can have the beliefs Phil expressed without treating people poorly or differently.


----------



## Hoffer (Jun 1, 2001)

scole250 said:


> Maybe not bullying in the sense they grabbed him and gave him wedgie, but wanting to inflict harm, such as ruining someone's career, along with their family, just because you take offense to their opinion is a selfish, childish, vindictive attitude. Yes, it is bullying.


So, everyone loved Mel Gibson. Then he had his racist tirade against Jews. Now he is not so popular. All the people that refuse to ever watch a Mel Gibson movie, based on his opinion of the Jewish people, are being selfish, childish and vindictive? These people are now bullying Mel Gibson?


----------



## NorthAlabama (Apr 19, 2012)

i've never watched dd, but have heard enough about the show to have a general idea about these guys and the show, so it didn't surprise me.

phil has an opinion, one that i disagree with, and when you get down to it, religious viewers of dd should disagree, too. it's not his or anyone's right or obligation to judge or say who is or isn't going to hell. 

religion and politics are best left out of interviews with national magazines, but when asked, he should have followed the pope's example with a "who am i to judge" answer.


----------



## smbaker (May 24, 2003)

Adam1115 said:


> Should he have lied? Or not answered?


He should have been tactful and diplomatic. I've not seen his show, but I assume tactful and diplomatic is not his typical modus operandi.

For example, "I believe that my path to salvation involves not doing X, Y, or Z" would have been a good way to skirt around the question.



Adam1115 said:


> No doubt, if he was being a bigot or an *******, they should fire him. But just fore thinking being gay is a sin? I don't get it.


They should fire him if it's in the best interests of the network to fire him. Having views that are not politically correct is fine. Expressing those views and bringing protests, boycotts, loss of advertisers, etc., is a problem.


----------



## Adam1115 (Dec 15, 2003)

Alfer said:


> Just like what happened to Chik-Fil-A.


This is nothing like Chick-Fil-A. Chick-Fil-A was supporting hateful anti-gay groups.

This guy just has an opinion. There's no indication that he is a hateful bigot or trying to prevent others from living their lifestyle.


----------



## Adam1115 (Dec 15, 2003)

smbaker said:


> They should fire him if it's in the best interests of the network to fire him. Having views that are not politically correct is fine. Expressing those views and bringing protests, boycotts, loss of advertisers, etc., is a problem.


See, I'm not seeing how there is anything wrong or not PC about his view.

If he said "Heterosexuals having sex before marriage are going to hell, it's a sin." What's wrong with him thinking that? You can disagree, but it's not like he's actively trying to throw you in jail for committing your sin.


----------



## Jon J (Aug 23, 2000)

Brer Rabbit says, "Please don't throw me in that briar patch".

Phil Robertson says, "Please don't throw me in that duck blind".

:up:


----------



## Alfer (Aug 7, 2003)

Adam1115 said:


> This is nothing like Chick-Fil-A. Chick-Fil-A was supporting hateful anti-gay groups.
> 
> This guy just has an opinion. There's no indication that he is a hateful bigot or trying to prevent others from living their lifestyle.


Ah but in a way it is...meaning:

"Bad" publicity is almost always good publicity when it all plays out. Just like CfA. One group was up in arms and yelled to "boycott CfA!" and the exact opposite happened, MORE folks rallied around the "offender".


----------



## leeherman (Nov 5, 2007)

Hoffer said:


> So, everyone loved Mel Gibson. Then he had his racist tirade against Jews. Now he is not so popular. All the people that refuse to ever watch a Mel Gibson movie, based on his opinion of the Jewish people, are being selfish, childish and vindictive? These people are now bullying Mel Gibson?


There's a bit of a difference between individuals deciding not to see a Mel Gibson movie based on his statements and individuals or groups boycotting his production company or movie studio until they bow to their will and fire him.

There are plenty of performers I will no longer spend a dime to see/listen to because of their views but I'd never attack their sponsors/studios/labels. If enough people share my views, it might become unprofitable for the sponsors/studios/labels and things might change, but typically, I'm sure there are enough people who support the same people I stopped supporting that I won't be missed.

I don't see the need to SILENCE people because I disagree with them, but unfortunately, it seems certain groups of people use their bullying tactics as their go-to tool to try to silence those they disagree with.

LH


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

NorthAlabama said:


> i've never watched dd, but have heard enough about the show to have a general idea about these guys and the show, so it didn't surprise me.
> 
> *phil has an opinion, one that i disagree with, and when you get down to it, religious viewers of dd should disagree, too. it's not his or anyone's right or obligation to judge or say who is or isn't going to hell. *
> 
> religion and politics are best left out of interviews with national magazines, but when asked, he should have followed the pope's example with a "who am i to judge" answer.


Why should religious viewers of DD disagree? I've never seen the show, nor did I even read the article, but from the quotes posted here, it sounds like Phil's comments are pretty much in line with what most Christian churches teach. He didn't judge or say anyone was going to hell. He simply stated that certain actions are a sin, as taught in the Bible and by Christian churches all over the world.


----------



## BrandonRe (Jul 15, 2006)

NorthAlabama said:


> i've never watched dd, but have heard enough about the show to have a general idea about these guys and the show, so it didn't surprise me.
> 
> phil has an opinion, one that i disagree with, and when you get down to it, religious viewers of dd should disagree, too. it's not his or anyone's right or obligation to judge or say who is or isn't going to hell.
> 
> religion and politics are best left out of interviews with national magazines, but when asked, he should have followed the pope's example with a "who am i to judge" answer.


Why? He didn't make up the categories of people who "won't inherit the Kingdom of God." He was quoting a verse of the Bible. Now, you may believe that he is a fool for believing that. That is a different debate from this. His faith requires him to tell people the truth about the sinful nature of mankind (and that would include everyone) and to show them the way to salvation. that's what he is doing.

I actually find it quite refreshing to see someone who so unabashedly doesn't care about the repercussions for saying what he believes. Gives me great respect for his integrity.


----------



## scole250 (Nov 8, 2005)

Hoffer said:


> So, everyone loved Mel Gibson. Then he had his racist tirade against Jews. Now he is not so popular. All the people that refuse to ever watch a Mel Gibson movie, based on his opinion of the Jewish people, are being selfish, childish and vindictive? These people are now bullying Mel Gibson?


Mel said some ugly things about Jewish people. Phil did not make any type of derogatory remark about gay people.

Here's what was published...
"It seems like, to me, a vaginaas a manwould be more desirable than a mans anus. Thats just me."

What, in your mind, is sinful?

"Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men, he says. Then he paraphrases Corinthians: Dont be deceived. Neither the adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlersthey wont inherit the kingdom of God. Dont deceive yourself. Its not right."

We never, ever judge someone one on whos going to heaven, hell. Thats the Almightys job. We just love em, give em the good news about Jesuswhether theyre homosexuals, drunks, terrorists. We let God sort em out later, you see what Im saying?"

If you want to bring a man down for saying that, you are exactly what I said.


----------



## NorthAlabama (Apr 19, 2012)

DevdogAZ said:


> He simply stated that certain actions are a sin...


he went further than simply stating what he believed was a sin, and crossed the line from believer to judge (good news to bad).

he's paid by a public that may not agree with his beliefs, and if he want's to keep his paycheck, should steer away from the subject. likeminded viewers alone won't support the show.


----------



## Hoffer (Jun 1, 2001)

Maybe someone needs to explain to me what boycotting is then. If I decide to never watch a reality show again, because I don't like what someone on the show said. Is that boycotting? If so, does that mean I have to continue watching the show until the end of time or I'm bullying this person on this TV show? I can only stop watching this show once I don't like it for some other reason?


----------



## leeherman (Nov 5, 2007)

Hoffer said:


> Maybe someone needs to explain to me what boycotting is then. If I decide to never watch a reality show again, because I don't like what someone on the show said. Is that boycotting? If so, does that mean I have to continue watching the show until the end of time or I'm bullying this person on this TV show? I can only stop watching this show once I don't like it for some other reason?


Boycotting (as I see it) is if you don't like what someone's said, stopped watching their show, then threaten the network, their advertisers, etc until that person's fired.

If you don't like what someone's said and stop watching their show, that's just common sense, which is apparently uncommon these days.

LH


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

I don't understand why A&E is trying to distance itself from Phil's comments. Pretty much their entire slate of programming is reality-show crap. 

Gay people have way too much taste to have been watching that channel in the first place, so it's not like viewership is at stake.


----------



## jamesl (Jul 12, 2012)

A&E is full of crap

read what he said



> Phil, in response to the question on sin stated, "start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, *sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman* and those men." He continued on to state, "Don't be deceived. Neither the adulterers, the idolators, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, *the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlers* - they won't inherit the Kingdom of God. Don't deceive yourself. It's not right."


http://guardianlv.com/2013/12/duck-...ries-foul-christians-silently-twiddle-thumbs/

his remark wasn't bigoted 
unless you also think he's being a bigot towards men who sleep around with women, and to liars and to the greedy

its just so stupid to cherry pick one thing he said and concentrate on that

stupid political correctness gone too far


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

busyba said:


> I don't understand why A&E is trying to distance itself from Phil's comments. Pretty much their entire slate of programming is reality-show crap.
> 
> Gay people have way too much taste to have been watching that channel in the first place, so it's not like viewership is at stake.


They are too busy watching all the reality shows on Bravo


----------



## Alfer (Aug 7, 2003)

busyba said:


> I don't understand why A&E is trying to distance itself from Phil's comments. Pretty much their entire slate of programming is reality-show crap.
> 
> *Gay people have way too much taste to have been watching that channel in the first place*, so it's not like viewership is at stake.


LOL!


----------



## Hansky (Nov 17, 2005)

zuko3984 said:


> He should have either not done the interview or set up guidelines before the interview on what topics are off limits. Lots of celebrities set up off limit topics before interviews. People trying to sell things should usually avoid controversial topics. He has hurt the Duck Dynasty brand. How bad he hurt it remains to be seen but he has hurt it. Why would anyone want to damage something that has made them lots of money.


The problem with that argument is that Phil, by all accounts, is not concerned about money and answers to God and not A&E or the paychecks. He still lives in the same house and often expresses his lack of complete comfort with the show. As others have pointed out, he announced months ago he was probably going to drop from the show. The kids may or may not feel differently about it, but there are many stories about them standing firm on what will or will not be included in the show based on their faith.

At least one person resorted to the tired, old "ignorant" line, which ranks up there with "hate" as a meaningless replacement for a valid point. Phil certainly does not appear to be "ignorant" of the Bible, so that is just an asinine remark.

Now, reasonable Christians can often disagree on points in the Bible, but to say homosexuality is a sin certainly has a reasonable basis in the Bible. Another reasonable Christian may have a different view to some extent.

Someone came up with a gem about how Phil must sin a 100 different ways, so that somehow meant he can't discuss the issues. That makes no common sense, and if you have read much about him he is the first to tell you about many of his sins.

Once again, we see how intolerant the people are who preach tolerance only when you agree with them.

If you seriously think they are "ignorant ********," you are clueless and apparently don't know the first thing about the family and how they got to where they are (including the struggles of many of them that they freely discuss).

If you don't believe in God or the Bible, or really don't know enough about it to argue that point (ie, you are "ignorant" about it) it is certainly fine to just stick with that argument.


----------



## crazywater (Mar 7, 2001)

A&E is so outraged by Phil's comments that they still plan on airing the Duck Dynasty marathon. 

A&E is outraged that reality found its way into a reality show.

A&E is outraged that a bible thumper did some bible thumping.

Maybe if Phil was twerking when he made his comments everything would be fine.


----------



## NorthAlabama (Apr 19, 2012)

busyba said:


> Gay people have way too much taste to have been watching that channel in the first place, so it's not like viewership is at stake.




jsmeeker said:


> They are too busy watching all the reality shows on Bravo


----------



## DreadPirateRob (Nov 12, 2002)

scole250 said:


> Mel said some ugly things about Jewish people. Phil did not make any type of derogatory remark about gay people.
> 
> Here's what was published...
> "It seems like, to me, a vaginaas a manwould be more desirable than a mans anus. Thats just me."
> ...





jamesl said:


> A&E is full of crap
> 
> read what he said
> 
> ...


I think the problem most people have with his statement - well, thinking people, anyway, and not the reactionary ones - is that he basically says that homosexuality is a "gateway" practice to bestiality (and also, apparently, to adultery). When you actually parse what he said, it's kind of nonsensical. And it's not that it's hateful, it's just terribly ignorant and homophobic.

Personally, I think that his comments about blacks were the more ignorant (and distasteful) of the group.

Of course, A&E certainly knew his views on the matter, and they've made a nice profit marketing those views, however subtly. So it's more than a bit disingenuous that they're shocked and appalled...


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

crazywater said:


> Maybe if Phil was twerking when he made his comments everything would be fine.


It's nice to see that Bobby Jindal is such an inspirational figure for you.


----------



## Ereth (Jun 16, 2000)

I think it was David Gerrold who pointed out that, while each person is entitled to their own opinion, nothing requires anyone to provide you with a TV camera and a microphone to state your opinion through.

A&E has every right to decide who gets airtime on their network. They can decide not to air you if they don't like how you look or smell or the clothes you wear, or because it's Tuesday. It's their airtime, they can do whatever they want with it, within the bounds set forth by the FCC.

There's no first amendment issue here. A&E is not a government.


----------



## Jon J (Aug 23, 2000)

crazywater said:


> A&E is so outraged by Phil's comments that they still plan on airing the Duck Dynasty marathon.
> 
> A&E is outraged that reality found its way into a reality show.
> 
> ...


And, a DD picture is still scrolling on the A&E home page.


----------



## ThatOne (Oct 21, 2008)

Ereth said:


> I think it was David Gerrold who pointed out that, while each person is entitled to their own opinion, nothing requires anyone to provide you with a TV camera and a microphone to state your opinion through.
> 
> A&E has every right to decide who gets airtime on their network. They can decide not to air you if they don't like how you look or smell or the clothes you wear, or because it's Tuesday. It's their airtime, they can do whatever they want with it, within the bounds set forth by the FCC.
> 
> There's no first amendment issue here. A&E is not a government.


Does a "suspension" mean that Phil won't play on the big game this weekend?

This is nothing but meaningless posturing from A&E to appease the whiners.

This goes nowhere


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

NorthAlabama said:


> *he went further than simply stating what he believed was a sin, and crossed the line from believer to judge (good news to bad).*


Ha. Your post came immediately after a post quoting from the article in question, where Phil said,



> "We never, ever judge someone one on who's going to heaven, hell. That's the Almighty's job. We just love 'em, give 'em the good news about Jesus-whether they're homosexuals, drunks, terrorists. We let God sort 'em out later, you see what I'm saying?"


He's not judging. He's just stating what he believes to be a sin based on his religious views and his interpretation of the Bible. Basically, there's nothing to see here. This should be a non-story.



DreadPirateRob said:


> I think the problem most people have with his statement - well, thinking people, anyway, and not the reactionary ones - is that *he basically says that homosexuality is a "gateway" practice to bestiality (and also, apparently, to adultery).* When you actually parse what he said, it's kind of nonsensical. And it's not that it's hateful, it's just terribly ignorant and homophobic.
> 
> Personally, I think that his comments about blacks were the more ignorant (and distasteful) of the group.
> 
> Of course, A&E certainly knew his views on the matter, and they've made a nice profit marketing those views, however subtly. So it's more than a bit disingenuous that they're shocked and appalled...


When you actually parse what he said, he said no such thing. He didn't say homosexuality was a gateway to anything. He was asked "What, in your mind, is sinful?" and since he had immediately before that been talking about homosexuality, he started with homosexuality when listing what he considers sinful.



> "Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men," he says. Then he paraphrases Corinthians: "Don't be deceived. Neither the adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlers-they won't inherit the kingdom of God. Don't deceive yourself. It's not right."


I don't think at all that he was listing them in some kind of order, or heirarchy, and he certainly wasn't insinuating that if you're gay, it will lead to any of the subsequent sins on his list. The "Start with" was simply the beginning of his list, not his way of saying that "If you start with X, you'll then proceed to Y and Z.


Ereth said:


> I think it was David Gerrold who pointed out that, while each person is entitled to their own opinion, nothing requires anyone to provide you with a TV camera and a microphone to state your opinion through.
> 
> A&E has every right to decide who gets airtime on their network. They can decide not to air you if they don't like how you look or smell or the clothes you wear, or because it's Tuesday. It's their airtime, they can do whatever they want with it, within the bounds set forth by the FCC.
> 
> There's no first amendment issue here. A&E is not a government.


Is anyone claiming there is a First Amendment issue here? Is anyone claiming that A&E doesn't have the right to suspend him? I think your comment is missing the point of the discussion entirely.


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

DevdogAZ said:


> Is anyone claiming there is a First Amendment issue here?


So far? Sarah Palin and Bobby Jindal.


----------



## Adam1115 (Dec 15, 2003)

DreadPirateRob said:


> Of course, A&E certainly knew his views on the matter, and they've made a nice profit marketing those views, however subtly. So it's more than a bit disingenuous that they're shocked and appalled...


THIS is my point as well.



Ereth said:


> There's no first amendment issue here. A&E is not a government.


NOBODY is claiming otherwise. I wonder what unemployment would be like if everyone who thought being gay was a sin were fired?

Funny, that people WOULD be arguing that they have the 'right' to free speech if it were a gay person who came out of the closet and were then fired.


----------



## Jstkiddn (Oct 15, 2003)

DevdogAZ said:


> This should be a non-story.


This is the most true of all the many statements I've read today on the issue.

This country has some serious problems going on right now, yet this is front page news? I just don't think that Phil Robertson's interpretation of the Bible is newsworthy or anything to be outraged about. And honestly....who's surprised? If A&E is surprised, then quite frankly they are a bunch of idiots.


----------



## ferrumpneuma (Jun 1, 2006)

BrandonRe said:


> I actually find it quite refreshing to see someone who so unabashedly doesn't care about the repercussions for saying what he believes. Gives me great respect for his integrity.


A few hundred million in the bank helps in not caring what other people think. FU money as it were.


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

Adam1115 said:


> I wonder what unemployment would be like if everyone who thought being gay was a sin were fired?


It's completely legal in most states to fire someone solely for being gay.

And most of the people who whine over someone being "suspended" for talking about being gay being a sin are perfectly okay with that.



> Funny, that people WOULD be arguing that they have the 'right' to free speech if it were a gay person came out of the closet and were then fired.


No. They would be arguing to have legislation passed to give them a right to a discrimination-free workplace. Because they apparently have a better understanding of the First Amendment than most.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

busyba said:


> So far? Sarah Palin and Bobby Jindal.


Imagine that. Governors who don't understand the law but are more interested in PR and playing politics. Shocking.

But if the comments referenced in this Slate blog are what you're talking about, I think that's more of the media blowing this out of proportion. Neither of them said that his right to free speech was being infringed or that the government was restricting his rights. They're simply stating that he should be free to say what he thinks. And they're right about that. If they think that A&E should not have the right to suspend or fire him for what he says, then they'd definitely be wrong about that, but I don't see anyting in their comments that reads that way.


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

DevdogAZ said:


> Imagine that. *One and a half *Governors who don't understand the law but are more interested in PR and playing politics. Shocking.


FYP


----------



## Jstkiddn (Oct 15, 2003)

ferrumpneuma said:


> A few hundred million in the bank helps in not caring what other people think. FU money as it were.


I'm not so sure. Phil has been pretty clear that his only reason for doing to show is to use the opportunity to spread the word of Christ.

I'm sure the money doesn't hurt, but considering he still lives in the same little house he lived in before the show tells me that this isn't about money for Phil. Not sure about the rest of them, but he seems fairly unaffected by everything.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

busyba said:


> It's completely legal in most states to fire someone solely for being gay.


Cite?

It's completely legal in many states to fire someone for no reason at all. But if the employer uses the employee's sexual preference as the reason for the termination, I'd think there would definitely be grounds for a wrongful termination case in most, if not all, states.


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

Jstkiddn said:


> I'm not so sure. Phil has been pretty clear that his only reason for doing to show is to use the opportunity to spread the word of Christ.


Because, you know, that's something that hasn't really gotten around at all before his show came along.


----------



## Jstkiddn (Oct 15, 2003)

busyba said:


> Because, you know, that's something that hasn't really gotten around at all before his show came along.


Not arguing that, but fact is the man has stated NUMEROUS times that is the main reason for doing the show. I believe it's even mentioned in the article that's in question.


----------



## ThatOne (Oct 21, 2008)

This is a good read:

The 'Duck Dynasty' Fiasco Says More About Our Bigotry Than Phil's


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

DevdogAZ said:


> Cite?
> 
> It's completely legal in many states to fire someone for no reason at all. But if the employer uses the employee's sexual preference as the reason for the termination, I'd think there would definitely be grounds for a wrongful termination case in most, if not all, states.


Yours is a common misconception.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/16/enda-gay-discrimination_n_3767043.html

*There are currently 29 states that don't explicitly prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation.* Thirty-three states lack workplace protection statutes for gender identity. A study by the Center for American Progress found that more than half of all workers in the U.S. work in places where they aren't protected from these types of discrimination. People in those areas can be fired simply for being gay or transgender. *And it happens.*​
There's currently legislation making it's way through Congress called the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) which would specifically prohibit that at the federal level.

As a complete surprise to absolutely no one, ENDA is facing opposition from Republicans. It's passed the Senate, but only after a filibuster was defeated. Speaker Bohener has vowed to kill it without a vote in the House.

Conversely, the 1964 Civil Rights Act prohibits workplace discrimination based on religion. So it's once again time for this picture:


----------



## ferrumpneuma (Jun 1, 2006)

ThatOne said:


> This is a good read:
> 
> The Duck Dynasty Fiasco Says More About Our Bigotry Than Phils


My favorite part:



the article said:


> Phil, on the other hand, went on record as rhetorically asking how any man could ever enjoy gay intercourse, since vaginal intercourse is better.* (Which certainly makes you wonder how hes able to make the comparison.)*


----------



## allan (Oct 14, 2002)

Jstkiddn said:


> This is the most true of all the many statements I've read today on the issue.
> 
> This country has some serious problems going on right now, yet this is front page news? I just don't think that Phil Robertson's interpretation of the Bible is newsworthy or anything to be outraged about. And honestly....who's surprised? If A&E is surprised, then quite frankly they are a bunch of idiots.


^This! I'm blanking on who I'm quoting, but "Frankly my dear I don't give a damn". I've never heard of Phil Robertson. I don't know Duck Dynasty from Donald Duck, and I barely know what "A&E" is. I'd like to say I can't believe the media is talking about this, but sadly, I do believe it.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

busyba said:


> Yours is a common misconception.
> 
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/16/enda-gay-discrimination_n_3767043.html
> 
> ...


I don't think the absence of a specific statute stating that sexual preference is a protected class automatically means that employers in those states can simply fire employees solely because the employee is gay. As I said, I think if it were that blatant, a wrongful termination case would be in order.

However, having said that, wrongful termination cases are extremely difficult to win, and it would be pretty unusual for an employer to be so blatant as to fire someone and specifically state that the reason was for the employee being gay. So in reality, as long as the employer wasn't so blatant, it would be extremely difficult to prove that someone was fired for being gay, and without that proof, the employer is likely going to prevail.


----------



## Jstkiddn (Oct 15, 2003)

allan said:


> I'm blanking on who I'm quoting, but "Frankly my dear I don't give a damn".


I know you probably don't actually care about the answer, but the character Rhett Butler from the movie Gone With The Wind. Played by Clark Gable.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

scole250 said:


> Maybe not bullying in the sense they grabbed him and gave him wedgie, but wanting to inflict harm, such as ruining someone's career, along with their family, just because you take offense to their opinion is a selfish, childish, vindictive attitude. Yes, it is bullying.


I wasn't going to comment on this thread cause I don't really care about it, was just reading to see if anything fun came up. And it did. This argument which uses the most PC vision of bullying I have ever seen to decry a PC action.

