‘Duck Dynasty’ Patriarch Suspended from Show for Equating Homosexuality with Bestiality December 18, 2013

‘Duck Dynasty’ Patriarch Suspended from Show for Equating Homosexuality with Bestiality

“Duck Dynasty” patriarch Phil Robertson was suspended by A&E today for bigoted remarks he made in a GQ profile about gays and lesbians:

“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.”

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.”

Yep, homosexuality is the same as bestiality and prostitution and adultery and intoxication and greed.

Of course, the right-wingers are screaming that the reaction from A&E (and everyone else) is some violation of free speech:

Sarah Palin knows as much about free speech as she does about geography. Robertson wasn’t arrested or fined by the government for his remarks. He had every right to say what he wanted and A&E had every right to say they won’t put up with his bullshit. He can say whatever he wants but he can’t escape the consequences of his comments. It turns out his folksy nature is fine with the masses until he opens his mouth and everyone realizes he’s a dick. (As Boing Boing’s Rob Beschizza says, “This is where some Christian conservatives do that thing where the First Amendment is held to guarantee Freedom of Reality Show, isn’t it?”)

It’s arguable that Robertson and his family are among the most popular Christians in the country right now… and they just fed the stereotype that Christians lie about people they don’t (care to) understand.

It’s not the first time, either.

Back in September, Robertson said to a church audience that if atheists ran into a group of guys late at night, we would be comforted if those guys had Bibles in their hands. He also said to Pastor Rick Warren‘s Saddleback Church in July that atheists had no hope, before giving the crowd a lame defense of Pascal’s Wager.

Neither of those remarks got much media coverage, but today’s comments did. I hope that show, like Chick-fil-A, gets forever linked with anti-gay bigotry to the point where even a lot of Christians want nothing to do with it.

(By the way, it’s also not the first time right-wingers have cried “censorship” with regards to this show. In May, there were rumors that A&E told the Robertson family not to pray or talk about guns on the show. Those rumors turned out to be false.)

On a side note, the tweet of the night goes to God:

*Slow clap*

(via Joe. My. God.)

***Update***: The post originally went up with an incorrect headline.

"Perhaps he just wants to know if he's doing it right. I mean there are ..."

This Christian Wants You to Know ..."
"God created humanity in God’s own image…and said to them, “Be fertile and multiply; fill ..."

FOX News Panel: Liberals Are “Worshipping ..."
"More proof of deception for all to see......“Scientists tend to tune out when they hear ..."

Richard Dawkins’ New Book, “Outgrowing God,” ..."
"I bet if you asked a lot of fundies who proudly boast they've read their ..."

FOX News Panel: Liberals Are “Worshipping ..."

Browse Our Archives

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Patrick R

    “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,”
    Sounds like Mr. Robertson is speaking from experience.

  • LesterBallard

    There’s nothing surprising about this; he calls himself a Christian pastor. I’d be surprised if the rest of his family still did the show. And I’ll be surprised if A&E risks losing the show. It makes them a lot of money.

    And his remarks about he never saw blacks mistreated before the Civil Rights era, and that blacks were content under Jim Crow is perhaps even more fucked up.

  • Richard Thomas

    You just won.

  • Octoberfurst

    Every time I look at him I hear banjo’s playing and can hear those creepy words from Deliverance: “You got a perty mouth boy.”

  • God’s Starship

    It’s Hank Williams Jr all over again. Lots of screaming about first amendment when nobody’s first amendment rights have been infringed. And they’re both dumb as a box of rocks. There’s that too.

  • God’s Starship

    The man seems incapable of seeing beyond his own privilege. Only a white straight Christian man can look like he hasn’t bathed in ten years and still get his own tv show.

  • Gehennah

    Still trying to figure out how you go from woman to woman to bestiality, or even homosexual sex to bestiality.

  • Sir TJ

    Didn’t a TV news reporter get fired recently for saying nasty things about Sarah Palin? Did she complain about the lack of free speech then? If she did, I missed it.

  • LesterBallard

    He resigned.

  • God’s Starship

    Sometimes my cat unexpectedly jumps on the bed, but it never goes that far. At least not in my experience.

  • $925105

    I guess he can always go back to California and take up surfing again.

  • brianmacker

    Ha, ha, ha … I have to laugh. He had a good thing going, making tons of money, but he just had to ruin it for himself. I just don’t understand what anyone sees in this show. I watched it once and it was boring. It’s like Jersey Shore for Hill Billies.

  • allein

    Coincidentally, I’m reading this post while watching Barbara Walters’s 10 most fascinating people of 2013, which is profiling the Robertson family as I type. (Apparently Phil couldn’t make it to the interview, though.) They brought her a pink duck call.

    Edit: Pope Francis is also on her list..

  • L.Long

    It is all not only pure BS it is rank stupidity!
    Their dimwited buyBull says – Don’t do this!! – so they should not do it!!
    Pure and simple! WE and many others are not phuckin sheeple, and don’t have to do what the buyBull says. This is NOT a theocracy, although the xtians are trying hard, and just cuz the xtian taliban does not like something, their buyBull is not the source of our laws.
    And his bring canceled is not censorship, not that it matters who watches him anyway??

  • brianmacker

    Maybe, but this statement by Palin is mistaken. No censorship involved. I get that lots of people misquote her to make her seem stupider than she is, but this one is on her.

  • kickinitincrik

    A&E are a bunch of cowards, afraid of the two-faced pc police. Christians tolerate others only to be censored – Christians ought to wake up and stand against these mafia tactics and not believe this false tolerant mantra because it’s anything but.

  • Ryan1159

    Did Sarah Palin defend Martin Bashir and his freedom of speech?

  • Jeremiah Traeger

    Believe it or not, a lot of us aren’t calling out intolerant bullshit because it’s part of a politically correct handbook we’ve all been blindly led to follow. We call them out because it’s the right thing to do. Phil Robertson is being intolerant of a specific group of people through his speech. He isn’t intolerant of anything they’ve done or will do, especially anything done to him personally. He is intolerant of the way they are. Tolerance of his intolerance perpetuates the intolerance of those people.

  • So…. I still don’t give a fuck about Duck Dynasty.

  • diogeneslamp0

    “Christians tolerate others”?

    Like when you set fire to atheist billboards? Like when Christian Militia said the 2nd Amendment authorized them to kill the President? Like when that Russian actor/priest said he would put all gays in ovens? Like when Christians tolerated Jews for 2000 years? Aztecs? Incas? Native Americans? Your slaves? Tasmanians? Hottentots?

    You Christians can’t even stand each other. You tolerate nothing. Fuck off.

  • Before this, conservatives loved Duck Dynasty. Now? They’re going to try to elect them to public office.

  • h/t Kevin of Bangor

  • cyb pauli

    I think the overall message is that men need strict rules for what they copulate with because if left to their own devices they will become less than discriminatory in their penetrations. It’s a real head scratcher how wide a fundamentalist Christian man’s eyes will get as he quickly goes down the list of things he is not allowed to hump, almost as if he has to mentally rehearse it daily. O_O child, sister, man, mom, aunt, man, dog, sheep, baby, man, horse, duck, pig, corpse, child, man, daughter, sister, duck…

  • Jeff

    Cue complaints of persecution. Cue screams of “censoring my freedom of speech”.

  • kickinitincrik

    The most tolerant nations ever have been ones with Christian backgrounds. Go live in one that has an atheistic/marxist background or and Islamic background – go find out how tolerant they are.

  • Jeff

    I think the more correct phrase, considering their “shtick”, would be dummer than a bag of hammers..

  • Spuddie

    Just because someone wraps their bigotry around religion, it doesn’t mean it becomes respectable or somehow immune to social sanction.

    If you say something stupid and hateful like Robertson, it may jeopardize your lucrative mass media gig. Pissing off potential audience and advertisers is bad business for a TV celebrity.

  • Patrick R

    It must be that slippery slope with a little bit of extra lube.

  • Jeremiah Traeger

    Go to the countries with a largely secular lifestyle: Netherlands, Sweden, Norway. Tell me how intolerant they are to you. Go ahead, I’ll wait.

  • LesterBallard

    Now I’m really pleased, because I love hypocrisy; he mentioned drunkards in his interview. The fuckers sell their own wine. Scratch a Christian, you’ll find a major league hypocrite.

  • phantomreader42

    So, in your delusional fantasies, objecting to some brain-dead asshole lying about people qualifies as “mafia tactics”, but openly threatening to torture people for not believing in your imaginary friend is perfectly fine. What color is the sky on your planet?

  • kickinitincrik

    Tolerance is a person putting put with someone you don’t agree with. Robertson describes himself in such a way. Forced acceptance is intolerant and crushes liberty, independence, and critical thinking.

  • Jeff

    Please, don’t make Christians out to be so important. This has nothing to do with censorship. This has to do with business. A&E has a contract with these folks, and undoubtedly, there will be a clause about pissing off the audience. They loss viewers, he loses his job. It isn’t his show, or his network. Now, if it was, he could say any damn thing he wants. But he is an employee, and the boss doesn’t have to take his crap. Period. Doesn’t matter if what he said is true or not. Don’t believe it? Go tell your boss that they are an asshole. See if you are still employed.

  • phantomreader42

    It’s just that homophobes are really deeply fucked-up individuals, who like raping children and animals and project their own disgusting fantasies on everyone else.

  • God’s Starship

    There’s that jihad envy again.

  • Jeremiah Traeger

    So Robertson’s speech decrying homosexuals is, how you say it, “putting put with someone you don’t agree with”? I don’t know how you figure that one.

    A tolerant person doesn’t take away people’s rights. The religious right wants to prevent homosexuals from having certain rights. That is intolerant. A&E did not take away Phil Robertson’s freedom of speech. Free speech prevents government interference of individuals. Robertson does not get a right to be an asshat and not be fired. A&E has the right to suspend employees if their actions are bad for their business, and it turns out being an asshat is bad for business.

  • LesterBallard

    Tolerance; you keep using that word, but you don’t know what it means.

  • phantomreader42

    So, the extent of your “tolerance” is that you’ll grudgingly refrain from slaughtering everyone who disagrees with you and bathing in their blood. For the moment. At least until the voices in your head give you permission. But in the meantime you see nothing the least bit wrong with lying about the people you’d rather murder and flinging around thinly-veiled threats.

    Take your sick death cult and shove it up your ugly ass.

  • I’m glad our civilization has been once again saved by TV executives willing to marginalize people who are likely to say things I would disagree with. Bravo, executives.

  • kickinitincrik

    Grudgingly refrain, oh please. You wish – then at least your pathetic little atheistic arguments would hold water.

  • phantomreader42

    Well, if christians could marginalize their own bigoted assholes instead of promoting them until someone else gets tired of dealing with their shit, then maybe christianity wouldn’t be known as a death cult for delusional bigoted assholes!

  • phantomreader42

    Isn’t that imaginary god of yours supposed to have some sort of problem with bearing false witness and pretending to have magical mind-reading powers?

  • kickinitincrik

    Yes, because those countries have histories steeped in atheism. Their cultural foundation rests on an atheistic worldview and all of their famous heroes were atheists. Right? Nah, they’re like youths that have inherited a mansion called western civilization. The question is will they keep it up, trash it, or give it to someone else? I guess we’ll see. Your comment may have some weight in a couple of centuries, as of now it does not.

  • I had no idea GQ was a propaganda mouthpiece for conservative Christianity. I’ll make sure to read other magazines in the checkout line.

  • Spuddie

    Like Rwanda, Yugoslavia, Honduras, and Russia.

  • Gehennah

    A&E has every right to determine who is on their station and who is not.

    This isn’t a mafia controlling thoughts, this is a group of people standing up for what they think is right.

  • kickinitincrik

    Google tolerance: “the ability or willingness to tolerate something, in particular the existence of opinions or behavior that one does not necessarily agree with.” Look at this definition and the look at what I wrote above please. But I do agree that the word “tolerance” has been twisted politically.

  • icecreamassassin

    Uganda

  • Jeremiah Traeger

    If we were talking about economics or social stability then maaaaaybe you’d have a point. Maybe. I certainly wouldn’t concede anything to you at the moment.

    But we’re talking about tolerance. 22% of Norway state they believe in a god, despite around 78% of it being Lutheran. Despite non-belief in a god, they have found that not being an asshat to people generally makes for a good quality of life. Compare the tolerance of the people there to those here. The Republican party makes Christian-based laws that outlaw atheists from office, take away women’s health care, and prevent rights for LGBTs. If that’s your definition of tolerance, then I guess I get where you are coming from.

  • Do you even go here?

  • phantomreader42

    GQ published an interview with a famous idiot known for saying stupid shit that christians love to hear. Basically vultures circling a train wreck looking for carrion. A train wreck that wouldn’t exist if the famous idiot had been dropped when he started telling incredibly stupid lies for jeebus.

  • Spuddie

    Atheists don’t need much of an argument. All one has to do is listen to some pissant believer try to claim some form of privilege. People like yourself can’t even pretend to be tolerant of others. It only took a lost or two before you started insulting other religions.

    Do us a favor, don’t even pretend you give a shit about anyone but your own little group. Don’t use the term tolerance, you have no clue what it means.

  • Yeah! Pop culture is supposed to pander to my prejudices, not somebody else’s prejudices!

  • Jonas

    “It seems like, to me, a vagina — as a man — would be more desirable than a man’s anus.”

    Funny, I hold the same belief. I assume that’s a byproduct of me being straight, and that if I was gay, I’d hold the opposite belief…

    Whats depressing though is how many people actually think there is some sort of free speech issue here. It’s like they don’t know that the bill of rights is protection from government. If you want to embarrass your employers by associating them with hate speech, don’t be surprised when they cut ties with you to protect their reputation.

  • Gehennah

    This, if I were openly racist or the leader of the local chapter of the KKK, then my workplace would have every right to fire me because they do not want to be associated with people with those views.

    It doesn’t take away my right to be racist, but they have the right to distance themselves from me as well.

  • Spuddie

    What the hell would you know what tolerance is? you can’t even refrain from insulting other religions.

    Just because you have a right to talk like an asshole, it doesn’t make you immune to criticism or social effects of doing so.

    You have the right to talk like an asshole. By doing so you accept the possibility some is going to call you an asshole for doing it.

  • Dan Dewey

    So burning people at the stake, owning slaves, murdering Native Americans, not allowing women to vote, and discrimination against gays…..let me see….sounds like a real tolerant nation to me….NOT!

