# Duck Dynasty : controversy



## macintosh doctor (Mar 23, 2009)

Phil Robertson removed from 'Duck Dynasty' following homophobic remarks | TV | Entertainment | Toronto Sun

'Duck Dynasty' patriarch Phil Robertson off show indefinitely after anti-gay comments


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

*On Sarah Palin's Impressively Incoherent 'Duck Dynasty' Comments*

******** supporting ********.......

On Sarah Palin's Impressively Incoherent 'Duck Dynasty' Comments | Matt Taibbi | Rolling Stone


> Sarah Palin, ably staying in character in her new role as a professional media ambulance-chaser, was one of the first to rush to Robertson's defense. She posted a photo of herself with the Robertsons and tweeted the following:
> 
> Free speech is endangered species; those "intolerants" hatin' & taking on Duck Dynasty patriarch for voicing personal opinion take on us all


Phil Robertson from the original GQ piece Duck Dynasty's Phil Robertson Gives Drew Magary a Tour


> 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 . . . But hey, sin: It's not logical, my man. It's just not logical.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Sure, express his opinion.its not a crime! Just don't whine if the tv station that supports you says bye bye. They have a right to their opinion as well.

Ho hum.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

It's not censorship. Just over-reaction.


----------



## macintosh doctor (Mar 23, 2009)

groovetube said:


> Sure, express his opinion.its not a crime! Just don't whine if the tv station that supports you says bye bye. They have a right to their opinion as well.
> 
> Ho hum.


It is an axe towards religious freedom and free speech, I don't agree with comments but, seems that special interest groups are beginning to run the world. 
Playing devils advocate. 
What if straight allance group complained about pro same sex views, would A&E take the same approach ? 
Again not saying I agree with Phil's comments just playing devils advocate for freedom of speech and religious freedom. That is what I am attempting to debate.


----------



## Joker Eh (Jan 22, 2008)

and A&E has their free speech rights as well and it is their station, so if they don't like his comments it is their right to kick them off. Same as if you had a tv show on some bible thumping channel and came out and said "god is not real", you would be fired. Do I think he should be fired, no. A&E has a show about ******** what do you think their belief is? i am sure he has said worse and it has been edited out, just now he said it to someone else.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

Does anybody think that Phil Robertson gives a flying...fig...what A&E has to say about him? Or anybody else, for that matter?

It wouldn't even surprise me to find out that he had scripted the response in order to get the shoe. He's a no-nonsense, well-grounded individual who simply tired of the camera in his face all the time. He's 65 years old & a millionaire several times over. What can A&E possibly give him he doesn't already have in spades?

Good on Phil.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

^^^Yup^^^


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

kps said:


> ^^^Yup^^^


Perfect. Love it.

Another:


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

does this mean ZZTop has split up?


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

I see Alex Baldwin got a pass for his anger fuelled antigay tirade. Of course he's a Hollywood Liberal and obviously not a professed Christian.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

MacGuiver said:


> I see Alex Baldwin got a pass for his anger fuelled antigay tirade. Of course he's a Hollywood Liberal and obviously not a professed Christian.


not really :

MSNBC fires Baldwin over anti-gay slurs | Page Six



> The rage-aholic’s weekly show, “Up Late With Alec Baldwin,” was canceled Tuesday because of the actor’s foul-mouthed, homophobic rant at a New York Post photographer.


but Baldwin is actually pro-gay rights (homophobic slurs aside), and isn't actually peddling the entire "sin against god" angle....


----------



## macintosh doctor (Mar 23, 2009)

You really want to know the real man : this is a great video documentary on Phil Robertson

I am Second® - The Robertsons - YouTube





+
YouTube Video









ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.


----------



## johnnydee (Feb 10, 2004)

It's nice to see that the US has the same free speech policy as N Korea.
You can anything you want as long as it's the right thing!
I'm concerned what world leaders have to say on these matters but much less so Duck Dynasty.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

Amurkans love to boast about freedom of speech…unless it is speech with which you do not agree. If I understand correctly, there's enough episodes already filmed for the next year and a half. If A&E really had balls on this they would yank the show entirely. But no, this show is a real moneymaker, so they will continue to promote it despite the objections to Phil Robertsons's comments. Seems pretty hypocritical to me.

By the way, this is the cool shirt I bought a couple weeks back. No damn way I'm not wearing it now. Not that I'm taking sides; I just like the shirt. And the show.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

johnnydee said:


> It's nice to see that the US has the same free speech policy as N Korea.





fjnmusic said:


> Amurkans love to boast about freedom of speech…unless it is speech with which you do not agree.


these are silly comments. no one is arresting or charging him with a crime. he is allowed to say whatever he wants.

but freedom of speech is a 2 way street, so others are free to voice there opposition to what he said, and voice their displeasure to the broadcaster who has given him a platform to become a celebrity.

i don't have a problem with people expressing their disappointment at his comments (they were stupid and backwards), but I'm not crazy about how people always seem to have to leave or get fired or "go away" after they say these sort of things.

yet i see them both as the extreme ends of free speech. someone is free to say some real stupid and vile crap, and others are free to pressure his employers and sponsors to dump him.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

This fellow is pretty emphatic in his opinion of the Duck Dynasty controversy.... (NSFW or Children)





+
YouTube Video









ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

Duck Dynasty has issued a statement.

Duck Dynasty: 'We Cannot Imagine the Show Going Forward' Without Phil

I hope the ******** leave A&E high & dry. I'm sure there are a dozen other networks who would be more than happy to have them. For that matter, they could probably strike out on their own.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

i-rui said:


> these are silly comments. no one is arresting or charging him with a crime. he is allowed to say whatever he wants.
> 
> *but freedom of speech is a 2 way street, so others are free to voice there opposition to what he said, and voice their displeasure to the broadcaster who has given him a platform to become a celebrity.*
> 
> ...


It seems a difficult concept for many. In the rants of freedom of speech, they've completely forgotten that A&E has just as much right to their freedom of speech as well. No one has told Robertson he can't say what he did, in fact the magazine printed it!

And to compare a TV station exercising it's right to what it agrees with and not on their business, to North Korea machine gunning people, is of epic nonsense. That sort of rhetoric is just astounding.

Since, anyone who reads the news has read of how North Korea deals with silencing people, tying them to a pole and machine gunning them. They just killed another one a few weeks ago apparently this way. Didn't dear leader there just machine gun his old girlfriend and a bunch of others?

People there are too scared to say anything in case they share the same fate.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

CubaMark said:


> This fellow is pretty emphatic in his opinion of the Duck Dynasty controversy.... (NSFW or Children)


I listened to this guy for as long as I could, about 2 minutes.

Wanted to comment on one thing I watched up to that point: Just because you are rich does not automatically qualify you as greedy...


----------



## macintosh doctor (Mar 23, 2009)

FeXL said:


> Duck Dynasty has issued a statement.
> 
> Duck Dynasty: 'We Cannot Imagine the Show Going Forward' Without Phil
> 
> I hope the ******** leave A&E high & dry. I'm sure there are a dozen other networks who would be more than happy to have them. For that matter, they could probably strike out on their own.