Kinda like the Tea Party people who wanted the gummit to stay out of their Medicare.


----------



## DreadPirateRob (Nov 12, 2002)

DevdogAZ said:


> When you actually parse what he said, he said no such thing. He didn't say homosexuality was a gateway to anything. He was asked "What, in your mind, is sinful?" and since he had immediately before that been talking about homosexuality, he started with homosexuality when listing what he considers sinful.
> 
> I don't think at all that he was listing them in some kind of order, or heirarchy, and he certainly wasn't insinuating that if you're gay, it will lead to any of the subsequent sins on his list. The "Start with" was simply the beginning of his list, not his way of saying that "If you start with X, you'll then proceed to Y and Z.


Maybe not, but you can certainly interpret what he says that way, whether he meant to or not. It's the "and then you morph out from there" part that is iffy. I'm not sure what meant by that, or if he just misspoke.


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

DevdogAZ said:


> I don't think the absence of a specific statute stating that sexual preference is a protected class automatically means that employers in those states can simply fire employees solely because the employee is gay. As I said, I think if it were that blatant, a wrongful termination case would be in order.
> 
> However, having said that, wrongful termination cases are extremely difficult to win, and it would be pretty unusual for an employer to be so blatant as to fire someone and specifically state that the reason was for the employee being gay. So in reality, as long as the employer wasn't so blatant, it would be extremely difficult to prove that someone was fired for being gay, and without that proof, the employer is likely going to prevail.


"Wrongful Termination" has a specific legal meaning, not just "You got fired for being gay? Dude... that's just _wrong_."

http://www.wrongfultermination.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=22&Itemid=86

A "wrongful termination" is one in which an employer has discharged or laid off an employee in violation of a legal right of the employee. It is not enough for the employee to simply show that he/she was treated unfairly but the person must show that the firing was "wrongful" meaning one or more legal rights were violated. Almost every state has adopted the legal concept of "employment at will" which developed in England centuries ago and means that it is presumed that the employer has the right to terminate someone with or without a reason and likewise the employee has the right to quit at any time with or without a reason. There are a number of exceptions to the employee at will doctrine (the exceptions vary depending upon where the person worked) and those exceptions generally fall into the broad categories listed below:


Violations of Public Policy
Breach of Contract
Breach of Implied Contract 
Breach of Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealings 
Discrimination based on age, race, sex, disability, religion and/or national origin

"Being gay" fits none of those categories.

The the absence of a specific statute stating that sexual preference is a protected class _*absolutely*_ automatically means that employers in those states can simply fire employees solely because the employee is gay.


----------



## WhiskeyTango (Sep 20, 2006)

scole250 said:


> Maybe not bullying in the sense they grabbed him and gave him wedgie, but wanting to inflict harm, such as ruining someone's career, along with their family, just because you take offense to their opinion is a selfish, childish, vindictive attitude. Yes, it is bullying.


Pot, meet kettle.


----------



## pmyers (Jan 4, 2001)

I don't watch the show for his religous beliefs, so frankly I don't care what he thinks.


----------



## ClutchBrake (Sep 5, 2001)

DevdogAZ said:


> Ha. Your post came immediately after a post quoting from the article in question, where Phil said,
> 
> He's not judging. He's just stating what he believes to be a sin based on his religious views and his interpretation of the Bible. Basically, there's nothing to see here. This should be a non-story.
> 
> ...


FWIW, I've never watched the show and have zero problem with the guy regarding his gay comments (says the guy who spent last night at a dinner party with his wife and six gay men, two of which were groomsmen in my wedding). I know a lot of good people with views I don't agree with. Particularly of the older generation.

His comments about black people though... yikes. I'm surprised that isn't what A&E is really trying to distance themselves from. What is your take on that?


----------



## DouglasPHill (Feb 10, 2005)

Who cares if DD survives? ROFLMAO


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

DevdogAZ said:


> I don't think the absence of a specific statute stating that sexual preference is a protected class automatically means that employers in those states can simply fire employees solely because the employee is gay. As I said, I think if it were that blatant, a wrongful termination case would be in order.


I just need to revisit this statement for a moment... do you realize that what you essentially said is: "just because there's no law against it, that doesn't mean it's legal."?


----------



## pmyers (Jan 4, 2001)

LOL...I just checked Facebook where I "like" the A&E Duck Dynasty page and get a post from them saying "Happy national free shipping day! Get free shipping on us!" with a link to the A&E store.


----------



## Jstkiddn (Oct 15, 2003)

ClutchBrake said:


> His comments about black people though... yikes. I'm surprised that isn't what A&E is really trying to distance themselves from. What is your take on that?


I agree that those comments seemed much more inflammatory to me than the statements about gays. But that cause isn't as fashionable these days.


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

Adam1115 said:


> I get why his comments are offensive, but he didn't say them on the show. He said them in an interview where he is specifically asked about his views. Should he have lied? Or not answered?
> 
> And who is surprised that a ******* from the South thinks being gay is a sin?


It's really not about what he thinks. Most christian religions state as much as well. It's no secret that sodomy is considered a sin. I guess though it's nice to pile on when someone says so publicly because those beliefs aren't PC. I don't watch the show or know much about the man, but simply stating the dictates of his religion shouldn't provoke an attack on the man's character either. It's not like he singled out a known Gay person and said he was a sinner, yet I've heard quite a few people saying as much about him.


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

busyba said:


> "Wrongful Termination" has a specific legal meaning, not just "You got fired for being gay? Dude... that's just _wrong_."
> 
> http://www.wrongfultermination.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=22&Itemid=86
> 
> ...


Don't know if they are in a right to work state, but if so no reason has to be given to fire someone. Wrongful termination suits are very difficult to win.


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

ClutchBrake said:


> His comments about black people though... yikes. I'm surprised that isn't what A&E is really trying to distance themselves from. What is your take on that?





Jstkiddn said:


> I agree that those comments seemed much more inflammatory to me than the statements about gays. But that cause isn't as fashionable these days.


I found those comments rather disturbing as well.
But to be fair, it's probably much harder to see the discrimination from the "Whites Only" section.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

busyba said:


> I just need to revisit this statement for a moment... do you realize that what you essentially said is: "just because there's no law against it, that doesn't mean it's legal."?


You quoted a HuffPo article stating that some number of states don't have laws making sexual preference a protected class. I said that just because sexual preference isn't specifically stated as a protected class doesn't allow an employer to fire someone solely for being gay. If someone came to me and said that they were fired and that their employer told them the reason was because they were gay, and they had evidence to support that, I'd think pretty hard about taking the case.

But as I said, wrongful termination is extremely hard to prove, and I think a case where an employer were so stupid as to fire an employee for being gay and actually state that as the reason would be pretty unusual. So it's kind of moot.


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

DevdogAZ said:


> You quoted a HuffPo article stating that some number of states don't have laws making sexual preference a protected class. I said that just because sexual preference isn't specifically stated as a protected class doesn't allow an employer to fire someone solely for being gay. If someone came to me and said that they were fired and that their employer told them the reason was because they were gay, and they had evidence to support that, I'd think pretty hard about taking the case.
> 
> But as I said, wrongful termination is extremely hard to prove, and I think a case where an employer were so stupid as to fire an employee for being gay and actually state that as the reason would be pretty unusual. So it's kind of moot.


Even if you had a notarized letter on company stationary sent to the employee via certified mail that said "we regret to inform you that we are terminating your employment due to the fact that it has come to our attention that you are a homosexual", you're not going to win a wrongful termination case unless there's a wrongful termination law in your state that actually says firing someone for no other reason than being a homosexual is illegal.

Your only alternative is to find a wrongful termination law that is written vaguely enough that a sufficiently motivated judge can squint to find something protecting gays hidden in the penumbra so that your case survives summary judgement.

Do you have any citation that shows either one of those instances to be true in any of the various states that a cursory google search will show are alleged to provide gays no protection from being fired simply for being gay?


----------



## NorthAlabama (Apr 19, 2012)

DevdogAZ said:


> Ha...He's not judging. He's just stating what he believes to be a sin based on his religious views and his interpretation of the Bible.


if he had only stopped before calling out sins individually, i could possibly agree with you. but, once he started listing sins by name, he was judging with a broad cloth.

his bible states _all _are sinners, and can be saved, with his maker deciding who will end up going to hell or not - he shouldn't be predicting.


----------



## Jstkiddn (Oct 15, 2003)

The Robertson family has issued a statement. http://www.myarklamiss.com/story/ro...on-ae-decision/d/story/wZbtEYxES0KwNlZVMFegOA

West Monroe -- The Robertson family has released a statement in light on A&E decision to suspend patriarch Phil Robertson in light of the comments he made to GQ.

"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.

Robertson Family


----------



## Alfer (Aug 7, 2003)

I hope they bail from A&E and find a new network...there are probably numerous channels who would welcome them with open arms. Of course the $$$$ they would get won't hurt them either.


----------



## Azlen (Nov 25, 2002)

DevdogAZ said:


> You quoted a HuffPo article stating that some number of states don't have laws making sexual preference a protected class. I said that just because sexual preference isn't specifically stated as a protected class doesn't allow an employer to fire someone solely for being gay. If someone came to me and said that they were fired and that their employer told them the reason was because they were gay, and they had evidence to support that, I'd think pretty hard about taking the case.
> 
> But as I said, wrongful termination is extremely hard to prove, and I think a case where an employer were so stupid as to fire an employee for being gay and actually state that as the reason would be pretty unusual. So it's kind of moot.


I'm flashing back to the Law and Order episode where Serena was fired. "Is this because I'm a lesbian?"


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

Azlen said:


> I'm flashing back to the Law and Order episode where Serena was fired. "Is this because I'm a lesbian?"


Heh... I had forgotten about that. That was an epic WTF moment.


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

Jstkiddn said:


> The Robertson family has issued a statement. http://www.myarklamiss.com/story/ro...on-ae-decision/d/story/wZbtEYxES0KwNlZVMFegOA
> 
> [...]his beliefs are grounded in the teachings of the Bible[...]


I am admittedly by no means a biblical scholar, but I'm fairly certain that "a vagina would be more desirable than a man's anus" isn't found in anywhere in there.


----------



## Bryanmc (Sep 5, 2000)

busyba said:


> I am admittedly by no means a biblical scholar, but I'm fairly certain that "a vagina would be more desirable than a man's anus" isn't found in anywhere in there.


He wasn't quoting during that part.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Jstkiddn said:


> The Robertson family has issued a statement. http://www.myarklamiss.com/story/robertson-family-releases-statement-on-ae-decision/d/story/wZbtEYxES0KwNlZVMFegOA West Monroe -- The Robertson family has released a statement in light on A&E decision to suspend patriarch Phil Robertson in light of the comments he made to GQ.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> ...


In other words: Hey A&E! You need us a whole lot more than we need you.


----------



## Bryanmc (Sep 5, 2000)

Exactly, the Robertsons hold all the cards here.

They don't need the money and I'd wager for most of their fan base their image will only strengthen by standing together as a family. A&E stands to lose big time if they can't hold onto their Golden Duck.


----------



## cmontyburns (Nov 14, 2001)

Sigh. Even they reference his right to free speech.


----------



## Bryanmc (Sep 5, 2000)

cmontyburns said:


> Sigh. Even they reference his right to free speech.


But it's an accurate statement, it is his Constitutionally protected right. They aren't saying that it's been violated by his probation or by any other means, just stressing the fact that it's completely legal for him to say it.

In their statement they aren't saying A&E is being unfair or outside their own rights, only that they disagree with the decision and are discussing how to move forward.

The idiots are the ones that are saying A&E is somehow infringing on Phil's right to speech by the probation. That's Looney Tunes.


----------



## cmontyburns (Nov 14, 2001)

Bryanmc said:


> But it's an accurate statement, it is his Constitutionally protected right. They aren't saying that it's been violated by his probation or by any other means, just stressing the fact that it's completely legal for him to say it.


Oh, I know they know, or at least, I assume they do. But because of that, it's completely irrelevant. The only reason they say it in the statement is to subtly add to the implication that the guy has been wronged somehow.


----------



## JoBeth66 (Feb 15, 2002)

Alfer said:


> I hope they bail from A&E and find a new network...there are probably numerous channels who would welcome them with open arms. Of course the $$$$ they would get won't hurt them either.


Gonna be hard to do when A&E owns the concept.


----------



## Jstkiddn (Oct 15, 2003)

JoBeth66 said:


> Gonna be hard to do when A&E owns the concept.


 They own the Duck Dynasty name. They do not own Duck Commander or the a Duck Commander brand.


----------



## Jstkiddn (Oct 15, 2003)

Here's the thing that some of us are forgetting. These guys were already fairly wealthy before this show ever started. They had a very successful business already, and I'm sure it's grown exponentially since they became household names. 

If the show ends tomorrow, they will still have the business and it will more than likely still be sucessful. It wasn't like they were absolute nobodies in the hunting world before this show, say like the Jersey Shore kids were nobodies before their show.

I liken them to being more like Jessie James of motorcycle fame. The guy was rich before his show and he's going to still be rich after his show ended because although the show made him a household name his real "job" is making custom motorcycles. That doesn't change just because a tv show ends. Are they richer because of the tv show? Sure! Will they be dead broke if the tv show ends? Not a chance.

Nowhere else to really mention this, so I'll just stick it here.  Random, useless Jstkiddn trivia: I graduated high school in their town of West Monroe, LA. No, I don't know them, although I do know people that still live there that know them. One has been to Phil and Kay's house. It really is the house they show on TV.


----------



## mr.unnatural (Feb 2, 2006)

Hmmm. A southern ******* hillbilly with Christian values that doesn't like gays. Who among us didn't see that coming?  If A&E was that concerned about their image then they should have never let him be interviewed. The thing is, what does that say about A&E for stifling one man's opinion? I don't necessarily share it, but he's certainly entitled to be a moron.

Everyone on Hollywood isn't pro gay, but you'd never know it with all the gays on TV that they try shoving down our throats (not literally, of course  ). It seems like every other show on TV has a gay character in it. I'm not a homophobe, but do we really need to be exposed to their lifestyles in our living rooms? The only show I watch anymore with a gay character is Modern Family, which is ironic because the character that acts the most gay is straight and the gay guy plays the straight man.


----------



## ferrumpneuma (Jun 1, 2006)

Jstkiddn said:


> They own the Duck Dynasty name. They do not own Duck Commander or the a Duck Commander brand.


EWTN has a chance to really up it's viewership.


----------



## dimented (May 21, 2003)

mr.unnatural said:


> Hmmm. A southern ******* hillbilly with Christian values that doesn't like gays. Who among us didn't see that coming?  If A&E was that concerned about their image then they should have never let him be interviewed. The thing is, what does that say about A&E for stifling one man's opinion? I don't necessarily share it, but he's certainly entitled to be a moron.
> 
> Everyone on Hollywood isn't pro gay, but you'd never know it with all the gays on TV that they try shoving down our throats (not literally, of course  ). It seems like every other show on TV has a gay character in it. * I'm not a homophobe, but do we really need to be exposed to their lifestyles in our living rooms?* The only show I watch anymore with a gay character is Modern Family, which is ironic because the character that acts the most gay is straight and the gay guy plays the straight man.


Bolding mine. Anytime you say you are not something followed with a "but", it always means you are that something. You can't say you are not a homophobe just to make the homophobic thing you say next sound less homophobic.

"I am not racist, but do we really need to be exposed to their lifestyles in our living rooms?"


----------



## Big Deficit (Jul 8, 2003)

Am I the only one who thinks this whole thing is about as real as the Amazon drone delivery story? I'm not a viewer of the show nor do I intend to be (well unless it morphs into ducks doing Dyansty ala Daily Show. in which case I'm in), but from what I can see it was getting stale. Now it isn't. Everyone is buzzing about it and a completely new audience who didn't consider this show before will watch the next time it's on....win for the network and advertisers.


----------



## mr.unnatural (Feb 2, 2006)

dimented said:


> Bolding mine. Anytime you say you are not something followed with a "but", it always means you are that something. You can't say you are not a homophobe just to make the homophobic thing you say next sound less homophobic.
> 
> "I am not racist, but do we really need to be exposed to their lifestyles in our living rooms?"


And people that call other people racist tend to be the most racist of all.  I don't have a problem with gay lifestyles as long as I don't have to be a part of it. I don't care what people do behind closed doors as it's none of my damn business how people live their lives. Everyone has the right to make a choice about who they want to be or who they want to love. I'm pro gay marriage because I believe all married couples should share the same benefits and not be excluded just because they're the same gender (my wife doesn't know this and she's a diehard Catholic). I'm just not a fan of TV shows that have gay characters just for the sake of them being gay. It just seems like Hollywood adheres to some formula just so they can be either politically correct or try not to offend everyone. If the fact that someone is gay in a show has some bearing on the storyline or plot and I find the show enjoyable then I have no problem with it.


----------



## dthmj (Mar 12, 2002)

Bryanmc said:


> The idiots are the ones that are saying A&E is somehow infringing on Phil's right to speech by the probation. That's Looney Tunes.


And they are all filling up my facebook feed with their nonsense.

(Not in response specifically to Bryan) And to respond to those that say "He's a Christian, why are they surprised" - there are plenty of Christians and Christian churches that don't get all bent out of shape over homosexuality. They view people as people - and don't get hung up on labels. If more Christians and churches did that, the world would be a better place.


----------



## markz (Oct 22, 2002)

mr.unnatural said:


> And people that call other people racist tend to be the most racist of all.  I don't have a problem with gay lifestyles as long as I don't have to be a part of it. I don't care what people do behind closed doors as it's none of my damn business how people live their lives. Everyone has the right to make a choice about who they want to be or who they want to love. I'm just not a fan of TV shows that have gay characters just for the sake of them being gay. It just seems like Hollywood adheres to some formula just so they can be either politically correct or try not to offend everyone. If the fact that someone is gay in a show has some bearing on the storyline or plot and I find the show enjoyable then I have no problem with it.


I saw an article just the other day that said the amount of gays on network television is down this year from last year. And Hollywood is taking flack for it. But then you (and others) are giving them flack for how many there are. So either way, someone is going to be PO'd.

SNL is taking flack this season by having NO black women. So if they add them next year, other people will complain that they are just doing it to be PC.

Here's an idea... If you (people in general) don't like it, don't watch it.

I happen to work with, know, am related to, etc several gay people. So seeing them on TV is no shock to me. It happens in my real life, so it doesn't surprise me on TV. And none of them have tried to shove anything down my throat, proverbially or otherwise.


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

mr.unnatural said:


> I'm not a homophobe, but do we really need to be exposed to their lifestyles in our living rooms? The only show I watch anymore with a gay character is Modern Family, which is ironic because the character that acts the most gay is straight and the gay guy plays the straight man.


Whew. Good thing you're not a homophobe...


----------



## MonsterJoe (Feb 19, 2003)

mr.unnatural said:


> I'm not a homophobe, but do we really need to be exposed to their lifestyles in our living rooms?


So many memes - so little time...


----------



## dthmj (Mar 12, 2002)

Another thing that I've seen on blogs and comments - people are defending Phil for beating up a guy - he apparently got away with it - but because he "turned his life over to God" it's all ok.


----------



## zordude (Sep 23, 2003)

mr.unnatural said:


> Hmmm. A southern ******* hillbilly with Christian values that doesn't like gays.


Do you have a source for him "not liking gays"?


----------



## betts4 (Dec 27, 2005)

markz said:


> I saw an article just the other day that said the amount of gays on network television is down this year from last year. And Hollywood is taking flack for it. But then you (and others) are giving them flack for how many there are. So either way, someone is going to be PO'd.
> 
> SNL is taking flack this season by having NO black women. So if they add them next year, other people will complain that they are just doing it to be PC.
> 
> ...


This. Very much. Seeing gay people on TV is like seeing straight people. You see them in real life and the TV show is supposed to be a reflection of that. I actually like it when there is a character that is not openly gay but it is learned and then there is no big deal about it. He's gay. So what.

The whole thing with Phil I think is the way his thoughts on the subject were presented to the public. I am betting many others in his family feel the same way. For that matter has anyone ever asked the woman from 19 and counting what they think? Who cares? If they started bashing gays on the show that's one thing. Bashing them in a magazine article is also just not good PR.


----------



## Tweety_pbe98 (Dec 16, 2002)

zordude said:


> Do you have a source for him "not liking gays"?


Women with women, men with men, they committed indecent acts with one another, and they received in themselves the due penalty for their perversions, Robertson said. Theyre full of murder, envy, strife, hatred. They are insolent, arrogant, God-haters. They are heartless, they are faithless, they are senseless, they are ruthless. They invent ways of doing evil. Thats what you have 235 years, roughly, after your forefathers founded the country.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/12/...n-2010-sermon-they-invent-ways-of-doing-evil/


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

markz said:


> SNL is taking flack this season by having NO black women. So if they add them next year, other people will complain that they are just doing it to be PC.


Supposedly, they're currently auditioning black female comics, with the intent to bring at least one into the cast this season. How would you feel to be this woman, knowing that you're being hired solely to appease the PC crowd, and that Lorne didn't even try to make it seem legit, but instead hired you mid-season, which is virtually unprecedented in the nearly 40 years this show has been on the air.


----------



## scole250 (Nov 8, 2005)

Tweety_pbe98 said:


> Women with women, men with men, they committed indecent acts with one another, and they received in themselves the due penalty for their perversions, Robertson said. Theyre full of murder, envy, strife, hatred. They are insolent, arrogant, God-haters. They are heartless, they are faithless, they are senseless, they are ruthless. They invent ways of doing evil. Thats what you have 235 years, roughly, after your forefathers founded the country.
> 
> http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/12/...n-2010-sermon-they-invent-ways-of-doing-evil/


That's not what was said in the GQ interview.


----------



## MonsterJoe (Feb 19, 2003)

scole250 said:


> That's not what was said in the GQ interview.


That wasn't the question.


----------



## Adam1115 (Dec 15, 2003)

MonsterJoe said:


> So many memes - so little time...


Hey, welcome back!!! :up:


----------



## MonsterJoe (Feb 19, 2003)

Adam1115 said:


> Hey, welcome back!!! :up:




If someone is wrong on the Internet, I'm on top of it. Or him - for the sake of making homophobes uncomfortable.

penis.


----------



## Adam1115 (Dec 15, 2003)

zordude said:


> Do you have a source for him "not liking gays"?


Right. I get the feeling he's a 'love the sinner not the sin' kind of guy, and a little off his rocker (actually a lot off his rocker.) I don't feel like there is any 'hate' here

Now Dog the Bounty Hunter, he was just a racist.


----------



## nyc13 (May 31, 2013)

Tweety_pbe98 said:


> Women with women, men with men, they committed indecent acts with one another, and they received in themselves the due penalty for their perversions, Robertson said. Theyre full of murder, envy, strife, hatred. They are insolent, arrogant, God-haters. They are heartless, they are faithless, they are senseless, they are ruthless. They invent ways of doing evil. Thats what you have 235 years, roughly, after your forefathers founded the country.
> 
> http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/12/...n-2010-sermon-they-invent-ways-of-doing-evil/


He's still quoting (or paraphrasing) scripture.



> 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.
> 
> 28 And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. 29 They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, 31 foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32 Though they know God's righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.


----------



## scole250 (Nov 8, 2005)

MonsterJoe said:


> That wasn't the question.


Phil's comments in that sermon were not directed at gays. It was directed at people who do not believe in God. Same sex behavior got tossed in as something he feels those people engage in.


----------



## MonsterJoe (Feb 19, 2003)

scole250 said:


> Phil's comments in that sermon were not directed at gays. It was directed at people who do not believe in God. Same sex behavior got tossed in as something he feels those people engage in.


picturing you typing that with a straight face made me laugh out loud.


----------



## dthmj (Mar 12, 2002)

nyc13 said:


> He's still quoting (or paraphrasing) scripture.


So...... he's a plagiarist too!