  • diogeneslamp0

    You did not respond to my argument– rather, you define Christian countries as “the most tolerant nations ever” because their victims, being largely exterminated, have no opportunity to be not tolerated. You do not assess their treatment of Native Americans, Incas, Aztecs, blacks, Tasmanians, Timorese etc. as intolerance because American conservative Christians do not consider non-Americans to be really human. So they do not even appear on your radar or get weighed on your balance; you call yourself tolerant because you merely fantasize and pontificate about exterminating gay whites without acting on it. And it helps that some of your subordinated groups have been exterminated, so out of sight, out of mind. “Exterminated” is not the same as “tolerated” and never will be.

  • Spuddie

    I am 100% certain A&E doesn’t give a flying crap about what Robertson said beyond how would advertisers react. That little stunt probably cost them.

  • Gehennah

    Of course, they make their money off of advertising. Many companies are no longer bigoted towards homosexuals, so they wouldn’t want to air their commercials during a show with people that advocate that homosexuality leads to bestiality.

    If he had left it at he’s not into the whole anus thing, then cool. Not everybody is (I certainly am not), but he then kept going.

  • TheG

    Or The Dixie Chicks? Or Bill Maher? Or…

  • Spuddie

    Maybe not for you but the cat probably enjoys it. They are selfish that way

  • I take it Robertson isn’t fond of redneck trees either.

  • He’s not being censored. His odious views were published in a national magazine. Now he’s suffering the consequence of holding and uttering unpopular and odious views, which is that many people will not like you and private corporations may decide you are a liability to their business. As for “mafia tactics” I’ll just continue having a laugh at that. I don’t know what kind of mafia you have where you’re from, but from what I know they’re rarely so civil as merely refusing to do business with someone they don’t like. Maybe contact us again when A&E fills Robertson’s shoes with cement and he washes ashore on the East River.

  • TheG

    Yet, Christian countries with the same foundation in Western Civilization do not have such a high quality of living. Do you think something else might be going on? Why does it have to be Christian history that determines their success?

  • phantomreader42

    Because if he doesn’t attribute their success to christianity, then he’d have to admit that his babbling about christian tolerance is a worthless load of shit.

  • Pitabred

    I wonder if it’d blow his mind to learn that most relationships are about a lot more than just vaginas and anuses…

  • phantomreader42

    So, your “evidence” that christians are tolerant consists of you selectively redefining tolerant countries as “christian” when in fact you know perfectly well that you’re lying when you do so. Just as expected. Your sick death cult can’t be defended without lying through your rotten teeth.

  • MindofGod

    Palin has it wrong. You’re always free to voice your opinion, until you represent a company that doesn’t share how you feel. If they feel you damage their image, they have the right to terminate you because of that.

  • Pitabred

    Yup. Men are barely more than animals, but we’re also totally better than those women, because Jeebus.

    It’s really sad how destructive the patriarchal social construct is to both genders.

  • Whitney Currie

    I’ll just…leave this here. Some temptations are just too much for me.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EXPcBI4CJc8

  • Gehennah

    She loves the free market until it actually affects someone who shares her views.

  • The Captain

    Oh this is funny. Lets see, giant swaths of south america are “marxist” and you would be more than free to speak out however you like about how much you hate homosexuals and nothing would happen to you. Yet you come on here and imply it’s capitalistic countries that are more tolerant… in a thread where you showed outrage about a private for profit capitalist company doing what they see as in their best financial interest by not tolerating someone you agree with?!

    Yeaaaaa.

  • Jaze

    Except there’s a difference between having a drink and drinking to excess. You don not score a point here.

  • Jaze

    Funny, I’ve been to both the Middle Eastern countries AND the secular-European ones. They are both extremely INTOLERANT of Christians, just like the atheist community and the LGBT community is. You preach tolerance, unless it is someone who believes different than you of course. Convenient.

  • Jaze

    Who was burning who? The Romans burned Christians as human torches. Native Americans? They witnessed and established missions to teach and educate them, you should read a book about David Brainerd perhaps.

  • Nomad

    Wait a second here. Not giving a reality TV platform to someone = marginalization now? You mean I’ve been marginalized by TV executives all my life?

  • Todd Heath

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

    Fixed it!

  • Gehennah

    I find many atheists very tolerant of Christians.

    Disagreeing with someone is not intolerance.

  • Nomad

    Yes, not believing that homosexuality is the same thing as or leads to bestiality, adultery, and prostitution is totally a prejudice. What an astute thing to say.

  • Gehennah

    And what else did the US do to the Native Americans? Infected them with smallpox, killed them, and a bunch of other things.

    No, not everyone absolutely attempted to destroy them, but to pretend that it didn’t happen is just sad.

  • The Starship Maxima

    So if I understand you correctly Hemant, freedom of speech means you get to say whatever you want, but then people have the right to punish you for that speech.
    Okay, so if you were fired from your job teaching math based on some anti-Christian statement you made, do I get to say, “Now atheists, don’t start crying about ‘freedom of speech’. You got to say what you wanted, and now you suffer the consequences.”
    Or is this only applicable when the offended group is gays?

  • Nomad

    Are we talking about the same thing here? He compared homosexuals to prostitutes and said that they’re “not right”. That’s fine and dandy according to you, apparently. But telling him that he’s not right, that’s censorship is it?

    That’s not what censorship means, and that’s not what tolerance means.

  • Jeremiah Traeger

    The Hudson Institute’s Center for Religious Freedom would disagree with you. This is a Conservative Think Tank, by the way, if that would help take the piss out of the argument that I’m only tolerant to people who share the same opinion as me.

    http://crf.hudson.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=survey_files

    I have to say, furthermore, that they do indeed rank the USA as better than Norway, for example. But the highest-ranked ones are the Netherlands, Sweden, Norway, and the USA. So based on this data alone, the USA may be more tolerant.

    I have to remind you, though, disagreement with your religious beliefs is NOT intolerance.

  • purr

    They have histories steeped in catholicism actually.

  • What?

  • Nomad

    I’m getting increasingly disappointed with your logic, Starship.

    A&E is a capitalistic entity. A company that exists to make money. We have reached a point in this society where saying saying jaw droppingly ignorant things about a minority is less approved of in public than it once was. Yes, that was a watered down statement, there are still many sectors where you can say stuff like this and be rewarded with a shower of money. Primarily sectors involving religion.

    But A&E has the bottom line to look after. This bearded redneck twit finally said something bad enough that they feared the flow of money would be negatively affected because advertisers aren’t down with the gay hating anymore. And they took action.

    He is not being “punished” for his speech. He is facing the consequences of his actions. You appear to be arguing that he should be free to say anything his stunted little mind can come up with and yet he should be free from facing any possible consequence from it.

  • Jeremiah Traeger

    He’s probably not allowed to speak to his students about political issues, so his firing would definitely be allowable. I should say your analogy doesn’t quite work, because Hemant’s employer is not a high-profile company where the livelihood of the company depends on how the public views its employess.

    Let me make a better one. Say Hemant worked for Fox News as a professional blogger. One day Hemant goes off on a rant about how gays deserve equal rights and treatment. Fox News doesn’t think it represents their viewers well, so they fire him (maybe it would be better with a stern warning, such a suspension in Mr. Robertson’s case here). That’s STILL not a violation of free speech, the company can do what they want. And us here on the blog could still criticize Fox News for being asshats. And the Fox News viewers can all call us asshats too. And we all call each other asshats, and not a single bit of free speech is being taken away.

  • ok, let me try again….

    I’m having trouble with your analogy because A&E has the right to not host someone based on what they say, a school has an obligation to not have a teacher who is saying certain things. It wouldn’t just be the school’s right to fire Hemant, it would be their obligation. (assuming the speech and the context and the warnings yada yada yada).

  • The Starship Maxima

    Better one, Hemant is a blogger for….CNN…..writing about the impact of religion in schools. In an interview with a separate magazine, which has nothing to do with his work for CNN, he says Christians are about as dumb as bricks and as dangerous as Nazis. CNN suspends him, even though nothing he said has anything to do with the job he was hired to do.

    I think that is free speech being taken away.

  • The Starship Maxima

    So Nomad, where does that stop??? Sometimes, things impact the bottom line, but they are NO less true or necessary to be said. Are we still okay with using punitive firings?

  • Nomad

    Well that settles it. You don’t understand what freedom of speech means then.

  • Gehennah

    It hasn’t, because he can say that.

    The guy can still be fired for it. If I were the leader of the KKK in my area and the company I work for found out, they would have every right to fire me. It isn’t a violation of my freedom of speech because I’d be able to say what I wanted. But this doesn’t mean I don’t suffer consequences for that speech.

  • The Starship Maxima

    I thought an employer had an obligation to hire or fire an employee based on what they DO only. I thought anything else was wrong?

  • Jeremiah Traeger

    Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences of speech. CNN is not the government, so they can do what they want.

  • Rain

    The internet is abuzz and on fire with the A&E-broke-the-First-Amendment meme. The First Amendment experts are just crawling out from all over the freaking place lol.

  • Nomad

    No, where does it stop for you is the question. You appear to be saying that A&E should have been forced to continue employing this guy despite his actions taking a negative toll on the revenue of the show. So when does it stop? At what point are they no longer compelled to continue airing a show that tanked in the ratings and is hemorrhaging money because the advertising dollars aren’t coming in any more?

  • The Starship Maxima

    And you’re okay with that? You’re okay with a world in which saying something unpopular can get you fired, even if it has NOTHING whatsoever to do with your job?

  • On the internet, everyone is a constitutional expert.

  • Gehennah

    And the funniest thing, his First Amendment rights weren’t infringed upon.

  • The Starship Maxima

    Would you still be getting upvotes if you said you were okay with your employer firing you if they found out you were a member of the HRC or Planned Parenthood?

  • Nomad

    What part of reality TV star are you not understanding? Everything this guy says and does is “what they do only”. Every word he utters which is recorded and broadcast in the media is part of his brand.

  • The Starship Maxima

    It seems I don’t understand what exactly people mean by fair and just anymore.

  • Gehennah

    Yes.

    If it harms the company, the company has every right to fire you for it. If I were an overt racist, then the company I work for could fire me because of that because people may not want to deal with a company that hires overt racists.

    Now, they can’t fire you over certain things, like your religion, but many companies also have rules against discussing religion at work.

  • Nomad

    It had everything to do with his job. I already explained it, and you acknowledged it and then tried to argue that maybe it was necessary anyway.

  • Keep in mind there’s ‘legal’ and what any of us may think is or is not ‘just’.

  • The Starship Maxima

    Of course they have a right to protect their investment.

    It’s just that…..when a restaurant suspended a gay waiter because of the negative publicity following an altercation that was not his fault at all, I don’t recall people being as sympathetic to their need to protect their profits.

  • Gehennah

    I would be ok with them firing me over it if it meant that I was doing harm to the company’s image.

    But I also do not go around promoting Planned Parenthood, and I do absolutely distance myself from my workplace and my personal life. Most of my friends do not know where I work, and on my online profiles, my work isn’t listed. This is at a request by my company to prevent damage like that happening.

  • The Starship Maxima

    I guess I see that logic.

  • Nomad

    So you are saying that it’s not this guy’s fault at all that he compared gay people to prostitutes, people that have sex with animals, and people that cheat on their spouses?

  • The Starship Maxima

    I would NOT be okay with that. (But I do admire the strength of your convictions).

    If I hired at my company, I wouldn’t give half a shit if you went on a Facebook rant about your boss’s “stupid fairy tale bullshit”, or spoke about your support for abortion. I hired you to do a job at a price, that’s all that matters.

    To me at least.

  • The Starship Maxima

    I see your point Gehennah. It’s just that, in some parts, being gay is considered “harmful to the brand” and once upon a time being black was “harmful to the brand”.

    A lot of unfair interference in employees’ private lives can be justified under the banner of “harmful to the brand”.

  • The Starship Maxima

    I see the logic. I just don’t like it. At all.

  • Well, you can’t be fired for being black.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964

  • Malcolm McLean

    Christians need to respond to pro-homosexuality statements in exactly the same way as the homosexual lobby responds to anti-homosexuality statements. Otherwise you get a process whereby the pro-homosexuality statements become ever more extreme, and the shrieking and reaction to anti-homosexuality statements also becomes more extreme, until no-one can even say anything slightly against the homosexual lobby.

  • The Starship Maxima

    Please don’t do that. We’re having a sane conversation here, I’d to keep it that way.

    He’s an idiot of equating homosexuality to bestiality (though I myself have pointed out that the Bible considers all sexual immorality including adultery, fornication, and homosexuality as bad, but that’s neither here nor there).

    The point isn’t that he’s not responsible for his own statements. Of course he’s responsible.

    I’m just wondering if there’s any limit at all to when a company can’t punish you because you have views they don’t like.

  • The Starship Maxima

    Any more, you mean.

  • The Starship Maxima

    I’m not sure I want to resort to a game of “tit for tat” with the gay lobby.

  • Jeremiah Traeger

    Being gay and/or black are not actions. Stating something is an action. Your actions are choices.

  • It’s exactly the same as MLK, Jr., for example, understanding that when he disturbed the peace with non-violent resistance–saying what needed to be said–and placing his body in harm’s way to do so and make it so that he could not be ignored, that he was still violating the law and needed to accept the consequences through arrest and penalization. Civil disobedience, as the saying goes, is still disobedience.

    It’s not bravery if there are no consequences. What people seem to want is the ability to “speak hard truths” and be considered brave in doing so, and yet nothing bad happen to them as a result. That’s a farce and a mockery of actual speaking-truth-to-power. If a person is moved by truth to fight against the prevailing social values or wisdom, he or she shouldn’t expect to make too many friends or win accolades while doing so.

    This analysis holds regardless of the content of the supposed hard truths. If gay rights activists believed they wouldn’t face getting kicked around for convincing the society that the way they are treated (pointedly, as second class citizens) was a moral abomination, they would be as deluded as the person who thinks that telling a predominantly gay-friendly society that we really ought to be shoving homosexuals back into the closet they came from if they expected to be making friends and avoiding all consequence by doing so. Telling people that they’re wrong, loudly, usually results in their not wanting to have much to do with you; if it’s an employer, they are likely to fire you. If you are a greater threat to the social order, the power of the law itself will be turned against you.

    So where it stops, in the end, is exactly the point at which the person who thinks they are bearing truth to the public and seeking to scream it to any who will listen choose to risk in taking it. We don’t like acknowledging this (mainly because it’s a practical lesson with dicey moral consequences) but we always weigh our duties against one another, and our duty to truth (whatever we conceive that to be) is one among many and not necessarily the most dispositive. If you are the breadwinner of a family, then people depend on you to keep your job for their survival and sustenance; this may weigh against your desire to blast a jeremiad against an abusive employer or one that is acting dishonestly or acting otherwise unethically. It may cause you to hold your tongue if you think it’s wrong when you get an instruction you don’t agree with, or have limitations imposed on your freedom of action in the context of work that chafe either pride or conscience.