This is what I have said all along.. special interest groups are allowed to spew their agenda and beliefs. but if some group outside of the agenda - they get labelled [ anti gay, race haters or bigots etc.. - just using that as examples. ]

*Lets hope A&E gets educated for their mistake for choosing sides... a network should always be neutral!!!!! they can not take sides.. * 

you can not be pro gay or just pro straight, you have to be fair to both sides as a network..unless Phil, killed someone or drove drunk or possibly is saying you should tar and feather people. etc - they need to be neutral..
and of course CNN is offering their stupidity during this whole situation.. :roll eyes:

but then again.. there is always honey boo boo - which I believe describes America to a T LOL


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

Just out of curiosity if those who are defending this bozo would be doing the same if he said that black people are inferior to white people? If he pushed for segregation and was anti-interracial marriage?

Would the network still be "wrong" to dump him then? Would they have to remain "neutral"? Do you think they would have to give equal time to the KKK and the NAACP to be "fair"?

Should the discovery network give equal time to intelligent design as they do to evolution? just to be fair & neutral?

It's a preposterous notion.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

groovetube said:


> It seems a difficult concept for many. In the rants of freedom of speech, they've completely forgotten that A&E has just as much right to their freedom of speech as well. No one has told Robertson he can't say what he did, in fact the magazine printed it!


Nobody on this thread has said that A&E can't exercise their right to free speech. For that matter, no article I've read anywhere has noted that. The only thing that has come close is a few clueless commenters...



groovetube said:


> And to compare a TV station exercising it's right to what it agrees with and not on their business, to North Korea machine gunning people, is of epic nonsense. That sort of rhetoric is just astounding.


What's astounding here is the words you've put into another person's mouth! Nobody mentioned guns any where!

You wonder why people climb down your throat. It's the constant & wilful misrepresentation of what is actually said that gets you in trouble. Yet another lie.



johnnydee said:


> It's nice to see that the US has the same free speech policy as N Korea.
> You can anything you want as long as it's the right thing!
> I'm concerned what world leaders have to say on these matters but much less so Duck Dynasty.


Where are guns & killing people mentioned in the direct quote? Where is it implied?

Jeezuz, go back to Reddit where you belong...


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

i-rui said:


> Just out of curiosity if those who are defending this bozo would be doing the same if he said that black people are inferior to white people?


Could you please clarify exactly what part of his statement you have issues with?


----------



## macintosh doctor (Mar 23, 2009)

i-rui said:


> Just out of curiosity if those who are defending this bozo would be doing the same if he said that black people are inferior to white people? If he pushed for segregation and was anti-interracial marriage?
> 
> Would the network still be "wrong" to dump him then? Would they have to remain "neutral"? Do you think they would have to give equal time to the KKK and the NAACP to be "fair"?
> 
> ...


You are way off course.. this was more of a his religious beliefs..
no where does the Bible even say where you are going / de railing this thread.. 

You have to be fair to all religions or don't air or side with any..
Christianity, Jewish, Islam.. be fair to all- can't pick and choose what you will air or side..[ but at this point America seems to be head that way. ] 

Phil did say, that His Christian beliefs said to be nice and fair to each other.. but no network mentioned that from his interview?


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

First off let me say that I defend the rights of idiots to say stupid stuff. So he should have (and does) the legal right to say this nonsense.

If you're asking what I find to be the worst of his remarks I'd say this:



> "But hey, sin: It's not logical, my man."
> 
> "Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and those men ... they won't inherit the kingdom of God. It's not right."


It's also come to light that in the past he said this:



> “Women with women. Men with men,They committed indecent acts with one another, and they received in themselves the due penalty for their perversions."
> “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 truthless. They invent ways of doing evil.”


So while I agree he certainly has the right to say this stuff I have zero problem with people calling him out for saying it. And anyone who would be surprised that networks or sponsors would want to distance themselves from these comments is clueless of how our society works.


----------



## 18m2 (Nov 24, 2013)

I don't understand A&E's motive for this and for blowing what would appear to be their cash cow out of the water. 

I wonder if an advertiser was offended? Networks and the media tend to react when advertisers cancel.

Just asking?


----------



## macintosh doctor (Mar 23, 2009)

i-rui said:


> First off let me say that I defend the rights of idiots to say stupid stuff. So he should have (and does) the legal right to say this nonsense.
> 
> If you're asking what I find to be the worst of his remarks I'd say this:
> 
> ...


seems that when Tiger woods was having an affair, they bailed but they knew that if Bill Clinton can receive oral gratification in the White House so can Tiger Woods on the Greens and they came back twice as strong.. 
Sponsors / Networks THINK they can force what is moral and not, but in the end they can't. It will be the people who decide.. I think A&E made a mistake.. GUNS, Religion, Speech are the 3 biggest morals Americans believe in - right or wrong.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

macintosh doctor said:


> You are way off course.. this was more of a his religious beliefs..
> no where does the Bible even say where you are going / de railing this thread..


religion has often been used to clothe hate. you may not be aware but the bible was used to justify slavery.

The theory of evolution What scientists believe it is and isn`t

justifying hate with religion doesn't give someone carte blanche to spread it without people calling them on it.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

i-rui said:


> religion has often been used to cloth hate. you may not be aware but the bible was used to justify slavery.


Slavery existed long before the Bible. However, the Bible was used as a a justification to end slavery.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

Macfury said:


> Slavery existed long before the Bible.


i never said the bible was the origin of slavery



Macfury said:


> However, the Bible was used as a a justification to end slavery.


by some, yes. that doesn't discount that others used it to justify it.

there are some who could (and do) point to passages in the bible to support gay rights and same sex marriage. while others point to passages to condemn it.

what it boils down to is in the 21st century you can't say stupid s%$t and hide behind your religion when others call you on it.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

The nonsense here is hilarious.

Couple gems:

North Korea doesn't use machine guns to silence people.

And the bible wasn't used to justify slavery.

And in other news, unicorns are real! :lmao:


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

i-rui said:


> If you're asking what I find to be the worst of his remarks I'd say this:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


As has been noted, Phil is a man of God. He's religious. The bible is what he was brought up on & continues to live by today. It's his life handbook. The bible specifically forbids homosexuality.

The Pledge of Allegiance says thus:



> I pledge Allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, *one nation under God*, indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all.


You may call him an idiot or whatever you want. It's not against the law to be a Christian, to believe in God and to read & practice what the bible preaches. Bearing the bold in mind and rights to free speech notwithstanding, in his view and in the views of many fellow Christians, he has not broken any laws, either legal or moral, with his statement.

As to your subsequent questions about segregation, inter-racial marriage, KKK & NAACP, I believe you will also find his opinions parallel what the bible says. Although I'm not a student of the bible, I would guess that there are no restrictions on inter-racial marriage and segregation would probably be frowned upon. I'm pretty sure they don't specifically address either the KKK or NAACP but have lessons that apply to both.

I'm not praising him nor criticizing him for his observations. I'm just saying that I understand his perspective, as anathema as that may seem to some.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

i-rui said:


> i never said the bible was the origin of slavery
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Don''t be dense i-rui, pretty much anything can be used to justify anything, as I've pointed out. It's an irrelevant concept. Socialists, for example, justify theft from others simply because they say the results are worth it.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Well it sure didn't take long to get the socialist thing in there.

Pray someone will get all hot and bothered over that one! :lmao:


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

groovetube said:


> North Korea doesn't use machine guns to silence people.


Nobody on this thread has typed those words, save you. (Nice edit, BTW, but I already quoted the salient part and have a screenshot. It also changes nothing in your falsification & merely confirms the fact.)

Just further confirmation that you are a serial liar and will twist people's words into whatever you want them to sound like. Is that merely the progressive coming out in you or some deeper, more insidious issue?