----------



## scole250 (Nov 8, 2005)

MonsterJoe said:


> picturing you typing that with a straight face made me laugh out loud.


Doesn't bother me as long it doesn't include my penis.


----------



## nyc13 (May 31, 2013)

MonsterJoe said:


> picturing you typing that with a straight face made me laugh out loud.


No, it's exactly correct. As my Pastor says, any time you see "therefore", you need to back up and find out what it's there for.



> 18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. 19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world,[g] in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. 21 For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.


Edit: I realize I didn't post the part that came earlier that included the "therefore". So this is the reason referred to be "for this reason...":



> 24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, 25 because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.


----------



## MonsterJoe (Feb 19, 2003)

The point. You missed it.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

mr.unnatural said:


> And people that call other people racist tend to be the most racist of all.  I don't have a problem with gay lifestyles as long as I don't have to be a part of it. I don't care what people do behind closed doors as it's none of my damn business how people live their lives. Everyone has the right to make a choice about who they want to be or who they want to love. I'm pro gay marriage because I believe all married couples should share the same benefits and not be excluded just because they're the same gender (my wife doesn't know this and she's a diehard Catholic). I'm just not a fan of TV shows that have gay characters just for the sake of them being gay. It just seems like Hollywood adheres to some formula just so they can be either politically correct or try not to offend everyone. If the fact that someone is gay in a show has some bearing on the storyline or plot and I find the show enjoyable then I have no problem with it.


You are demonstrating exactly what you claim you are not. Why be any different about any minority? Do you object to the black neighbor played by JB Smoove? He is on just to be black. Not tied to the story. How about the fat side kick or the ditzy blonde?


----------



## getreal (Sep 29, 2003)

dimented said:


> Anytime you say you are not something followed with a "but", it always means you are that something. You can't say you are not a homophobe just to make the homophobic thing you say next sound less homophobic.


I'm not a (handsome and talented) genius, but you sound like a "labelist". 



dthmj said:


> Another thing that I've seen on blogs and comments - people are defending Phil for beating up a guy - he apparently got away with it - but because he "turned his life over to God" it's all ok.


The kinfolk who comprise the Westboro Baptist Church claim to have turned their lives over to God, and are so connected that they can speak on his behalf by proclaiming things which their all-loving God hates.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

nyc13 said:


> He's still quoting (or paraphrasing) scripture.


So, you can hate if you use bible quotes. How al Qaeda.


----------



## Adam1115 (Dec 15, 2003)

mr.unnatural said:


> I'm not a homophobe, but














mr.unnatural said:


> do we really need to be exposed to their lifestyles in our living rooms? The only show I watch anymore with a gay character is Modern Family, which is ironic because the character that acts the most gay is straight and the gay guy plays the straight man.


DOH!



mr.unnatural said:


> I don't have a problem with gay lifestyles as long as I don't have to be a part of it. I don't care what people do behind closed doors as it's none of my damn business how people live their lives.


And gay people would prefer you do your Christian lifestyle behind closed doors so they don't have to be a part of it.

But in a free country, people don't have to live their lives behind closed doors. You don't get to dictate that. You have to just deal with it. The flip-side, you can practice your lifestyle without hiding it as well. It's a good deal, trust me.


----------



## nyc13 (May 31, 2013)

MonsterJoe said:


> The point. You missed it.


Actually, that's exactly what Paul was saying in the passages I was quoting. As relevant today as ever.


----------



## scole250 (Nov 8, 2005)

TonyD79 said:


> So, you can hate if you use bible quotes. How al Qaeda.


I don't think Phil ever suggested he hated anyone. He actually said he loves everyone and it's not his place to pass judgement. He just expressed what he thought was a sin.


----------



## brianric (Aug 29, 2002)

cmontyburns said:


> Sigh. Even they reference his right to free speech.


How soon we foget the Dixie Chicks.


----------



## nyc13 (May 31, 2013)

scole250 said:


> I don't think Phil ever suggested he hated anyone. He actually said he loves everyone and it's not his place to pass judgement. He just expressed what he thought was a sin.


We've actually gone beyond "they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them" in that it has in today's culture become hateful not to give approval.


----------



## Tweety_pbe98 (Dec 16, 2002)

To be clear, he can believe this:


> "Theyre full of murder, envy, strife, hatred. They are insolent, arrogant, God-haters. They are heartless, they are faithless, they are senseless, they are ruthless. They invent ways of doing evil."


... but still "love the sinner not the sin"?


----------



## Adam1115 (Dec 15, 2003)

Tweety_pbe98 said:


> To be clear, he can believe this:
> 
> ... but still "love the sinner not the sin"?


Oh now we're going back to years before Duck Dynasty was on the air? Who knows, maybe he has changed his position since then like many others including our President.

In GQ he said-


> We never, ever judge someone on whos going to heaven, hell, the graphic quotes from the article. Thats the Almightys job. We just love em, give em the good news about Jesus  whether theyre homosexuals, drunks, terrorists. We let God sort em out later, you see what Im saying?


I see no reason not to believe that he feels that way. He wasn't suspended for things he said years ago, he was suspended for the GQ interview.


----------



## dthmj (Mar 12, 2002)

Adam1115 said:


> And gay people would prefer you do your Christian lifestyle behind closed doors so they don't have to be a part of it.


Why do people assume that just because you are gay you can't be a Christian. Plenty of gay people are religious, including Christianity. There are Christian churches that are very accepting of gays.


----------



## MonsterJoe (Feb 19, 2003)

Most of my gay friends are Christian.

His point (which I'm sure was meant at least partly tongue-in-hairy-man-cheek) is not lost though...just take out the word 'gay.'



> And people would prefer you do your Christian lifestyle behind closed doors so they don't have to be a part of it.


Illuminating how ridiculous beliefs can sound when it's our own that are being criticized.


----------



## getreal (Sep 29, 2003)

dthmj said:


> Why do people assume that just because you are gay you can't be a Christian. Plenty of gay people are religious, including Christianity. There are Christian churches that are very accepting of gays.


... and altar boys. Christian priests LOVE them some altar boys.


----------



## jgickler (Apr 7, 2000)

I'm sure there are things that I do that are considered sinful by many people of different beliefs then I am. 

If Donny Osmond got on TV and said that drinking coffee was a sin, I couldn't care less. I wouldn't consider it hateful, I wouldn't consider it an attack, I would just consider it an expression of his beliefs. 

But if Donny went on TV and said that all coffee drinkers are vile, repulsive people who don't deserve to walk on the same earth as Donny and his family, then I probably would be offended.

Honestly, I think what Phil said was some where between stating a belief and attacking a group he considers sinners. He really stepped in it IMO. But I don't think it was said out of hatred as much as an inability to state his position in a non-confrontational way.

The other thing is that A&E knew about his view on homosexuality, it was well documented. From some of the things I have read, A&E was responsible for setting up this interview with GQ. IMO, that was the biggest mistake. Not anticipating this line of questioning, or Phil's responses was inexcusable if you were A&E.


----------



## Adam1115 (Dec 15, 2003)

dthmj said:


> Why do people assume that just because you are gay you can't be a Christian. Plenty of gay people are religious, including Christianity. There are Christian churches that are very accepting of gays.


They can, and they are. And I think this wasn't a big priority in new testament teachings. But I think most Christian teachers would say it is against biblical teachings. If you throw out Leviticus (and you should), at the very least Paul teaches against it.

But that wasn't really my point anyway.



MonsterJoe said:


> His point (which I'm sure was meant at least partly tongue-in-hairy-man-cheek) is not lost though...just take out the word 'gay.'
> 
> Illuminating how ridiculous beliefs can sound when it's our own that are being criticized.


Thank you. At least somebody gets me.


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

Here's a pretty good commentary on the whole thing

http://ivn.us/2013/12/20/great-american-outrage-machine/

[...]

Until last week, A&E had to walk the fine line of appealing to one segment of American society without attracting the attention of another-and this is why Phil Robertson's GQ interview was such a disaster. It was not because he was out of character, but because he was agonizingly in character in front of an audience who had not been paying attention

[...]

Both sides now see this whole affair as one more example of how things always work.

But it isn't. Phil Robertson is not a typical conservative; if he were, he would not have his own TV show. He is interestingly precise because he is eccentric-and because he says things that most people don't or won't. And the good people at A&E are not typical liberals; they are corporate managers trying to protect their brand.This is a contract dispute between millionaires about how to go about making even more money.

The standard outrage narratives just don't work this time because there are no actual victims in this dispute. Nobody is David, nobody is Goliath, and everybody is going to walk away from this richer and more famous than before. And this is a spectacularly bad reason to manufacture so much outrage the week before we celebrate the birthday of a guy who told us to turn the other cheek.​


----------



## Adam1115 (Dec 15, 2003)

Agreed. That sums it up.


----------



## Adam1115 (Dec 15, 2003)

jgickler, all the vile stuff was said years before A&E had this show.


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

Adam1115 said:


> He wasn't suspended for things he said years ago, he was suspended for the GQ interview.


And what about the comments he made about Blacks in the South?
I would think that A&E would have suspended him for those alone.


----------



## Adam1115 (Dec 15, 2003)

JYoung said:


> And what about the comments he made about Blacks in the South?
> I would think that A&E would have suspended them for those alone.


They were obnoxious. I'm trying to decide if he is just racist or if he actually believes that they were happy?


----------



## scole250 (Nov 8, 2005)

JYoung said:


> And what about the comments he made about Blacks in the South?
> I would think that A&E would have suspended him for those alone.


Exactly what comments are you referring to?


----------



## 2004raptor (Dec 31, 2005)

But of course, A&E will continue to air the episodes and make $$$ off of the show even though he's a "racist" and a "homophobe"


----------



## MonsterJoe (Feb 19, 2003)

I'm just happy my GF was outraged by this and has sworn off the show.

That frees up precious DVR space for my hockey games.


----------



## ClutchBrake (Sep 5, 2001)

scole250 said:


> Exactly what comments are you referring to?


From the article:



> In addition to his comments about homosexuality, Robertson also spoke about race and growing up in Louisiana before the civil rights era.
> 
> "I never, with my eyes, saw the mistreatment of any black person. Not once," he told GQ. "Where we lived was all farmers. The blacks worked for the farmers. I hoed cotton with them. I'm with the blacks, because we're white trash. We're going across the field. ... They're singing and happy. I never heard one of them, one black person, say, 'I tell you what: These doggone white people' -- not a word!
> 
> "Pre-entitlement, pre-welfare, you say: Were they happy? They were godly; they were happy; no one was singing the blues," GQ quoted Robertson as saying.


----------



## jgickler (Apr 7, 2000)

Adam1115 said:


> jgickler, all the vile stuff was said years before A&E had this show.


I think that a lot of the "vile" stuff is him paraphrasing scripture. The sermon from several years ago was discussing Romans 1, dealing with God's wrath against sin. "For this cause God gave them up until vile affections..." He is drawing the parallel to what Romans is discussing to America today.

But I think all this gets lost, in the vulgar way he expressed his beliefs. If he had said that he feels homosexuality is a sin, but that we all sin and it is not his place to judge anyone but himself or hold anyone but himself to those standards, I doubt we would be discussing this today. Instead, he was crude and unclear as to what was a paraphase of scripture, and what were his own words or thoughts.

But I do think that A&E knew about his views, probably knew of the videos of his sermons, and put him in the position with GQ where they gave him enough rope to hang himself.


----------



## scole250 (Nov 8, 2005)

ClutchBrake said:


> Quote:Originally Posted by scole250
> Exactly what comments are you referring to?
> From the article:
> 
> ...


Phil may lack empathy for what black people went through, but calling him a racist is stretching it too far.


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

ClutchBrake said:


> From the article:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Jon Stewart pointed out that that was pretty much how the Blues came to be invented.


----------



## NorthAlabama (Apr 19, 2012)

scole250 said:


> Phil may lack empathy for what black people went through, but calling him a racist is stretching it too far.


because of all the religious love echoing from his comments? he almost sounded like jesus...


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

scole250 said:


> Phil may lack empathy for what black people went through, but calling him a racist is stretching it too far.


Robertson may or may not be a willful racist himself, he may have been raised in environment where the mistreatment of Blacks and other minorities was considered acceptable but his comments certainly are racist.

At best, he's ignorant due to his lack of an open mind.
At worst, he's an out and out Racist.


----------



## Jstkiddn (Oct 15, 2003)

Did you all know one of his grandchildren is bi-racial?


----------



## betts4 (Dec 27, 2005)

Jstkiddn said:


> Did you all know one of his grandchildren is bi-racial?


But are they gay?


----------



## ferrumpneuma (Jun 1, 2006)

Jstkiddn said:


> Did you all know one of his grandchildren is bi-racial?


My ex-girlfriend's dad was the most racist man I ever met. My ex-girlfriend's sister married a black guy and had babies with him to "Teach her dad a lesson."


----------



## DreadPirateRob (Nov 12, 2002)

scole250 said:


> Phil may lack empathy for what black people went through, but calling him a racist is stretching it too far.


C'mon. Don't be obtuse. He's in his late 60s, which means that he was a kid in the 50s and 60s. In that corner of the world where he grew up the only way to "not" see mistreatment of blacks was to simply not believe that what you are seeing every day is mistreatment.

And what about the "pre-entitlement" remark. How exactly do you parse that one?


----------



## MonsterJoe (Feb 19, 2003)

DreadPirateRob said:


> C'mon. Don't be obtuse. He's in his late 60s, which means that he was a kid in the 50s and 60s. In that corner of the world where he grew up the only way to "not" see mistreatment of blacks was to simply not believe that what you are seeing every day is mistreatment.
> 
> And what about the "pre-entitlement" remark. How exactly do you parse that one?


In the spirit of objectivity - He did word it in a way that grouped him in with them, rather than distance himself from them. I didn't find these remarks overtly racist - and I consider myself pretty sensitive on the subject.

Just a first impression - certainly nothing I feel strongly enough about to debate.


----------



## dthmj (Mar 12, 2002)

MonsterJoe said:


> In the spirit of objectivity - He did word it in a way that grouped him in with them, rather than distance himself from them. I didn't find these remarks overtly racist - and I consider myself pretty sensitive on the subject.
> 
> Just a first impression - certainly nothing I feel strongly enough about to debate.


But he grouped himself with blacks because he was "white trash" - and they weren't there because they were "black trash" but because they were just black.

He made it clear that he was down to the level of the blacks only because he was considered "white trash".


----------



## Jstkiddn (Oct 15, 2003)

dthmj said:


> But he grouped himself with blacks because he was "white trash" - and they weren't there because they were "black trash" but because they were just black.
> 
> He made it clear that he was down to the level of the blacks only because he was considered "white trash".


He was talking about pre-civil rights South. What he says surprises you?


----------



## MonsterJoe (Feb 19, 2003)

dthmj said:


> But he grouped himself with blacks because he was "white trash" - and they weren't there because they were "black trash" but because they were just black.
> 
> He made it clear that he was down to the level of the blacks only because he was considered "white trash".


Self-categorizing as 'white trash' would put him at a similar economic level as the majority of the general black population in that time period explaining and lending credence to this claims that he worked in the fields with them, no?

His categorization of himself as trash has nothing to do with his views on other people - only himself.

I'm not a fan of the guy - never have been...but I do try to dislike people on their actual despicable qualities, rather than making more up.


----------



## DreadPirateRob (Nov 12, 2002)

Jstkiddn said:


> He was talking about pre-civil rights South. What he says surprises you?


But he never saw any mistreatment of them and they were happy all the time?

Hard to have it both ways...


----------



## GDG76 (Oct 2, 2000)

Fake ********, fake "reality" show. Who cares what he says.

Here's Willie prebeard. Love the backstreet boys look.

[media]http://www.refinedguy.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/9-willie-and-korie-robertson-beach-duck-dynasty-then-and-now.jpg[/media]

A&E should at least have the stones to not care about what he says since they knew who he was when they signed him and kept cashing the checks from the show.


----------



## Jstkiddn (Oct 15, 2003)

DreadPirateRob said:


> But he never saw any mistreatment of them and they were happy all the time? Hard to have it both ways...


 I've also grown up in the south albeit a little later than Phil (born in 1965) and if you asked me, I would say the same thing. I, myself, have not witnessed any blatant mistreatment of blacks. Doesn't mean it didn't happen, but I didn't see it.

He said while he spent his days working alongside them, he didn't hear them complaining about white people, although I doubt they would express their true feelings in front of a white person.

If you study his quote closer, I believe the point he was really making was that back then they were closer to God and Jesus. They were happier than now when people (whites included) are more inclined to worship Yeezus.


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

Jstkiddn said:


> If you study his quote closer, I believe the point he was really making was that back then they were closer to God and Jesus. They were happier than now when people (whites included) are more inclined to worship Yeezus.


I might believe that if he hadn't thrown in that pre-entitlement remark.
He's implying that things were better when they were "Godly" and "happy".

Which is also when they were oppressed.


----------



## Adam1115 (Dec 15, 2003)

Is it THAT unrealistic to make the leap that the only people he knew that owned slaves treated them well and with respect and that they were happy?

I don't know, but I can't imagine that every slave owner was a despicable human being.


----------



## scole250 (Nov 8, 2005)

pssst...Adam1115. Phil is 67, not 167. I'm not sure he knew anybody that owned slaves


----------



## Jstkiddn (Oct 15, 2003)

Adam1115 said:


> Is it THAT unrealistic to make the leap that the only people he knew that owned slaves treated them well and with respect and that they were happy? I don't know, but I can't imagine that every slave owner was a despicable human being.


Um......he's only 60-something years old, so if he knew slave owners then we have a much larger issue.


----------



## zordude (Sep 23, 2003)

I don't think he knew anyone that owned slaves.


----------



## Adam1115 (Dec 15, 2003)

Well now I have no idea what he's talking about. Why would every black person in the 60s be unhappy?


----------



## Jstkiddn (Oct 15, 2003)

Adam1115 said:


> Well now I have no idea what he's talking about. Why would every black person in the 60s be unhappy?


I'm sure not all were. It would be like saying that all women were unhappy before women's rights. I'm sure somewhere in the US there are one or two gay people having a pretty nice life.

Doesn't mean at all that we all should not have equal rights, but to say that everyone in each group that lived before the equality was miserable would probably be an untruth.


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

Adam1115 said:


> Well now I have no idea what he's talking about. Why would every black person in the 60s be unhappy?


Are you seriously unaware of what life was like for minorities in the pre Civil Rights South?


----------



## DreadPirateRob (Nov 12, 2002)

JYoung said:


> I might believe that if he hadn't thrown in that pre-entitlement remark.
> He's implying that things were better when they were "Godly" and "happy".
> 
> Which is also when they were oppressed.


That's how I took it as well.


----------



## DreadPirateRob (Nov 12, 2002)

Jstkiddn said:


> I've also grown up in the south albeit a little later than Phil (born in 1965) and if you asked me, I would say the same thing. I, myself, have not witnessed any blatant mistreatment of blacks. Doesn't mean it didn't happen, but I didn't see it.


They were still lynching blacks in the south until 3 years after you were born. Obviously, you wouldn't have seen that, and Phil may not have seen it either, since it wasn't exactly an everyday occurrence. But a culture that allows such atrocities to happen doesn't seem to jibe well with the idea that no one who lived in the area ever saw a black person suffer any mistreatment.

Unless, of course, separate bathrooms, counters, water fountains, etc. don't count as mistreatment.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

scole250 said:


> I don't think Phil ever suggested he hated anyone. He actually said he loves everyone and it's not his place to pass judgement. He just expressed what he thought was a sin.


Reread the quote I was discussing. That is hate.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

Jstkiddn said:


> Did you all know one of his grandchildren is bi-racial?


So?


----------



## mr.unnatural (Feb 2, 2006)

markz said:


> I saw an article just the other day that said the amount of gays on network television is down this year from last year. And Hollywood is taking flack for it. But then you (and others) are giving them flack for how many there are. So either way, someone is going to be PO'd.
> 
> SNL is taking flack this season by having NO black women. So if they add them next year, other people will complain that they are just doing it to be PC.
> 
> ...


I've been around gays in the workplace and outside of work and they're just like other people, except for their sexual orientation. I even worked in San Francisco for several months where is is quite common for gays to show PDA (i.e., kissing each other in public and beyond). I thought it to be a little disturbing at first, but I got used to it and thought nothing more about it. It's just a lifestyle that differs from mine, so who am I to judge?

My earlier post wasn't meant to be a slur on gays. I was merely making an observation that, to me, it seemed like there were a lot of shows that were centered around gays as the main characters or subject matter. I have no problem with people being gay. I just don't care to watch shows that are centered on them or their lifestyle.

For example, I was really looking forward to getting into Brooklyn Ninety-Nine this season. I watched the first episode and, out of the blue, Andre Brauer's character declared he was gay. It didn't seem to have any bearing on the premise of the show and it appeared that they just threw that in for no good reason. I'm sure his character and past has been fleshed out since the premiere, but I never got past the first episode. I didn't stop watching it because the character was gay, but it didn't put a check mark in the pros column either. I stopped watching it for a host of other reasons. Making Andre Brauer gay just seemed too clichéd.

With all of the various specialty channels on cable, I'm surprised that there isn't an all gay channel by now. I'm sure Hollywood would have no problem coming up with enough shows to fill every time slot.

Here's an idea for you... If you don't like other people's opinions, don't respond to them.


----------



## smak (Feb 11, 2000)

I'm not sure how racist what he said was, but it sure is some of the most uneducated, uniformed, ignorant blather I've seen in a long time.

What exactly does it mean that the black people he knew didn't complain?

Why does it matter what HE experienced. Does that change what actually went on?

What is the point in even bringing that up?

And why the heck would he expect black people in that time, in that place, to complain to HIM?

-smak-


----------



## Jstkiddn (Oct 15, 2003)

smak said:


> What is the point in even bringing that up?


 I am assuming it was brought up because the reporter writing the article specifically asked him about it. I doubt he just blurted it out of the blue.

Too bad we don't have access to the reporters audio recordings and/or notes in order to see the context of all his statements.

If you read the article, you would note early on that there is mention of the possible need of a seatbelt due to the article being a bumpy ride. Sort of clued me in that the reporter and phil were not of the same mindset. Shocker!


----------



## smak (Feb 11, 2000)

Jstkiddn said:


> I am assuming it was brought up because the reporter writing the article specifically asked him about it. I doubt he just blurted it out of the blue.
> 
> Too bad we don't have access to the reporters audio recordings and/or notes in order to see the context of all his statements.
> 
> If you read the article, you would note early on that there is mention of the possible need of a seatbelt due to the article being a bumpy ride. Sort of clued me in that the reporter and phil were not of the same mindset. Shocker!


What did they bring up? I see in the article they asked him about growing up in pre-civil rights LA. Did they ask something more specific?

It seems like he responded to what it's like growing up in that era, by saying that everything we've heard about the mistreatment of black people in that era was incorrect, because he never saw it, and they never reached out to him to complain.

What other way of looking at what he said is there?

-smak-


----------



## Adam1115 (Dec 15, 2003)

JYoung said:


> Are you seriously unaware of what life was like for minorities in the pre Civil Rights South?


I've never lived in the south. There was a significant lack of diversity where I grew up, so all I can depend on is what I've read.


----------



## Turtleboy (Mar 24, 2001)

Adam1115 said:


> I've never lived in the south. There was a significant lack of diversity where I grew up, so all I can depend on is what I've read.


So what have you read about blacks in the South in the 1950s and 60s?


----------



## FireMen2003 (Apr 1, 2004)

Adam1115 said:


> I've never lived in the south. There was a significant lack of diversity where I grew up, so all I can depend on is what I've read.


If you have Amazon Prime, give this a watch.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00EE3PJ3M/ref=dv_web_p_s_l_1?ie=UTF8&redirect=true


----------



## heySkippy (Jul 2, 2001)

Adam1115 said:


> I've never lived in the south. There was a significant lack of diversity where I grew up, so all I can depend on is what I've read.