    That is a simple reality of a world in which possession of power does not correlate with moral rightness or competence or deserving in any significant way. It is also something pointed out by religions themselves, if implicitly, and philosophers, sometimes more explicitly. The folks at the end the story of the Allegory of the Cave beat the philosopher to death for the truth he tried to share, and you well know what happened to the character of Jesus in the gospel story when he tried to share his. It almost makes me want to shout, the nerve of a group of people who follow a guy who got crucified to share what he thought was important that they believe no consequences should transpire for them when they go and follow their deity’s lesson.

    Maybe this is a bit blunt, but there it is. It’s a startling bit of cognitive dissonance.

  • The Starship Maxima

    Stating that blacks should be able to vote and actively engaging in a homosexual relationship and/or gay activism are also both actions.

  • Jeremiah Traeger

    Yes, and if those cause problems at work, the company can fire the person. Most companies have policies against doing those sorts of things in the workplace, and you agree to it when you sign on. In Mr. Robertson’s case, where his job is to be a public persona, he probably signed a similar contract.

  • The Starship Maxima

    Well…..I got nothing on that one.

  • The Starship Maxima

    Shit. Point, you.

  • Cake

    You need a remedial civics class.

  • MarkTemporis

    Y’know, I don’t think they should’ve fired him. Ignorant and stupid is sort of their brand — what you expect from the show. That he said something ignorant and stupid in his free time really is just free advertising. Are any gays really hurt or surprised that a couple of backwoods hicks are prejudiced against gays?

  • The Starship Maxima

    I don’t deny that.

  • Cake

    A christian fundie doesn’t like fairness, logic and how freedom of speech work. Gee who would have thunk.

  • Nomad

    I’m responding to the point you raised. You stressed the point that the waiter being gay was not his fault. If the comparison was not apt you should not have made it.

    Rich’s at will employment link is probably a better response than what I would have said about limits so I’ll let that one go.

  • The Starship Maxima

    I literally have no retort for this whatsoever.

  • The Starship Maxima

    True.

  • Maybe he thinks that before the civil rights era, being black was the same as engaging in bestiality.

    Imagine if the host of a Fox News show compared religion to slavery.

    How long would that host continue to work for Fox?

    How many of the people crying Amendment, one of the important ones! would be criticizing Fox?

    .

  • Did Sarah Palin defend Pussy Riot?

    .

  • chanceofrainne

    No, I just have lots of feelings.

  • chanceofrainne

    Negative. In your scenario, he expressed his views openly and then experienced market driven consequences

    If, however, the government had stepped in to prevent those views from being published, or had disappeared or detained or re-educated him in response to his speech, THEN his free speech would have been violated.

    Do you see the difference?

  • The Starship Maxima

    Yes. And I still don’t approve.

  • Michael Harrison

    My first thought was to the other meaning of ‘bestiality’: brutish or beastly in character or behavior, as dictionary.com puts it, which would certainly describe the mentality exhibited here. To quote from The Threepenny Opera:

    “What keeps mankind alive? The fact that millions
    are daily tortured, stifled, punished, silenced and oppressed
    Mankind can keep alive thanks to its brilliance
    in keeping its humanity repressed
    And for once you must try not to shirk the facts
    Mankind is kept alive by bestial acts!”

    (Edited to correct a typesetting oversight.)

  • chanceofrainne

    I don’t honestly care if you approve or not. That isn’t at issue. What is at issue is how First Amendment rights work and who they apply to: namely, they stop the government disappearing you for saying things they don’t like. Nothing in the constitution protects you from the consequences of your actions.

    If I, as an atheist, walked into a church and called everyone inside ignorant fairy-humping c*nts, I would fully deserve to get my ass beat. That’s a consequence. If I had a reality show and went into a magazine article and saidbreathtakingly ignorant things about gays, non-Christians, and African-Americans, I would also fully deserve to lose my show. That, too, is a consequence.

  • Gehennah

    Except from a company point of view, it is extremely unprofessional. You can probably get away with it on low skill jobs, but professional jobs, its bad for business.

  • chanceofrainne,

    If I, as an atheist, walked into a church and called everyone inside ignorant fairy-humping c*nts, I would fully deserve to get my ass beat.

    No.

    You should be banned from the building, but not assaulted.

    We have the doctrine of fighting words, but we need to be adults.

    I hear something I do not like.

    Should I throw a tantrum and some punches?

    Should I behave in a civilized way and not resort to violence.

    Resorting to violence is like resorting to calling an opponent a Nazi – it is an admission of a lack of a valid argument.

    .

  • Agreed. I’m gay and I think the comments about African Americans are more offensive. He thinks gay sex is a sin. Like I care. And doesn’t understand this or that. Well, he’s a moron. But there is well documented evidence of how blacks were treated under Jim Crow. I’m too young to remember much of that but recently as part of a class on American popular song (Colonial Era to 1950) we looked at “coon songs” and mistrel show material. I really had no idea. I knew it was bad but I wasn’t prepared for just how bad it was, and this is stuff that was in mainstream movies, radio, major recording labels and even on television. Better off? Sadly, this is not a rare view from people like this guy. It’s not like I’d never heard people say almost word for word the kind of crap he said in that interview. I grew up in East Texas which is not far from West Monroe, LA.

  • A few weeks ago I walked past the local LifeWay store (that’s the rebranded Baptist Bookstore so they can sell to other fundies). The entire front of the store was devoted to Duck Dynasty stuff.

  • Gehennah

    Depending on the state, them simply being in a homosexual relationship is actually protected.

    Being an activist is not. Although most businesses aren’t going to care as long as it isn’t harming their company. With this, it would have likely directly harmed the company

  • The Starship Maxima

    In my world walking into a church and calling everyone inside a bunch of ignorant fairy-humping cunts would get you, at most, an incredulous look. Probably an invitation to stay for service.

    Maybe in my perfect world people are secure enough not to fear opinions.

    But again, that’s my world.

  • He “resigned” is more like it.

  • The Starship Maxima

    In my company, I wouldn’t care if they were in a homosexual relationship or cross-dressing on the weekends. Precisely because I care about the bottom-line. I want the guy/girl who can do the job at the price I’m willing to pay.

    It disturbs me that’s not the end of all relevant considerations.

  • And speaking of overpaid idiots…enter Barbara Walters.

  • UWIR

    “Mission” is a euphemism for slave labor camp, jackass. They put the adults to work, and took their children away to be indoctrinated in Spanish culture. But I guess what is “cultural genocide” to some people is “education” to you.

  • LOL I only ever hear this “tolerance” crap from bigots wanting to justify their own bigotry by claiming that some people are hypocrites by not tolerating their intolerance. He does indeed have a right to say whatever crap he thinks. GQ has a right to print it. But he doesn’t have a right to have a tv show. Most contracts have a clause that allows you to be fired for pulling crap like this. The man claims that black people were better off under Jim Crow. Are you really defending that?

  • Gehennah

    Right, the bottom line.

    If you had the Grand Dragon working for you and everyone knew you employed him, there would be a lot of customers and businesses that would not do business with you, and it would directly affect your bottom line.

    A guy that is a major figure for the show goes out and says homosexuality leads to bestiality, that is going to drive away business for the show (in advertisers), which will directly affect the bottom line.

    Now his 1st Amendment Rights would have been violated if the government arrested him for what he said.

  • the tolerance you cite stems from the Englightenment. Unless Christians now want to take credit for a movement they tried to suppress.

  • UWIR

    There have been plenty of Islamic countries that were tolerant, and extremely violent Christian ones. Every country has some religious history, so your claim is… what? Christianity isn’t quite as bad as the other religions? Christians don’t kill quite as many people as Muslims? Oh, wow, you don’t kill gays, you just put them in prison. You want a fucking cookie or something?

  • How are the secular European countries intolerant of Christians exactly? Please be specific.

  • UWIR

    Mafia tactics? I guess I missed the episode of the Sopranos where someone said something incredibly insulting to Tony, and he responded by calmly walking away and refusing to have anything to do with them. I’ll have to track down that DVD. Anyone know which season it was?

    You are such a whiny crybaby. Someone exercises their right to run their business they want, and you call that a “mafia tactic”. I guess you right wingers like being able to fire people, but you don’t like other people being able to fire people.

  • He’d have been better off if he HAD been censored. The problem for people like this is that people stick microphones in their faces and then print or air EXACTLY what they said. That’s the opposite of censorship.

  • I’m pretty sure that if he made statements equivalent to what this Duck guy said, he’d be fired.

  • Then you don’t understand how the 1st Amendment works. The freedom of the press (which extends now to broadcast media) belongs to the TV station or cable channel or publisher, NOT to the reporter. It is not a violation of free speech rights if a reporter’s contract is not renewed. I have a right to speech. I don’t have a right to have that speech aired by CNN.

  • UWIR

    I believe that gay people deserve to be treated with basic human dignity. Am I intolerant of people who believe differently? Hell yeah I am. You want to focus merely on the fact that you disagree with us, and not talk about WHAT you disagree with us about, when that’s the fundamental issue.

  • Embarrassing your employer will get you fired. I used to work for an investment bank. We had very clear rules about what employees could and couldn’t say on a variety of topics.

  • Gehennah

    Which is another really good reason to be careful what you say on social media (especially Facebook).

  • That may be unfair, but people are fired from endorsement contracts and other high profile gigs for things that are only about their personal lives.

  • UWIR

    I don’t think that gay people should be killed just for being gay. Do I intend on forcing you to accept that? Hell yeah. Will I put up with you acting contrary to that? Hell no. You want to call me “intolerant”? Fine. I am, according to your dictionary definition, “intolerant”. So what? You think I am the least bit ashamed of my “intolerance”?

  • But it’s not and in a majority of states, people can be fired for being gay and in even more they could be fired for being transgendered. That’s simply a fact. It’s good for you to value people’s work over things that don’t affect the workplace, but not everyone feels that way.

  • He wasn’t suspended for belonging to an organization. He was suspended for something he said, that you have to admit were said in about the harshest terms he could manage. If you worked for an anti-gay or pro-life church and they found out you supported HRC or PP, you bet you life you’d be fired.

  • UWIR

    I hope I don’t seem too pedantic when I suggest that you say “the reason that a lot of us are calling out intolerant bullshit is not that it’s part of a politically correct handbook we’ve all been blindly led to follow” to avoid your statement being confused with the statement “The reason that a lot of us aren’t calling out intolerant bullshit is that it’s part of a politically correct handbook we’ve all been blindly led to follow.”

  • I would never rant about my boss on Facebook. That’s juvenile and stupid. Someone that dumb deserves to be fired. It’s one thing to have an opinion and share it with a friend or life partner, but broadcasting it (which is what a Facebook post is) is unprofessional.

  • Gehennah

    Who ever said anything about fair and just?

    From your perspective, it may not be fair, but is it fair for you to be able to cost your company customers and damage its image?

  • UWIR

    It is my understanding that Hemant is employed by a public school. Since his employer is a government agency, its actions implicate the First Amendment. If he were fired by a private employer for anti-Christian statements, that would be discrimination, but it would not be a violation of the First Amendment. And I find anti-atheist discrimination to be much worse than anti-bigot discrimination.

  • ROFLOL “The homosexual lobby”. The all=powerful “homosexual lobby” that can’t get a simple employment nondiscrimination law passed through Congress in spite of the fact that most Americans think it’s already the law. What exactly are the extreme pro-homosexuality statements?

    Here’s what’s going on. Moderates used to be the face of the GOP. The toned down the nasty parts of the religious right and economic conservative’s views. Dole ran on “we’re for equal rights, but not special rights.” Okay that was a pile of crap but it sounded good to moderates. Now those folks have left and crap like this is said by people who 20 years ago wouldn’t have been allowed near a microphone. There’s nothing in that GQ interview that I haven’t heard people say all my life. It’s just that people that redneck wouldn’t have been given a TV show 20 years ago so most of America had no idea what douchenozzles people like this really are. Now they know.

  • But this is something the person DID.

  • Gehennah

    Actually, thanks Rich. I didn’t realize that some states didn’t actually have public policy exceptions. That’s well, sad.

  • what a said state that people like this (and not just this guy but so many others) are given a tv show. Really, are we this desperate for entertainment?

  • Yes. It seems that according to some people not having your own tv show is a violation of your free speech rights.

  • UWIR

    And most people pronounce it “beastiality” (and many spell it that way). There is a lot of confusion regarding the word, with people thinking it refers specifically to sex with animals, when it means animal-like behavior.

  • UWIR

    “***Update***: The post originally went up with an incorrect headline.”

    Do you mean the “equating” part? That’s still there, although the URL says “leads to”.

  • Jonas

    The problem is, that would be interpreted as actual approval of his comments.

  • Jonas

    Please take a civics class.

  • Jonas

    Bah, I JUST told him to take a civics class, scroll down a few comments, and you already beat me to it 🙁

  • Jonas

    Um. Hate to break it to you, but that’s already how it works. Someone says “gays aren’t hurting me”, and some guy grabs a microphone and says they’re the anti-Christ for tolerating homosexual behavior because God.

    In the end, the problem boils down to this. Gays wants equal rights, and the religious right feels giving gays rights infringes their right to infringe the rights of gays.

  • Jonas

    You think it’s free speech being taken away because you don’t understand free speech. I urge you once again to take a civics class and understand what your rights are, and who they protect you against. Being fired for X is *NOT* a violation of free speech or a constitutional amendment. It *MIGHT* fall under discrimination laws, depending on the specific X, but that’s it. In this case, the man went on record delivering hate speech, and the company didn’t like that. To do nothing about it can be taken as approval of his comments. It’s the company looking after it’s own interests. It’s no different than a parent punishing their kid for calling the neighbor a whore in public.

    Actions have consequences. Freedom of speech isn’t freedom from consequence. There is no law saying I’m no allowed to think you’re an asshole for being a bigot. There’s no law saying I have to continue allowing you to be a public face of my company when you run around and start offending people.

  • Dan Dewey

    Learn your history. And not the history that is taught by the very government that committed these horrendous acts. Ever hear of the trail of tears? Look it up!

  • Jonas

    I disagree. If you do something that monumentally stupid, you deserve what happens. Somewhere along the line, we seem to be ignoring personal responsibility. Sure, the assaulter would be just as guilty by assaulting him, but when you go that far out of your way to put yourself into harms way, there is no denying you share a measure of fault in what happened to you.

  • Gordon

    I seem to recall Palin being fine with someone getting fired for their free speech when it was about her recently.