Why don't you restrict yourself to other fora where you can lie & swear all you want without offending anyone? In the mean time, if you plan to hang around here, seek professional help...


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

Many can't seem to get their head around the concept that recognizing someone's actions as sinful doesn't automatically equate to hating them (Westboro Baptists the exception). I don't approve of my friends promiscuity, its clearly a sin, but I love him just the same. This BS that recognizing behaviour as sinful=hate is rather tiring but I understand the value it has to shut down debate or criticism to tar the person as a bigot or hater. However this often has no basis in reality. 

I think where people really get their back up with this situation is the fact that they can see how this could easily be them. If Phil can be fired from his job for holding his personal Christian views of sexual morality, then all believers are vulnerable to the PC thought police. 

I share his bewilderment how a man could be sexually attracted to another man. Hate to think some gay lobby group could hunt down my employers and demand I be fired for having the thought or expressing it when my treatment of homosexual people is no different than anyone else.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

MacGuiver said:


> Many can't seem to get their head around the concept that recognizing someone's actions as sinful doesn't automatically equate to hating them (Westboro Baptists the exception). I don't approve of my friends promiscuity, its clearly a sin, but I love him just the same. This BS that recognizing behaviour as sinful=hate is rather tiring but I understand the value it has to shut down debate or criticism to tar the person as a bigot or hater. However this often has no basis in reality.
> 
> I think where people really get their back up with this situation is the fact that they can see how this could easily be them. If Phil can be fired from his job for holding his personal Christian views of sexual morality, then all believers are vulnerable to the PC thought police.
> 
> I share his bewilderment how a man could be sexually attracted to another man. Hate to think some gay lobby group could hunt down my employers and demand I be fired for having the thought or expressing it when my treatment of homosexual people is no different than anyone else.


I understand your point MacGuiver, to a degree. I don't think anyone thinks it's wrong to say you either don't understand or disagree with homosexuality, I certainly don't, you're free to believe what you wish, at least in my opinion.

I think though, it largely depends on how, you express your opinion. If you start comparing homosexuality with say bestiality, and as we've seen before, people comparing it to pedophelia, you have crossed the line into inciting hatred. Simply disagreeing, and believing it a sin, doesn't cross that line, at least in my opinion.

By people saying this guy's right to free speech has been infringed upon, they have invalidated A&E's right, to express theirs. A&E have from what I've seen, not said he can't say what he thinks, just, we disagree and he'll have to go elsewhere if wishes to express said beliefs.

It's really, a pretty simple thing here in my opinion.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

FeXL said:


> It's not against the law to be a Christian, to believe in God and to read & practice what the bible preaches.


of course not. i certainly have never suggested it is,



FeXL said:


> Bearing the bold in mind and rights to free speech notwithstanding, in his view and in the views of many fellow Christians, he has not broken any laws, either legal or moral, with his statement.


again, never said that. in fact i have already defended his right to be and say stupid things.



Macfury said:


> pretty much anything can be used to justify anything, as I've pointed out. It's an irrelevant concept.


i agree whole heartedly! 100%! In this case someones faith is being used to justify ignorant and hateful comments.

He has the right to say these things. Others have the right to disagree and call him an idiot. Networks & sponsors have the right to dump him.

This is how free speech works. Both ways.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

groovetube said:


> It's really, a pretty simple thing here in my opinion.


If it's that simple then why, in a 4 page thread, have you already posted 5 times, lied, been caught lying and edited a post in a vainglorious attempt to CYA?

Seems you're pretty serious there, my little Reddit stroking buddy...


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

i-rui said:


> again, never said that. in fact i have already defended his right to be and say stupid things.


I never said you did.

What I'm saying is that, from his background, upbringing & religious perspective, they aren't stupid or hateful.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

i-rui said:


> of course not. i certainly have never suggested it is,
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Bingo! :clap:


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

FeXL said:


> I never said you did.
> 
> What I'm saying is that, from his background, upbringing & religious perspective, they aren't stupid or hateful.


i don't watch the show and i'm not familiar with any of the cast. I can't comment on how intelligent or hateful he is.

but i can form an opinion on his comments. IMO they were both stupid and hateful.

I do agree that his age and upbringing will have a significant impact on his perspective and worldview.

But i see that as an explanation, not an excuse. He still has to own up to his comments.

I'm sure A&E would be happy if he issued an apology and retracted his statement. Whether he choses to do so is entirely up to him. If he truly believes what he said then he probably shouldn't. (fake apologies are worse than no apologies IMO) But if that's his choice he has to accept that in 2013 people will challenge these types of views and hold A&E accountable for giving him a platform.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

i-rui said:


> He still has to own up to his comments.
> 
> I'm sure A&E would be happy if he issued an apology and retracted his statement.


He's not hiding from them or he wouldn't have given the responses to GQ that he did. He's also not the kind of guy to back down from something as fundamental to his person as his Christian belief.

As I noted before, I don't think Phil cares what A&E thinks. On top of that, I don't think the rest of the cast will carry on without their patriarch. Both Phil Robertson and A&E have made their beds. We'll see who has the guts to lie down in them.

Hint: Phil is going to sleep like a baby in momma's arms...


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

Ok great. So then everything is playing out as it should.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

I'm not smart enough to know if it's as it should. But I do know that it's going to be as it will.


----------



## macintosh doctor (Mar 23, 2009)

FeXL said:


> He's not hiding from them or he wouldn't have given the responses to GQ that he did. He's also not the kind of guy to back down from something as fundamental to his person as his Christian belief.
> 
> As I noted before, I don't think Phil cares what A&E thinks. On top of that, I don't think the rest of the cast will carry on without their patriarch. Both Phil Robertson and A&E have made their beds. We'll see who has the guts to lie down in them.
> 
> Hint: Phil is going to sleep like a baby in momma's arms...


agreed
like a true family they will stick together.. 
A family that eats together, stays together..


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

I appreciate the link to the I Am Second interview. There's a lot to learn from this man. He is more tolerant, articulate and wise than many people might realize. I do not agree with him about sexuality, but I defend his right to express himself. I do not personally understand homosexuality either, but I will defend people's rights to gay marriage. I think divorce has a much greater impact on the sanctity of marriage and especially on stability for the children, though it is necessary sometimes. 

"The freedom of speech which demands protection is the freedom of speech with which you do not agree." – Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

This little meme seems to very simply explain what seems to be a bit of an uproar.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

groovetube said:


> This little meme seems to very simply explain what seems to be a bit of an uproar.


There's no uproar, groove. Not a single member of the family has said that A&E did wrong, anywhere.

You, the forum liar, are the only one trying to turn this into something it's not. 

Go back to MD or Reddit and sooth yourself...


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

If it isn't a meme, it is isn't real.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> If it isn't a meme, it is isn't real.


gotta love forums!

What was it in the message that you disagreed with macfury?

The press has turned this into quite the uproar it seems, as the image said, it's really all pretty simple. The "Duck" family is free to do and say what they wish (and I have no doubt they will...) and, so is A&E.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

It's a pretty funny show. If you've never seen it, perhaps you should watch an episode sometime. Better than having an uniformed opinion. I say this to nobody in particular and everyone who has expressed an opinion on this thread.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

I've watched it a bunch of times, it isn't bad. Not the funniest by a long shot, but not a terrible show. Let's remember though, Honey boo-boo was America's biggest show for a while I think. Popularity doesn't seem to mean quality. But Duck Dynasty is a much better show...

But, imagine, ******** talking like ********! Who knew?