I remember driving from Oklahoma to Florida with my grandparents in the early 60s and seeing "Whites Only" signs on drinking fountains and other places.


----------



## Jstkiddn (Oct 15, 2003)

heySkippy said:


> I remember driving from Oklahoma to Florida with my grandparents in the early 60s and seeing "Whites Only" signs on drinking fountains and other places.


Not singling you out Skippy, but just quoting this to ask a question of everyone.

From that tiny little snippet of Robertson quote, does anyone really think that he was advocating this was an okay thing? I think that is reading an awful lot into a couple of sentences that weren't really even included in the article. They were just in a little box separate from the main article and it was pretty clear that the reporter included them just to inflame people.

As I stated earlier, we never heard the actual question asked, nor the rest of the response. We saw a couple of sentences cherry picked by a reporter.


----------



## heySkippy (Jul 2, 2001)

Jstkiddn said:


> From that tiny little snippet of Robertson quote, does anyone really think that he was advocating this was an okay thing?


What I took away from the snippet was that he believes things were _better_ then.


----------



## betts4 (Dec 27, 2005)




----------



## Jstkiddn (Oct 15, 2003)

That's great! :up: lol!


----------



## Turtleboy (Mar 24, 2001)

There are two Americas, and one is better than the other.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/business...ertson_duck_dynasty_and_the_two_americas.html



> In one America, it's OK to say this of gays and lesbians: "They're full of murder, envy, strife, hatred. They are insolent, arrogant, God-haters. They are heartless, they are faithless, they are senseless, they are ruthless. They invent ways of doing evil."
> 
> In the other America, you're not supposed to say that.
> 
> ...


----------



## Jstkiddn (Oct 15, 2003)

Turtleboy said:


> There are two Americas, and one is better than the other. http://www.slate.com/blogs/business_insider/2013/12/20/phil_robertson_duck_dynasty_and_the_two_americas.html


I keep seeing the full of murder, strife, etc line being mentioned. As was posted in detail up thread, that was a paraphrase straight from the bible. I'm no bible scholar so I don't know the book and chapter, but those weren't phil robertson's words....and I'm not super sure that even the bible verse was talking specifically about gays and only gays. I think it was referring to a much larger subset of people.

Maybe someone more versed in scripture can explain.


----------



## Turtleboy (Mar 24, 2001)

But there is an America where people use the Bible to judge other people's behavior and one where people don't. 

I'm glad I'm in the latter.


----------



## markz (Oct 22, 2002)

betts4 said:


>





Turtleboy said:


> There are two Americas, and one is better than the other.
> 
> http://www.slate.com/blogs/business...ertson_duck_dynasty_and_the_two_americas.html


Both of these!


----------



## Jstkiddn (Oct 15, 2003)

A belief is simply that.....a belief and I can see how someone could have a belief but not necessarily be judging someone, in the sense you mean. He did go on to say that it's not his place to judge. We all make little judgements in our minds about people every day. You do...I do.....we all do. You're probably making a judgement of me right now, and that's okay! To be perfectly clear, I'm not saying I share his beliefs (because I dont) but I defend his right to have them. I also defend A&Es right to drop him from the show. As happens in life, both Robertson and A&E will have to live with the results of their choices......good or bad.


----------



## Maui (Apr 22, 2000)

To stay out of this fray and simply answer the question in the thread title....

Yes, the show will survive. If I had to guess, A&E will eventually blink because the show and all the merchandising is just too lucrative. They'll come up with some minor punishment that the family can live with (a one or two show suspension maybe) and the show will move on and everyone else will forget about this and move on.


----------



## markz (Oct 22, 2002)

Maui said:


> To stay out of this fray and simply answer the question in the thread title....
> 
> Yes, the show will survive. If I had to guess, A&E will eventually blink because the show and all the merchandising is just too lucrative. They'll come up with some minor punishment that the family can live with (a one or two show suspension maybe) and the show will move on and everyone else will forget about this and move on.


I agree!

Here is an article about it:

Is 'Duck Dynasty' finished? 4 ways this ends


----------



## Jstkiddn (Oct 15, 2003)

I think they should have added option #5. The whole thing ends and the Robertson's go back to making duck calls with the occasional personal appearance at churches and/or hunting related stores.

As I mentioned upthread...these people are very rich and they don't have a big lifestyle to support. They could walk away from it all tomorrow and come out smelling like a rose.


----------



## FireMen2003 (Apr 1, 2004)

> In December 1955, Rosa Parks took a stand against an unjust societal persecution of black people, and in December 2013, Robertson took a stand against persecution of Christians .... What Parks did was courageous, What Mr. Robertson did was courageous too.​


 

http://www.ianbayne.com/congress11/


----------



## Adam1115 (Dec 15, 2003)

FireMen2003 said:


> If you have Amazon Prime, give this a watch.
> 
> http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00EE3PJ3M/ref=dv_web_p_s_l_1?ie=UTF8&redirect=true


Thanks, i will watch this. I'm so far removed from racism. My high school had no black kids and I don't even think there was one black family in our entire town. Outside of an offhanded comment like '****** rigging' something, I never interacted with any black people until i was an adult and moved to Phoenix. I was never racist, I dated a black girl in Phoenix and my mother was pretty unhappy about it. But my grandmother and aunt was downright racist about it, making extremely obnoxious comments.


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

Turtleboy said:


> So what have you read about blacks in the South in the 1950s and 60s?


For one, that they were pretty uppity....



Jstkiddn said:


> I keep seeing the full of murder, strife, etc line being mentioned. As was posted in detail up thread, that was a paraphrase straight from the bible. I'm no bible scholar so I don't know the book and chapter, but those weren't phil robertson's words....


I'm not sure why you think that makes it better. All that says is that in addition to all his other faults, he also lacks the ability to think for himself.



Jstkiddn said:


> I'm not saying I share his beliefs (because I dont) but I defend his right to have them.


That's great, but... defend it against whom?


----------



## NorthAlabama (Apr 19, 2012)

Adam1115 said:


> I was never racist, I dated a black girl in Phoenix and my mother was pretty unhappy about it. But my grandmother and aunt was downright racist about it, making extremely obnoxious comments.


to know what it was like in the south in the 50's and 60's, picture your grandmother and aunt as sharing the opinions of over half the population, and being really vocal about it.

many think racism is still more prevelant in the south, but this interesting read by the new republic suggests today bigotry tends to follows population. the article links to the southern poverty law center, it's tracking of hate incidents, and the "hate map" that identifies known, active hate groups:

http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/hate-map​
eta: sponsors are starting to respond.


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

Jstkiddn said:


> Not singling you out Skippy, but just quoting this to ask a question of everyone.
> 
> From that tiny little snippet of Robertson quote, does anyone really think that he was advocating this was an okay thing? I think that is reading an awful lot into a couple of sentences that weren't really even included in the article. They were just in a little box separate from the main article and it was pretty clear that the reporter included them just to inflame people.
> 
> As I stated earlier, we never heard the actual question asked, nor the rest of the response. We saw a couple of sentences cherry picked by a reporter.


Is Robertson claiming that he was misquoted or his comments were taken out of context?

Did anyone from the Robertson family, Gurney Productions, or A&E say that Robertson was misquoted or taken out of context?


----------



## smak (Feb 11, 2000)

Adam1115 said:


> Thanks, i will watch this. I'm so far removed from racism. My high school had no black kids and I don't even think there was one black family in our entire town. Outside of an offhanded comment like '****** rigging' something, I never interacted with any black people until i was an adult and moved to Phoenix. I was never racist, I dated a black girl in Phoenix and my mother was pretty unhappy about it. But my grandmother and aunt was downright racist about it, making extremely obnoxious comments.


But here's the thing. At that time in your life, you may not have seen any racism.

But I think you understand now, however many years later, that there was. Lots of it.

Mr Robertson doesn't seem to grab that concept.

He's basically re-writing history, history that we all, including he know happened. Because of his so-called personal experiences.

Personal experiences I might add that he basically lied to himself about.

And does to this day.

-smak-


----------



## BrandonRe (Jul 15, 2006)

smak said:


> But here's the thing. At that time in your life, you may not have seen any racism. But I think you understand now, however many years later, that there was. Lots of it. Mr Robertson doesn't seem to grab that concept. He's basically re-writing history, history that we all, including he know happened. Because of his so-called personal experiences. Personal experiences I might add that he basically lied to himself about. And does to this day. -smak-


I understand your point about racism being prevalent in that period of time. Where you lose me is saying he is lying about his personal experiences. Having some sharecroppers in my (recent) family history I can relate to his describing his family as "white trash" and understand the meaning. It's not a judgement of value or worth. And I can understand his point about not personally seeing the black people he knew being outwardly unhappy. It's quite possible.


----------



## Adam1115 (Dec 15, 2003)

smak said:


> But here's the thing. At that time in your life, you may not have seen any racism.
> 
> But I think you understand now, however many years later, that there was. Lots of it.
> 
> ...


It's possible it has nothing to do with that. He might feel like black people were more religious then? I'm not sure. It does seem a little crazy.


----------



## BrettStah (Nov 12, 2000)

As someone who DID grow up in the South, it would be shocking to me if someone like this Duck Dynasty old fart wasn't racist and homophobic.


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

Adam1115 said:


> I've never lived in the south. There was a significant lack of diversity where I grew up, so all I can depend on is what I've read.


How about Black Like Me by John Howard Griffin, a White writer who disguised himself as Black and traveled through the 1959 South to see what would happen.

And speaking about John Howard Griffin, while I was doing some quick research on him, I came across this rather interesting two year old article about him that was published in Smithsonian magazine.

One part that leapt out at me in relation to our discussions here:


> He roamed the South from Alabama to Atlanta, often staying with black families who took him in.
> He glimpsed black rage and self-loathing, as when a fellow bus passenger told him: "I hate us."
> *Whites repeatedly insisted blacks were "happy." *
> A few whites treated him with decency, including one who apologized for "the bad manners of my people."


(Bolding mine.)

Hmmm, who else has been insisting that the Black were happy.....


----------



## smark (Nov 20, 2002)

So the issue is his beliefs about what is sin? He's wrong IMO but he is entitled to them just like PETA nuts think having whales at SeaWorld is slavery.


----------



## smak (Feb 11, 2000)

BrandonRe said:


> I understand your point about racism being prevalent in that period of time. Where you lose me is saying he is lying about his personal experiences. Having some sharecroppers in my (recent) family history I can relate to his describing his family as "white trash" and understand the meaning. It's not a judgement of value or worth. And I can understand his point about not personally seeing the black people he knew being outwardly unhappy. It's quite possible.


He's not lying about his personal experiences. He's lying to himself that not personally seeing the black people he knew being outwardly unhappy actually means anything.

Is he that stupid, that he can't figure out why they weren't outwardly unhappy to him?

Maybe back then, but now? He still doesn't understand?

-smak-


----------



## scole250 (Nov 8, 2005)

Turtleboy said:


> There are two Americas, and one is better than the other.


The two Americas I see here are one who thinks there should a law to prevent gay people from being fired just because they are gay, but yet be legal to fire someone for saying they think gay sex is a sin. And the other one who thinks its ok if a person for says "I think you are a sinner for have gay sex, but I love you anyway."


----------



## markz (Oct 22, 2002)

Ok, I am confused about this whole freedom of speech thing.

Yesterday a top PR Executive was fired for a racist tweet.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/21/us/sacco-offensive-tweet/

She said "Going to Africa. Hope I don't get AIDS. Just kidding. I'm white!"

I haven't seen a single news story or facebook post about people coming to her defense. No one is threatening to boycott her company for firing her.

Does she not have just as much right to her comments as Phil from DD? Or is it wrong to be racist, but ok to be homophobic because that is part of your religion.

Of course, I realize that both of them have the right to say what they want, and I support both companies for their reaction. I just don't get that all the people supporting Phil have remained silent about her so far. Or maybe I am just ahead of the news cycle.


----------



## heySkippy (Jul 2, 2001)

scole250 said:


> The two Americas I see here are one who thinks there should a law to prevent gay people from being fired just because they are gay, but yet be legal to *fire someone for saying they think gay sex is a sin*.


You think that's why he was suspended?


----------



## scole250 (Nov 8, 2005)

heySkippy said:


> You think that's why he was suspended?


No. I think he got fired because A&E and rest of movie and TV execs and board members are a bunch of hypocrites that scream it's their right to make violent and sexually explicit movies and TV shows and market them to young impressionable people, but were offended by Phil's comments, axed him and called it a business decision.

I just expressed what I'm seeing as the two Americas.


----------



## dthmj (Mar 12, 2002)

markz said:


> Or is it wrong to be racist, but ok to be homophobic because that is part of your religion.


Ding! Ding! Ding!


----------



## JFriday (Mar 20, 2002)

Adam1115 said:


> I've never lived in the south. There was a significant lack of diversity where I grew up, so all I can depend on is what I've read.


Read this.

Devil in the Grove: Thurgood Marshall, the Groveland Boys, and the Dawn of a New America


----------



## Turtleboy (Mar 24, 2001)

scole250 said:


> The two Americas I see here are one who thinks there should a law to prevent gay people from being fired just because they are gay, but yet be legal to fire someone for saying they think gay sex is a sin. And the other one who thinks its ok if a person for says "I think you are a sinner for have gay sex, but I love you anyway."


1. I don't care about the opinions who judge things on whether or not they are "sins." They are utterly irrelevant to me and I'm glad that they hare having less and less impact in our society.

2. From the people who do talk about sin, I've seen no evidence of the "I love you anyway." I've seen nothing but hate.


----------



## mr.unnatural (Feb 2, 2006)

markz said:


> Ok, I am confused about this whole freedom of speech thing.


What's to be confused about? You are free to say anything you want as long as you're politically correct about it. In other words, say what you want as long as it doesn't offend someone. Problem is, no matter what you say, someone is going to be offended by it and will either whine about it publicly or sue you for saying it or you'll end up getting let go from your current job position so your employer can save face.

My feeling is, f&@k 'em all if they can't take a joke. If someone is honest about how they feel when asked in an interview and the answer isn't what people want to hear, the interviewer shouldn't have asked the question. I don't believe anyone should ever be persecuted for expressing their opinions or beliefs, whether they coincide with mine or not.

Freedom of speech as the authors of the Bill of Rights intended is dead for all intents and purposes in today's society. Apparently no one is permitted to speak their mind anymore without repercussions. I say, if you don't like what someone has to say, don't listen to them. Either that or grow a thicker skin. It's all sticks and stones anyway.


----------



## scole250 (Nov 8, 2005)

Turtleboy said:


> 1. I don't care about the opinions who judge things on whether or not they are "sins." They are utterly irrelevant to me and I'm glad that they hare having less and less impact in our society.
> 
> 2. From the people who do talk about sin, I've seen no evidence of the "I love you anyway." I've seen nothing but hate.


Phils's comments in GQ have no tone of hatred, just disapproval. The sermon that's getting so much attention does not say anything about hating anyone. First, he's making a firebrand speech in church done more to provoke emotion. If you are so offended by that language, you should visit some of the hundreds of conservative churches across the county. You're going to be very busy condemning them too. Second, his comments in the sermon are not directed specifically at gays, but rather he infers rather dramatically that rejecting God will lead to sinful behavior including gay sex. He is rather harsh saying they, the sinners, are hateful but he does not suggest they should be hated. He just strongly disapproves of the behavior.


----------



## dthmj (Mar 12, 2002)

mr.unnatural said:


> Apparently no one is permitted to speak their mind anymore without repercussions.


And that's the way it should be.

And those that feel you should be able to say whatever you want, whenever you want, to whoever you want, and there be no repercussions are what is wrong with this country.


----------



## tvmaster2 (Sep 9, 2006)

hey, if Alec Baldwin lost his show for his stupid comments, why shouldn't this dork lose his show as well?
What's good for the goose is good for the duck....


----------



## scole250 (Nov 8, 2005)

> And that's the way it should be.
> 
> And those that feel you should be able to say whatever you want, whenever you want, to whoever you want, and there be no repercussions are what is wrong with this country.


...said Kim Jong-un.


----------



## Turtleboy (Mar 24, 2001)

mr.unnatural said:


> What's to be confused about? You are free to say anything you want as long as you're politically correct about it. In other words, say what you want as long as it doesn't offend someone. Problem is, no matter what you say, someone is going to be offended by it and will either whine about it publicly or sue you for saying it or you'll end up getting let go from your current job position so your employer can save face.
> 
> My feeling is, f&@k 'em all if they can't take a joke. If someone is honest about how they feel when asked in an interview and the answer isn't what people want to hear, the interviewer shouldn't have asked the question. I don't believe anyone should ever be persecuted for expressing their opinions or beliefs, whether they coincide with mine or not.
> 
> Freedom of speech as the authors of the Bill of Rights intended is dead for all intents and purposes in today's society. Apparently no one is permitted to speak their mind anymore without repercussions. I say, if you don't like what someone has to say, don't listen to them. Either that or grow a thicker skin. It's all sticks and stones anyway.


No one is being persecuted and no one is having their first amendment right violated.


----------



## dthmj (Mar 12, 2002)

It's very enlightening to know just who doesn't get what freedom of speech really means.


----------



## Turtleboy (Mar 24, 2001)

scole250 said:


> Phils's comments in GQ have no tone of hatred, just disapproval. The sermon that's getting so much attention does not say anything about hating anyone. First, he's making a firebrand speech in church done more to provoke emotion. If you are so offended by that language, you should visit some of the hundreds of conservative churches across the county. You're going to be very busy condemning them too. Second, his comments in the sermon are not directed specifically at gays, but rather he infers rather dramatically that rejecting God will lead to sinful behavior including gay sex. He is rather harsh saying they, the sinners, are hateful but he does not suggest they should be hated. He just strongly disapproves of the behavior.


I'm not offended, and I do condemn the conservative churches across the countries.

I don't really care what he says really. But A&E can choose whether or not to do business with a bigot.


----------



## Turtleboy (Mar 24, 2001)

dthmj said:


> It's very enlightening to know just who doesn't get what freedom of speech really means.


The same people who want to ban the saying of "Happy Holidays."


----------



## scole250 (Nov 8, 2005)

Turtleboy said:


> The same people who want to ban the saying of "Happy Holidays."


Nobody wants to ban the saying "Happy Holidays". Those are tongue-in-cheek comments about people who want to do away with "Merry Christmas".


----------



## Jstkiddn (Oct 15, 2003)

tvmaster2 said:


> hey, if Alec Baldwin lost his show for his stupid comments, why shouldn't this dork lose his show as well? What's good for the goose is good for the duck....


To be fair, Baldwin's rant was probably just the perfect excuse for them to pull the show because the show sucked and ratings were tanking. If you think they would have pulled it if Baldwin was bringing in the same numbers as DD, then I think you are sorely mistaken.

A&E can do what they want and I honestly don't care. I've maybe watched a total of five minutes of DD ever, so it will not effect me one way or the other....but don't fool yourself into thinking the most important thing to the network is to be socially acceptable. It's all about money and ratings,and Baldwin was bringing in neither.


----------



## scole250 (Nov 8, 2005)

Turtleboy said:


> I'm not offended, and I do condemn the conservative churches across the countries.
> 
> I don't really care what he says really. But A&E can choose whether or not to do business with a bigot.


Well I don't agree with what Phil or the conservative churches preach either. I've had my share of pre-marital sex (adultery in their eyes) and would be considered a drunkard many days after 5pm, but I'm certainly not offended or threatened by what they say and don't feel they're directing any hate towards me. That's just me thinking though.


----------



## Azlen (Nov 25, 2002)

mr.unnatural said:


> What's to be confused about? You are free to say anything you want as long as you're politically correct about it. In other words, say what you want as long as it doesn't offend someone. Problem is, no matter what you say, someone is going to be offended by it and will either whine about it publicly or sue you for saying it or you'll end up getting let go from your current job position so your employer can save face.
> 
> My feeling is, f&@k 'em all if they can't take a joke. If someone is honest about how they feel when asked in an interview and the answer isn't what people want to hear, the interviewer shouldn't have asked the question. I don't believe anyone should ever be persecuted for expressing their opinions or beliefs, whether they coincide with mine or not.
> 
> Freedom of speech as the authors of the Bill of Rights intended is dead for all intents and purposes in today's society. Apparently no one is permitted to speak their mind anymore without repercussions. I say, if you don't like what someone has to say, don't listen to them. Either that or grow a thicker skin. It's all sticks and stones anyway.


Why do people think freedom of speech means you can say what you want without repercussions? Freedom of speech is a two way street. If you say something I don't like, I can exhibit my freedom of speech and tell you so. Freedom of speech also gives people a right to react to what you say. That part of it seems to get missed quite a bit. 
As has been brought up before, there's also a significant difference between how the government can react to something and how non-government entities can react.


----------



## Adam1115 (Dec 15, 2003)

Turtleboy said:


> No one is being persecuted and no one is having their first amendment right violated.


There are laws in many states that would make it illegal for Phil's church to fire a gay employee for making pro-gay statements, I think it's fair to bring up that the opposite is not true. Even if you don't agree.


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

mr.unnatural said:


> What's to be confused about?


Based on the rest of your post, everything apparently.


----------



## Adam1115 (Dec 15, 2003)

markz said:


> Does she not have just as much right to her comments as Phil from DD? Or is it wrong to be racist, but ok to be homophobic because that is part of your religion.


Of course that's why. I don't think any christian churches hold the opinion that being black is a sin. There are actual biblical teachings that support the notion that being gay is a sin, so it would follow that a lot of Christians agree with that. Obviously nobody should treat gay people poorly or try to force them to abandon their lifestyle through legislation, or try to force their idea of marriage on them.

But I have no problem with Christians thinking being gay is a sin. I don't see that as being controversial.


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

Adam1115 said:


> There are laws in many states that would make it illegal for Phil's church to fire a gay employee for making pro-gay statements, *I think it's fair to bring up that the opposite is not true*. Even if you don't agree.


So there aren't any laws that would make it illegal for a church to fire a straight employee for making anti-gay comments? Why would there need to be? Churches don't fire people for that, they promote them.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

scole250 said:


> ...said Kim Jong-un.


This just proves how out there you are. This was business. A company decided that the comments would hurt their bottom line. The repercussions here are FINANCIAL. You know, free market. Comparing the free market to a dictator just shows how wrong your stance is. No one is stopping Phil from stating his position. But if you say things, you have to realize that what you say has repercussions in society. He said he piece in freedom and if people don't want to pay him because they think it will impact their business, they have the right to.

This entire thing has happened purely with freedom of speech and choice. But when that freedom means a bigot or gay hater suffers consequences, suddenly it is suppression of free speech.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

scole250 said:


> Nobody wants to ban the saying "Happy Holidays". Those are tongue-in-cheek comments about people who want to do away with "Merry Christmas".


Again. Free businesses are behind that. I'm sure all those extremely rich money driven companies are flaming liberals. Right. They are doing it to be open to the entire community. Another consequence of freedom of speech.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

Adam1115 said:


> Of course that's why. I don't think any christian churches hold the opinion that being black is a sin.


Not today but about 100 years ago, being black meant you were literally not human to a huge number of Christians. So hate is also time based.


----------



## Jstkiddn (Oct 15, 2003)

TonyD79 said:


> Not today but about 100 years ago, being black meant you were literally not human to a huge number of Christians. So hate is also time based.


I could be wrong, but aren't the majority of modern day American black's Christian? Honest question, because I don't know. I only know that most of the blacks in my area are definitely Christian and some can thump a bible with the best of them.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

scole250 said:


> Nobody wants to ban the saying "Happy Holidays". Those are tongue-in-cheek comments about people who want to do away with "Merry Christmas".


I hope you realize that nobody wants to ban the use of "Merry Christmas." It's just a big smokescreen to keep the right wing engaged and mobilized. In reality, it's the right wing that is fueling this whole thing by not following Christ's example when people use the phrase "Happy Holidays."