  • Jonas

    Yes. You represent your company. ESPECIALLY if you are a high profile person. Dragging your companies name through the mud by associating with yourself should get your fired. Would you like to live in a world where you own a subway and you can’t fire an employee for chasing away customers by standing around outside in his subway uniform waving a sign “God hates fags!” just because he was off the clock while doing so?

    As a high profile public figure, he doesn’t HAVE to be doing anything specific to the company to be associated with it. For all intents and purposes, he’s a subway employee who’s never out of his subway uniform.

  • Jonas

    Except when it comes to public figures, you WOULD care. They are technically never ‘off the clock’ so to speak, and their actions are always associated with the company.

  • Jonas

    That’s the major problem. Legal has little, if anything, to do with ‘fair and just’. If you want ‘fair and just’, the man should be more than just suspended for attempting to dehumanize an entire class of people.

  • Jonas

    So…being upset for someone getting suspended for something that wasn’t his fault is being compared to not being upset for someone getting suspended for something that WAS his fault…? How does this make sense?

  • Intelligent Donkey

    It’s the same “slippery slope” argument.

    If homosexuality leads to bestiality, then a single glass of wine leads to alcoholism.

  • Jonas

    I can’t help but fear that there’s someone out there who believes this.

  • Jonas

    Hot diggity dog! I think it’s time I write my senator and let them know I’ve been marginalized and my free speech rights violated like a drunken prom date!

  • qwerty017

    Posted this on themattwalshblog.com because I couldn’t stand the persecution complex. Want to take bets on if it makes it through the moderation system? lol

    Yeah. I couldn’t agree more. It couldn’t possibly have anything to do with the fact that, depending on how you read it, he either compared homosexuality to beastiality as if they were the same thing or said that homosexuality leads to beastiality. This is definitely not the exact same reaction they would have taken if he had said in his interview something just as racist rather than homophobic. Nope. Not at all. It has to do with the fact that he is Christian. I bet if he had used the Koran rather than the Bible to support his belief A&E would have been completely cool with it. Yep. That’s it. It has the be Christian persecution. That is the only answer.

  • Derpington_The_Third

    thatsthejoke.jpg

  • You just don’t understand, Nomad.

    It’s bad enough that there are people in this society who aren’t as morally enlightened as me. But when I have to be reminded of that fact every time I read a magazine interview in the checkout line, why, my virtue is doubly offended!

  • Alierias

    Why else would you use an avatar — if you don’t fear ANY consequences from your free speech, use your real name!

  • Sandrilene

    Hmm.
    I’d say that one of the most tolerant countries is Trinidad.
    It has a mixture of Hindus, Christians and Muslims.
    Everyone celebrates Carnival. Everyone admires the lights at Divali.

  • realeasygoing

    Wait Wait you expecting a redneck bearded hunter to love gays? Sounds like a ridiculous idea to me!

  • Glasofruix

    Well, getting in a bar full of bikers and then proceed to call them faggots is free speech, but it sure isn’t the wisest thing to do…

  • MN Atheist

    There is crud all over Facebook…I support Phil Robertson and his right to express his faith and beliefs, shame on A&E…

    Well I guess I do to. Phil can say what he likes when he likes. But so can A&E.

  • Psychotic Atheist

    I’m pretty sure gay men think of the sexual attractiveness of male anuses is what straight men feel about female anuses. Why compare genitals to anuses, it makes me wonder. Of course he couldn’t say ‘it seems to me that a vagina would be more desirable than a penis’ – because that would be more obviously ridiculous.

  • Spuddie

    In other words people there got annoyed when you tried to beat them over the head with a bible. When a Christian conservative type talks about tolerance, what they really mean is license. They just want a right to treat others like crap without any repercussions. You can’t even use the term without ironically trashing others in the same breath. You are just a whiny little hypocrite.

  • kickinitincrik

    I missed the part where Robertson said to kill gays. Please stay on point.

  • kickinitincrik

    A&E is making a business decision. They are going to cater to the side that they’re more afraid of and the side that they deem more intolerant and the side that will push for boycotts. Sorry Robertson.

  • Griff

    I doubt their ratings will be hurt, at all. So you probably won’t be able to get what you want. Nearly all Christians frown upon homosexuality, they believe that love and sex should be between a man and a woman. Why is that gays can speak freely but those who oppose it cannot? Stupid. So are your opinions.

  • WoodwindsRock

    I had to go to a Christian bookstore with my mom yesterday, and it was also decked out in Duck Dynasty stuff. My local Walmart also has a lot of Duck Dynasty stuff. =/

    But what disturbed me the most was an ad I heard on the radio yesterday… Something about how men are supposed to make their house their “kingdom” (or something to that effect), and that women were supposed to not only like it, but also look for men with such views.

    I believe it was advertising an event of some sort, because at the end of it, it noted that one of the Duck Dynasty guys would be there to advocate the idea (it may have been Phil Robertson, himself).

    I had a sudden urge to vomit.

  • Justatron

    So glad to see that the winners of the 2013 Corporate Shill Award have the chance to voice their opinions…let’s see Walmart slap that quote on t-shirts, bookbags, water bottles, underwear, bags of cat litter, decorative towels, individual aspirin pills, doormats, Christmas ornaments, tampons, bottles of cheap wine, jugs of milk, door chimes or whatever else will stand still long enough to be branded for Duck Dynasty…

  • cathouseumbrella

    Someone needs to explain to this guy that anuses are not unique to men.

  • Whats depressing though is how many people actually think there is some sort of free speech issue here.

    Strictly speaking, there probably is none. But some of us remember a time when we considered it contrary to the spirit of a free society to pick and choose who had the right to express their opinion in public. The quaint notion that having to abide the occasional airing of an unpopular opinion is preferable to uniformity of thought went the way of the passenger pigeon a long time ago.

    Nobody should miss the kind of odious opinions that Duck Dynasty guy here is expressing, but that’s exactly the point. If we decide to be political instead of principled, we get the kind of society we deserve. And if that doesn’t depress you, hey, you’re not alone.

  • Ed Selby

    A&E sounds a lot like Renard in Casablanca

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SjbPi00k_ME

  • Spuddie

    Not if you are Christian. Providing = unqualified aporoval to them. Evidently for example, providing contraception to others means you approve of non procreative sex.

  • Gregory Marshall

    How come old Sarah wasn’t defending Martin Brashir’s right to free speech when he got the axe from MSNBC?

    Oh that’s right, he was attacking her.

  • Spuddie

    Western civilization thrived DESPITE Christianity not because of it. Enough people telling the churches to go stuff it, rather thanletting them creticretinize society

  • diogeneslamp0

    The Romans burned Christians as human torches? More fake Nero stories. Besides the Nero fake story, we need to remind you that no Christians were actually fed to lions in the Roman Coliseum. Those stories were concocted hundreds of years later. Martyrbation fantasies.

  • Spuddie

    Because every bigot wants to murder the object of their hate. That means the KKK was just a spring of tolerance to you. They just wanted whites to rule over others. Nope you still have no clue

  • LesterBallard

    Yeah, people just drink for the taste. That’s why non-alcoholic stuff is so fucking popular.

  • Spuddie

    For a media company, image is their bottom line. Robertson’ s statement could easily have cost A&E advertising and audience. It could lead to marketing losses.

  • Lark62

    “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’m still trying to figure out why greedy swindlers are welcomed, praised and worshiped by churches and christians.

  • Art_Vandelay

    Wouldn’t it have been more surprising if this dude wasn’t homophobic?

  • I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God. Matthew 19:23

    “No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and money.” Matthew 6:24

    Phil Robertson’s net worth $15,000,000+. Enough said.

  • Matt Ranson

    I wondered about the part where he is trying to recite Corinthians and he lists drunkards as being in the category of people who don’t go to heaven. Doesn’t the bible say that Noah spent his last years after the flood as a drunk? Are you shitting me that Noah built that huge ark for god and he doesn’t even get a free pass into heaven? God is a prick.

  • LesterBallard

    I have seen a clip of him saying he wanted to “clean up America”, starting with Hollywood and New York. Vague, true, but I certainly don’t like the implications.

  • Anat

    Ahem, you’d deserve a metaphorical ass-beating. You’d deserve being called out and being physically removed from premises. If they actually beat you up it would still be assault on their part.

  • LesterBallard

    That’s hippie, socialist Jesus, not the real Jesus. The real Jesus had a hedge fund and founded the NRA.

  • rwlawoffice

    But disagreeing with them and calling for the punishment of someone who expresses them is intolerance and that is what is happening.

  • LesterBallard

    I don’t think they’ll lose many viewers. My guess is most viewers share the same beliefs. A&E is probably just worried about boycotts and the like.

  • LesterBallard

    Marginalize? The show is still on air, and I’m sure will continue to be; his interview was published in a major magazine; his company is tooling right along; the internet is gushing in orgasm over his remarks, and he’s a multi-millionaire. Please, marginalize my ass.

  • Todd Heath

    Christians weren’t the only group of people to be persecuted by the Romans. Eventually Rome became two Christian nations called “The Holy Roman Empire” and the “Byzantine Empire” in the east. Christianity became the state relgioin of the Roman Empire during Constantine’s reign.

    Christians have a tendency to over exaggerate the level of persecution they experienced under the Romans. The Jews have a much better claim to systemic persecution.

  • UnePetiteAnana

    The fact that someone has money isn’t the problem, it’s what they do with it.

  • UnePetiteAnana

    This is very true.

  • baal

    It matters as well how they got it. The Walton family could pay for the food, healthcare and housing for all of the Wal-mart employees. They don’t. Instead, their employees are on public assistance and the Waltons are sitting on a pile of money so big they’ll never be able to spend it. It’s immoral for them to have made that pile in the first place in light of who else should be getting that wealth.

  • baal

    Intolerance of bigotry is not..nevermind.

    It’s not intolerance of a company to look after its brand image. Companies attach consequences to bad behaviour all the time. It’s a few steps removed to say that the company is reflecting the will of the public that is “intolerant” i.e. doesn’t like bigots going hating.

  • Fllora

    Nor are they, I assume, all a man “has to offer” 😉

  • Spuddie

    Acting in a way harmful to the finances of your employer is always cause for punishment. A&E is not CBN, their audience is made of people who might take offense and withdraw ads or audience share.

  • rwlawoffice

    You guys live in a liberal bubble if you think there will be a big backlash to the Duck Dynasty. They may lose their show because the homosexual activists won’t be satisfied with his suspension. A&E is being a coward in their response because this is the highest rated show on cable TV right now. They can’t lose it but feel they have to do something. The hypocrisy is glowing and this response will not be enough ultimately. Watch for the calls of boycotts for A&E because they are still making money off of these Christians.

    Just like you thought Chic Filet would suffer and yet they had one of the largest days in their history for the reverse boycott. They were not harmed in the least. Despite your beliefs, the homosexual community is very small. And even though there are quite a lot of people including Christians that agree they should be allowed to live their lives as they choose, these are the same people they feel they should be entitled to their own beliefs and not have to worry about being punished for expressing them. These are the people that are having enough of the calls for persecution when Christians express their religious beliefs and will and do support those that persecuted.

    The bottom line is that millions of Christians hold the view that homosexuality is a sin. If the homosexual community was truly tolerant of that they would not call for punishment for someone who expresses that view. They don’t want the right to live and let live, they want moral acceptance and calling for the punishment of anyone who expresses otherwise shows their true colors.

    Interestingly the same day that this story broke there was a story on the hit and misses for the 2013 TV shows. Duck Dynasty was at the top and and show like Glee and other shows that pushed the homosexual lifestyle were miserable failures.

    By the way, if you read his comments without your biased glasses you will see that he did not say that homosexual behavior leads to bestiality. He listed it as one of many sins. But hey, don’t let reality get in the way of your agenda.

  • baal

    While I don’t believe in hell, xtians telling me I’m going to be tortured for eternity really doesn’t go over well.

    I have seen news stories on both xtians and gays getting beat up by the ‘moral police’ (private thugs) in various mid-east countries. I’ve yet to see the story of a rainbow gang drive around looking for xtians to beat.

  • Red-star

    Ah another Christian who wants to be the persecuted hero like his ancestors. But if your willing to do anything but preach I’ll match you.

  • Red-star

    Essentially no. We want to live and let live and not have the rights to marry people as we always should have. We could give less than a crap about what your fundie ass thinks of us as long as your not beating people or throwing your children who turn out to be gay in the streets like we see everyday.

  • The same people screaming first amendment yesterday and today were the same ones calling for the firing of Martin Bashir from msnbc. (For the record, I thought msnbc was justified in firing Bahir. What he said was stupid and bound to land him in hot water.)

  • onamission5

    Free speech is not: the right to say whatever hateful shit one wants without social criticism or consequences
    Free speech is not: a requirement that someone provide you with a platform against their will
    Free speech is: the government cannot throw you in jail for saying words out loud <— even this has limitations. see: threats against the president, incitement, etc.

  • baal

    RW, I’m sure you understand that the xtians are not interested in “live and let live”. They (you) want to take employment away form otherwise perfectly good employees once you find out they are gay. You fight tooth and nail to keep gays from getting married. You say you want families together but then demand that gay families be split for immigration purposes. So long as you christians, but especially your political operatives, keep bending over backwards to enact anti-gay legislation (or block ENDA) you are not allowing live-and-let-live for gay folks.

  • When was that exactly? It was well into the 60s before gay groups could legally publish a magazine advocating for gay rights. (And that had to go all the way to the Supreme Court. That was a real censorship issue since it was the government deciding what could and could not be published. I think you’re nostalgic for a time that never really existed.

  • baal

    Not all ‘intolerance’ are created equal. Intolerance of bigotry is not intolerance. It’s a misuse of that word. Are you suggesting that when folks don’t like Bernie Madoff that we’re being intolerant of his worship of money?

  • Todd Heath

    Why is this person not defending Alec Baldwin for being fired from MSNBC for practically the same offence? I guess it’s different when liberals say offensive things.

  • baal

    Um, Hemant regularly mentions that he knows and avoids making anti-christian (you must not believe in god) statements to his students. Were he fired for going so, I don’t see the rest of us defending his right to free speech.

  • baal

    “I think that is free speech being taken away.”
    Free speech doesn’t mean you’re protected from consequences. ‘Free speech’ means the government can’t arrest you for politically unpopular viewpoints – that’s it. I understand that the last several years has seen a big push by xtian outlets to lie about and teach lies about the meaning of the first amendment but it’s really is a pretty recent idea and it’s totally batshit insane.

  • baal

    While I fully expect that expressing the ‘wrong’ opinion in the middle of a group who’ll violently disagree, assault is still assault. Noone should ever think that the victim of a beating (or rape for that matter) or other violence is responsible for violent acts of another. Part of the cost of a civilized society is that violence is reserved to the State and citizens don’t have a right to beat anyone up.