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

groovetube said:


> I've watched it a bunch of times, it isn't bad. Not the funniest by a long shot, but not a terrible show. Let's remember though, Honey boo-boo was America's biggest show for a while I think. Popularity doesn't seem to mean quality. But Duck Dynasty is a much better show...
> 
> But, imagine, ******** talking like ********! Who knew?


Thing is, they're certainly not dumb ********, and Phil Robertson is actually a very thoughtful speaker. Even if I don't agree with what he says all of the time, I find him to be a compelling storyteller. The story from I Am Second about ******** and river rats and how he learned to forgive is priceless with its humility and simple human emotion. There's a reason this guy is as popular as he is.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

fjnmusic said:


> Thing is, they're certainly not dumb ********, and Phil Robertson is actually a very thoughtful speaker. Even if I don't agree with what he says all of the time, I find him to be a compelling storyteller. The story from I Am Second about ******** and river rats and how he learned to forgive is priceless with its humility and simple human emotion. There's a reason this guy is as popular as he is.


no, and they're damn rich ******** to boot. In the years I spent going town to city to town in southern US, I have met many many '********', and many did certainly live up to the stereotype. But I did meet some incredibly amazing people that I was blessed to be able to find, whether ******* or not they were very smart people.

Despite some stereotypes etc, I loved southern USA.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> gotta love forums!
> 
> What was it in the message that you disagreed with macfury?
> 
> The press has turned this into quite the uproar it seems, as the image said, it's really all pretty simple. The "Duck" family is free to do and say what they wish (and I have no doubt they will...) and, so is A&E.


I agree with the concept, whether or not he said it. I just think the idea of memes photoshopped on PNGs is funny.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

Poor Phil, he reiterates some Christian dogma regarding adulterers, bestiality and gays. No one except the gays flip out and call on their PC pals at A&E/Disney to fire the dude. What is this gay rights activism anyway? Are gays entitled to special rights? Different from the rest of us? Should Phil renounce his personal, religious beliefs?

I don't see the adulterers and bestiality proponents calling for Phil's crucifixion. Where would Disney be without kids produced mostly by heteros…yeah, thats what I thought. Don't bite the hand that feeds you for the sake of being politically correct.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

kps said:


> Poor Phil, he reiterates some Christian dogma regarding adulterers, bestiality and gays. No one except the gays flip out and call on their PC pals at A&E/Disney to fire the dude. What is this gay rights activism anyway? Are gays entitled to special rights? Different from the rest of us? Should Phil renounce his personal, religious beliefs?
> 
> I don't see the adulterers and bestiality proponents calling for Phil's crucifixion. Where would Disney be without kids produced mostly by heteros…yeah, thats what I thought. Don't bite the hand that feeds you for the sake of being politically correct.


Perhaps because Adulterers had less problems with being murdered and beat the eff out of on a regular basis? (besides the odd jealous mate...)

And so far, I'm not aware of any 'bestiality rights' groups? Given it's illegal to the best of my knowledge?


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

groovetube said:


> Perhaps because Adulterers had less problems with being murdered and beat the eff out of on a regular basis? (besides the odd jealous mate...)
> 
> And so far, I'm not aware of any 'bestiality rights' groups? Given it's illegal to the best of my knowledge?


You're very confused Groove. Probably more adulterers murdered by jealous spouses than gays…unless of core the adulterer was shagging someone the same sex. 

Should I even bother mentioning what happens to all three groups under Sharia Law in Islamic countries? I don't see these so called gay rights activists demanding rights in countries like Iran and Saudi Arabia.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

kps said:


> You're very confused Groove. Probably more adulterers murdered by jealous spouses than gays…unless of core the adulterer was shagging someone the same sex.
> 
> Should I even bother mentioning what happens to all three groups under Sharia Law in Islamic countries? I don't see these so called gay rights activists demanding rights in countries like Iran and Saudi Arabia.


Nonsense kps. Aldulterers may have some jealous mates getting violent, but they are far from the horrendous gratuitous violence the gay community has experienced for many years. Not aware of 'aldulterer bashers' roaming the streets looking for an adulterer to beat senseless...

And as for there being no one fighting gay rights in other repressed countries, I suppose you haven't been watching the flap over Russia's ban eh?

Nor are you aware of the efforts in many of the countries you cite it seems.


----------



## Rps (May 2, 2009)

If I may take a "so who's Murphy Brown" moment, who's Phil Robertson!


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

rps said:


> if i may take a "so who's murphy brown" moment, who's phil robertson!


:lmao:


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

kps said:


> You're very confused Groove.


x1000...


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

groovetube said:


> Nonsense kps. Aldulterers may have some jealous mates getting violent, but they are far from the horrendous gratuitous violence the gay community has experienced for many years. Not aware of 'aldulterer bashers' roaming the streets looking for an adulterer to beat senseless...
> 
> And as for there being no one fighting gay rights in other repressed countries, I suppose you haven't been watching the flap over Russia's ban eh?
> 
> Nor are you aware of the efforts in many of the countries you cite it seems.


Very confused indeed.

Tell me, isn't assault and murder already illegal and written so? What rights are going to prevent attacks and murder by those that do not respect rights? You can write amendments, new rights all you want---it's only ink on paper.

i see the efforts nice and clear --stoning adulterers, hanging gays, attacking other religions….etc. etc.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

kps said:


> Very confused indeed.
> 
> Tell me, isn't assault and murder already illegal and written so? What rights are going to prevent attacks and murder by those that do not respect rights? You can write amendments, new rights all you want---it's only ink on paper.
> 
> i see the efforts nice and clear --stoning adulterers, hanging gays, attacking other religions….etc. etc.


True. It's a fine line to ride, between expressing ones opinion, and expressing that opinion that justifies anger or punishments that hurts any group of people. As others have already expressed, I think it's just as much a right for Robertson to express his beliefs (respectfully) as it is A&Es to express theirs.

The bestiLity group however, well they'll burn in hell and rightly so


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

kps said:


> Very confused indeed.


x1000 again.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

Yep. A&E are sure standin' by their convictions...

A&E: We Are Shocked, SHOCKED! To Find Out Phil Robertson Is Such An Old Fuddy Duddy



> But don't fret, you knuckle-dragging God-botherers. A&E is showing the courage of its convictions by *airing 35 hours of Duck Dynasty for CHRISTmas next week*.


Bold mine.

They sure showed ol' Phil where they stand, didn't they...


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

Further on the progessive's hypocrisy.

Liberal Hero Farrakhan’s Call for Gays to be Beheaded Gets No Reaction from Media



> It is amazing that Leftist hero and Obama buddy Louis Farrakhan can talk about beheading and stoning gays to death and you won’t hear a word from the media.
> 
> The silence is telling and very predictable.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

A&E has a whole bunch of Duck Dynasty shows in the can already, with the whole family appearing. Betcha that the suspension will last just until the next season begins filming.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

groovetube said:


> True. It's a fine line to ride, between expressing ones opinion, and expressing that opinion that justifies anger or punishments that hurts any group of people. As others have already expressed, I think it's just as much a right for Robertson to express his beliefs (respectfully) as it is A&Es to express theirs.
> 
> The bestiLity group however, well they'll burn in hell and rightly so


A&E is expressing an opinion not a belief, they fired someone for his religious belief which is his fundamental civil right under US law and written into the constitution. Are you really saying that firing someones is a "belief". If I was Robertson, I'd get a court injunction against any airing of taped episodes and sue them for unjustified dismissal along with violating his civil rights.