Phil Robertson had every right to express his opinion. A&E had every right to reprimand him for expressing that opinion, because it's has the potential to hurt their business. Only the government has to sit idly by and let people speak without imposing consequences. Private businesses and private citizens do not have to sit idly by.


----------



## Turtleboy (Mar 24, 2001)

scole250 said:


> Nobody wants to ban the saying "Happy Holidays". Those are tongue-in-cheek comments about people who want to do away with "Merry Christmas".


I know that you believe this.


----------



## Tweety_pbe98 (Dec 16, 2002)

Adam1115 said:


> There are laws in many states that would make it illegal for Phil's church to fire a gay employee for making pro-gay statements...


I don't think that is the case. Most of the state anti-discrimination laws have religious exemptions.


----------



## FireMen2003 (Apr 1, 2004)

Adam1115 said:


> Of course that's why. I don't think any christian churches hold the opinion that being black is a sin. .


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/darron-t-smith-phd/the-mormon-church-disavow_b_4440244.html

Same bs that most churches in the South used to avoid racial mixing.


----------



## Jstkiddn (Oct 15, 2003)

FireMen2003 said:


> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/darron-t-smith-phd/the-mormon-church-disavow_b_4440244.html
> 
> Same bs that most churches in the South used to avoid racial mixing.


Ummm....not sure if you got the memo, but the Morman church isn't exactly known to be a "Southern" church. Ever heard of a place called Utah? Last I checked, it was well north (and west) of the Mason-Dixon line.

I'm not currently a big church-goer but over my lifetime I've spent plenty of time in churches of many different denominations and there have been black members at all of them and I never noticed anyone being treated any differently. 

You honestly think that the only reason why there are "black" churches in towns throughout the south is because the white churches won't allow them in? You think they would rather give up their own church to join the white ones, but can't?

If I were a black, I would be insulted. Ever think they might *prefer* to attend the local "black" church (which, by the way, I've also attended a time or two and SHOCKER...there were white people in the congregation too. They even let them sing in the choir and everything.) 

You could not be further off the mark with this one.


----------



## FireMen2003 (Apr 1, 2004)

Jstkiddn said:


> Ummm....not sure if you got the memo, but the Morman church isn't exactly known to be a "Southern" church. Ever heard of a place called Utah? Last I checked, it was well north (and west) of the Mason-Dixon line.
> 
> I'm not currently a big church-goer but over my lifetime I've spent plenty of time in churches of many different denominations and there have been black members at all of them and I never noticed anyone being treated any differently.
> 
> ...


umm, you missed the point. The point was most Southern churches used the same logic about Cain to avoid racial mixing of churches hence why I posted the link.

Yes, the main reason why their are black churches in the South (hell everywhere) is that white churches did not want black members. Why do you think the A.M.E church was formed? You can't be serious?


----------



## kmccbf (Mar 9, 2002)

This may have been mentioned already. I stopped reading after page 3. 

I think the title of the tread is wrong. I think it's a mess A&E created. They knew going in the beliefs of the DD family and it was only going to be a matter of time before something like this happened. If they didn't think something like this would happen they were pretty naive. So while Phil said it, I hold A&E just as much to blame for the situation and now they are having to spin doctor the situation to cover themselves.


----------



## hairyblue (Feb 25, 2002)

Using the Bible to support your bigotry is weak. They Bible has hateful quotes about a lot of things. It supports slavery, says you should kill someone who is not the same faith as you, says women who are not virgins on wedding nights should be stoned to death, says not to eat shellfish, says not to work on Sundays...etc. I hate that people just pick the parts they want to use that supports their prejudices. These are usually the people who have not even read the Bible.

Some of the people around here really think the Bible was written by God. The Bible was written by man, and then copied, translated, and edited by man.

I'm not trying to attack religion. But a few people try to pass laws based on this. Saying you'll support laws oppressing gays because of your faith, is not right. If you don't believe in same sex marriage because of religious beliefs, then YOU don't same sex marry some one. You'd don't make laws so others can't.

I don't mind the Duck people worshiping they way the want. I think he was very wrong in expressing his opinion to a national magazine. The article was for the customers/fans of the show to read. What if I said I don't like gays or blacks to my customers at work. Or if I wore my work uniform to a KKK public march. My company would have every right to fire me. What I don't know is, what he thought the outcome would be. You don't have to like gays or blacks but we live in a republic where the individual is protected from the majority.


----------



## murrays (Oct 19, 2004)

hairyblue said:


> Using the Bible to support your bigotry is weak. They Bible has hateful quotes about a lot of things. It supports slavery, says you should kill someone who is not the same faith as you, says women who are not virgins on wedding nights should be stoned to death, says not to eat shellfish, says not to work on Sundays...etc. I hate that people just pick the parts they want to use that supports their prejudices. These are usually the people who have not even read the Bible.
> 
> Some of the people around here really think the Bible was written by God. The Bible was written by man, and then copied, translated, and edited by man.
> 
> ...


THIS X100!

Remind me, who are the haters exactly?

-murray


----------



## NorthAlabama (Apr 19, 2012)

Turtleboy said:


> No one is being persecuted and no one is having their first amendment right violated.


exactly - the proof is they can say it again. phil is free to say the same in another interview, and the executive who was fired can tweet her message again, too, their freedom of speech intact.

freedom of speech does not guarantee freedom from consequences.


----------



## smark (Nov 20, 2002)

hairyblue said:


> Using the Bible to support your bigotry is weak. They Bible has hateful quotes about a lot of things. It supports slavery, says you should kill someone who is not the same faith as you, says women who are not virgins on wedding nights should be stoned to death, says not to eat shellfish, says not to work on Sundays...etc. I hate that people just pick the parts they want to use that supports their prejudices. These are usually the people who have not even read the Bible.
> 
> Some of the people around here really think the Bible was written by God. The Bible was written by man, and then copied, translated, and edited by man.
> 
> ...


The part where you are wrong is saying he was wrong for expressing his beliefs. Being fired is fine. It everyone has the right to express themselves just as you have here. Unless you'd rather only hear opinions and beliefs that match up to yours.

Goes both ways.


----------



## NorthAlabama (Apr 19, 2012)

FireMen2003 said:


> Yes, the main reason why their are black churches in the South (hell everywhere) is that white churches did not want black members.


everytime i hear anyone reference the desegregation of the south decades ago, i always wonder why it hasn't started nationwide with churches today.


----------



## Jstkiddn (Oct 15, 2003)

FireMen2003 said:


> umm, you missed the point. The point was most Southern churches used the same logic about Cain to avoid racial mixing of churches hence why I posted the link. Yes, the main reason why their are black churches in the South (hell everywhere) is that white churches did not want black members. Why do you think the A.M.E church was formed? You can't be serious?


But what about NOW? Let's talk about right here and now.....not a hundred years ago.

I have never once in my lifetime been in a church that would not allow a black member. Never. And I've lived all 48 years of my life in the south. I've attended Catholic, Episcopalian, Methodist, Baptist and non-denominational services and nobody is barring blacks. I had a black nun as a teacher in school.

Yet, there still tends to be "black" churches in town, I'm assuming because they want it that way. They are free to attend any church they wish, but they chose to stay put.

My town also has a "black" funeral home. You think the "white" funeral homes here would refuse their money? No way in hell. I'm also sure that the "black" funeral home in town would be more than happy to provide service to me and take my money.

I can't explain why "birds of a feather flock together", but it's just human nature. You are drawn to that which is familiar.


----------



## murrays (Oct 19, 2004)

smark said:


> The part where you are wrong is saying he was wrong for expressing his beliefs. Being fired is fine. It everyone has the right to express themselves just as you have here. Unless you'd rather only hear opinions and beliefs that match up to yours.
> 
> Goes both ways.


I disagree. I may well have opinions that may not jive with my employer. It's not so much "wrong" to make those opinions very public, but it's certainly ill-advised.

-murray


----------



## BrettStah (Nov 12, 2000)

Jstkiddn said:


> But what about NOW? Let's talk about right here and now.....not a hundred years ago. I have never once in my lifetime been in a church that would not allow a black member. Never. And I've lived all 48 years of my life in the south. I've attended Catholic, Episcopalian, Methodist, Baptist and non-denominational services and nobody is barring blacks. I had a black nun as a teacher in school. Yet, there still tends to be "black" churches in town, I'm assuming because they want it that way. They are free to attend any church they wish, but they chose to stay put. My town also has a "black" funeral home. You think the "white" funeral homes here would refuse their money? No way in hell. I'm also sure that the "black" funeral home in town would be more than happy to provide service to me and take my money. I can't explain why "birds of a feather flock together", but it's just human nature. You are drawn to that which is familiar.


 It IS unexplainable! (If you ignore history).


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

I love how this thread collides with the "war on Christmas" thread.


----------



## scole250 (Nov 8, 2005)

Turtleboy said:


> I know that you believe this.


Well, I was referring to the "not to be taken seriously" comments by many people today about hating the use of the term Happy Holidays instead of Merry Christmas only because we feel it has been a tradition and we're sad to see it change. The extremists on both sides appear to want to ban Happy Holidays either because Happy Holidays is not secular enough or because they feel if the season can't be strictly about Christ, there shouldn't be a holiday at all. I guess you're referring to the latter.


----------



## smark (Nov 20, 2002)

murrays said:


> I disagree. I may well have opinions that may not jive with my employer. It's not so much "wrong" to make those opinions very public, but it's certainly ill-advised.
> 
> -murray


And I agree that if you value your job, you shouldn't make them and if the job fires him. Tough ****.

I, personally, think everyone should be able to voice their opinion and it isn't "wrong" to have them or voice them even if I don't agree with the and folks should work to educate people to help them change their opinion.


----------



## kmccbf (Mar 9, 2002)

hairyblue said:


> I don't mind the Duck people worshiping they way the want. I think he was very wrong in expressing his opinion to a national magazine. The article was for the customers/fans of the show to read. What if I said I don't like gays or blacks to my customers at work. Or if I wore my work uniform to a KKK public march. My company would have every right to fire me. What I don't know is, what he thought the outcome would be. You don't have to like gays or blacks but we live in a republic where the individual is protected from the majority.


There is a difference between saying something at work and saying something outside of work. He was stating his beliefs as the result of a direct question at an interview that may have been made available to him at because of A&E, but was not while he was on the job at A&E. A&E was well aware of his views when they started the show so it was something that was bound to happen at some point.


----------



## kmccbf (Mar 9, 2002)

I decided to double post because I did think of something relevant to add to my previous post, but want it considered separately. If Phil was working for anyone at the time I would think it would have been GQ. It's likely they were paying him for his time. If so they were also paying for honest answers to their questions. Since GQ I'm sure also knew the families views they were also deliberately putting him in the position of refusing to answer their question, of denying his beliefs and lying or opening up a can of worms. While what they knew about him before the interview I'm sure they knew it would be opening up controversy.


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

kmccbf said:


> There is a difference between saying something at work and saying something outside of work.


There's also a difference between "outside of work" and "in a highly visible public manner", especially when your public persona is closely identified with your employer.

Couching this whole thing in the kind of terminology that you would use if, say, a random factory worker was getting fired for the things he said on his own time to his buddies down at the bar is less than completely honest.


----------



## DouglasPHill (Feb 10, 2005)

scole250 said:


> The two Americas I see here are one who thinks there should a law to prevent gay people from being fired just because they are gay, but yet be legal to fire someone for saying they think gay sex is a sin. And the other one who thinks its ok if a person for says "I think you are a sinner for have gay sex, but I love you anyway."


+1


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

And yes, A&E knew the fleas they were going to get up with when they laid down with ********. As long as it was only like-minded ******** who were aware of what was going on, that was fine. But now it is a public embarrassment to them that they felt warranted a business decision.

Personally, I think it was the wrong business decision, since it's already been proven that a business model that panders to ignorant hillbillies is profitable, even if it is abhorrent to everyone else (cf. Fox News, Ann Coulter, Brietbart, etc...).


----------



## Jstkiddn (Oct 15, 2003)

http://www.iamsecond.com/seconds/the-robertsons/

I thought this was sort of interesting. This is a bit long and yes, they are proselytizing by way of sharing their personal stories, but there is no bible quoting going on. Just a family talking about their struggles in life and how they made a change.

Watching it makes you see they aren't the devil and they aren't horrible people. They admit they are sinners and they do not try to hide their struggles. They put it all right out there, warts and all, for the world to see.

They are just simply struggling through life just like the rest of us and trying to figure their way through it. Their answer is God. Doesn't mean it has to be your answer, but to them that's what made the difference.


----------



## Jstkiddn (Oct 15, 2003)

The Cracker Barrel thing didn't last long. They've already issued a statement that they were wrong to pull the products and they are reversing their stance.

I guess their convictions depend on which way the wind is blowing. They would have probably been better off to just stay out of it in the first place. I have a feeling they thought there would be a huge corporate flee ala Paula Deen and they were hoping to be the first, but when they looked back behind them, nobody else was following.


----------



## FireMen2003 (Apr 1, 2004)

Jstkiddn said:


> But what about NOW? Let's talk about right here and now.....not a hundred years ago.
> 
> I have never once in my lifetime been in a church that would not allow a black member. Never. And I've lived all 48 years of my life in the south. I've attended Catholic, Episcopalian, Methodist, Baptist and non-denominational services and nobody is barring blacks. I had a black nun as a teacher in school.
> 
> ...


You are just jumping all over the place and it wasnt a 100 years. Adam stated that christians dont believe being black is a sin hence my link.The Mormom issue was the last 70s and the others would be 50 to 60 years ago.

Most places have black funeral homes because white funeral homes wouldnt bury them.

The churches will always be different because in most cases, whites and blacks have different worship styles.


----------



## Turtleboy (Mar 24, 2001)

Cracker Barrel remembers who its customers are and puts the Duck Dynasty stuff back on the shelf.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/12/22/cracker-barrel-screwed-up-big-time/



> One of those customers was Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council. He said his family has eaten in nearly every Cracker Barrel in the country.
> 
> "Cracker Barrel must be off their rocker," he said in a statement to Fox News. "For Cracker Barrel to take the bait of an organization like GLAAD, which has led the attack on Phil Robertson, they are betraying the values of the vast majority of their customers."


----------



## Turtleboy (Mar 24, 2001)

This whole thing is about money - both A&E and Cracker Barrel can decide who to associate with. 

The Arts and Entertainment Network may not want to be associated with outright bigots. Cracker Barrel forgot who their customers were - or at least where most of their stores are located.

(And I'm near some Cracker Barrels myself).


----------



## Jstkiddn (Oct 15, 2003)

FireMen2003 said:


> You are just jumping all over the place and it wasnt a 100 years. The Mormom issue was the last 70s and the others would be 50 to 60 years ago. Most places have black funeral homes because white funeral homes wouldnt bury them. The churches will always be different because in most cases, whites and blacks have different worship styles.


I'm certainly not trying to, but you never answered my question......what about NOW? Right now. 2013, almost 2014. I well understand the history, but that was then and while we should never forget it, I'm more concerned over what's going on right now.

I'm not saying it never happened, because obviously it did. I'm simply stating that I've spent quite a bit of time in various churches over my past half century in the South and in my experience all were welcome. That said, I've also never seen a large crowds of black people clamoring to get in either, so I'm just guessing they are happy worshiping at their own church.

Are there many churches (and funeral homes) RIGHT NOW that are doing the things you say, and no places like Westboro Baptist don't count because those types are just hate groups masquerading as a "church" and there is very little Christian about them.


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

I figured it would be only a matter of time until Popehat chimed in. In addition to the expected admonitions against against the inevitable abuse of the concepts of "first amendment" and "free speech", there was one particular point that was worth quoting here:

"8. The fact that a viewpoint is contained in your holy book does not insulate it from criticism. The fact that a viewpoint is part of a person's faith tradition might lead you to consider proportionality, love, charity, grace, empathy, forgiveness, humility, and self-awareness in framing a response to it. On the other hand, it's reasonable to exercise proportionality, love, charity, grace, empathy, forgiveness, humility, and self-awareness in thinking about how your faith doctrines make other people feel. *"You're going to Hell, but you shouldn't be offended when I say so, because it's in my holy book," is not a cunning argument.* Also: maybe there's someone who is consistent about _all_ holy books when arguing "you should cut them a break because it's in their holy book," but I personally have not met this person."


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

Jstkiddn said:


> places like Westboro Baptist don't count because those types are just hate groups masquerading as a "church" and there is very little Christian about them.


And they probably aren't even truly Scottish either.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

busyba said:


> I figured it would be only a matter of time until Popehat chimed in. In addition to the expected admonitions against against the inevitable abuse of the concepts of "first amendment" and "free speech", there was one particular point that was worth quoting here:
> 
> "8. The fact that a viewpoint is contained in your holy book does not insulate it from criticism. The fact that a viewpoint is part of a person's faith tradition might lead you to consider proportionality, love, charity, grace, empathy, forgiveness, humility, and self-awareness in framing a response to it. On the other hand, it's reasonable to exercise proportionality, love, charity, grace, empathy, forgiveness, humility, and self-awareness in thinking about how your faith doctrines make other people feel. *"You're going to Hell, but you shouldn't be offended when I say so, because it's in my holy book,"* is not a cunning argument. Also: maybe there's someone who is consistent about all holy books when arguing "you should cut them a break because it's in their holy book," but I personally have not met this person."


There's a BIG difference between identifying something as sinful behavior and saying the sinner is going to Hell. One is a pretty clear-cut definition and the other is for God to decide, based on the totality of a person's life, actions, and beliefs, not based on a single action or based on a single point in time.


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

DevdogAZ said:


> There's a BIG difference between identifying something as sinful behavior and saying the sinner is going to Hell. One is a pretty clear-cut definition and the other is for God to decide, based on the totality of a person's life, actions, and beliefs, not based on a single action or based on a single point in time.


I doubt that distinction is particularly meaningful to the people being called sinners.

Especially since there is a fair amount of precedent to indicate that there's no shortage of people who are excessively enthusiastic about helping god out by accelerating the process of judgement.


----------



## Turtleboy (Mar 24, 2001)

DevdogAZ said:


> There's a BIG difference between identifying something as sinful behavior and saying the sinner is going to Hell. One is a pretty clear-cut definition and the other is for God to decide, based on the totality of a person's life, actions, and beliefs, not based on a single action or based on a single point in time.


I don't think there is a "pretty clear-cut definition" of "sinful behavior."

Is there a clear cut definition that eating pork is "sinful behavior"?


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

Like the vast majority of religious concepts, "sin" is just something someone made up.

To a certain extent, people really shouldn't be offended when someone calls them something made up. Should you be offended if I call you a flugelrander? Probably not.

But the problem is when people feel that their made up concepts justify oppression. "So what if we beat that guy up and tied him to a fence in the desert and left him to die? He's just a flugelrander."


----------



## jay_man2 (Sep 15, 2003)

You just had to go and use the "f" word, didn't you.


----------



## scole250 (Nov 8, 2005)

busyba said:


> Like the vast majority of religious concepts, "sin" is just something someone made up.
> 
> To a certain extent, people really shouldn't be offended when someone calls them something made up. Should you be offended if I call you a flugelrander? Probably not.
> 
> But the problem is when people feel that their made up concepts justify oppression. "So what if we beat that guy up and tied him to a fence in the desert and left him to die? He's just a flugelrander."


How did you come to the conclusion that Phil, as well as those of us who feel he's being unfairly villianized, feel its acceptable to oppress or subject violence against gay people. You're making stuff up.


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

Turtleboy said:


> I don't think there is a "pretty clear-cut definition" of "sinful behavior."
> 
> *Is there a clear cut definition that eating pork is "sinful behavior"?*


I sure hope not.


----------



## murrays (Oct 19, 2004)

jsmeeker said:


> I sure hope not.


Frankly my dear...I don't give a damn!

-murray


----------



## Turtleboy (Mar 24, 2001)

jsmeeker said:


> I sure hope not.


That's the point. The notion that there is a clear cut definition of 'sinful' behavior is wrong.


----------



## DouglasPHill (Feb 10, 2005)

There is a clear cut definition of sin, if you are a Christian. I am a Christian and I, unfortunately sin. And the Bible does say something about "let he who is without sin throw the first stone." Phil is free to say whatever he wants and I am free to ignore.


----------



## mr.unnatural (Feb 2, 2006)

Turtleboy said:


> No one is being persecuted and no one is having their first amendment right violated.


Nobody said they were. My response was meant to be a tongue-in-cheek response to this thread with a bit of sarcasm thrown in for good measure. The point being that it is almost impossible to say anything publicly these days without offending someone.



Azlen said:


> Why do people think freedom of speech means you can say what you want without repercussions? Freedom of speech is a two way street. If you say something I don't like, I can exhibit my freedom of speech and tell you so. Freedom of speech also gives people a right to react to what you say. That part of it seems to get missed quite a bit.
> As has been brought up before, there's also a significant difference between how the government can react to something and how non-government entities can react.


There is no true "freedom of speech" without repercussions. Like I said, it's almost impossible to say something publicly that doesn't offend someone. However, under the Constitution of the United States, anyone has the right to say what they want, but there are certain limitations. You step outside of those boundaries and you're asking for trouble or prosecution. Just stating an opinion should fall within the legitimate boundaries of the 2nd Amendment. Whether anyone agrees with that opinion is completely irrelevant in the eyes of the law.



Turtleboy said:


> That's the point. The notion that there is a clear cut definition of 'sinful' behavior is wrong.


Tell that to a Bible thumping Christian and see how far that gets you.  In their minds, the Bible is pretty clear on that subject and that's all they need to know.


----------



## murrays (Oct 19, 2004)

DouglasPHill said:


> There is a clear cut definition of sin, if you are a Christian. I am a Christian and I, unfortunately sin. And the Bible does say something about "let he who is without sin throw the first stone." Phil is free to say whatever he wants and I am free to ignore.


Really? Is keeping a slave a sin? Yes or no.

In my atheist "book", it goes against everything I "believe" in.

-murray


----------



## FireMen2003 (Apr 1, 2004)

NorthAlabama said:


> everytime i hear anyone reference the desegregation of the south decades ago, i always wonder why it hasn't started nationwide with churches today.


From my church conference, I believe, it comes down to 3 things. Power, money and worship style. The main two are the issues with the latter playing a major part for both sides.



Jstkiddn said:


> I'm certainly not trying to, but you never answered my question......what about NOW? Right now. 2013, almost 2014. I well understand the history, but that was then and while we should never forget it, I'm more concerned over what's going on right now.
> 
> I'm not saying it never happened, because obviously it did. I'm simply stating that I've spent quite a bit of time in various churches over my past half century in the South and in my experience all were welcome. That said, I've also never seen a large crowds of black people clamoring to get in either, so I'm just guessing they are happy worshiping at their own church.
> 
> Are there many churches (and funeral homes) RIGHT NOW that are doing the things you say, and no places like Westboro Baptist don't count because those types are just hate groups masquerading as a "church" and there is very little Christian about them.


Obviously, its not an issue today in most cases. I know in my church, in the white churches, if the memberships starts to get too many AA or other races, the whites will move to another white church because the church has become too mixed for them.

Most folks use the same funeral home because they've buried other family members over the years.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

Jstkiddn said:


> I could be wrong, but aren't the majority of modern day American black's Christian? Honest question, because I don't know. I only know that most of the blacks in my area are definitely Christian and some can thump a bible with the best of them.


What is the point? Nothing wrong with being Christian. If you really emulate Christ. Bigotry is not a Christian value.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

DouglasPHill said:


> There is a clear cut definition of sin, if you are a Christian. I am a Christian and I, unfortunately sin. And the Bible does say something about "let he who is without sin throw the first stone." Phil is free to say whatever he wants and I am free to ignore.


If there is a clear cut definition, please provide it. I'm all ears. I have yet to hear any theologian or priest or minister define sin In a consistent or universal manner.