  • islandbrewer

    That’s essentially right, but terminology gets a little muddled around these things.

    Let’s unpack this a little. The First Amendment is, unfortunately, a big amendment. We have Establishment Clause (the state shall not establish a religion) and Free Speech (the state shall not inhibit speech), both of which are part of the first amendment.

    Balancing the Free Speech of the teacher with the teacher obligations (as a representative of the government) of being religiously neutral in his capacity of a teacher is always where people trip up.

    On top of that, one can voluntarily be contractually obligated to restrict their own free speech rights (e.g., “I’ll give you this job and pay you a bunch of money provided you don’t say X and do say Y”). That’s a perfectly valid private restriction on speech, the breech of which would be a contract or employment issue, and not a First Amendment issue.

    And keep in mind that such restriction can even be imposed on government employees. CIA agents can’t expect to talk about their work and scream “Free Speech” when they get in trouble for it.

  • Spuddie

    For people who talk a great game about consequences of ones actions when they want to justify acting like self righteous jerks, the are constantly trying to avoid such things when its their actions.

    To that end I tell fundies to fuck off. Don’t expect sympathy, you never gave it to anyone else. That is the consequence of your actions.

  • baal

    Eh not quite. I expect the xtian community to not cry the entirely inappropriate “free speech” when the redneck bearded hunter guy makes bigoted statements that get him in trouble with his employer.

  • Spuddie

    Maybe you missed the very clear quote from Matthew to the contrary. Or maybe you are just illustrating that Christians are all full of excuses when they find the bible too demanding of them.

  • pianoman

    I have seen several episodes of the show, and there were times where Phil would say things where he was showing his true self (ex: “only girly men cook”). So I just knew it was a matter of time before he’d say something really ignorant.

  • baal

    Dictionaries aside, the modern usage is that:
    Bestial = adjective meaning to act like a animal.
    Bestiality = having sexual relations with a duck, cow, goat, dog, horse, pig, chimpanzee, dolphin, tapir, snake or other animal.

  • Not being black, per se; but maybe marrying one.

    Phil Robertson was born 1946, lives in the East South Central US Census region, is a white male, and is highly religious. Combined with his stance on homosexuality (which correlates), those factors would seem to suggest on the order of one chance in five he’d be the sort of person still in favor of miscegenation laws — the less subtle of that sort being willing to explicitly equate miscegenation with bestiality.

    Call it about one chance in ten, maybe; but it’s thus more likely he’d consider that a bridge too far to burn in public.

  • cskins
  • Dan Dewey

    Since when did Christians tolerate anything that the law didn’t force them to? You sir are a bigot, but it’s okay just keep your beliefs to yourself and then it would be alright.

  • imjustasteph

    My religious belief is that there are no Gods. If A&E doesn’t give me a show on which to say so, it’s discrimination and censorship.

  • Oh, there were plenty of incidents of blacklisting and not-quite-censorship shenanigans that typified discourse in the old days too. Pete Seeger wasn’t imprisoned or censored, but corporations were wary of giving him airtime after he told the HUAC to go piss up a rope. The Smothers Brothers weren’t technically censored either, but it was their anti-war opinions that made CBS pull the plug on their access to the viewing audience.

    But when the shoe’s on the other foot, it seems, it’s a whole different fuckin’ shoe!

  • Dan Dewey

    you can’t use the word you are defining in the definition of defining that word!

  • It’s, I think, slightly more complicated than that because there is a conflation going on that is subtle.

    As humans, who among all our other tricks, detect patterns in our prior experiences and make predictions from them through extrapolation, we have come to closely associate rationally expecting a particular result with deserving that result if it was predictable and the result transpired at least in part due to conditions created by a choice.

    And it is very difficult to disentangle. Perhaps an easy counterexample for us today to illustrate the disjunction is in the 1950s if a person tried to campaign vocally for racial equality in Alabama, the Klan would burn a cross on their lawn. It’s an entirely predictable effect (every other time someone campaigned vocally for racial equality in Alabama, the Klan burned a cross on their lawn), and the person chose to actively participate in conditions known to bring about that effect. So, they should expect cowardly men in white sheets to start a bonfire on their property. This does not mean they deserve such treatment. Pointedly, the average white guy in Alabama in 1950 might easily and naturally make that cognitive leap from expecting to deserving.

    I tend to think, mainly, this is a major defect in the concept of deserving and why it is mostly useless for analysis. Ursula LeGuin, in The Dispossessed, wrote (and I believe wholeheartedly):

    For we each of us deserve everything, every luxury that was ever piled in the tombs of the dead kings, and we each of us deserve nothing, not a mouthful of bread in hunger. Have we not eaten while another starved? Will you punish us for that? Will you reward us for the virtue of starving while others ate? No man earns punishment, no man earns reward. Free your mind of the idea of deserving, the idea of earning, and you will begin to be able to think.

    A person cannot illustrate (and it is disingenuous of others to assert on their behalf) surprise and indignation that a perfectly predictable result transpired as a result in part from a decision that a person has made. But it is an error of the highest order for, in rejecting that surprise to also reject the moral outrage that is decoupled from expectation, in forgetting that the result is unjust regardless of how predictable it was, and that the person is properly a victim who is owed cognizance of that status regardless of what conditional participation in their own victimization they provided.

    In our (appropriate) zeal to push back against the easy cognitive error that leads to blaming the victim, I tend to think we go slightly overboard (and claim too much) in rejecting also the pragmatic observation that often victims participate through their choices in being victimized. It is not their fault that they were victimized, but to claim that they should not have expected to be given the totality of predictable circumstances seems silly, too. We can imagine, through normative assertion, a world where that expectation would no longer naturally exist, and try to work towards such a world, but pretending it already does (or acting and speaking as though we already live there) is self-deception.

    Tl;dr, The entirely sensible “what did you think was going to happen when you called his mother a whore?!” should be able to rest comfortably alongside a commitment to the moral precept that the speaker being punched in the face in response was still a wrong thing that they did not deserve in an absolute sense, and for which the puncher is morally culpable and responsible. We can imagine a world in which that speech wouldn’t predictably lead to getting punched, but that is not the world in which we live.

  • pianoman

    you want to make ridiculous, ignorant, antiquated comments like Robertson, have at it!
    You’re not entitled to an exception from criticism, though.

  • rwlawoffice

    So do you get to define Christian beliefs that homosexuality is a sin as bigotry and thus give you the right to be intolerant? Your logic is this- I think homosexuality is moral so anyone who believes different than me is a bigot and therefore I can be intolerant of that belief system.

    Just another way of saying think like me or I will punish you and claim the moral high ground by calling your beliefs bigoted.

  • God’s Starship

    It seems you don’t understand much of anything these days. It comes as little surprise to the people around you.

  • rwlawoffice

    Not likely for this show. They knew what they were getting. There is no evidence that this has harmed A&E at all. This was their fear of the homosexual activists backlash, not the backlash of the supporters of this show.

  • God’s Starship

    No…. please try to keep up. People are trying really hard to help you understand something. Firing employees for being black or gay is discrimination. Stinkybeard was not suspended for being Christian. He was suspended for bigoted comments that his employer didn’t want to be associated with. That’s not discrimination.

  • Jennifer Starr

    These people have a reality show with cameras filming them all the time. Do they even have a private life? Putting that aside, though, the First Amendment guarantees you freedom from government persecution because of your speech. It does not guarantee you freedom from disagreement or economic consequences because of that speech.

  • God’s Starship

    This is why you don’t get respect from me. You see logic, then say….. eh fuck it. Willful ignorance. Others might play the polite argument game with you, but I will rejoice on the day our hosts finally realize you’re an attention starved troll clogging up space.

  • Uh, yeah, except in the details. The Christian belief that homosexuality is a sin leads to bigotry (provably, historically; it is what motivated the passage of laws criminalizing and stigmatizing gay people, and gave social cover to those that beat or killed them with impunity), and in apprehending the moral wrong that results, we have the right to be intolerant of that belief, to criticize it in harsh terms when it is articulated, to use the levers of social opprobrium and suasion to combat its pernicious effects so that it does not take root again and perpetuate those identified harms.

    The rub, of course, is that you just happened to pick the side that was actually wrong. It’s been a while since Christians in the Western world have found yourselves so completely and so embarrassingly on the losing side of an argument, so it’s not a surprise you have not learned how to lose gracefully; you hilariously equate it to oppression and bigotry against you, even though the conditions that fomented the change were entirely your group’s willful doing. This will probably take a few more devastating losses to sink in, that you are one group among many who will only sometimes be right and will not always get your way. I suppose it’s particularly painful if you are taught that everything you believe associated with morality and religion and social organization comes packaged with a divine guarantee of being correct, so I empathize with the difficulty of coming to terms with finding out that your way is not that special.

  • pianoman

    spare us your phony victimhood. you want to be able to demonize people you don’t like, try to enact laws that marginalize them and then be able to cry “persecution” whenever your ignorance is called out.

    Doesn’t work that way.

  • The Captain

    I’ll believe all you conservative whiners actually give a shit about “tolerance” of opinions by employers when you also criticizes Wallmart for firing employees who speak out for unions.

    So you think what happened here is “wrong”, well then perhaps you should support government enforced workplace rules that would protect employees from loosing their jobs for expressing an opinion outside of work that their employer does not like?????

    10-1 says you don’t though… that might protect all that other speech you hate too.

  • The Starship Maxima

    I truly was beginning to think I was the only one who caught the hypocrisy. Thank God I’m not.

  • duke_of_omnium

    Do you suppose that the men on Duck Dynasty will ever figure out that people are laughing at them — that they’re really Honey Boo-boo with beards?

  • Rwlawoffice has been (painfully) consistent in the past on the point that he believes religious opinions are the only ones that deserve extra-special protection from private action such as employment termination.

    So, no bet.

  • But that doesn’t answer the question, of when was this time when people as a whole were so committed to the free marketplace of ideas that they disfavored, say, employers firing employees for expressing opinions with which they did not want to associate?

    The correct answer is that magical time was never ago. And the only consistency one can find is that the specific people who agreed with the specific opinion at issue would speak up, because they are defending (quite naturally, but quite partisanly) their ally, and it is not the whole society but rather rare individuals who sought to generalize this norm, and they have utterly failed.

  • God’s Starship

    Hungry children need to be taught personal responsibility! Wealthy reality tv stars with big mouths must be coddled!

  • Jennifer Starr

    Those beards gross me out, but honestly I don’t get the attraction about this show or any other reality show. I have a friend who is addicted to reality TV and I’ve come to the conclusion that I just simply don’t get it.

  • The Starship Maxima

    Instead of your butthurt whining, you could do something useful and contact our gracious hosts and complain that my opinions bother you so much you feel the need to seek out every post I make where I’m having an intelligent discussion and try to derail it with your boo-hooing.

    You have plenty of people who’ll upvote your passive-aggression, but I don’t think the hosts here share your pin-headedness.

    Which means you might just have to get over it, because I’m not going anywhere.

    Ta-ta.

  • There are also legs.

  • Spuddie

    Bravo executives would have fired him on the spot. They have a major gay, non Bible thumper audience/advertising base.

  • The Starship Maxima

    True. But some of us aren’t so cowardly we hide from ideas. Some of us WANT a world in which we are exposed to the sometimes unpleasant ideas of others.

    People peddle the inaccurate meme that religion causes bigotry all the time, completely ignoring the correlation =/= causation thing at will.

    But that’s not something to punish. Even if it’s untrue, there’s a reason people say that, and it’s important to allow them their say.

    Some of us take “I disagree with what you say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it,” seriously. Not everyone is us it seems.

  • God’s Starship

    You don’t have intelligent discussions with anybody. You just get lectured by commenters who have more patience than most people. It’s not the same thing.

  • I want a world where nobody HAS those unpleasant ideas. I realize it’s a dream world, and I would never try to create it through anything but debate and persuasion, but it would be a better world if nobody had to hear this kind of bullshit EVER because it didn’t exist.

  • Cake

    I think you need a remedial english class if you think what God’s Starship said classes as passive aggressive.

    Arguing a point until you get a response from a poster that you cant refute, falling silent, then trying the same failed arguments with another person isn’t what I’d call intelligent conversation. Ending with, that’s what my faith says and I will not be swayed from my position, is not intelligent conversation. It’s witnessing.

  • The Starship Maxima

    I’ve been boycotting Walmart for the last two years precisely because they not only don’t give their workers benefits, but they shit on their free speech rights.

    It is precisely because I’m a conservative Christian that I cannot TOLERATE when people use their power as an employer to silence somebody. There are few more cowardly displays of bullying.

    I do want to protect ALL speech. ESPECIALLY the speech I hate. I don’t get shit from a bunch of people who agree with me. I learn from those who don’t.

  • The Starship Maxima

    You and your fellow troll may think whatever you’d like. I have neither the time nor inclination to try and correct your dense opinion.

    My statement to him stands. If he/she, or you, feel it’s just too much too off-putting to read my posts, there are people you can take it up with.

    Otherwise, you will have to get used to the fact that I will post whenever I please with whomever I please. Or don’t, but either way, I won’t care one way or the other.

  • The Starship Maxima

    Oh poor thing. I had no idea people more intelligent than you having a discussion of substance rubbed you so wrong.

    Well….sorry.

  • The Starship Maxima

    Well yes, true, the disappearance of such bullshit ideas would be the goal. The problem is, as we’ve seen, if certain people had their way, many legitimate opinions would be labelled bullshit and banned.

  • The Starship Maxima

    But Jonas, in your subway example aren’t there real rules about “harassing your employees or customers”. Shouting “fags fuck ducks” or something equally idiotic on the platform is specifically creating a hostile environment for paying customers.

    If he was yelling this, OFF the clock at his local FoF chapter…..well, I don’t know if I’d do anything to him.

    On another note, your point about a public figure never being off the clock makes a little more sense.

  • The Starship Maxima

    Well, we’re discussing this guy. Not Alec Baldwin.

    Further, in my mind, there’s a difference between stating beliefs and personally attacking someone with slurs.

    For instance, I would hope I don’t lose my job for saying I think abortion is immoral and reprehensible. On the flip side, if I called a specific person a baby-killing slut, I think I should be fired post haste.