But as MF pointed out they'll kiss and make up when the accountants step in.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

kps said:


> A&E is expressing an opinion not a belief, they fired someone for his religious belief which is his fundamental civil right under US law and written into the constitution. Are you really saying that firing someones is a "belief". If I was Robertson, I'd get a court injunction against any airing of taped episodes and sue them for unjustified dismissal along with violating his civil rights.
> 
> But as MF pointed out they'll kiss and make up when the accountants step in.


Sure! It's A&E's belief that homosexuality is NOT a sin, and expressing religious beliefs that say homosexuals are sinners encourages people to treat them as such. 

Are you saying, that Robertson is the only one allowed to express his opinion? That hardly seems fair.

As to what happens when the accountants get in, what someone else unrelated said or did which may be hypocritical blah blah, has nothing to do with whether A&E has that right.

If A&E backtracks, or whatever afterwards, doesn't change the fact both sides have their right to expression. Whether you disagree with them, or not. Isn't this concept pretty simple, and been explained, several times over now???


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

groovetube said:


> Isn't this concept pretty simple, and been explained, several times over now???


Yep, but apparently it went right over your head.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

kps said:


> If I was Robertson, I'd get a court injunction against any airing of taped episodes and sue them for unjustified dismissal along with violating his civil rights.
> 
> But as MF pointed out they'll kiss and make up when the accountants step in.


more than likely his contract includes clauses that allow A&E to dismiss him if he doesn't adhere to a certain code of conduct or expectation of the broadcaster. It is pretty common in the entertainment industry. This isn't a regular 9-5 job....

Also, the idea that A&E doesn't have the right to broadcast episodes which they have produced and paid for well in advance of the comments is a bit naive.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

i-rui said:


> more than likely his contract includes clauses that allow A&E to dismiss him if he doesn't adhere to a certain code of conduct or expectation of the broadcaster. It is pretty common in the entertainment industry. This isn't a regular 9-5 job....
> 
> Also, the idea that A&E doesn't have the right to broadcast episodes which they have produced and paid for well in advance of the comments is a bit naive.


+1 likely boilerplate stuff for anyone associating themselves with any company.

It sounds like some digging to me to invalidate A&Es right to their opinion.

Once again, free speech works both ways.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

groovetube said:


> Once again, free speech works both ways.


Nonsense, free speech only works, or not. There is no 'both'.


----------



## keebler27 (Jan 5, 2007)

Here's my opinion (which is just what it is, an opinion 

It's his right to say what he wants.

It's A&E's right to suspend one of their employees if conduct is detrimental to their company goals and beliefs (if those were outlined beforehand).

It's the right of the fans to boycott the network and the show.

Do I think what he was saying was hateful? 
No. It's regurgitating what the Bible says (which of course, may be viewed differently 
I don't think he was calling for an uprisal or anything. Just his beliefs. Like them or not.

Do I think people could take those comments as hateful?
Of course. People take all sorts of things the wrong and right way.

He's a fellow who came from a very dark past and is basically reborn. I find those folks sometimes, like people in many different yet similar 'reborn' situations (ie. successful alcoholics, smokers who don't smoke anymore), tend to be extremists in a sense, or a 'little' over the top.

I do find it interesting that the A&E publicist didn't go on the ATV ride with Phil and the interviewer. That's, apparently, how the interviewer got those questions in.

Cheers,
Keebler


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

keebler27 said:


> Here's my opinion (which is just what it is, an opinion
> 
> It's his right to say what he wants.
> 
> ...


Pretty well put Keebler.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

groovetube said:


> Pretty well put Keebler.


Notice they both have free speech in Keebler's version? Which of course is the reality, unlike your previous comment.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

groovetube said:


> Sure! It's A&E's belief that homosexuality is NOT a sin, and expressing religious beliefs that say homosexuals are sinners encourages people to treat them as such.
> 
> Are you saying, that Robertson is the only one allowed to express his opinion? That hardly seems fair.
> 
> If A&E backtracks, or whatever afterwards, doesn't change the fact both sides have their right to expression. Whether you disagree with them, or not. Isn't this concept pretty simple, and been explained, several times over now???


Lot of contradiction there amigo, is A&E a sanctioned religion do they have a Bible where it's indicated that Homosexuality is _not_ a sin? It wasn't a belief from the A&E Bible, it was a business decision, albeit the wrong one, initiated by special interest groups. 

BTW, how does one treat a sinner? Is there a guide someplace? lol



> As to what happens when the accountants get in, what someone else unrelated said or did which may be hypocritical blah blah, has nothing to do with whether A&E has that right.


A&E has the same rights as any one else, provided, they remain within the law. No one is disputing that. I just don't like this kind of severe attack on a 67 year old Christian who's following his legal and sanctioned religion.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

kps said:


> Lot of contradiction there amigo, is A&E a sanctioned religion do they have a Bible where it's indicated that Homosexuality is _not_ a sin? It wasn't a belief from the A&E Bible, it was a business decision, albeit the wrong one, initiated by special interest groups.
> 
> BTW, how does one treat a sinner? Is there a guide someplace? lol
> 
> ...


ha ha ha ha. So, you are saying, that in order to have an opinion, and have the right to express it, you must have some sort of bible to validate said opinion? I'm not sure where in the US constitution it's stipulates this requirement to qualify for free speech, maybe you can point this out for me 

As for how one treats a sinner, well, I have many dear friends who are gay, who have had their limbs broken and had the shyte kicked out of them, multiple times, we know one who was killed. For being, gay. I think that's how a 'sinner' has been treated I guess.

However, I'm pretty sure you know this. In reference to our earlier posts regarding adulterers, there may be adulterers who are killed by jealous lovers, and I certainly don't want to minimize their deaths, a death -is- a death, as you pointed out. But, I don't know that there are many people who go out merely to beat the crap out of, or kill adulterers, simply because they suspect them to be adulterers. Certainly not to the level that gays have been.

But getting back to the actually topic, so there's no confusion, and I know I've probably said this about 5 times so far, I believe in the right for Robertson to express his opinion, just as I do the owners of A&E. A&E's response and action (or initial action...) isn't a huge surprise as i-rui pointed out, any entertainers, endorsees, etc. working with a com pay, will be subject to their terms contractually.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

i-rui said:


> more than likely his contract includes clauses that allow A&E to dismiss him if he doesn't adhere to a certain code of conduct or expectation of the broadcaster. It is pretty common in the entertainment industry. This isn't a regular 9-5 job....
> 
> Also, the idea that A&E doesn't have the right to broadcast episodes which they have produced and paid for well in advance of the comments is a bit naive.


Ok, are you privy to their contract? I_ would_ be naive if I thought you did. Stick to what we know and remember, the 1st amendment guarantee freedom of religion as well as freedom of speech. 