----------



## tvmaster2 (Sep 9, 2006)

Jstkiddn said:


> To be fair, Baldwin's rant was probably just the perfect excuse for them to pull the show because the show sucked and ratings were tanking. If you think they would have pulled it if Baldwin was bringing in the same numbers as DD, then I think you are sorely mistaken.
> 
> A&E can do what they want and I honestly don't care. I've maybe watched a total of five minutes of DD ever, so it will not effect me one way or the other....but don't fool yourself into thinking the most important thing to the network is to be socially acceptable. It's all about money and ratings,and Baldwin was bringing in neither.


couldn't agree less. his show with the 2001 cast & Deborah Winger were great. It would have found its legs as a niche show, and MSNBC would keep it on the air for a certain time to hopefully prove they weren't wrong.
this does prove that networks, with certain rules of conduct, are in control of their on-air 'talent', whether or not they are ratings winners.
I liked Baldwin, but he acted stupidly. 
And as far as networks being ONLY about money, then you apparently don't know that much about the industry. They have so much money, they can pick and choose who they win and lose with...aka Chalie Sheen


----------



## mr.unnatural (Feb 2, 2006)

TonyD79 said:


> What is the point? Nothing wrong with being Christian. If you really emulate Christ. Bigotry is not a Christian value.


Apparently, these days it is, especially if you're a right-wing conservative, They all claim to have Christian values, yet tend to be the most bigoted of all. Modern day conservatives hate pretty much anything or anyone that doesn't adhere to their "Christian" values.



TonyD79 said:


> If there is a clear cut definition, please provide it. I'm all ears. I have yet to hear any theologian or priest or minister define sin In a consistent or universal manner.


I'm no theologian, but they have this thing called the ten commandments that pretty well defines the major sins, in case you haven't heard of it.  Anything beyond that is open to interpretation.


----------



## Peter000 (Apr 15, 2002)

smark said:


> folks should work to educate people to help them change their opinion.


There are some people that I'd like to educate 4 or 5 times in the face. Even then, there's no "educating" bigots.

I don't watch DD. But I'm glad the guy said what he said, because now I know where he (and probably much of his family) stands. So I definitely don't plan to start watching DD.

In answer to the original thread question, DD will run it's course. This may help it run it's course more quickly, but like all TV shows it's "charm" will wear off for viewers and they'll move on to other stuff.


----------



## scole250 (Nov 8, 2005)

Peter000 said:


> There are some people that I'd like to educate 4 or 5 times in the face. Even then, there's no "educating" bigots.
> 
> I don't watch DD. But I'm glad the guy said what he said, because now I know where he (and probably much of his family) stands. So I definitely don't plan to start watching DD.
> 
> In answer to the original thread question, DD will run it's course. This may help it run it's course more quickly, but like all TV shows it's "charm" will wear off for viewers and they'll move on to other stuff.


Only the ignorant start pulling words like bigot out of thin air. You're making a pretty big accusation about someone just because they feel gay sex, along with drinking alcohol and having premarital sex is a sin. Phil has made no such suggestion that gay people should be treated different than anyone else.


----------



## heySkippy (Jul 2, 2001)

scole250 said:


> Only the ignorant start pulling words like bigot out of thin air. You're making a pretty big accusation about someone just because they feel gay sex, along with drinking alcohol and having premarital sex is a sin.


You don't think the "bigot" label might have been about his comments about blacks? IMO the shoe fits perfectly.


----------



## scole250 (Nov 8, 2005)

heySkippy said:


> You don't think the "bigot" label might have been about his comments about blacks? IMO the shoe fits perfectly.


What comment makes you think he is a bigot?


----------



## Peter000 (Apr 15, 2002)

scole250 said:


> Only the ignorant start pulling words like bigot out of thin air. You're making a pretty big accusation about someone just because they feel gay sex, along with drinking alcohol and having premarital sex is a sin. Phil has made no such suggestion that gay people should be treated different than anyone else.




Thin air? The air around this guy is as thick as ****. And smells like it.


----------



## scole250 (Nov 8, 2005)

Peter000 said:


> Thin air? The air around this guy is as thick as ****. And smells like it.


Well please share exactly what he said that you think justifies calling him a bigot.


----------



## Peter000 (Apr 15, 2002)

scole250 said:


> Well please share exactly what he said that you think justifies calling him a bigot.


Everything that's being quoted.


----------



## scole250 (Nov 8, 2005)

Peter000 said:


> Everything that's being quoted.


That's what I thought. You don't even know what he said.


----------



## LlamaLarry (Apr 30, 2003)

BrettStah said:


> As someone who DID grow up in the South, it would be shocking to me if someone like this Duck Dynasty old fart wasn't racist and homophobic.


I made a similar comment in the thread about Paula Deen and her admission to having dropped the N-bomb. Yeah, it was not well received.


----------



## Peter000 (Apr 15, 2002)

scole250 said:


> That's what I thought. You don't even know what he said.


I've read the whole thread. I've read the quotes, in and out of context. He's either stupid or bigoted or both. If you can't see the idiocy of what he's saying by now, there's no convincing you. And I'm not about to try.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Turtleboy said:


> I don't think there is a "pretty clear-cut definition" of "sinful behavior."
> 
> Is there a clear cut definition that eating pork is "sinful behavior"?


I'm not saying everyone is going to agree on the definition of sin. But for each belief system, the definition is pretty clear cut.

So yes, as far as I understand it, for people that adhere to the Jewish faith, there is a clear-cut definition that eating pork is a sin. Or am I wrong and it's not considered sinful when one does not keep kosher?


----------



## Shaunnick (Jul 2, 2005)

Stormspace said:


> Don't know if they are in a right to work state, but if so no reason has to be given to fire someone. Wrongful termination suits are very difficult to win.


Even in a right to work state (which is a ******** term since it is really right to fire) you still cannot fire someone under a protected class if the reason for the firing is because of their protected class. I work in Tennessee, one of the right to work states, and for every company I have ever worked with HR doggedly tracks everything you do that they _could_ fire you for because if they just fired you to fire you, and you were in a protected class, the company would have nothing to show as justification outside of whatever you were claiming.

So even in right to work states employers are very proactive on tracking all of their employees actions. However, as busyba stated, sexual orientation is not protected, so in the state of Tennessee if someone were to be fired simply because they were gay, the company was well within its right to do so.


----------



## dthmj (Mar 12, 2002)

DevdogAZ said:


> I'm not saying everyone is going to agree on the definition of sin. But for each belief system, the definition is pretty clear cut.
> 
> So yes, as far as I understand it, for people that adhere to the Jewish faith, there is a clear-cut definition that eating pork is a sin. Or am I wrong and it's not considered sinful when one does not keep kosher?


In the Christian faith, we have churches that will marry same sex couples, and churches that won't. Catholics and Methodist (and maybe more) can drink alcohol, other denominations forbid alcohol. Most in the Christian faith says it's ok to consume caffeine - but Mormons don't. Some say gambling is a sin - others hold church bingo and charter buses to the nearest casino.

So no - there is no clear cut definition of sin.


----------



## Turtleboy (Mar 24, 2001)

DevdogAZ said:


> I'm not saying everyone is going to agree on the definition of sin. But for each belief system, the definition is pretty clear cut.
> 
> So yes, as far as I understand it, for people that adhere to the Jewish faith, there is a clear-cut definition that eating pork is a sin. Or am I wrong and it's not considered sinful when one does not keep kosher?


It's not a sin for *you* to not keep kosher. It's only a sin for Jews.


----------



## kmccbf (Mar 9, 2002)

busyba said:


> There's also a difference between "outside of work" and "in a highly visible public manner", especially when your public persona is closely identified with your employer.
> 
> Couching this whole thing in the kind of terminology that you would use if, say, a random factory worker was getting fired for the things he said on his own time to his buddies down at the bar is less than completely honest.


I don't disagree with you there. Which is why I don't believe at work and outside of work argument is proper it weakens the argument. "Outside of work," and "in a highly visible public manner," works very well in this case.


----------



## Jon J (Aug 23, 2000)

busyba said:


> And yes, A&E knew the fleas they were going to get up with when they laid down with ********.


Your prejudice is showing, but living in NYC that's perhaps expected.


----------



## dthmj (Mar 12, 2002)

They are not ********.... But they play one on tv.


----------



## Jstkiddn (Oct 15, 2003)

So, I have a question. I keep seeing the word ******* being tossed around. 

Is everyone from the south that lives a rural/country type lifestyle (hunting, fishing, farming, etc) a ******* to the rest of the world? 

Is it Phil's philosophies that make him a ******* or is it his lifestyle?


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

dthmj said:


> In the Christian faith, we have churches that will marry same sex couples, and churches that won't. Catholics and Methodist (and maybe more) can drink alcohol, other denominations forbid alcohol. *Most in the Christian faith says it's ok to consume caffeine - but Mormons don't.* Some say gambling is a sin - others hold church bingo and charter buses to the nearest casino. So no - there is no clear cut definition of sin.


Mormons can drink caffeine. They can't drink coffee and tea, and people have turned that into a prohibition on caffeine, but the church specifically says that the prohibition is simply "hot drinks" which has been clarified as coffee and tea.

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/health-practices



Turtleboy said:


> It's not a sin for you to not keep kosher. It's only a sin for Jews.


I didn't say it was a sin for me. I said the definition of what constitutes a sin is clear cut based on ones beliefs. Sure, not all faiths will have the same definition of sin, but since sin is a construct of religious beliefs, then the identification of what is a sin is also based on those religious beliefs.


----------



## hefe (Dec 5, 2000)

Haven't been following the whole thread... Has anyone posted the Duck Dynasty Is Fake YouTube video that's been going around yet...?


----------



## dthmj (Mar 12, 2002)

hefe said:


> Haven't been following the whole thread... Has anyone posted the Duck Dynasty Is Fake YouTube video that's been going around yet...?


Considering the language in that video, it probably shouldn't be posted on TCF.


----------



## hefe (Dec 5, 2000)

dthmj said:


> Considering the language in that video, it probably shouldn't be posted on TCF.


Yeah, that's why I didn't link it. Didn't know if it was talked about.


----------



## Jstkiddn (Oct 15, 2003)

dthmj said:


> Considering the language in that video, it probably shouldn't be posted on TCF.


Is it the one with the guy screaming at the top if his lungs and using the F word every third word? Yeah....probably not.

You don't miss much by skipping it as it's mostly just screaming and cussing. His big "it's fake" proof was a bunch of family photos taken way back before they had beards. The sons took their wives and kids to the beach for vacation and had family pictures made like every other person I know that lives around me. My Facebook feed is full of them all summer long. They don't call the panhandle of Florida and the Mississippi and Alabama coast the "******* Riviera" for nothing.


----------



## Ment (Mar 27, 2008)

hefe said:


> Haven't been following the whole thread... Has anyone posted the Duck Dynasty Is Fake YouTube video that's been going around yet...?


I think most reality show fans realize DD has alot of fake elements but the WWE loving public may not. They couldn't get away with half the hijinks they get themselves into if they weren't part of a show.


----------



## Jstkiddn (Oct 15, 2003)

Of course a lot of it is setup and most of the situations are "fake", but I think the people are pretty much what you see on tv.

I mentioned earlier that I knew people that had been to their house. A friend of mine has a niece that runs a antique/flea market store and has sold some things to Kay and Phil. Kay had them re-decorate her walk in closet and here is a video of the "big reveal". Notice that Miss Kay is wearing a simple Duck Commander t-shirt and even has on her apron, like she'd just come out of the kitchen. I've heard that Miss Kay is EXACTLY like you see on the show.

Warning: Vertical video.


----------



## NorthAlabama (Apr 19, 2012)

DevdogAZ said:


> Mormons can drink caffeine. They can't drink coffee and tea, and people have turned that into a prohibition on caffeine, but the church specifically says that the prohibition is simply "hot drinks" which has been clarified as coffee and tea.


i'm not trying to be snarky, but i'm curious and have to ask - why does drinking hot tea and coffee condem one to hell, when iced tea and coffee are ok?


----------



## mr.unnatural (Feb 2, 2006)

Ment said:


> I think most reality show fans realize DD has alot of fake elements but the WWE loving public may not. They couldn't get away with half the hijinks they get themselves into if they weren't part of a show.


Virtually all "reality" shows are staged to a high degree. If they only documented everyday occurrences the shows would be boring as hell. Half of the dialogue is by a single character sitting in front of the camera, and he's probably reading off a cue card (although the jury's still out whether most of these guys can actually read  ).


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

NorthAlabama said:


> i'm not trying to be snarky, but i'm curious and have to ask - why does drinking hot tea and coffee condem one to hell, when iced tea and coffee are ok?


First, there's no condemning to Hell. Don't know where that come from. Second, iced tea and coffee are also not allowed.


----------



## dthmj (Mar 12, 2002)

mr.unnatural said:


> (although the jury's still out whether most of these guys can actually read  ).


Are you speaking specifically of the Robertsons? They most certainly can read - Most of them have college educations - including masters.


----------



## Test (Dec 8, 2004)

DevdogAZ said:


> Mormons can drink caffeine. They can't drink coffee and tea, and people have turned that into a prohibition on caffeine, but the church specifically says that the prohibition is simply "hot drinks" which has been clarified as coffee and tea.
> 
> http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/health-practices
> 
> I didn't say it was a sin for me. I said the definition of what constitutes a sin is clear cut based on ones beliefs. Sure, not all faiths will have the same definition of sin, but since sin is a construct of religious beliefs, then the identification of what is a sin is also based on those religious beliefs.





NorthAlabama said:


> i'm not trying to be snarky, but i'm curious and have to ask - why does drinking hot tea and coffee condem one to hell, when iced tea and coffee are ok?





DevdogAZ said:


> First, there's no condemning to Hell. Don't know where that come from. Second, iced tea and coffee are also not allowed.


I think the answer is because Joe Smith said God said so...

http://mormon.org/faq/law-of-health



> Our body is a precious gift from God. To help keep our bodies and our minds healthy and strong, God gave a law of health to Joseph Smith in 1833. This law is known as the Word of Wisdom (see Doctrine and Covenants 89:1-21).
> 
> In addition to emphasizing the benefits of proper eating and physical and spiritual health, God has spoken against the use of:
> 
> ...


My guess would be the caffeine in the drinks (as the drug).


----------



## dthmj (Mar 12, 2002)

But caffeine in soda is ok?


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Test said:


> I think the answer is because Joe Smith said God said so...
> 
> http://mormon.org/faq/law-of-health
> 
> My guess would be the caffeine in the drinks (as the drug).


It's not the caffiene. The LDS church has specifically said that soda with caffiene is not a violation of that rule. So basically it's just coffee and tea (whether hot or cold) but without any specific reason, since it's not because of the caffiene.


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

But pork is okay?


----------



## Test (Dec 8, 2004)

DevdogAZ said:


> It's not the caffiene. The LDS church has specifically said that soda with caffiene is not a violation of that rule. So basically it's just coffee and tea (whether hot or cold) but without any specific reason, since it's not because of the caffiene.


I get that, but there has to be SOME reason to exclude those and if the link I provided is correct it's pretty much saying to keep mind/body altering drugs out of your system.

It probably started out as coffee & tea because of the caffeine then later became hot drinks because of soda (and caffeine being in everything)...but now hot drinks? They can't have hot chocolate? The water with the chocolate mix? Hot apple cider?

Seems like the no meat on Friday rule for Catholics that gets twisted and morphed to appease the need of the time.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

DevdogAZ said:


> First, there's no condemning to Hell. Don't know where that come from. Second, iced tea and coffee are also not allowed.


It is the stimulants that are banned. But some of it is open to interpretation even within a religion as strict to its rules as LDS.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

dthmj said:


> But caffeine in soda is ok?


Correct. Definitely not considered healthy, but not included in the list of things prohibited.


----------



## dthmj (Mar 12, 2002)

More than likely, it's because caffeinated sodas were not around until the late 1800's and then only as medicine.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Test said:


> I get that, but there has to be SOME reason to exclude those and if the link I provided is correct it's pretty much saying to keep mind/body altering drugs out of your system.
> 
> It probably started out as coffee & tea because of the caffeine then later became hot drinks because of soda (and caffeine being in everything)...but now hot drinks? They can't have hot chocolate? The water with the chocolate mix? Hot apple cider?
> 
> Seems like the no meat on Friday rule for Catholics that gets twisted and morphed to appease the need of the time.


It was always "hot drinks." The actual scripture, from Doctrine and Covenants Section 89, states:



> And again, hot drinks are not for the body or belly.


That was clarified by the church to mean coffee and tea and that has always been the interpretation. Because there was never a reason behind it, people assumed it meant caffeine, but that's never been the official position. And it doesn't matter if the coffee or tea are iced, those are still prohibited, as is decaffeinated coffee. Meanwhile, hot chocolate is not prohibited.

There is also a lot of unofficial interpretation of the prohibition on tea. Some say that it's just black and green tea that are prohibited, while fruit teas are OK. I don't think there's ever been anything official about that.


----------



## Test (Dec 8, 2004)

DevdogAZ said:


> It was always "hot drinks." The actual scripture, from Doctrine and Covenants Section 89, states:
> 
> That was clarified by the church to mean coffee and tea and that has always been the interpretation. Because there was never a reason behind it, people assumed it meant caffeine, but that's never been the official position. And it doesn't matter if the coffee or tea are iced, those are still prohibited, as is decaffeinated coffee. Meanwhile, hot chocolate is not prohibited.
> 
> There is also a lot of unofficial interpretation of the prohibition on tea. Some say that it's just black and green tea that are prohibited, while fruit teas are OK. I don't think there's ever been anything official about that.


Well, that clears that up. Thanks


----------



## Azlen (Nov 25, 2002)

Christianity today is in a funny place. You look back at the life of Jesus and see that his primary opposition wasn't from those who were considered "sinners" but from the Pharisees, who were a political/religious group of the day. Jesus was known for saying such things like "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" and "God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world but that the world through him might be saved".
When comparing the church today, they look a lot more like the Pharisees and a lot less like Jesus. Then they start getting involved in politics and embracing the decidedly non Christian philosophies of Ayn Rand and you get some really messed up ideas.
I'm not Catholic but really have to respect a lot of what Pope Frances is saying and doing, it looks a lot more like Jesus than Rush Limbaugh and his legion of Christian followers who has decided that the Pope is a Marxist. It's all pretty sad really.


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

The Westboro Baptist Church as well as pastor Terry Jones have come out in support of Phil Robertson.

So that's some fine company all y'all are keeping.


----------



## pendragn (Jan 21, 2001)

dthmj said:


> But caffeine in soda is ok?





DevdogAZ said:


> Correct. Definitely not considered healthy, but not included in the list of things prohibited.


A couple of years ago I was hired by the LDS IT department to teach a class. I spent a week in Riverton at an official LDS building. There was obviously no coffee or tea there. But the soda machines also only had uncaffeinated sodas in them. Fanta, Sprite, etc. I can't argue with the scripture you're quoting, but I can tell you the rank and file Mormon does not drink cold caffeinated drinks either. I have a bunch of Mormon friends, they don't drink caffeinated sodas.

tk


----------



## Jstkiddn (Oct 15, 2003)

busyba said:


> The Westboro Baptist Church as well as pastor Terry Jones have come out in support of Phil Robertson.
> 
> So that's some fine company all y'all are keeping.


That means absolutely nothing unless the Robertson's come out in mutual support of Westboro. I would bet money they think Westboro is disgusting, just like the rest of us.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

pendragn said:


> A couple of years ago I was hired by the LDS IT department to teach a class. I spent a week in Riverton at an official LDS building. There was obviously no coffee or tea there. But the soda machines also only had uncaffeinated sodas in them. Fanta, Sprite, etc. I can't argue with the scripture you're quoting, but I can tell you the rank and file Mormon does not drink cold caffeinated drinks either. I have a bunch of Mormon friends, they don't drink caffeinated sodas.
> 
> tk


For many decades it was unclear what the church's official stance on caffeine was. It was never specifically prohibited, but since there was no other official reason given for the prohibition of coffee and tea, people just assumed caffeine was prohibited, and that attitude became prevalent. Never anything official, but unofficial things like no caffeinated sodas sold at BYU and the church-owned building where you worked, etc. But in 2012, NBC's Rock Center aired a piece about the church (in the midst of the Mitt Romney campaign) and the piece mentioned a ban on caffeine. A few days later, the church's official website had a statement that said, "the church revelation spelling out health practices ... does not mention the use of caffeine."

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/54797595-78/church-drinks-caffeine-lds.html.csp

This caused quite an uproar in Utah, as many viewed this as the church finally taking an official stance on whether it was OK to drink Coke, Pepsi, etc.


----------



## kdmorse (Jan 29, 2001)

After watching today's kerfuffle (or was it yesterdays, I may be a day behind) - I'm firmly back in the 'we have way to much manufactured outrage in this country' camp.

The man stands up and says there's too much sexual sinning going on, of all kinds. And that men should pair up with women for procreation. And that Jesus can take all your sins away, including Homosexuality.

And that's about it.  While I personally don't agree with him, I can't find anything terribly offensive or outrageous about what he said or how he said it. Things far more offensive than this are said 1000 times a day in churches all across the country. Yet the left's outrage machines are firing back up in full force. 

I don't actually know any gay people who even care. This all seems to be other people getting offended on behalf of gay people who couldn't care less... (Please, correct me if I'm wrong...)

I'm a pro gay-marriage liberal lefty all the way. And I honestly think it's the left that's full of bat**** insanity this time around...


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

busyba said:


> But pork is okay?


sure!!

You get to pick and chose parts of the bible you believe in. They are just like any other Christian group in that regard.


----------



## Bryanmc (Sep 5, 2000)

Azlen said:


> Christianity today is in a funny place. You look back at the life of Jesus and see that his primary opposition wasn't from those who were considered "sinners" but from the Pharisees, who were a political/religious group of the day. Jesus was known for saying such things like "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" and "God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world but that the world through him might be saved". When comparing the church today, they look a lot more like the Pharisees and a lot less like Jesus. Then they start getting involved in politics and embracing the decidedly non Christian philosophies of Ayn Rand and you get some really messed up ideas. I'm not Catholic but really have to respect a lot of what Pope Frances is saying and doing, it looks a lot more like Jesus than Rush Limbaugh and his legion of Christian followers who has decided that the Pope is a Marxist. It's all pretty sad really.


As a Christian I think you are spot on with this comment.

There are plenty of examples of churches that are staying true to Christ, but there's no denying the large political front coming from the "religious right".


----------



## rondotcom (Feb 13, 2005)

mr.unnatural said:


> Apparently no one is permitted to speak their mind anymore without repercussions. )


As it has been since time began


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

kdmorse said:


> I don't actually know any gay people who even care. This all seems to be other people getting offended on behalf of gay people who couldn't care less... (Please, correct me if I'm wrong...)


I have a couple of Gay friends who are less than thrilled with Robertson's remarks.

However, I'm guessing that many are like Dan Savage and feel that his remarks about Blacks in the South were worse.


----------



## scole250 (Nov 8, 2005)

JYoung said:


> I have a couple of Gay friends who are less than thrilled with Robertson's remarks.
> 
> However, I'm guessing that many are like Dan Savage and feel that his remarks about Blacks in the South were worse.


Nah, changing again. I'm not going to leave his made up words here...

I can't find any source that shows Phil ever said those things. Can you find a credible source for the words Dan used.

I don't think Dan actually pointed out exactly what Phil said about blacks in the south that was so bad. Like so many others, he just said that it was bad.


----------



## heySkippy (Jul 2, 2001)

JYoung said:


> However, I'm guessing that many are like Dan Savage and feel that his remarks about Blacks in the South were worse.


That's what I've been saying from the start.


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

scole250 said:


> Nah, changing again. I'm not going to leave his made up words here...
> 
> I can't find any source that shows Phil ever said those things. Can you find a credible source for the words Dan used.


I have no idea what you are talking about here.



scole250 said:


> I don't think Dan actually pointed out exactly what Phil said about blacks in the south that was so bad. Like so many others, he just said that it was bad.