  • purr

    From the gossip site ‘the superficial’ the writer makes a good point:

    “”If you’ve logged onto Facebook at some point in the past 12 hours, you’ve probably seen a family member or high school classmate going apeshit that Obama cancelled freedom of speech and personally fired Phil Robertson from Duck Dynasty for his anti-gay comments to GQ. Except what really happened is that A&E “suspended” Phil from the show – for a while – which will still be filmed by the rest of the family who apparently don’t have a problem going along with any of this which should’ve been the first red flag to all the Duck Dynasty fans currently being played like a harp from hell. And the next one should’ve been the immediate media firestorm from making Phil a martyr which naturally happened. His popularity among his fanbase couldn’t be higher if she shot a black kid which is one of the benefits of having a target demographic of oblivious zealots who have no fucking clue how freedom of speech works or when their puppet strings are being brilliantly pulled.“”

    http://www.thesuperficial.com/phil-robertson-suspended-duck-dynasty-a-e-freedom-of-speech-12-2013#more-2574462

  • The Starship Maxima

    Not defending, exactly. But…..I don’t see the big deal in him saying that.

    It’s bullshit, we all know it’s bullshit, so…..who is he harming when he says that?

  • The Starship Maxima

    I truly hadn’t thought of it that way.

  • purr

    “”Then again, absolutely none of this should surprise A&E who’s filmed four seasons and has waded countless hours upon hours of footage from a man who doesn’t shut up about how this country is going to hell in a handbasket. More importantly, they know the audience will ladel that shit straight into their mouths and go on a buying frenzy at Walmart in “solidarity with Phil.” Because it’s not like A&E gets a cut of the merchandise profit. That’s liberal commie math. Your dollars go straight into Phil’s pockets, so he can preach the Good Word and show ‘Merica some real country livin’. It works exactly like that.””

    Exactly.

  • True. But some of us aren’t so cowardly we hide from ideas. Some of us WANT a world in which we are exposed to the sometimes unpleasant ideas of others.

    Yes. But far fewer people want their place of business directly associated with an idea they do not stand for or believe in. I love the free interchange of ideas, but if I owned a business and an employee spouted off to the press how he or she thinks, say, Black people are equivalent to monkeys, I would not hesitate for an instant to fire them. It is their right to express their loathsome belief, but not their right to be associated with me while doing so. I am sure, in this day of blogs and message boards, they can find or create some forum to spout off their ideas to their heart’s content for all the world to see; they are not censored. And if I chose to not act, by my not acting (and this part is whether we like it or not) I would send the signal that I condone the expression of that opinion, that I find it legitimate enough that it should swim in the pond with much worthier notions. People draw irrational conclusions all the time, but to the extent that those associations are predictable, we should act as though they will be drawn.

    When it comes to personal friendships and relationships, this rule does not apply as strongly, as I expressed the other day. I can value a person despite their holding some notions I consider fractally wrong. I can maintain relationships that are fruitful with people whose beliefs I abhor, but crucial to that is that their bad qualities are outweighed by other qualities I value. I do not like them because they are wrong, but despite them being wrong. A quality I do value is their willingness to discuss their ideas, that I may improve my own arguments by testing them against theirs (and undoubtedly, his or her likewise improvement in tangling with mine). That should not be mistaken with valuing the content of the difference of opinion itself.

    And even there, if it comes to that person acting on those beliefs in a way I find harmful in an inexcusable way, I may disassociate myself from them. I have a friend who in the privacy of hanging out with white people occasionally expresses virulently racist opinions. I do not value his racism at all, and if I were to ever observe or hear of him actually acting on that belief by treating a person of a different race disrespectfully, that would be that. There are prudential limits to tolerance, just as there are prudential limits to the application of all pure concepts; we don’t float in a clean crisp space of Platonic Forms, we live in a messy real world where ideas and ideals are corrupted necessarily by the very act of application. When people ignore this and try to apply the pure idea, it always leads to horrible results. Always.

    Some of us take “I disagree with what you say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it,” seriously.

    Someone snarked at you earlier (and not undeservedly, I dare to say) that you need remedial civics education. This comment above and its ken are why. When Voltaire said that, it is absolutely clear he was talking about government action–the heavy and violent hand of the State–weighed against a natural right to hold and express opinions (however wrong or abhorrent). Voltaire was very much not saying that by expressing such opinions you also have a right to maintain your friendships and your employment and all the other voluntary associations that you possess when you go off on a tear and say something offensive. People have the right to walk away from you, or show you the door if you are in their “house” (which includes their business if it is a private business). The state is treated differently because the state has the right to use violence, and so the firewall of freedom is against the state’s ability to use that violence (to put you in chains or drop you in a hole or kill you) to prevent disfavored opinions from ever seeing the light of day. In contrast, nobody is physically prevented, or should be prevented, from torching their friendships or their employment by sounding off.

    tl;dr, nobody should be prevented from saying jerky things, but nobody wants to, and nobody ought to be forced to, stand next to a jerk.

  • purr

    I see a lot of these things as cynical marketing. Even the Miley Cyrus fiasco. In this day and age, with media oversaturation, it’s really hard to stand out from the crowd. The best way to do so is to create *scandal* and *controversy*. MTV knew what it was doing with Miley, and A&E knows what it’s doing with Duck Dynasty. The thing is – because most people have a really short attention span – this shit will blow up for a while, everyone will be talking about Duck Dynasty, the ‘brand’ will become more well-known, some extra cash will be pocketed – and in a few months, nobody will remember because it will be replaced by the next fake controversy.

  • The Starship Maxima

    As I responded, I’m fully aware my knowledge is incomplete on some things, and contrary to a few trolls, I seek to fill in those gaps of my knowledge.

    Where my issue comes in is that….on this very website, I could chewed out for not being sensitive to the fact that many atheists can be ostracized at work for expressing their atheism. There are states where you can be fired for being openly gay. Somebody, I forget who, made this retarded list of companies to boycott because they supported Planned Parenthood.

    In my view, the way it SHOULD work, is that where business is concerned, it’s all about the business. If someone’s personal opinion doesn’t impact their ability to do their job, then I don’t think I care about their personal opinions.

  • allein

    I work with books and our “hot titles” list for the last several weeks has included at least 3 titles from them.

  • Akman

    That is only one passage of the Bible. You need to understand the whole bible to understand .

  • The Starship Maxima

    Because many alleged Christians haven’t bothered to read the Bible and because many Christians are cowards. It’s easier to pick on the 1 gay out of a hundred than on the 88 greedy swindlers.

    I loathe that that’s the way it is, but there you have it.

  • The Starship Maxima

    Yes, I do see the difference. Though the snark was a little unnecessary.

  • The Starship Maxima

    True. I’m not a fan of that either.

  • purr

    I feel the same about the beards. Those dudes are creepy as fuck.

  • The Starship Maxima

    I’ve really got to learn to stop letting my temper run away with me.

    That is NOT what I’m saying at all, and I think your bias is the reason it seems like I am.

    I am not dismissing that 1st Amendment rights work different than I thought they did. You’ll notice I began with asking Hemant a question.

    Now that people have illuminated the concept, I understand it better. I am saying that I don’t think this is the best idea and that I think it can be used to silence any unpopular opinion.

    I try never to be so disingenuous and ignore the facts because I don’t like them.

  • The Starship Maxima

    I’m Christian, I’m interested in “live and let live”. If my gay employee performed and delivered for our customers, I’d promote him.

  • The Starship Maxima

    Bro, that’s a bit……intense……don’t you think?

  • The Starship Maxima

    Har har.

  • The Starship Maxima

    IGNORE THIS POST

  • The Starship Maxima

    IGNORE

  • The Starship Maxima

    I believe you are mistaken. As I’ve said before I can’t sit on these boards all day, so yes, I do fall silent, but I try my best to never just outright ignore anyone.

    And I’m not trying to preach. I feel something SHOULD work a certain way. I don’t think I’m wrong in saying so. I can still fully acknowledge that the reality is that it does NOT work they way I think it should.

    I’m not trying to say “my faith says…….”. My opinion on free speech is separate from my Biblical vies.

  • The Starship Maxima

    IGNORE

  • rwlawoffice

    Christians know full well and have for thousands of years that the world is different from their beliefs. You read about it in the Bible and from the founder on out its leaders were killed for their beliefs. So losing in the world is nothing new.

    As for the Christian belief on homosexuality leading to bigotry which is expressed in laws that criminalize it, how would you say that in a communist country or a Muslim country that kill homosexuals? The truth is that all cultures have viewed homosexuality as immoral regardless of their religion. The new attempt to call it morally equivalent is a very new short lived. Now in our country with the media pushing the homosexual lifestyle and constantly using their bully pulpit to advance their agenda, Christians are portrayed as bigots simply for holding beliefs that are different from the media and a very small segment of our society. But to say that this view is a “loss” is living in a bubble. The silent majority of people who hold this view simply do not get the coverage and instead when it comes up different from what the media wants to hear the bullying and calls for punishment are made.

    If you think I am wrong, look at the comments on the boards besides this one discussing this issue. The vast majority are in support of Phil Robertson and not against him.

  • Next they will be taking credit for Saturnalia.

    .

  • The Captain

    Countdown to politicians and media figures denouncing this who also called for and supported a boycott/blacklist of the Dixie Chicks in 3..2..1…

  • rwlawoffice

    So where did Phil Robertson call for any of that in this interview? He didn’t. He is being called to punishment for his religious beliefs and nothing more.

  • rwlawoffice

    Frankly don’t know what unions have to do with this. But if you don’t see the difference about a person’s religious views on what is moral behavior and a person’s view on his workplace becoming unionized then there is no hope for you in this discussion.

  • rwlawoffice

    There’s that tolerance of different views rearing its head again

  • The Starship Maxima

    Wait, hang on. Religious views and workplace views are different yes, but, neither has any impact on your ability to do your job.

    So…..if a woman can say “I think homosexuality is a sin” and she should be protected, she should also be able to say “Unions are necessary to ensure the capitalist model works for all, and not just a few.”

    I mean, fair is fair, right?

  • Taneli Huuskonen

    The Bible is surprisingly consistent in denouncing greedy swindlers. You can find the same message, with different emphases, repeated numerous times in the Mosaic law, the book of Proverbs, many prophets, the Gospels, and the Pauline epistles, as far as I remember. The only exception I can recall off the top of my head are Jacob a.k.a. Israel, who first swindles his own brother Esau, then his uncle Laban (who did swindle him first, though), and is nevertheless considered the good guy.

    Oh, silly me – Jacob’s story clearly shows how to interpret all the apparently harsh words about greedy swindlers: by pretending they aren’t there.

  • Speech is not being directly suppressed when an employer decides that the publicly expressed views of an employee/contractor conflict with the image the employer wishes to promote.

    The ex-employee can still write the same material, just not for the same employee.

    An employer does have the right to distance itself from speech that the employer thinks damages its reputation.

    .

  • Jennifer Starr

    Yeah, you have a point. Controversy always generates higher ratings–this could very well be a strategic move on the part of A & E.

  • Guest

    I am so ticked I can’t reply to some of the shit on Facebook without risking myself. Apparently being compared to people who fuck horses doesn’t hurt you…Jesus fucking Christ.

  • If people are being mistreated because of superstition or stereotype, then that is wrong.

    It does not matter whether the superstition is Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Wiccan, or just the stereotype of everybody knows that ______.

    Each can lead to immoral mistreatment.

  • The Starship Maxima

    Agreed.

  • Fred

    Martyr Complex: check
    Ignorance of World History and Religion: check
    Invokes a “Silent Majority” that wants the same thing: check
    Argument ad Populatum: check

    We have a winner!!!

  • The Starship Maxima

    What part of Akman’s post (well, this post is wrong?

  • The Captain

    Ahh yes, see this is where you show your true colors. You want special protections for YOUR religious views ONLY. What is a Wallmart worker says that they believe the teachings of jesus christ demand that workers form a union? Do you think that is the same then? I bet not, because YOU think YOU and JUST YOUR beliefs are special (and those that hold YOUR beliefs), and should be treated as such while extending no such curtsy/legal protections to anyone else.

  • The Captain

    Also I got news for you…. workplace treatment IS a “moral” behavior. So there is no difference in the two.

  • Hero

    Him stating his beliefs is hate now? WOW. Grow up. He was asked a question and answered it. Just because someone doesn’t agree with a lifestyle does not mean they are spewing hate. Most of these comments on this thread are spewing hate. Take a look in the mirror.

    And on a side note- after Chick-fil-A is now doing better than ever due to people going out of their way to give them business to show their support.

  • Fred

    Disqus bug bite you?

  • We are animals.

    .

  • Jaze,

    The Romans burned Christians as human torches.

    I need to read this, but it is too dark.

    I guess I need to light up another Christian.

    I am surprised anyone ever developed electricity.

    .

  • rwlawoffice

    Fails to address the issues – check

  • KMR

    Until Marshmallow posted I hadn’t thought about that angle but of course it’s a strategic move. Chick-Fil-A’s profits went up like gangbusters: http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/traditional-values-pay-chick-fil-a-makes-record-breaking-profits-after-marr. Duck Dynasty is going to go into the stratosphere now.

  • Jennifer Starr

    I can hardly stand to look at him without wanting to drag him to a barber…

  • Jonas,

    The American Constitution provides protection for the right to be monumentally stupid.

    Our morality needs to catch up to the point where violence is not a debate tactic.

    .

  • KMR

    I doubt they care. They’re super rich and getting richer by the minute. They’re laughing right back.

  • rwlawoffice

    I live in a state that has very few unions but treats their workers so well that people are flocking here to find jobs. So unions and moral treatment of your workers are not mutually exclusive. I agree that people should be treated morally and fairly on their jobs. I just don’t agree that this is necessarily done through unions. but what dos that have to do with a person being fired for expressing their religious views off of the job?

  • I never called for his firing. But if msnbc can fire Martin Bashir and Alec Baldwin for saying inappropriate things (one on air, one off) then A&E can fire Duck Douche for saying inappropriate things about gay people and African Americans.

    As for who does it hurt. Well as a gay man who grew up in a fundamentalist home I can tell you exactly what that hurts: the kids who is gay whose parents, friends, classmates and everyone else he knows is cheering on these comments. That’s who gets hurt.

  • Jaze,

    Except there’s a difference between having a drink and drinking to excess.

    Please explain how homosexuality leads to bestiality, so we can see the difference.

    You don not score a point here.

    But do you score a Poe with your humiliation?

    .

  • Intelligent Donkey,

    Don’t worry, I won’t mention your relationship with Shrek and how that started in a gay bar.

  • The Captain

    “but what dos that have to do with a person being fired for expressing their religious views off of the job” because one can hold religious views on how people should be treated at work! You are just picking and choosing what moral or “religious” “views” should be protected by which ones you like.

  • The Captain

    Also why should wether a person who expresses a moral view outside of work receives protections under the law from being fired depend on the arbitrary classification of wether or not the moral view is “religious” or not?