> *The First Amendment*
> In the United States, the religious civil liberties are guaranteed by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution:
> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


A&E violated his civil rights as no laws were broken, he could bring them up on charges. 
Also, I never said A&E has no right to broadcast filmed episodes, unless they get slapped with a court injunction and that was a recommendation on my part.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

KPS, what -would- be naive, is to think that any broadcast company, any company in general would not have clauses in the contracts that allows them to sever should the performer/endorsee etc., says or does anything the company deems detrimental to their brand.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

kps said:


> Ok, are you privy to their contract?


no. i never claimed i was. i said "most likely", as in it's pretty standard stuff in the entertainment industry :



> Phil and other family members also probably signed contracts containing "morals clauses" in which they promised to, among other things, avoid anything that would embarrass or bring shame to A&E or the brand. Such clauses are standard in the entertainment and sports industries.
> 
> 'Duck Dynasty': A&E warned Phil Robertson about speaking out too much - latimes.com





kps said:


> the 1st amendment guarantee freedom of religion as well as freedom of speech.


yes. he is free to practice his religion, and he is free to say what he likes.



kps said:


> A&E violated his civil rights as no laws were broken,


lol. they haven't violated anything. they have acted well within their rights.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

groovetube said:


> ha ha ha ha. So, you are saying, that in order to have an opinion, and have the right to express it, you must have some sort of bible to validate said opinion? I'm not sure where in the US constitution it's stipulates this requirement to qualify for free speech, maybe you can point this out for me


Laugh all you want, but A&E has many employees, so who's opinion is this? If it is a collective belief, than there is a bible [*bible* is a very common term in many corporate environments referring to corporate values, rules, SOPs, guide lines, etc.] A&E/Disney is a corporate entity and the corporate lawyers probably bear some responsibility in all this.



> As for how one treats a sinner, well, I have many dear friends who are gay, who have had their limbs broken and had the shyte kicked out of them, multiple times, we know one who was killed. For being, gay. I think that's how a 'sinner' has been treated I guess.


I have many friends who are not gay and "who have had their limbs broken and had the shyte kicked out of them, multiple times." Is there some special gay right which would prevent such attacks? Just like our gun laws prevent criminals from obtaining illegal firearms. These kind of violent hate crime isn't going to be stopped by special rights amended to a charter or the constitution. Anyone with such violent tendencies against gays clearly has a personal struggle with their own sexuality.




> However, I'm pretty sure you know this. In reference to our earlier posts regarding adulterers, there may be adulterers who are killed by jealous lovers, and I certainly don't want to minimize their deaths, a death -is- a death, as you pointed out. But, I don't know that there are many people who go out merely to beat the crap out of, or kill adulterers, simply because they suspect them to be adulterers. Certainly not to the level that gays have been.





> But getting back to the actually topic, so there's no confusion, and I know I've probably said this about 5 times so far, I believe in the right for Robertson to express his opinion, just as I do the owners of A&E. A&E's response and action (or initial action...) isn't a huge surprise as i-rui pointed out, any entertainers, endorsees, etc. working with a com pay, will be subject to their terms contractually.


Just to clarify, I do not and never have advocated or endorsed violence against gays, adulterers or any other group. I may make an exception for pedophiles.

A&E on the other hand, may have and I mean _may have_ violated his rights by unjustifiably firing him. This ain't over.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

kps said:


> Laugh all you want, but A&E has many employees, so who's opinion is this? If it is a collective belief, than there is a bible [*bible* is a very common term in many corporate environments referring to corporate values, rules, SOPs, guide lines, etc.] A&E/Disney is a corporate entity and the corporate lawyers probably bear some responsibility in all this.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


well I guess it's a good conversation extender 

Someone owns, and sits on the board for A&E KPS. I think you know this.

Just because you know someone who was beat up, doesn't erase the fact that gays have been brutalized for many years. "gay bashing" has been a pretty bad problem for a very long time Karl, though they certainly aren't the only group to have experienced extreme and frequent violence. I suspect you know what I'm talking about.

As for violating his rights, don't think for a second that the owners/board of directors didn't consult a lawyer before taking their actions. Clearly, they had a contract that allowed them to do so.

So let's see if Robertson sues them!


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

i-rui said:


> lol. they haven't violated anything. they have acted well within their rights.


I'm so glad I'm providing such a great source for entertainment to you and groove.

They fired him for quoting the Bible. Figure it out.

Sure A&E is within their rights to fire him, but if he sues for unjustifiable dismissal even with clauses in his contract he stands a very good chance of winning.

As an atheist I'm not here to expound religion and I'm definitely not homophobic, but I would protect Roberts' rights over special interest groups and Political correctness by a corporation. Which, BTW, both of you routinely criticize (corporations) and accuse of all kinds of greed and other nasty stuff. LOL


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

groovetube said:


> well I guess it's a good conversation extender
> Someone owns, and sits on the board for A&E KPS. I think you know this.
> 
> Just because you know someone who was beat up, doesn't erase the fact that gays have been brutalized for many years. "gay bashing" has been a pretty bad problem for a very long time Karl, though they certainly aren't the only group to have experienced extreme and frequent violence. I suspect you know what I'm talking about.
> ...


see my post above, groove

also, AFAIK you can not break the law in a contract.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

I'm sure that since he said what he believes the bible told him, that will render what has been standard in many employment contracts for decades unenforcable. 

I disagree Karl, but it would be interesting to see if he did try to sue, because if he had a case, why wouldn't he?


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

groovetube said:


> I'm sure that since he said what he believes the bible told him, that will render what has been standard in many employment contracts for decades unenforcable.
> 
> I disagree Karl, but it would be interesting to see if he did try to sue, because if he had a case, why wouldn't he?


Ultimately it'll be up to the franchise as to where they take it, Tim. Sue or not, It's something for them to consider. Like I said earlier, there's more to come, I'm sure.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

I bet viewership is up.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

i-rui said:


> more than likely his contract includes clauses that allow A&E to dismiss him if he doesn't adhere to a certain code of conduct or expectation of the broadcaster. It is pretty common in the entertainment industry. This isn't a regular 9-5 job....
> 
> Also, the idea that A&E doesn't have the right to broadcast episodes which they have produced and paid for well in advance of the comments is a bit naive.


Not really naive. It simply shows that for A&E this is not really a matter of principle, as they'll sell their souls for a buck. If they really believed in not supporting Robertson they would take the show off the air on principle. It's just too big of a money-maker for them. In fact, all the hoopla this week probably just increased viewership.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

fjnmusic said:


> Not really naive. It simply shows that for A&E this is not really a matter of principle, as they'll sell their souls for a buck. If they really believed in not supporting Robertson they would take the show off the air on principle. It's just too big of a money-maker for them. In fact, all the hoopla this week probably just increased viewership.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


now that's over-reacting. I might disagree with what he said, but ripping it completely off the air cold would be ridiculous. For one thing, he's not expressing these views on the show, so what's the point? 

I think the response was about as strong as you're going to see given his comments weren't nearly as offensive as they could have been.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

groovetube said:


> now that's over-reacting. I might disagree with what he said, but ripping it completely off the air cold would be ridiculous. For one thing, he's not expressing these views on the show, so what's the point?
> 
> I think the response was about as strong as you're going to see given his comments weren't nearly as offensive as they could have been.


If he wasn't saying it on the show, then there's no need for any punitive action against Robertson by the network. By doing what they did, yet continuing to air tenge show, A&E has simply demonstrated that they can't walk the walk like they talk the talk.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

interesting commentary

Glenn Beck on Duck Dynasty and Santa


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

I may have to adjust my overall view a little after seeing this…

Robert's fire and brimstone preaching





+
YouTube Video









ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

kps said:


> As an atheist I'm not here to expound religion and I'm definitely not homophobic, but I would protect Roberts' rights *over* special interest groups and Political correctness by a corporation. Which, BTW, both of you routinely criticize (corporations) and accuse of all kinds of greed and other nasty stuff. LOL


again, his rights weren't violated. also i'm not sure why you would "protect" his rights "*over*" special interest groups or a corporation. They all have rights, and they're all exercising them.