So?
There's been a fair amount of discussion in this very thread as to why Robertson's remarks are "bad".

My point in posting that link was to show that there are people (and some that are Gay) who feel his whitewashing remarks about the Pre Civil Rights South were worse than his remarks about Gays.


----------



## Satchel (Dec 8, 2001)

I just can't believe A&E is so hypocritical to "suspend" Phil and yet still run his show nonstop. 

If they had any spine at all, they'd stop airing the show...but we know why that's not happening...way too much money involved.


----------



## NorthAlabama (Apr 19, 2012)

jsmeeker said:


> You get to pick and chose parts of the bible you believe in. They are just like any other Christian group in that regard.


this is what confuses me about many like phil making religious statements today - they ignore much of the bible, and go directly to homosexuality.

with a little background and history of the era, educated interpretations of the few verses referencing gays can be viewed differently:



> ...there are really only seven passages in the Bible that refer directly to homosexual behavior... Compare that to the more than 250 verses on the proper use of wealth or more than 300 on our responsibility to care for the poor and work for justice, and you appreciate quickly that homosexuality was not exactly a major theme of the Bible.
> 
> There are two passages that refer to homosexual behavior that are set in larger narratives. That is, they are part of a story, not a legal or moral code. Each deals with the threat of homosexual rape.
> 
> There are two verses in the book of Leviticus that refer to homosexual behavior. Are these regulations contingent because they derive from particular challenges and situations the Israelites faced at that time (the importance of procreation, for instance, given that Israel was a nomadic people dependent on increasing its population for survival), or do they intend to establish universal sexual norms? And...even if these regulations were normative for Israelites, do they continue to be for Christians given how many other Levitical codes are contradicted later in the New Testament or have historically been ignored by Christians.


----------



## ferrumpneuma (Jun 1, 2006)

Satchel said:


> I just can't believe A&E is so hypocritical to "suspend" Phil and yet still run his show nonstop.
> 
> If they had any spine at all, they'd stop airing the show...but we know why that's not happening...way too much money involved.


It's almost like everything is about money and only about money.


----------



## DouglasPHill (Feb 10, 2005)

ferrumpneuma said:


> It's almost like everything is about money and only about money.


Money and


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)




----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

DouglasPHill said:


> Money and


No, just money. A&E is a business. Period. It is money.


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

DouglasPHill said:


> Money and


So money and the chance to post totally irrelevant and inaccurate BS. I agree with you!


----------



## smak (Feb 11, 2000)

Good to see the pro bigotry side isn't ashamed.

-smak-


----------



## leeherman (Nov 5, 2007)

dthmj said:


> Are you speaking specifically of the Robertsons? They most certainly can read - Most of them have college educations - including masters.


Careful! You're letting facts get in the way of the bigotry on display in this thread!!

LH


----------



## Freshman JS (Nov 8, 2002)

DouglasPHill said:


> Money and


being tolerant of bigotry is not a virtue.


----------



## pendragn (Jan 21, 2001)

kdmorse said:


> I don't actually know any gay people who even care.


I have personally talked to gay people that care. They aren't outraged, they aren't calling for anyone's head on a spike, but they care.



kdmorse said:


> This all seems to be other people getting offended on behalf of gay people who couldn't care less...


I've weighed in on it, but I'm not sure I'm offended. All I've said is that while Robertson is free to voice his opinions, A&E is free to employee or not employee him as they see fit. I'm fine with A&E firing him because of his remarks. I would have also been perfectly fine had A&E not fired him.

tk


----------



## smak (Feb 11, 2000)

leeherman said:


> Careful! You're letting facts get in the way of the bigotry on display in this thread!!
> 
> LH


Sure he can read, but based on many of his remarks, he sure doesn't understand what he is reading.

-smak-


----------



## markz (Oct 22, 2002)

kdmorse said:


> And that's about it. While I personally don't agree with him, I can't find anything terribly offensive or outrageous about what he said or how he said it. Things far more offensive than this are said 1000 times a day in churches all across the country. Yet the left's outrage machines are firing back up in full force.
> 
> ...
> 
> I'm a pro gay-marriage liberal lefty all the way.


I am much like you. However, I have not heard much from the lefty liberals (of which I am one of) about the whole thing.

What I saw happen, is that Phil said some things. A&E suspended him. The right wing religious types are up in arms about his freedom of speech being taken away from him.

My right wing FB friends have been posting LOTS of pro-bible and pro-Phil stuff all day every day since this started.

My gay friends on FB have pretty much not posted about it at all. My straight friends with gay relatives have warned their FB friends to watch what they say on FB because they support their gay relatives.

A few of my lefty liberal FB friends have posted about why no one supported the Dixie Chicks' Freedom of Speech, or what Freedom of Speech actually means, but that's about it.

Much like the "War on Christmas", this seems to be a one-sided fight to me.


----------



## dthmj (Mar 12, 2002)

markz said:


> I am much like you. However, I have not heard much from the lefty liberals (of which I am one of) about the whole thing.
> 
> What I saw happen, is that Phil said some things. A&E suspended him. The right wing religious types are up in arms about his freedom of speech being taken away from him.
> 
> ...


For the most part, that's been my experience as well (with a few minor changes).


----------



## daveak (Mar 23, 2009)

I am thinking a few people in the 'backroom' at A&E are doing high fives and celebrating this event by Phil. Imagine the money and ratings for the next series airing on A&E. Nothing better to perk up your ratings than controversy. As long as the rest of the family stays with network. And they are probably just waiting for a chance for Phil to say the right words publicly so A&E can forgive him and get him back to make more money. As said above - rather hypocritical to keep airing shows with Phil in them if he is such a bad person they had to stop using him in the series. Money. AM&E - Arts, Money, and Entertainment.


----------



## Jstkiddn (Oct 15, 2003)

markz said:


> I am much like you. However, I have not heard much from the lefty liberals (of which I am one of) about the whole thing. What I saw happen, is that Phil said some things. A&E suspended him. The right wing religious types are up in arms about his freedom of speech being taken away from him. My right wing FB friends have been posting LOTS of pro-bible and pro-Phil stuff all day every day since this started. My gay friends on FB have pretty much not posted about it at all. My straight friends with gay relatives have warned their FB friends to watch what they say on FB because they support their gay relatives. A few of my lefty liberal FB friends have posted about why no one supported the Dixie Chicks' Freedom of Speech, or what Freedom of Speech actually means, but that's about it. Much like the "War on Christmas", this seems to be a one-sided fight to me.


On the other hand, I've seen very little on my feed except for one EXTREMELY outspoken pro gay rights relative simply stated that while she in no way agrees with his stance and is not even a Christian, she couldn't believe crap like this (and Justin Biebers retirement) is even front page news. Who cares what "duck dude" thinks and we should focus on more important issues than some old ******** opinion.....things like recent reduction in veterans benefits.

In reply, one of her gay friends told her that she needs to take out her tampon, take some midol and that she must have daddy issues....amongst many other not so nice things. It got quite ugly. Also, my brother in law unfriended her. So yeah...I'd say there were some liberals upset. Too bad they wound up eating their own.


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

markz said:


> Much like the "War on Christmas", this seems to be a one-sided fight to me.


Well, if there's only one thing (and sometimes it really seems like one thing is all there is) that Christians have learned to do from their observations of Christ, it's how to play at being a martyr.


----------



## brianric (Aug 29, 2002)

markz said:


> I am much like you. However, I have not heard much from the lefty liberals (of which I am one of) about the whole thing.
> 
> What I saw happen, is that Phil said some things. A&E suspended him. The right wing religious types are up in arms about his freedom of speech being taken away from him.
> 
> ...


I do sports photography for a local Christian grammar school and events at the Church that owns the school. There's a double standard that the right wing religious preach. When I brought up how the right wing is starting a boycott of the advertisers of DD, the pastor of the Church that owns the school said we have that right as Phil's first amendment rights are being violated. When I brought up the Dixie Chicks his response was they were traitors who spoke against the President in time of war. I brought up the fact the Iraq war was brought up on false pretense of weapons of mass destruction by a man for all intents and purposes was a deserter from the Texas Air National Guard in his last year of service. Seeing that he was from Georgia I was going to bring up the fact that his fore fathers were traitors for succeeding from the Union, but thought better of it.


----------



## NJChris (May 11, 2001)

pendragn said:


> I have personally talked to gay people that care. They aren't outraged, they aren't calling for anyone's head on a spike, but they care.


 I care and am not happy about it. I don't think A&E did the right thing either. They seem to only care about $$$.

BUT, I also don' want to give this jerk any more attention than he already has. Look at the size of this thread...

I would also like to say that gay people do not operate under a single hive mind. I find it funny that people say they have talked to a few gay people and that means that's how every one thinks. We're all individuals too. 

The sad thing is, what this bozo says is what gay people have to put up with all the time. It's not right.. but I do think as time goes on this thinking becomes a little less each year. (hopefully).


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

brianric said:


> I do sports photography for a local Christian grammar school and events at the Church that owns the school. There's a double standard that the right wing religious preach. When I brought up how the right wing is starting a boycott of the advertisers of DD, the pastor of the Church that owns the school said we have that right as Phil's first amendment rights are being violated. When I brought up the Dixie Chicks his response was they were traitors who spoke against the President in time of war.


Did you ask him what he's doing to show his support of Martin Bashir?


----------



## JFriday (Mar 20, 2002)

brianric said:


> I do sports photography for a local Christian grammar school and events at the Church that owns the school. There's a double standard that the right wing religious preach. When I brought up how the right wing is starting a boycott of the advertisers of DD, the pastor of the Church that owns the school said we have that right as Phil's first amendment rights are being violated. When I brought up the Dixie Chicks his response was *they were traitors who spoke against the President in time of war.* I brought up the fact the Iraq war was brought up on false pretense of weapons of mass destruction by a man for all intents and purposes was a deserter from the Texas Air National Guard in his last year of service. Seeing that he was from Georgia I was going to bring up the fact that his fore fathers were traitors for succeeding from the Union, but thought better of it.


I wonder if he considers anyone that speaks out against Obama traitors?


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

brianric said:


> There's a double standard that the right wing religious preach.


----------



## bengalfreak (Oct 20, 2002)

JFriday said:


> I wonder if he considers anyone that speaks out against Obama traitors?


That's a REALLY good question.


----------



## Turtleboy (Mar 24, 2001)

NJChris said:


> I care and am not happy about it. I don't think A&E did the right thing either. They seem to only care about $$$.


What else should they care about?

I think they're eventually going to reinstate him and the series will go back to normal - because it is in their financial interest to do so.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

NJChris said:


> I care and am not happy about it. I don't think A&E did the right thing either. They seem to only care about $$$.
> 
> BUT, I also don' want to give this jerk any more attention than he already has. Look at the size of this thread...
> 
> ...


Question for you and the other gay participants in this thread:

What is it specifically about Phil's statements (if anything) that offends you? Does that fact that he considers homosexuality to be a sin bother you, or is it something else that he said?


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

Didn't he call it beastiality? That's pretty offensive.


----------



## ClutchBrake (Sep 5, 2001)

jsmeeker said:


> Didn't he call it beastiality? That's pretty offensive.


No. He was asked about sins. He said to start with homosexuality and morph out from there. Bestiality, infidelity, etc. He wasn't saying homosexuality will lead to bestiality, just that both were sins. That's why I found his comments about pre-civil rights black people the most offensive.


----------



## NorthAlabama (Apr 19, 2012)

why didn't murder make his list, or lying, or stealing? why did he start his list with sexual acts, and fail to mention rape? he could have just said all "sin" was against his religion, and "sinners" wouldn't inherit the kingdom. instead, he chose to name his least favorites, starting with homosexuality, when asked.

it's telling about his frame of thought - and, yes, those were by far his least offensive of his comments. 

as free speech goes, when you proclaim to be christian, then speak in an unchristian like manner, be prepared for the free speech of those who point it out.


----------



## Jstkiddn (Oct 15, 2003)

NorthAlabama said:


> why didn't murder make his list, or lying, or stealing? why did he start his list with sexual acts, and fail to mention rape? he could have just said all "sin" was against his religion, and "sinners" wouldn't inherit the kingdom. instead, he chose to name his least favorites, starting with homosexuality, when asked.


I'm going to go out on a limb and guess the reporter asked him specifically about homosexuality, which started his tirade about sexual sin. If so, the reporter got what he was looking for.


----------



## pendragn (Jan 21, 2001)

Jstkiddn said:


> I'm going to go out on a limb and guess the reporter asked him specifically about homosexuality, which started his tirade about sexual sin. If so, the reporter got what he was looking for.


Nope. He was asked, "What, in your mind, is sinful?" Now, there was some context, but he could have easily made his point without calling out homosexuality.

tk


----------



## NorthAlabama (Apr 19, 2012)

Jstkiddn said:


> I'm going to go out on a limb and guess the reporter asked him specifically about homosexuality, which started his tirade about sexual sin. If so, the reporter got what he was looking for.


the transcript i read listed the reporter's question as


> What, in your mind, is sinful?


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

jsmeeker said:


> Didn't he call it beastiality? That's pretty offensive.


I think he was just confused about the whole thing with gay guys who are into "bears".


----------



## NorthAlabama (Apr 19, 2012)

busyba said:


> I think he was just confused about the whole thing with gay guys who are into "bears".


----------



## Jstkiddn (Oct 15, 2003)

busyba said:


> I think he was just confused about the whole thing with gay guys who are into "bears".


Best quote of the thread. Lol


----------



## Robin (Dec 6, 2001)

Now Alabama is tromping all over A&E's constitutionally protected freedom of speech. *shakes head sadly*

http://yellowhammernews.com/nationalpolitics/alabama-senator-introduces-duck-commander-resolution/


----------



## Jstkiddn (Oct 15, 2003)

Robin said:


> Now Alabama is tromping all over A&E's constitutionally protected freedom of speech. *shakes head sadly*
> 
> http://yellowhammernews.com/nationalpolitics/alabama-senator-introduces-duck-commander-resolution/


Oh good lord! I'm not even sure what to say. I don't get why it's so hard for everyone to grasp this is not a constitutional issue. I'm not the brightest bulb in the box, and even I can understand that.

If society as a whole does not agree with A&E then they are sure to reap the consequences of their actions.... and vice versa.

This is not a government concern and last time I checked they have plenty other issues they need to be working on.


----------



## NorthAlabama (Apr 19, 2012)

Robin said:


> Now Alabama is tromping all over A&E's constitutionally protected freedom of speech. *shakes head sadly*


 well, at least the legislation hasn't passed (yet), only introduced. 


> Fielding represents Senate District 11, which includes parts of Calhoun, Coosa, Elmore, and Talladega Counties.


looking at his constituency, this bill no more surprising than phil's comments. hope there are enough state legislators with the common sense to let it die in committee.


----------



## Jstkiddn (Oct 15, 2003)

After reading the proposed resolution, I have to ask is that even legal? A resolution that reads like a church sermon? Like from a separation of church and state view?


----------



## Turtleboy (Mar 24, 2001)

Jstkiddn said:


> After reading the proposed resolution, I have to ask is that even legal? A resolution that reads like a church sermon? Like from a separation of church and state view?


It's just a resolution. It expresses the thoughts and views of the legislature. It doesn't really mean anything.


----------



## markz (Oct 22, 2002)

The day that I ever do anything that garners the support of Sarah Palin, Rick Santorum, Tedd Cruz, or the Westboro Baptist Church, is the day I want someone to pull the plug on me!


----------



## markz (Oct 22, 2002)

Stories Merge As 'Duck Dynasty' Fans Plan 'Chick-Phil-A' Day


----------



## Jstkiddn (Oct 15, 2003)

Turtleboy said:


> It's just a resolution. It expresses the thoughts and views of the legislature. It doesn't really mean anything.


Thanks for the explanation.

Glad they have so much free time on their hands.


----------



## Robin (Dec 6, 2001)

markz said:


> Much like the "War on Christmas", this seems to be a one-sided fight to me.


Yep. I've been fairly oblivious to the whole controversy. I first noticed it when my red-state friends started complaining about it taking over their FB feeds.



Turtleboy said:


> I don't think there is a "pretty clear-cut definition" of "sinful behavior."


"Stuff you do that I don't like."


----------



## DouglasPHill (Feb 10, 2005)

> "Stuff you do that I don't like."


:up:


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

markz said:


> Stories Merge As 'Duck Dynasty' Fans Plan 'Chick-Phil-A' Day


Gee, what a surprise...


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

markz said:


> Stories Merge As 'Duck Dynasty' Fans Plan 'Chick-Phil-A' Day


They should hold it a day or two earlier.


----------



## mr.unnatural (Feb 2, 2006)

What someone says only matters if someone else is listening.  I've learned to shut it all down and go on with my own life.

Now if I can only get my wife to understand I really don't give a s**t what she heard on Fox News today.


----------



## FireMen2003 (Apr 1, 2004)

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/ae-reverses-decision-duck-dynasty-patriarch


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

A&E seems to think making two bad decisions is the same as making a good one.


----------



## markz (Oct 22, 2002)

eddyj said:


> A&E seems to think making two bad decisions is the same as making a good one.


Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do!


----------



## daveak (Mar 23, 2009)

He's back. Though it will be like he never left.


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

So are the rest of us supposed to lament the infringement of A&E's First Amendment rights now, or are we to just continue with _not_ being f**king idiots?


----------



## Robin (Dec 6, 2001)

I'm going to continue not being a f'ing idiot. But mostly just because I'm lazy.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

There's the least surprising news of the week. If anyone thought A&E was going to stick to their guns, when it was clear the Robertson's had all the leverage, they were deluding themselves.


----------



## markz (Oct 22, 2002)

busyba said:


> So are the rest of us supposed to lament the infringement of A&E's First Amendment rights now, or are we to just continue with _not_ being f**king idiots?





Robin said:


> I'm going to continue not being a f'ing idiot. But mostly just because I'm lazy.


These!

I posted this on my FB page just to stir up one friend that has posted nothing but Duck Dynasty stuff every day since this started:



> So now that this A&E mess is over, am I allowed to eat at Cracker Barrel again?


and



> Were we boycotting them because they pulled his stuff or because they brought it back. I know I am supposed to be angry at something or other, but I am not sure where I am supposed to direct that anger!


----------



## jjd_87 (Jan 31, 2011)

You should boycott Cracker Barrel because if you eat there you will get diarrhea.


----------



## ClutchBrake (Sep 5, 2001)

jjd_87 said:


> You should boycott Cracker Barrel because if you eat there you will get diarrhea.


No kidding. The last time I ate there was two years ago. My niece, nephews, and wife have been calling me road pooper ever since.


----------



## Cereal_Killer (Jan 5, 2007)

DevdogAZ said:


> There's the least surprising news of the week. If anyone thought A&E was going to stick to their guns, when it was clear the Robertson's had all the leverage, they were deluding themselves.


Damn! I bet Paula Deen is pissed!!

Imagine what the outcome would have been if she had Sarah Palin, a state senator, and all the other supporters that Phil Robertson had - on her side.

Would she still be host a cooking show today?


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

I've never watched the show and never will but since his face is all over the news, I have to say that Phil Robertson looks like a hillbilly bin Laden.


----------



## dianebrat (Jul 6, 2002)

annnnnnnnnnnd A&E has backed down.

http://defamer.gawker.com/a-e-caves-to-demands-of-2-reinstates-phil-robertson-t-1490590041
Nevermind, I missed the link in http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?p=9948207#post9948207


----------



## Jstkiddn (Oct 15, 2003)

Cereal_Killer said:


> Damn! I bet Paula Deen is pissed!!


Yeah, talk about a double standard. Not to mention her offensive language was something used decades ago and was forced to admit to using during a lawsuit, which was eventually thrown out of court because it had no merit. The real topper is that the offensive word she is admitted to using so many years ago is the very same word I can hear 100s of times a day in most current rap songs.


----------



## NorthAlabama (Apr 19, 2012)

Cereal_Killer said:


> Damn! I bet Paula Deen is pissed!!
> 
> Imagine what the outcome would have been if she had Sarah Palin, a state senator, and all the other supporters that Phil Robertson had - on her side.
> 
> Would she still be host a cooking show today?


pd should have claimed her comments were part of her religious beliefs, then it would have been ok.


----------



## bengalfreak (Oct 20, 2002)

NorthAlabama said:


> pd should have claimed her comments were part of her religious beliefs, then it would have been ok.


I'm pretty sure that was tongue in cheek because the KKK claim exactly that and its definitely not okay.


----------



## heySkippy (Jul 2, 2001)

Ah, who'd have thought Phil was such a romantic?

http://deadstate.org/heres-video-fr...ould-marry-fifteen-or-sixteen-year-old-girls/


----------



## Turtleboy (Mar 24, 2001)

I can't tell if the cartoonist is being serious or facetious. I don't know if it deserves a  or a  .


----------



## Adam1115 (Dec 15, 2003)

I think he is joking about the fact that he married his wife at 15.

Anyway, marrying a 15 year old is NOT pedophillia, that's ridiculous.


----------



## Jstkiddn (Oct 15, 2003)

I've seen a different video of him making that same statement and in context he says "There's an old saying in the south that if you want your wife to pick your ducks you have to marry them when they are 15 or 16. If you wait until they are 20, the only thing they will pick is your pockets." He tells that story when he talks about marrying Miss Kay. It's sort of a joking lead in to the fact that they got married at a very young age. 

I think he married Kay when she was 16, but he wasn't much older than that himself. They've been married 50 years, so I guess it worked out.


----------



## NorthAlabama (Apr 19, 2012)

Adam1115 said:


> I think he is joking about the fact that he married his wife at 15.
> 
> Anyway, marrying a 15 year old is NOT pedophillia, that's ridiculous.


you're right - it's called ephebophilia.


----------



## Jstkiddn (Oct 15, 2003)

Whatever it's called, "back in the day" it wasn't uncommon, especially among very poor people in the South like Phil and Kay. Do any genealogy at all and you can see how just not that long ago, it was very common for a girl to be married well before she finished high school, because really what other options in life did she have? What was the sense in waiting? Her lot in life was to cook, clean and have babies. 

My own grandmother was married at the age of 15 and had her first baby when she was 16. 

Hard as it is to believe, it may still be within certain socioeconomic groups. There was a "boy" of 18 arrested here about two months ago for child abuse (beat the baby...horrible case) and according to the newspapers his wife and mother of his two children is only 16 or 17. She's still goes to high school and is already married with two kids. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that both of them come from poor and uneducated families.


----------



## Turtleboy (Mar 24, 2001)

NorthAlabama said:


> you're right - it's called ephebophilia.


Not if you're a teen yourself.


----------



## dthmj (Mar 12, 2002)

My mother was 16, my dad 19 when they got married. My mom was basically fending for herself as she came from alcoholic and abusive parents.

They were married for 43 years when she died of breast cancer.

Society changes - it was normal then to get married young.


----------



## Howie (May 3, 2004)

I can't believe this is even a show on TV that people actually watch. It just makes me long for the good ole days when there were compelling things to watch, like Honey BooBoo.


----------



## JoBeth66 (Feb 15, 2002)

My first boyfriend's parents were married in the 40's when he was 15 & she was 14, it was definitely not uncommon in the south - in fact, his youngest brother & oldest niece were born on the same day at the same hospital. My mom was 18, my dad was 19 (that was in 1949). Of course, I was just 19 (by a month) and hubby was 22 when we got married in 1986, so it still happens.


----------



## pendragn (Jan 21, 2001)

JoBeth66 said:


> My first boyfriend's parents were married in the 40's when he was 15 & she was 14, it was definitely not uncommon in the south - in fact, his youngest brother & oldest niece were born on the same day at the same hospital. My mom was 18, my dad was 19 (that was in 1949). Of course, I was just 19 (by a month) and hubby was 22 when we got married in 1986, so it still happens.