    Other than establishing a special protected class for religious people who would thus have more rights than the non-religous, doesn’t that mean the state has to legally define what religious beliefs are then sanctioned for protection thus establishing a state religion?

  • The First Amendment does not guarantee a lack of consequence.

    The First Amendment states that the government shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech.

    You mistake consequence for violation of the Constitution.

    They are entirely different.

    .

  • realeasygoing,

    Wait Wait you expecting a redneck bearded hunter to love gays?

    Expecting a Christian pastor to love his neighbor?

    Sounds like a ridiculous idea to me!

    Or just a ridiculous comment.

    There is a big difference between loving and loathing and a lot of room in between.

    It isn’t one ot the other.

    .

  • nattytheknight

    Wait, you’d never heard of minstrel shows or “coon songs”?

  • Matt D

    Not everyone is intelligent enough to grasp that the sex lives of others are none of your business, and we accept that.

    But we don’t find it harmless for people to state that our sex lives are as “icky” as bestiality, or pedophilia, etc. If you have a hard time grasping this, then I recommend you be “gay” for a week (in a town you aren’t familiar with), and listen closely to what people say while they beat you up (or worse). If your ears still work, you’ll hear your tormentors echoing Robertson more often than not.

    Oh, and on a side, note, I find nothing wrong with bigots eating greasy crap every day to support each other. Feel free to keep on that diet as long as you want, and make sure your supporters do too.

  • Maybe women being straight also leads to bestiality.

    .

  • baal

    Yes, calling anything that really has nothing to do with you but is integral to someone else is harmful. My real world harms are infinitely more important and valuable and a better basis for morality than your pissing off of your invisible imaginary friend (sin).

    The semi-objective out is that I can judge beliefs and value beliefs by the amount of harm they cause. If two women (like my aunt who has married her partner of 20 years) want to get married and have the legal protections like any other 20 year couple, how does that actually harm you? How does +1 marriage (or even +1% of all marriages) negatively impact your or the State? It doesn’t. How does denying them marriage hurt them? A lot, in literally thousands of ways big and small.

    Yes, I feel more than justified in saying that my basis for morality is superior to your and I’ve given you the ultra easy and effective way (that doesn’t require consulting a religious scholar) to figure out right from wrong for yourself. This is the polar opposite of me just willy nilly choosing to support my ‘tribe’ or not.

    Worse, RW, I’ve ranted this simple rant for you more than once. Are you willfully obtuse, a persistent troll or simply unable to learn or take into account the views of others when you’re engaging in your endless tribalistic support for your personal supernaturalistic morality?

  • baal

    I think I said the same thing but maybe was less clear for my lack of verbosity.

  • baal

    My view is that I get to torture small animals to death in front of your house. It’s on public property. Do you tolerate my views or do you speak out against it (regardless of legality, you could do this in some States)? What if I have bible verse that I point to in support of my actions?

    Not all views are entitled to equal dignity. Your anti-LGBT stance is among those harmful views that I push against.

  • Christians know full well and have for thousands of years that the world is different from their beliefs. You read about it in the Bible and from the founder on out its leaders were killed for their beliefs. So losing in the world is nothing new.

    When was the last time western civilization really went after Christians? A thousand years ago? Nearly two thousand years ago. Unless, your saying that you have memories of first century AD, then, yes, being on the losing side of a cultural argument is new to most christians and Christian institutions. Saying differently is like a Detroit Lions fan saying that winning a playoff is nothing new because they did so in the 1950’s.

    As for the Christian belief on homosexuality leading to bigotry…

    First, Islam and Christianity come from similar source material. Secondly a lot of communist countries (Russia, Ukraine,….) where historically Christian. A lot of under riding cultural norms in this supposedly atheistic countries have their roots in the Christian history. Thirdly, whoever said that Christianity was the sole root of homophobic bigotry?

    All cultures except Ancient Greek, Roman, pre-Tang China (so Han, Qin, Song ect…)

    The silent majority is so silent, it’s as if they really don’t exist at all.

  • Black Leaf

    Fired for being an atheist? Of course not. But this guy isn’t in trouble just for being Christian. If the atheist in question, say, compared all religious people to terrorists or kept making other insulting and demonstrably untrue remarks about them, then maybe you’d have a case.

  • baal

    And what beliefs exactly are those again?

    He said that homosexuality and bestiality are similar concepts. They are not. The key is consent and harm. It’s also considered pretty inappropriate to call someone a goat fucker without evidence (not that he did that). When an entire minority group is called ‘goatfucker’ (again metaphorically), it’s discrimination. Given the history of how LGBT folks have been treated in the U.S., that puts Phil right in the middle of a horrible tradition of generic and specific abuse. That is not ok. It’s still not ok if that abuse is done in the name of or in support of some xtians view of god.

  • Fred

    I agree, you completely failed to address the issues.

  • Lark62

    Seriously? Do you know how many verses there are decrying greed, using false measures, and other forms of cheating? Against maybe three about homosexuality?

    In the gospels, remember when Jesus stormed the temple with a bull whip to drive out the gays? Oops. No, sorry, he drove out the people using god’s temple to cheat pilgrims and make themselves rich.

    Do you hear all the Christians condemning televangelists for making millions off donations from people who can’t pay their light bill? Nope, me neither. They are too busy condemning gays to worry with fraud in the name of Jeeeebussss.

  • UnePetiteAnana

    The family worked for their money, don’t live an extravagant lifestyle, and are known to donate to charities and all sorts of causes. If it weren’t for rich people donating to charity then there’d be nothing to give the poor.

    It doesn’t matter how much money you have, it matters what you do with it.

  • baal

    The homeless teen population is more LGBT than it should be (should mirror population averages, it doesn’t).

  • MN Atheist

    Ya I would like to blast some of them for their comments as well. The religious right is in full swing. I guess they are going to boycott A&E now…ya right!

  • Alierias

    Please notice *I* am using an avatar, because *I* am afraid of said consequences…
    Free speech still has consequences, and I would rather some portion of my life remain private.

  • Fred

    Even better, you can invoke the silent majority to support whatever you want. They’re happy to stay silent and support whatever you need. Lets hear it for the silent majority!

  • Lark62

    Because one side is saying “you make the choices that are right for you, and I’ll make the choices that are right for me,” while the other side says, “I will decide which choices are right, and you don’t get a choice.” Huge difference.

  • pianoman

    he is being called out for his profoundly ignorant remarks that are cloaked in religious nonsense. he doesn’t get a pass cuz he says your invisible genie’s fairy tale book may think that.

  • baal

    Charitable giving was what 5 billion last year? Food Stamps is 80 billion a year. The rich aren’t cutting it Anna. Many religious charities have 80% overhead. So only 20cents per dollar goes to the poor. You do know that the amount the rich give is directly related to their tax spectrum? They do give but it’s in the context of tax strategy and not from pure charity.

  • Lark62

    Yes, the bible is very consistent in denouncing greedy swindlers.
    Unfortunately, Christians lavish greedy swindlers with praise and look the other way as long as the swindlers keep saying pretty jesus words.

  • Voltaire was frequently exiled from France, because of what he wrote.

    In 1717 and 1726 Voltaire was locked up in the Bastille for speech critical of the government/religion/nobility.

    Voltaire understood very clearly the role of government in suppressing speech.

    Most of Voltaire’s adult life was spent in exile.

    Voltaire kept on writing.

    .

  • Lark62

    I don’t care if these hillbillies believe in imaginary friends. I draw the line when they try to take rights away from real people because the voices in their head said to do it.

  • LesterBallard

    See ya in Hell, Phil.

  • UnePetiteAnana

    I’m sorry that you think we should all live in a world where everything is handed to us. Not all Walmart employees are on public assistance (I wonder how many wouldn’t *have* to be if they made better choices; surely not all of them are on it by choice). I’m also sorry that you’re under the impression that the Walton family does nothing for others.

    http://www.waltonfamilyfoundation.org/

  • Nichelle Wrenn

    Phil Robertson was completely within his rights to say the piece of lying filth he did. A&E was within their rights to ban his sorry butt. The right to free speech does not make you immune from repercussions it just means the GOVERNMENT cannot put you in prison for being a dick. The same Chirstain groups who are advocating the banning gay “propaganda” by LAW are crying fowl when A&E bans Phil Robertson from being on a TV show. After all their holy book says against hypocrisy they still can’t fight the urge to put a another notch in their persecution belt.

  • That was not a First Amendment issue, either.

    .

  • Derpington_The_Third

    How sad these backwoods morons can’t even follow Jesus:

    “No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and money.”

    Matthew 6:24

  • UnePetiteAnana

    So you know the charitable practices of the Robertsons, right?

    You’re also making a connection between food stamps and charity which seems logical, but how many people are on food stamps that shouldn’t be? A lot of charitable giving isn’t even claimed on tax forms – some people just help other people out: buy them dinner, give them $20 for gas, etc. You’re also talking about the exchange of money – what about those things that aren’t related to money? It’s true that a lot of “rich people” give to charity based on what they can get as a break on their taxes … but so what? Aren’t they still giving?

    While many religious charities may have an 80% overhead (I don’t know and don’t care to google it right now), I’m sure there are plenty of non-religious charities that operate just like that.

    It’s not wrong to be rich.

  • UnePetiteAnana
  • Nichelle Wrenn

    And dicks, don’t forget the dicks.

  • Time for a crossover episode with one of the reality cooking shows with a similarly cranky star?

    .

  • Jonas

    Pardon, whose stopping you from standing on the street with a sign that says “God hates fags!”? What keeps you from going to that college campus where the crazy lady keeps telling everyone they’re going to hell, and listening to her?

    >Some of us take “I disagree with what you say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it,” seriously.

    That’s just it. You have the *RIGHT* to say it. No one has the *OBLIGATION* to provide you the platform. I don’t defend your right to DEMAND someone give you a microphone so you can spread your ideas. I don’t defend the DEMAND that you be protected from the social consequences.

    Anyways, religion would get less flak about causing bigotry if it’s books weren’t so full of bigotry and attempts at dehumanizing those who don’t follow the religion.

  • Lord, love a duck.

    It begins to make sense, in a conspiracy theory (and kinky) kind of way.

    That might explain why God has a penis. So he can express his love for ducks.

    😉

  • Jonas

    The difference is, you are confusing your *RIGHTS* with discrimination laws. Your constitutional rights are about what the government can’t do to you. The law tells people what they can and can not do.

    Now I pose the question: How much intolerance do I have to tolerate before no longer tolerating intolerance is good sense, instead of also being intolerance? Is rallying against bigotry and hate really to be compared to rallying against gays/blacks/atheists/discriminated minority of choice? Where exactly is the line that one must cross before me pointing out they’re hateful little shits is *NOT* considered being intolerant of them?

  • Jonas

    Yup. I’m hateful because I think a man trying to dehumanize a class of people is hateful. Got it.

  • Of course I’d heard of minstrel shows. I knew what they were in concept but I’d never actually listened to recordings of the music or looked at any of the sheet music of the songs. Or seen video of performances. No, I hadn’t. I suspect most people my age or young also hadn’t. (Although some of the music without words or with different words survived into the present.) So no, I had no idea just how bad this material was. And more startling was to see it bound together with Bellini arias and more genteel parlor songs. I’m too young for Amos and Andy and such things and it’s not like CBS likes to admit that they ever aired that, so it doesn’t exactly show up in any retrospectives. I think because we (out of respect for African American people) have buried so much of that material that people now can convince themselves that things weren’t really as bad as they actually were. Or Mr Douche Duck can convince himself that black people were just fine with Jim Crow laws because none of them were dumb enough to complain about them in front of a racist white person like him. The lynchings and other horrors are well documented (and according to older relatives a lot of it wasn’t prosecuted or reported on in the papers because the local authorities were the ones doing the lynchings.) My point is that it’s one thing to know about such things and it’s quite another to be confronted with the horror of what it really was. KNOWING is something else entirely. It makes me sick at my stomach to think about it and that’s just the covers of the sheet music and the words to the songs, not the violence and terror inflicted on African American people for over 100 years.

  • TheG

    And boobs. Sometimes they’re hers. Sometimes, as I get older, they’re mine.

  • I do tend to go on a bit. 🙂

    This point is a point I take the time to belabor (carefully, and with as much precision as possible) because to me it is a particularly worrying and distressingly common sloppiness that creeps into highly-charged conversations like those about rape prevention that, once there, cannot be uprooted because it becomes married to the extremity of the wider issue. A person making the point that you did and I did runs a risk of being called a rape apologist or worse simply because (rightfully) emotions run high due to the issue being difficult and deadly serious one and people are, due to that extremity, less tolerant of nuance and fine distinctions.

  • You are correct. Mr Bashir still has the same right to free speech. He’s just going to have to exercise it somewhere else.

  • rwlawoffice,

    So do you get to define Christian beliefs that homosexuality is a sin as bigotry and thus give you the right to be intolerant?

    When your superstitions and stereotypes lead to laws that harm others, your superstitions and stereotypes deserve no tolerance.

    .

  • rwlawoffice,

    Pandering to those with intolerant superstitions and stereotypes is what they wanted? Maybe.

    .

  • Spuddie

    Hey its your bible. You can either follow it or make up excuses why you don’t. You would rather make excuses than live by the morals of the religion you profess to be part of.

    If not for rich people many would not be poor in the first place.

    There is no moral benefit to being rich. Jesus had nothing nice to say to the wealthy. His followers liked nice things and greed too much to follow his lead.

  • Him stating his beliefs is hate now?

    Beliefs that begin and end with a 2000 year old translation upon translation book telling a story about a guy three days dead jumping up alive and a sky fairy that condones murder (including murder of gays), rape, genocide and slavery. All of it hateful.

    The biblical attitude towards gay people is hateful. Would you be defending him if he condoned rape, genocide and slavery as expressed in the bible?

  • I have not had the misfortune of seeing either show, but I like the concept of mashable lowest common denominator media.

    .

  • Reality TV is not real

    The correct term is less scripted TV.

    When the writers went on strike several years ago, the people who write the scripts went on strike and the shows were halted.

    when the writers’ strike ended, they started up again.

    .

  • Akman,

    That is only one passage of the Bible. You need to understand the whole bible to understand .

    Ignore the contradictions of the content, but believe that the contradictory whole makes more sense than the contradictory parts.

    We are supposed to believe there is some context that ignores the bad parts and only values the good parts.

    The good parts and bad parts are different for each person reading the Bible, so the Bible is the Book of Ultimate Relativism.

    Rape, slavery, murder, genocide are all good to one person reading the Bible.

    Rape, slavery, murder, genocide are all bad to one person reading the Bible.

    The difference is the prejudice of the reader, not the whole of the Bible.

    .