I have no love for corporations that only think of profits. I also have no love for ignorance or intolerance preached by a fool. I am defending both their rights equally.



fjnmusic said:


> Not really naive. It simply shows that for A&E this is not really a matter of principle, as they'll sell their souls for a buck. If they really believed in not supporting Robertson they would take the show off the air on principle. It's just too big of a money-maker for them. In fact, all the hoopla this week probably just increased viewership.


no it is naive because A&E isn't a single person who can make a split second individual decision (like making stupid remarks during an interview). They have a responsibility to their shareholders. They already produced and paid for the shows. They have deals in place with sponsors & broadcasters, and they have a schedule that would require programming to be replaced. Yanking the show could very well leave them open to legal action from sponsors who already purchased advertising or broadcasters like Rogers or dishnet who pay for their programming.



fjnmusic said:


> If he wasn't saying it on the show, then there's no need for any punitive action against Robertson by the network. By doing what they did, yet continuing to air tenge show, A&E has simply demonstrated that they can't walk the walk like they talk the talk.


what if he said blatant racist remarks? Would their be no need for action?

Gay rights are the new front line in the civil rights battle. 50 years ago "separate but equal" was an acceptable position for many americans. 150 years ago slavery was acceptable.

I predict that in 25 years religious intolerance against gays will be looked back in the same fashion as segregation is seen today. A flawed argument to support an ignorant view.

Society moves forward. Calling people out on ignorance is part of that.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

i-rui said:


> what if he said blatant racist remarks?


This isn't the first time you've brought this up.

What if you said blatant racist remarks? What if I did?

Until he/you/I does, all it is is idle speculation. If he/you/I does, it will be dealt with differently, as it is specifically against the law.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

Cracker Barrel does a 180: ‘Today, we are putting all our Duck Dynasty products back in our stores.’



> We made a mistake, we listened to you, and we apologize. #DuckDynasty products are back in our stores.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

As I noted...

Other networks eager to air 'Duck Dynasty'


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

FeXL said:


> This isn't the first time you've brought this up.
> 
> What if you said blatant racist remarks? What if I did?
> 
> Until he/you/I does, all it is is idle speculation. If he/you/I does, it will be dealt with differently, as it is specifically against the law.


it isn't the first time i've said it because I see gay rights as a civil rights issue.

racist remarks aren't against the law unless they're deemed hate speech. I would protect a racist's right to free speech the same i would protect Robertson's religious intolernce against gays. I know that thought policing is impossible. 

that doesn't mean I wouldn't also publicly condemn them both for saying it. Calling out BS is what's needed to defeat ignorance.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

i-rui said:


> again, his rights weren't violated. also i'm not sure why you would "protect" his rights "*over*" special interest groups or a corporation. They all have rights, and they're all exercising them.
> 
> .


and again, his 1st amendment rights were violated when they fired him.

and yes, they all have rights, the same identical unwavering rights.


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

FeXL said:


> The Pledge of Allegiance says thus:
> 
> The Pledge of Allegiance says thus:
> 
> ...


The "under God" part was added to the pledge in 1954.
Pledge of Allegiance Didn't Always Include God : Discovery News

The pledge of allegiance was written by a Christian Socialist:
The Pledge of Allegiance - A Short History

Before 1938 "In God we Trust" was not on all US currency.

In 1956 "In God we trust" was declared the official motto of the USA.

God is not in the US Constitution or Bill of Rights:

God is Not in the U.S. Constitution or Bill of Rights | Majority Rules


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

There are unofficial limits to free speech as well. Telling a four year old there is no Santa Claus over his or her parent's objections is not illegal, for example, but would probably be universally regarded as an assoholic thing to do.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

“Free speech” hypocrites: Dixie Chicks, “Duck Dynasty” and America’s pointless shell arguments - Salon.com

This puts things into perspective quite well.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

*Van Susteren Attempts to Explain Concept of Free Speech to Palin*

You know things are bad when the incoherent babbling coming out of your mouth is even too much for Fox's Greta Van Susteren to take. Palin was back at it again, suggesting that Duck Dynasty patriarch Phil Robertson's right to "free speech" may have been violated following his suspension from the show.

Van Susteren, who is actually a lawyer herself said... ahhh... maybe not Sarah.

Van Susteren Tells Palin Why Duck Dynasty Controversy Has Nothing to Do with Free Speech:

_Sarah Palin was one of the first conservative voices to defend Duck Dynasty patriarch Phil Robertson’s controversial comments about homosexual sex. In a Facebook post, Palin declared that “free speech is an endangered species.” Monday night on Fox News, Greta Van Susteren attempted to explain why invoking the First Amendment in this case does not actually make any sense.

Palin said she would leave it to the lawyers to decide whether it’s a “free speech rule of law or not,” and would herself focus on the larger question of “whether we’re allowed to express our personal opinions without threats of intimidation and mockery and criticism and loss of jobs and revenue.”

“I think people loosely use the term ‘free speech,’” Van Susteren said, without saying which “people” she was referring to. She added that “if the market wants to be such that people don’t want to watch someone, so be it.”_​
Perpetual conservative victims like Palin only think that should be the case when there are repercussions for liberals that say things they don't like.​
Video: http://embed.crooksandliars.com/embed/Mjg1NTNdLQ

(Crooks & Liars)


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

Adding to my above statement:

America is NOT a Christian Nation, and was not founded as such:

Why U.S. is not a Christian nation - CNN.com



> "No man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened (sic) in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief ..."
> 
> It was this simple -- government could not dictate how to pray, or that you cannot pray, or that you must pray.





> The supreme law of the land, written in the summer of 1787, includes no references to religion -- including in the presidential oath of office -- until the conclusion of Article VI, after all that dull stuff about debts and treaties: "No religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."





> They understood the long history of sectarian bloodshed in Europe that brought many pilgrims to America. They knew the dangers of merging government, which was designed to protect individual rights, with religion, which as Jefferson argued, was a matter of individual conscience.
> And that is why the U.S. Constitution reads as it does.


Study the history, and accept the facts. Unfortunately, many choose to believe endless stream of deception, manipulation, and lies spewed out by religious leaders in the USA.


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

CubaMark said:


> *Van Susteren Attempts to Explain Concept of Free Speech to Palin*
> 
> You know things are bad when the incoherent babbling coming out of your mouth is even too much for Fox's Greta Van Susteren to take. Palin was back at it again, suggesting that Duck Dynasty patriarch Phil Robertson's right to "free speech" may have been violated following his suspension from the show.
> 
> ...












Forward Progressives â€” Sarah Palin Implies Pope Francis is Too “Liberal” for Daring to Act Like a Christian

Bimbo Palin is one of the Ultimate American train wrecks. That she dislikes Pope Francis, only makes me as an Atheist, like him more!

Right wing Bible Thumping nut bars from all over are finding it very disturbing that their brand of BS alienates rational minded people from their perverted version of Christianity. Atheists from all over that previously only had contempt for the Catholic Church like the new Pope, and are optimistic that he will set that train wreck of a religion on a much better path than it has been on.

In the comments:


> Sarah Palin is an absolute mess and regardless or your own religious affiliation she will always be a ignorant mess. I to am an atheist and I find her statements exactly the same way I find all of her statements, ignorant an uninformed.
> Even as an atheist I am finding Pope Francis more and more likable by the day and truly believe he is going to do great thing with his position of power


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

Groove, I just love this little game you play, whereby you claim to not respond to certain of us on these boards, yet you can't help but obsessively compulsively acknowledge things we've posted earlier in some sort of oblique fashion. 