I don't disagree with any of this. But, in my head, and most of society's, there's a huge black line between 18 and 17. I don't recommend anyone get married at 18, but it doesn't make my skin crawl when I hear about it. I get really skeeved out when I hear about 14 year olds getting married. In my head it's not even close to the same thing.

tk


----------



## Jstkiddn (Oct 15, 2003)




----------



## Jstkiddn (Oct 15, 2003)

pendragn said:


> I don't disagree with any of this. But, in my head, and most of society's, there's a huge black line between 18 and 17. I don't recommend anyone get married at 18, but it doesn't make my skin crawl when I hear about it. I get really skeeved out when I hear about 14 year olds getting married. In my head it's not even close to the same thing.
> 
> tk


That's very true today, but even one generation ago that was not the case. As was stated previously, society changes.

My own mother and father first met when she was 14 and he was 21. They met on a train to San Francisco (she was on vacation with her mother and he was on his way to SF to board on a ship to Hawaii). They wrote letters for four years and he came back stateside from Hawaii when she was 18 and married her. They were very happily married until his death. I *think* they had been married 46 years when he died, but I could be off a year or two. Over 45 years for sure.

Today, he would be arrested. Times change.


----------



## JoBeth66 (Feb 15, 2002)

pendragn said:


> I don't disagree with any of this. But, in my head, and most of society's, there's a huge black line between 18 and 17. I don't recommend anyone get married at 18, but it doesn't make my skin crawl when I hear about it. I get really skeeved out when I hear about 14 year olds getting married. In my head it's not even close to the same thing.
> 
> tk


Meh. I met Jack when I was 14 & he was almost 18. I knew the day I met him that I would marry him (and told my best friend so. She laughed at me.) He went into the military right after graduation. We wrote letters & had 1 or 2 phone calls a month and 1 or 2 "in person" visits a year when he was on leave for 4 years until I graduated HS and we got married. So we were seriously dating when I was under 18 and he was over. Never bothered me or my family - but yeah, now? He'd probably be on Megan's List.


----------



## NorthAlabama (Apr 19, 2012)

Turtleboy said:


> Not if you're a teen yourself.


you're right, too. but the thought of a 19yo dating or marrying a 15yo makes my skin crawl. there's too much development during those 4 years for me to believe the 15yo can be trusted to make the decision in their best interest.


----------



## lambertman (Dec 21, 2002)

Turtleboy said:


> I can't tell if the cartoonist is being serious or facetious. I don't know if it deserves a  or a  .


Varvel ALWAYS gets a


----------



## Test (Dec 8, 2004)

NorthAlabama said:


> you're right, too. but the thought of a 19yo dating or marrying a 15yo makes my skin crawl. there's too much development during those 4 years for me to believe the 15yo can be trusted to make the decision in their best interest.


Are you concerned about a gap in ages, just being too young or something else? Age is a funny thing. Did the 19yo just turn 19 and is the 15yo a day from turning 16? Is that a small enough gap?

What if they were freshly 18 and an old 22 (about to be 23)? 4 years close to 5? Is that creepy crawly? That is an entire college life full of experiences and growing.


----------



## Test (Dec 8, 2004)

Jstkiddn said:


> That's very true today, but even one generation ago that was not the case. As was stated previously, society changes.
> 
> My own mother and father first met when she was 14 and he was 21. They met on a train to San Francisco (she was on vacation with her mother and he was on his way to SF to board on a ship to Hawaii). They wrote letters for four years and he came back stateside from Hawaii when she was 18 and married her. They were very happily married until his death. I *think* they had been married 46 years when he died, but I could be off a year or two. Over 45 years for sure.
> 
> Today, he would be arrested. Times change.





JoBeth66 said:


> Meh. I met Jack when I was 14 & he was almost 18. I knew the day I met him that I would marry him (and told my best friend so. She laughed at me.) He went into the military right after graduation. We wrote letters & had 1 or 2 phone calls a month and 1 or 2 "in person" visits a year when he was on leave for 4 years until I graduated HS and we got married. So we were seriously dating when I was under 18 and he was over. Never bothered me or my family - but yeah, now? He'd probably be on Megan's List.


That's great and probably more common than anyone realizes. I just wonder my reaction if I had a 14yo daughter and she told me she was talking to an 18yo or 21yo...and this day and age it would be online with maybe some snapchatting involved. Throwing that last part in makes it creepy.


----------



## Adam1115 (Dec 15, 2003)

Of all the things he said, this one is nothing. The article trying to paint a guy who has been married for 50 years as a child molester is ridiculous.

We can stay focused on the actual obnoxious things he said without taking other non-issues out of context.


----------



## Jstkiddn (Oct 15, 2003)

Test said:


> That's great and probably more common than anyone realizes. I just wonder my reaction if I had a 14yo daughter and she told me she was talking to an 18yo or 21yo...and this day and age it would be online with maybe some snapchatting involved. Throwing that last part in makes it creepy.


Oh absolutely! I have a thirteen year old daughter and if next year some 21 year old guy started sniffing around, there very possibly could be firearms involved. Then I'd let my husband have at him.  Funny how things change.

It was more innocent time back then too. Boys didn't expect sex like they do now. Yes.... They wanted it, but odds weren't as good that they were going to get it. Now they not just want sex , they expect the whole porn star pictures and video to go along with it and they don't have to do much looking to find a girl who's willing. That just wasn't the case back then.

My parents "dated" through letters and while I have no doubt my dad probably sowed lots of wild oats while overseas, he wasn't expecting my then teenager mom to have sex with him, I'm betting until after they were married. They never even lived in the same state until after they were married.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

Adam1115 said:


> Of all the things he said, this one is nothing. The article trying to paint a guy who has been married for 50 years as a child molester is ridiculous. We can stay focused on the actual obnoxious things he said without taking other non-issues out of context.


Agreed in principle but it does demonstrate how morals (and hence sins) are relative. In that, it is pertinent.


----------



## Jstkiddn (Oct 15, 2003)

TonyD79 said:


> Agreed in principle but it does demonstrate how morals (and hence sins) are relative. In that, it is pertinent.


But he was a teenager himself. I fail to see this as a moral issue as much as I do a social issue. It was normal and accepted back then and it's not now because it is assumed they are too young to make that type of decision for themselves. Society and it's collective thoughts change.


----------



## ngsmith (Jan 18, 2002)

http://bobmannblog.com/2013/12/28/i...-students-powerful-message-to-phil-robertson/


----------



## dthmj (Mar 12, 2002)

Test said:


> That's great and probably more common than anyone realizes. I just wonder my reaction if I had a 14yo daughter and she told me she was talking to an 18yo or 21yo...and this day and age it would be online with maybe some snapchatting involved. Throwing that last part in makes it creepy.


There is a vast difference between today and 50 years ago.

I wouldn't let my 15 year old get married today - but back when my mom did it, it was a normal every day thing.


----------



## Howie (May 3, 2004)

My mom was 17 and dad was 18 when they married. It's funny, they never told me and my older sister when their anniversary is. I think my sister came a little before the 9 months were up, and they just wanted to keep that information to themselves. That sort of thing was strictly taboo back in those days.


----------



## NorthAlabama (Apr 19, 2012)

Test said:


> Are you concerned about a gap in ages, just being too young or something else? Age is a funny thing. Did the 19yo just turn 19 and is the 15yo a day from turning 16? Is that a small enough gap?


just the being too young.


Test said:


> What if they were freshly 18 and an old 22 (about to be 23)? 4 years close to 5? Is that creepy crawly? That is an entire college life full of experiences and growing.


we were talking teenagers. don't know where you're pulling this from, but i have an idea.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Test said:


> Are you concerned about a gap in ages, just being too young or something else? Age is a funny thing. Did the 19yo just turn 19 and is the 15yo a day from turning 16? Is that a small enough gap?
> 
> What if they were freshly 18 and an old 22 (about to be 23)? 4 years close to 5? Is that creepy crawly? That is an entire college life full of experiences and growing.


I don't think it has anything to do with the gap. It's solely about how young they are. 18 and 22 isn't a problem at all, because both of them are adults. 14 and 18 is a problem because the 14 year old is not an adult.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

Jstkiddn said:


> But he was a teenager himself. I fail to see this as a moral issue as much as I do a social issue. It was normal and accepted back then and it's not now because it is assumed they are too young to make that type of decision for themselves. Society and it's collective thoughts change.


Of course there is a connection. Society determines morals. It was taboo (immoral) for black and white to marry as black were considered literally animals a while back. Closer in time, it was considered a sin by many churches for inter church marriages. Some still consider it taboo. But as society changed, so did the sin level of marrying outside a religion. Heck, it was considered a sin for a catholic to even step inside a non-catholic place of worship. No longer. What changed? Social acceptance. Sin is not a standard that never changes no matter how much people like to point to the Bible. Even those choose which sins still make sense to them.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

TonyD79 said:


> Of course there is a connection. Society determines morals. It was taboo (immoral) for black and white to marry as black were considered literally animals a while back. Closer in time, it was considered a sin by many churches for inter church marriages. Some still consider it taboo. But as society changed, so did the sin level of marrying outside a religion. Heck, it was considered a sin for a catholic to even step inside a non-catholic place of worship. No longer. What changed? Social acceptance. Sin is not a standard that never changes no matter how much people like to point to the Bible. Even those choose which sins still make sense to them.


I think you're confusing sin with societal acceptance. Sins are not relative. If something was a sin 200 years ago, it's still a sin today, regardless of whether society has evolved and now accepts that behavior as normal.

What's accepted by society will constantly change. But society doesn't determine what is or isn't a sin. The concept of sin is a religious idea. Thus, sin is something prohibited by God. God's determination of what kinds of actions are sinful do not change with society's changing morals.

If you want to say that "Action X" used to be considered taboo but is now widely accepted, I don't have any problem with that characterization. But to say that because society now widely accepts something, it ceases to be a sin is categorically false.

Now clearly we can debate about whether individual actions are sins. That's going to be different for each different belief system. But if a belief system morphs to keep up with society, and decides that something used to be a sin but isn't a sin any longer, was that belief system really based on sound principles in the first place?


----------



## NorthAlabama (Apr 19, 2012)

back to phil's comments:


> Look, you wait til they get to be twenty years-old and the only picking thats going to take place is your pocket. You got to marry these girls when theyre about fifteen or sixteen and theyll pick your ducks.


two teenagers, both 17-19yo, no issues for me, i wish them the best, they'll need it. but a man advocating marrying 15-16yo girls?

can't wait to hear a&e's (and sarah palin's) next statements to the press. maybe chik-fil-a can host specialty catering at weddings for 15-16yo girls.


----------



## Jstkiddn (Oct 15, 2003)

NorthAlabama said:


> back to phil's comments: two teenagers, both 17-19yo, no issues for me, i wish them the best, they'll need it. but a man advocating marrying 15-16yo girls? can't wait to hear a&e's (and sarah palin's) next statements to the press. maybe chik-fil-a can host specialty catering at weddings for 15-16yo girls.


Again, I don't think he's advocating marrying 15 year old girls in this day and time. I bet none of his daughters-in-law were that age when married his sons and neither will any of his granddaughters be married at that age. The story was simply a "humorous" way to tell of his own marriage to Kay when they were both teenagers....fifty years ago.


----------



## RGM1138 (Oct 6, 1999)

markz said:


> The day that I ever do anything that garners the support of Sarah Palin, Rick Santorum, Tedd Cruz, or the Westboro Baptist Church, is the day I want someone to pull the plug on me!


I know exactly what you mean. I feel the same way about Harry "I miss my avocados" Reid, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Howard Dean, Maxine Waters, Alan Grayson and Nancy Pelosi.

Not to mention, honorary DNC members Ed Schultz and Chris "I almost forgot he was Black" Matthews.

Ugh, put a bullet to me.


----------



## Test (Dec 8, 2004)

NorthAlabama said:


> you're right, too. but the thought of a 19yo dating or marrying a 15yo makes my skin crawl. there's too much development during those 4 years for me to believe the 15yo can be trusted to make the decision in their best interest.





NorthAlabama said:


> just the being too young.
> 
> we were talking teenagers. don't know where you're pulling this from, but i have an idea.


It's just your original statement wasn't clear to me and since this is a message board and not a real conversation, I was asking to clarify while throwing out another example to save some time.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

DevdogAZ said:


> I think you're confusing sin with societal acceptance. Sins are not relative. If something was a sin 200 years ago, it's still a sin today, regardless of whether society has evolved and now accepts that behavior as normal.


Not true and I even gave an example. The Catholic Church taught when I was a kid that entering a non-Catholic Church was a sin. They do not anymore. There are many examples of sins changing with the times.


----------



## MikeCC (Jun 19, 2004)

I am more than a little amused how some of our more, ahem, intense partisans here on the board are making this subject a proxy for political philosophy. 

By taking this very specific situation and using it in a general manner, we may be edging closer to discussing politics, tossing the clichés of both the right and the left at each other. Sure, so far, we haven't become too strident, which is surprising, given how prickly and surly we can get when talking the merits of one show or the other. 

I simply hope we can begin to let the subject become less red vs. blue, and more just how one network and one show are in a bit of a kerfuffle.

We owe it to the children.


----------



## sbourgeo (Nov 10, 2000)

TonyD79 said:


> The Catholic Church taught when I was a kid that entering a non-Catholic Church was a sin.


As a recovering Catholic myself, I seem to recall the church making one feel guilty about entering anyone.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

TonyD79 said:


> Not true and I even gave an example. The Catholic Church taught when I was a kid that entering a non-Catholic Church was a sin. They do not anymore. There are many examples of sins changing with the times.


See the last paragraph of my post that you quoted.


----------



## Jstkiddn (Oct 15, 2003)

If anyone wants to hear him tell the "marry them young" story in full context, then FF to 1:35 of this video: http://www.iamsecond.com/seconds/the-robertsons/ Immediately afterwards, it cuts to Miss Kay talking about how poor they were and that they had their first son when she was 17 and Phil was 18. Unless she's telling and out and out lie, that would have made him 17 when he married her.

Hardly child molestation. Just two stupid kids that got married way too young, but fortunately it seems to have worked out for them. They are the exception.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

DevdogAZ said:


> See the last paragraph of my post that you quoted.


So what? I read it the first time. It is meaningless philosophy.


----------



## BrandonRe (Jul 15, 2006)

I can't believe that anyone really thinks he is actually advocating men marrying 15 year old girls. He is using hyperbole in order to elicit laughs from the audience. Warming them up before he gets to the meat of his message.


----------



## brianric (Aug 29, 2002)

TonyD79 said:


> Not true and I even gave an example. The Catholic Church taught when I was a kid that entering a non-Catholic Church was a sin. They do not anymore. There are many examples of sins changing with the times.


Eating meat on Friday is one that comes to mind mind.


----------



## billypritchard (May 7, 2001)

BrandonRe said:


> I can't believe that anyone really thinks he is actually advocating men marrying 15 year old girls. He is using hyperbole in order to elicit laughs from the audience. Warming them up before he gets to the meat of his message.


And the meat of the message is how to properly acquire a wife who will not be wise in the ways of the world? Who you can bend to your will? Who hasn't learned to be uppity? I may be confused about what his true message was.

I don't have a problem with his actions in the past re: his marriage.


----------



## NorthAlabama (Apr 19, 2012)

MikeCC said:


> I am more than a little amused how some of our more, ahem, intense partisans here on the board are making this subject a proxy for political philosophy.


i would mention dd is scheduled to headline fox news all-american new year's eve 2014, but it might be too intensely partisan...


----------



## MikeCC (Jun 19, 2004)

NorthAlabama said:


> > Originally Posted by *MikeCC *
> > I am more than a little amused how some of our more, ahem, intense partisans here on the board are making this subject a proxy for political philosophy.
> 
> 
> i would mention dd is scheduled to headline fox news all-american new year's eve 2014, but it might be too intensely partisan...


Yep. Thanks, I think you made my point.


----------



## JoBeth66 (Feb 15, 2002)

brianric said:


> Eating meat on Friday is one that comes to mind mind.


That rule hasn't actually changed. You're still not supposed to eat meat on Friday unless you sacrifice something else in its place (it's not about 'eating meat', it's about sacrifice). If you're not sacrificing anything, then you're not supposed to eat meat.

The 'you can eat meat on Fridays' was all that a lot of people pay attention to, though - they skip the rest of it. We ate fish every Friday when I was growing up, my mother wouldn't (and still doesn't) serve anything else in her home.


----------



## NorthAlabama (Apr 19, 2012)

MikeCC said:


> Yep. Thanks, I think you made my point.


anytime  - and, happy new year!


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

JoBeth66 said:


> That rule hasn't actually changed. You're still not supposed to eat meat on Friday unless you sacrifice something else in its place (it's not about 'eating meat', it's about sacrifice). If you're not sacrificing anything, then you're not supposed to eat meat.
> 
> The 'you can eat meat on Fridays' was all that a lot of people pay attention to, though - they skip the rest of it. We ate fish every Friday when I was growing up, my mother wouldn't (and still doesn't) serve anything else in her home.


But the days of Abstinence were done away with. And I think the fish rule (or equivalent) is not only for Lent, not year round. But I don't really keep up with the details any more.


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

eddyj said:


> But the days of Abstinence were done away with. And I think the fish rule (or equivalent) is not only for Lent, not year round. But I don't really keep up with the details any more.


That's my understanding.
Only for the Fridays of Lent and Ash Wednesday.


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

Excuse me, I speak EddyJ:



eddyj said:


> But the days of Abstinence were done away with. And I think the fish rule (or equivalent) is *now* only for Lent, not year round. But I don't really keep up with the details any more.


----------



## brianric (Aug 29, 2002)

eddyj said:


> But the days of Abstinence were done away with. And I think the fish rule (or equivalent) is not only for Lent, not year round. But I don't really keep up with the details any more.


JoBeth is correct. http://catholicism.about.com/od/catholicliving/f/Fasting_Rules.htm


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

I meant Fasting when I said Abstinence.  But I still had it wrong. 

Of course, no meat just means going out for fancy seafood in most cases, which totally makes the whole sacrifice bit moot.


----------



## RGM1138 (Oct 6, 1999)

eddyj said:


> I meant Fasting when I said Abstinence.  But I still had it wrong.
> 
> Of course, no meat just means going out for fancy seafood in most cases, which totally makes the whole sacrifice bit moot.


The word is "moo." It's like a cow's opinion. It just doesn't matter.


----------



## MikeCC (Jun 19, 2004)

RGM1138 said:


> The word is "moo." It's like a cow's opinion. It just doesn't matter.


Thanks, Joey.


----------



## daveak (Mar 23, 2009)

eddyj said:


> I meant Fasting when I said Abstinence.  But I still had it wrong.
> 
> Of course, no meat just means going out for fancy seafood in most cases, which totally makes the whole sacrifice bit moot.


Did they not teach you about Abstinence in school?  Fasting, Abstinence. You're not getting something you want in either case. Though one is typically associated with eating something.


----------



## RGM1138 (Oct 6, 1999)

MikeCC said:


> Thanks, Joey.


:up:


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

JoBeth66 said:


> That rule hasn't actually changed. You're still not supposed to eat meat on Friday unless you sacrifice something else in its place (it's not about 'eating meat', it's about sacrifice). If you're not sacrificing anything, then you're not supposed to eat meat. The 'you can eat meat on Fridays' was all that a lot of people pay attention to, though - they skip the rest of it. We ate fish every Friday when I was growing up, my mother wouldn't (and still doesn't) serve anything else in her home.


How old are you? Until Vatican II, meat was forbidden on every Friday. After, it was only Fridays during Lent. And only if you were an adult under the age of 58 or something like that. Of course it changed.

Or how about how it was vulgar and a sin to perform the mass in anything but Latin until the same Vatican II.

Catholicism isn't the only religion that changes. Ask the Mormons about black church leaders.


----------



## JoBeth66 (Feb 15, 2002)

TonyD79 said:


> How old are you? Until Vatican II, meat was forbidden on every Friday. After, it was only Fridays during Lent. And only if you were an adult under the age of 58 or something like that. Of course it changed.


Not true. Meat is still forbidden on Fridays unless you make some other sacrifice. The canon hasn't changed.



Catholic Canon said:


> Can. 1250: The penitential days and times in the universal Church are every Friday of the whole year and the season of Lent.
> 
> Can. 1251: *Abstinence from meat, or from some other food as determined by the Episcopal Conference, is to be observed on all Fridays*, unless a solemnity should fall on a Friday. Abstinence and fasting are to be observed on Ash Wednesday and Good Friday.
> 
> Can. 1252: The law of abstinence binds those who have completed their fourteenth year. The law of fasting binds those who have attained their majority, until the beginning of their sixtieth year. Pastors of souls and parents are to ensure that even those who by reason of their age are not bound by the law of fasting and abstinence, are taught the true meaning of penance.


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

I had beef and pork tamales. That's not fish.

Ruh roh!!!!


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

I had an awesome rib eye steak for dinner tonight.


----------



## Tobashadow (Nov 11, 2006)

JoBeth66 said:


> Not true. Meat is still forbidden on Fridays unless you make some other sacrifice. The canon hasn't changed.


And thus the Fish Fillet was born!


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

JoBeth66 said:


> Not true. Meat is still forbidden on Fridays unless you make some other sacrifice. The canon hasn't changed.


 You'd better explain that to every priest in the nation.

And are you portraying this as NOT a change?

Come on.


----------



## brianric (Aug 29, 2002)

Tobashadow said:


> And thus the Fish Fillet was born!


Back in the 1960ies my mother even served up tuna hot dogs, yuck!


----------



## JoBeth66 (Feb 15, 2002)

TonyD79 said:


> You'd better explain that to every priest in the nation.
> 
> And are you portraying this as NOT a change?
> 
> Come on.


Oh, no, it was definitely a change. It went from 'no meat on Fridays' to 'no meat on Fridays unless you make another sacrifice'.

And if the priests aren't teaching canon correctly, there's not much I can say or do about that - the language in canon is pretty clear, I posted it up there. Can you read that to say it's ok to eat meat without question?

Here's a link that explains it a little better. As much as it can be. The Episcopal Conference was less than direct in their response.


----------



## Alfer (Aug 7, 2003)

New episodes start tonight.


----------



## Azlen (Nov 25, 2002)

Alfer said:


> New episodes start tonight.


Who wants to bet that they have their highest rated show ever tonight?


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

Azlen said:


> Who wants to bet that they have their highest rated show ever tonight?


Of course they will. People will watch to help "protect the First Amendment."[sic]


----------



## scole250 (Nov 8, 2005)

busyba said:


> Of course they will. People will watch to help "protect the First Amendment."[sic]


Bitter?


----------



## NorthAlabama (Apr 19, 2012)

Azlen said:


> Who wants to bet that they have their highest rated show ever tonight?


i would expect as much. the real test will be the ratings in six months, after the story has settled, and the more moderate viewers can't get the show's new public profile out of their minds.


----------



## Tivortex (Feb 29, 2004)

scole250 said:


> Bitter?


Nothing new there. (I unblocked him just to take a peek)


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

scole250 said:


> Bitter?


You're certainly welcome to find out for yourself by tasting.


----------



## scole250 (Nov 8, 2005)

busyba said:


> You're certainly welcome to find out for yourself by tasting.


Are you hitting on me?


----------



## NorthAlabama (Apr 19, 2012)

Azlen said:


> Who wants to bet that they have their highest rated show ever tonight?




NorthAlabama said:


> i would expect as much.



the ratings were ok, not record breaking. and i don't know where ew pulled this headline from:



> Duck down! 'Duck Dynasty' returns to lower ratings after controversy
> 
> Wednesday nights Duck Dynasty season 5 premiere had 8.5 million viewers. Thats huge for a cable reality show, but down 28 percent from its record-setting fourth season debut in August (11.8 million). Its also slightly down from the shows third season premiere in February last year (8.6 million). A&E notes the number up slightly from the fourth season finale on Oct. 23 (though obviously its standard to compare premieres to premieres).


----------