You simply cannot help yourself, can you?

The post I speak of is, of course, this one:



groovetube said:


> As to what happens when the accountants get in, what someone else unrelated said or did which may be hypocritical blah blah, has nothing to do with whether A&E has that right.


I was going to let it pass but then your hypocrisy took over & I simply must point it out to those who missed it, you included.

You post a link to this wunnerful little story about the Dixie Chicks and shell arguments and hypocrisy, all the while discounting in the above post the same thing I noted about double standards myself. Above you note that the hypocrisy has nothing to do with A&E, yet you immediately provide examples of your own. 

So, which the hell is it? Or is this merely another innocent foible whereby we are expected to do as you say, not as we do? Get your story straight, groove.



groovetube said:


> This puts things into perspective quite well.


Yes, it does. However, (with apologies) I do not think it means what _you_ think it means... 

Now, if you want some true perspective, dig this:



> A person who insists that the question is "Does A&E have the simple legal right to undertake this action?" is either deceptive or _stupid_. He either deliberately conflates what may be done with what should be done, in order to dishonestly confuse an audience, or *he confuses these two things because he is confused himself.*


Italics from the link, bold mine.

More:



> The PC Goons who keep braying "A&E has the right to fire Robertson" are deliberately avoiding a difficult question -- *"Should media companies, of all people, be in the business of using coercive tactics to compel a particular mode of belief and expression?"* -- by instead answering a very simple one.
> 
> They hope you don't notice the fact that their answer is a non-sequitor. But you should notice, and you should notice it to their faces.


Bold mine.

Further:



> The real question is this:
> 
> As between one of two possible worlds -- one in which freedom of thought and expression is generously and broadly encouraged not only by the state but by other powerful institutions, such as corporate employers, permitting a wide latitude in speech and respecting large zone of personal autonomy, or one in which freedom of thought and expression is sharply curtailed and discouraged by the threat of economic coercion against anyone dissenting against this week's folly -- which world would we prefer to live in?
> 
> I would like to hear the New Puritans answer that question, instead of continuing serving the slippery, soupy answer about employers having the right to fire at-will employees.


Which world, groove?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

FeXL said:


> Groove, I just love this little game you play, whereby you claim to not respond to certain of us on these boards, yet you can't help but obsessively compulsively acknowledge things we've posted earlier in some sort of oblique fashion.
> 
> You simply cannot help yourself, can you?
> 
> Which world, groove?


Gets his butt handed to him time after time and doesn't even realize it. What do they call that again? Oh yeah, now I remember . . .


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

MazterCBlazter said:


> Adding to my above statement:
> 
> America is NOT a Christian Nation, and was not founded as such:
> 
> ...


Makes you wonder why they make you swear on a Bible when you're going to give testimony in a court of law.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

SINC said:


> Gets his butt handed to him time after time and doesn't even realize it. What do they call that again? Oh yeah, now I remember . . .


Merry Christmas everyone! And a Happy Festivus to you and yours.


----------



## jef (Dec 9, 2007)

fjnmusic said:


> Makes you wonder why they make you swear on a Bible when you're going to give testimony in a court of law.


They don't make you swear on a bible. You have the choice to swear on a bible or to affirm in both the US and Canada.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

This is true. At one time, America was predominately christian, now very significant numbers are not.

Here's another good piece on this controversy:

John Moore: The freedom to be unpopular | National Post


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

jef said:


> They don't make you swear on a bible. You have the choice to swear on a bible or to affirm in both the US and Canada.


See, that's too bad. Swearing on a bible at least gave you a bit of an out. You could agree to tell the truth, at least much as the bible tells the truth. And if the bible fabricates anything, so could you, citing the bible's example as precedent. You could say, "I will reveal a truth about human nature through the story I will tell."


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

fjnmusic said:


> See, that's too bad. Swearing on a bible at least gave you a bit of an out. You could agree to tell the truth, at least much as the bible tells the truth. And if the bible fabricates anything, so could you, citing the bible's example as precedent. You could say, "I will reveal a truth about human nature through the story I will tell."


Good way to get off jury duty.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

Macfury said:


> Good way to get off jury duty.





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## macintosh doctor (Mar 23, 2009)

And the winner is !!!!!
From The Globe and Mail: 
A&E puts Phil Robertson back on Duck Dynasty after anti-gay comments
They should of chose to be neutral, from the beginning.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

macintosh doctor said:


> And the winner is !!!!!
> From The Globe and Mail:
> A&E puts Phil Robertson back on Duck Dynasty after anti-gay comments
> They should of chose to be neutral, from the beginning.


*[offtopicranton]*

_My wish for 2014 is that those who use the internet learn that "should of" makes our eyes and brains hurt_

*[offtopicrantoff]*


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

A&E: 'Duck Dynasty' resuming 'with the entire Robertson family' - CNN.com

After reading the -whole- article, there's room to say this is a win for all sides. It's great that A&E has made a real statement, and that Robertson has reportedly (from another source) promised not to encourage or incite hatred'.

Sounds like a lot of talks between them, and a good agreement has been reached. 

Excellent stuff.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I don;t believe that saying you believe a lifestyle is wrong is inciting hatred. 

I'm sure, however, that the suspension (and the scheduled time of its reversal) was discussed with the entire Duck Dynasty before it was announced.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Saying you believe it's wrong, no not really.

But that's not what Robertson did though. That's what the problem was, but has gotten lost in the big "free speech" flap.

Looks like they've all come to an agreeable solution. Which is a win for everyone.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

CubaMark said:


> *[offtopicranton]*
> 
> _My wish for 2014 is that those who use the internet learn that "should of" makes our eyes and brains hurt_
> 
> *[offtopicrantoff]*


Indeed. The poster should of said sh'ud uv instead ("should've" is so archaic). Everyone understands fonettik sp'eling. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

groovetube said:


> A&E: 'Duck Dynasty' resuming 'with the entire Robertson family' - CNN.com
> 
> After reading the -whole- article, there's room to say this is a win for all sides. It's great that A&E has made a real statement, and that Robertson has reportedly (from another source) promised not to encourage or incite hatred'.
> 
> ...


I got the impression that Phil is an an articulate and thoughtful person, whether or not I agree with his views. I don't agree with trapping squirrels either, but that doesn't mean I can't learn something from watching the show and listening to the man. I am sure they will address the issue with humility and good taste. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

fjnmusic said:


> I got the impression that Phil is an an articulate and thoughtful person, whether or not I agree with his views. I don't agree with trapping squirrels either, but that doesn't mean I can't learn something from watching the show and listening to the man. I am sure they will address the issue with humility and good taste.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Yes. When you take all the "crazy" on a lot of sides and things are worked out reasonably, and reasons why what was said can be inciting hatred, no one needs to be beat up over this. Just because someone says something inappropriate, doesn't automatically mean they are a malicious human being who must be banished!

I wouldn't have gotten that from having seen him briefly, but that's interesting. Hinestly all the time I spent in the south, some of the best times and best people were the 'backwoods' sort, I tended to trust them a bit more,


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

groovetube said:


> ...no one needs to be beat up over this.


Then why did A&E beat him up?

If they were being fair & balanced they could merely have noted somewhere that Phil's opinions were not the opinions of A&E, etc., & left it at that. Instead, they jumped onto the bandwagon, cut him out of production for the next season & ended up eating crow.

I noted before, Phil was going to sleep like he was in momma's arms. A&E blinked & lost.


----------