  • YourDad

    It’s rare, almost to the point of non-existence, for someone to concede an argument in this type of forum.

    That’s really mature of you, Starship. And I’m being completely, 100% sincere in saying that. Most people don’t have the stones to admit that they have no retort.

    Good on you!

  • Jennifer Starr

    True, but I still don’t comprehend what people see in it.

  • I keep looking in the bible for that clause. I can’t find it. I found:

    “When Jesus heard his answer, he said, “There is still one thing you haven’t done. Sell all your possessions and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.” Luke 18:22

    Or

    “All the believers continued together in close fellowship and shared their belongings with one another. 45 They would sell their property and possessions, and distribute the money among all, according to what each one needed.” Book of Acts 2:44-45.

  • Not according to the bible.

  • Bill Santagata

    For once I would love a Christian to say “I personally abstain from gay sex because it is against my religious beliefs, however I understand that this certainly does not apply to other people.” In the same vein that Jews who keep kosher do not rail against people who do not.

    The view that gay people are inherently depraved and sinful, just like religious people once held about black people (“the Mark of Cain”) is no longer in the mainstream, and right-wing Christians don’t want to accept this. You can go out on the streets shouting how gays are sinners, just like you can shout how black people are terrible, but the applause you once received is now being more often met with confused stares (“Who is this crazy person?”)

    Criticizing, even disparaging, awful, terrible, hurtful viewpoints (gay people are inherently less than straight people) is not persecution. People are no longer buying the snake oil you’re peddling in the free marketplace of ideas.

  • There was no Godless Constitution until the US.

    Should that have discouraged the Founding Fathers from going against tradition?

    As we become less superstitious, we eliminate more discriminatory authoritarian laws.

    PS – I do not know if all cultures have viewed homosexuality as immoral is true, but I doubt it.

    .

  • To get a excellent rating, charities (those that are service oriented) have to have a Program Expenses less than 3% of total expenditures. Most charities spend about 75% of their money on program and their missions. Even entities like museums, which have high admin costs, usually keep admin costs below 50%. Any charity that has a 80% overhead, isn’t a charity; it’s a scam.

  • Bill Santagata

    No, because a “sincerely held religious belief” (puke) outweighs everything else.

  • While unions have their problems, they do not seem to rely on a book of magic to make decisions.

    .

  • Matt D

    “You need to understand the whole Rigveda to understand”
    “You need to understand the whole Dhammapada to understand”
    “You need to understand the whole Arul Nool to understand”
    “You need to understand the whole Talmud to understand”
    “You need to understand the whole Apocrypha to understand”
    “You need to understand the whole I Ching to understand”
    “You need to understand the whole Qur’an to understand”.

    See how that works? It’s self deception to claim your religion overrides all these others. Please try to be a better scholar, if not a more honest one.

  • Beards lead to bestiality.

    “It seems like, to me, a vagina — as a woman — would be more desirable than a man’s beard. That’s just me.

    Then you could rewrite his statement this way.

    😉

  • Todd Heath

    Actually Alec Baldwin is very much a part of this discussion. He was fired for the exact same thing. What both Mr. Robinson and Mr Baldwin said were personal attacks. Equating gay people to beastiality is a personal attack on a entire group of people.

    Don’t discuss issues at work you are not willing to lose your job over. As has been explained to you over and over in this thread, freedom of speech only protects you from government retribution. It doesn’t protect a person from the consequences of bigoted speech in the private sector.

  • Let’s not forget the racist portion of the interview either, where he said that black people were better off before the civil rights era…

  • I agree with everything you said, but I want to point out that he absolutely DID say racist shit in that interview,

  • Jason States

    406 comments made mostly by people who have never watched the show or read the entire interview including the interviewers questions of which he had to reword because Phil refused to respond to stupidly worded questions.
    They have had more than one gay person on their show, hell they even had a gay guy doing a photo shoot with them and their pets for their family pictures. I believe he said something to the effect of ” i don’t agree with his lifestyle but he did a heck of a job raking up those leaves.” They believe in working and if you’re a hard worker being gay doesn’t mean squat. Just don’t expect him to jump into a hot tub with you.
    As was expected Phil was misquoted and his interview cut down into sound bites by Mr. Mehta and the other “journalists” to make him sound like a hatemonger.
    Where did the statement made by Mr Robertson that he “believes it is a sin but it isn’t his job to judge. That is done by god and he will treat everyone with equal respect and a smile.” Where did that go? Why did you choose not to post his entire response. Oh wait….it’s cause we have to make something out of nothing.
    There are so many wrong things being said. Comments of the ignorant, which does kind of explain why the world is in this mess.
    A far right wing christian who says he believes being gay is a sin but doesn’t wish any ill will toward anyone. Someone who is tolerant of other peoples belief and way of life. Isn’t that what the LGBT community has wanted? Just to be treated equally?
    It’s the LGBT community that makes me ashamed to be a gay man. Not this Robertson character. I want equal rights and treatment not to bash someone else for their views. This overreaction is just embarrassing for any gay person with even a minute amount of self respect.

  • Neither do I.

    .

  • Jason States

    good sound bite. unfortunately that’s not all that he said. try posting the question from the interviewer and then Mr Robertson’s response and tell me again how that is the definition of ” racist”

  • Jason States

    As long as he does not worship money over god then I don’t see the problem you’re trying to make up. If he’s using the money to do good things who cares what his personal belief is.

  • rwlawoffice

    Actually this is nothing new. Christians go against culture all the time. Look back on the social issues over the last hundred years or so and you will find Christians on one side and liberals on the other pushing against the Christian moral teaching.

  • rwlawoffice

    The fact that we disagree on these issues does not make me obtuse. It makes me a person who disagrees with you because I think you are mistaken.

    This is not a discussion about same sex marriage, but I believe that it does harm society and this harm is based upon the changing reason for marriage and the change of focus from a societal protection of children to one based entirely upon the desires of adults. That is not Biblically based and is for another thread of discussion.

    Your basis for morality is relative to what you perceive to be harmful. That is inherently different for each person and is no basis for the morality of a society. Sometimes laws are in place for the common good, not just to the desires of the individual. or a person’s individual definition of “real world harms”.

  • defPlayer

    Would he be as dumb is he wasn’t “blessed” with a christian upbringing?

  • 1nsomniacTheater

    “crying fowl” — pun or awesome typo? 🙂

  • Timothy R Alexander

    This must be why my cable provider’s face book page was drowned in comments saying they need to remove A&E. I had no idea. I was just going to complain about my crappy internet.

  • Laffer

    A&E knew all along that he was a raging homophobe.

  • Red-star

    Maybe. I don’t think he actually wants a discussion and is actually hear to preach. I’m just really tired of people saying that anyone who wants gay people to have the same rights is an enemy of free speech and anyone who tries to make that a reality is worse than hitler and is trying to currtail your rights. I’m in a much better mood now though. That was a bit intense.

    I’m sorry I shouldn’t be insulting like that. Ad homin attacks aren’t good arguments.

  • Derrik Pates

    Sure, but as long as he didn’t make it into a big public thing, they were fine letting him have his opinion. Now, he did, and they responded in kind.

  • Laffer

    He had made a big public thing of it before being hired. They knew he was homophobic and they knew he was public about it. They can’t be shocked that he is exactly the man they hired.

  • Derrik Pates

    Because that’s what you get for having the sheer audacity to be born poor.

  • Cake

    Woooosh! Another one goes right over your head.
    Remedial civics.
    Remedial English
    and now Remedial reading comprehension classes.

  • Like civil rights, interracial marriage, woman’s suffrage,….

    Of course there were Christians on both sides claiming to hold God’s moral teaching. I am going to go out on a limb here and say that the liberal position, for civil rights, for interracial marriage, for woman’s suffrage, is, let’s say, right. And the opposing Christian moral teaching is, how shall we say it,… wrong.

  • Derrik Pates

    Look at Tiger Woods.

  • Christians know full well and have for thousands of years that the world reality is different from their beliefs. You read about it in the Bible and from the founder on out its leaders were killed for their beliefs.

    Just two minor corrections.

  • purr

    Yep the Kardashian show, for example, is entirely scripted.

  • UWIR

    Whether Robertson said it is irrelevant. You’re the one who needs to stay on point. You said “Forced acceptance is intolerant and crushes liberty, independence, and critical thinking.” If that were actually true, then forced acceptance of the idea that gays shouldn’t be killed crushes liberty, independence, and critical thinking. So either what you said was wrong, or you think forced acceptance of the idea that gays shouldn’t be killed crushes liberty, etc. Which one is it?

    The point is that, by your dictionary definition of “intolerance”, passing laws against killing gays is “intolerant”. The point is that simply screaming “intolerance” without any concern about what is not being tolerated is invalid, which you implicitly agree with by trying to invalidate my post by claiming that you don’t want to kill gays. If you really thought that the issue was “intolerance”, the consistent thing to do would be to continue to condemn my “intolerance”, without any concern for what I am not tolerating. But you don’t really think that all intolerance is bad, you just think that intolerance of your position is bad, which is exactly the attitude that you are condemning in us. I have no problem with some attributes being tolerated, and others not, and I see nothing hypocritical about that. Now that you’ve implicitly agreed that some positions don’t deserve to be tolerated, the only remaining issue is whether your position is such a position.

  • Nomad

    Oh god isn’t that the truth. I can’t go into a store without passing merchandise with his hairy mug on it. Or, for that matter, without passing mugs with his mug on it.

  • Nomad

    Sure, that’s easy. He states that black people were happier working for the white man as virtual slave labor, they were always “singing” so that proves that their lot was better. Apparently welfare is to blame for them becoming unhappy with their lot of being kept poor.

    It never occurs to him that in the Jim Crowe era it might have been unwise for a black man to bad mouth the white ruling class in the presence of a white man, even “white trash” which was still going to be a higher class in that era.

  • Nomad

    Hell, you had to go and ruin the sweet sweet schadenfreude.

  • UWIR

    “Your logic is this- I think homosexuality is moral so anyone who believes different than me is a bigot”

    You are such a liar. It’s not “Anyone who believes different [sic] than me is a bigot”. It’s “Anyone who disagrees with my belief that gays should be treated with equality is a bigot”.

    Expressing animus towards someone for no good reason is bigotry. that’s what “bigotry” means. It is not a “redefinition”. So, yes, if someone disagrees with you that you have a good reason for expressing animus towards gays, then they are going to consider you to be a bigot.

    Do you think ANY bigot should be allowed to employ this defense? Should any bigot be allowed to say “I believe that I have a good reason for hating this group, so you’re calling me a bigot because I don’t share your belief system”? Can you name anyone for whom the label “bigot” is perfectly valid?

  • UWIR

    And of course none of his customers ever drank to excess?

  • I thought the Christians were liberal.

    In the Bible, Jesus exemplifies many parts of the hippie lifestyle.

    .

  • Holytape,

    That interpretation is apparently how the conservative right Christians would want you to interpret it.

    However the wrong liberal Christians would probably not see that as an example of the loving God they worship.

    It doesn’t matter. rw knows what is the right Christian moral teaching for all right Christians.

    .

  • marshmallow,

    Yep the Kardashian show, for example, is entirely scripted.

    I did not write entirely scripted.

    I wrote –

    “The correct term is less scripted TV.”

    .

  • purr

    I know what you wrote.

  • Timothy R Alexander

    Ok, I have to ask just a few questions that no one seems to be able to answer.

    1) how the hell did these people become so popular? I thought the Jeff Foxxworthy Redneck things was over and we realized what morons these kinds of people were.

    2) Why did they ask what the guy thought of gay marriage. Seriously we know he’s a redneck, we know he’s a christian, we’ve heard the guy try to speak english…put it together.

    and 3) Can we just cancel the show and put a new star trek in its place? We just might raise the intelligence of people

  • midnight rambler

    That was my thought as well. Newsflash: loud ‘n proud redneck is a bigot. Whodathunk?

  • Gehennah

    1) I really don’t know, but I think people have a thing for dumb people. Especially on “reality” TV
    2) No idea, they already knew the answer
    3) That would be amazing. I did read something about a new one possibly happening with Captain Worf, which might be an interesting twist. If I read the article correctly, he’d be flying a Defiant class star ship (from DS-9)

  • kickinitincrik

    “I think that this intolerance by gay activists toward the full spectrum of human beliefs is a sign of immaturity, juvenility. This is not the mark of a true intellectual life. This is why there is no cultural life now in the U.S. Why nothing is of interest coming from the major media in terms of cultural criticism. Why the graduates of the IvyLeague with their A, A, A+ grades are complete cultural illiterates, etc. is because they are not being educated in any way to give respect to opposing view points.”

    “There is a dialogue going on human civilization, for heaven sakes. It’s not just this monologue coming from fanatics who have displaced the religious beliefs of their parents into a political movement. And that is what happened to feminism, and that is what happened to gay activism, a fanaticism.”

    Paglia – atheist/lesbian

  • baal

    “Gay” actions do not harm the common good.

    “Harm”, in it’s common usage, is ridiculously easy to figure out. Is someone going “OW!” (physically or emotionally)? If yes then it’s harmful. The next question (element mr attny) is justification. Some harms can be justified but if you’re making someone go ‘ow’ you need a good reason. I disagree with you that your promises to a supernatural being are a valid justification for you making gay folks go ‘OW’ (injury to 3rd party is not justified by bilateral contract…go figure).

  • rwlawoffice

    If you were telling the truth than Phil Robertson would not be called a bigot for his statements, yet he is. What you are saying is that if you can’t think of a good reason for a person to have animus against Gays than you get to call them a bigot. That is simply another way of saying if you don’t agree with me I get to call you a bigot.

  • rwlawoffice

    Ahhh there in is the issue- justification. What someone says is justified someone else will say it is not, thus relative morality.

  • rwlawoffice

    He listed a number of sexual sins. He claimed that homosexual behavior is a sin like other sins. All he really said is that it is not the moral equivalent of heterosexual monogamous sex within a marriage.

  • rwlawoffice

    Would be happy to have a discussion with you. Frankly i didn’t understand your comment.

  • rwlawoffice

    That would be like Christians saying- I don’t steal but I know other people do; I don’t commit adultery but other people do, etc.. Christianity teaches that all sex outside of marriage between a man and a woman is a sin. Homosexuality does not get special treatment. Christianity also teaches that we are all sinners and that no person is better than the other and we are all in need of God’s grace. Homosexuals are no different than Heterosexuals in this regard. So they are not being treated worse. But what they want is moral acceptance to behavior that our faith teaches is a sin.

  • Neko

    By the way, if you read his comments without your biased glasses you will see that he did not say that homosexual behavior leads to bestiality.

    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 think it just takes glasses.

  • kickinitincrik,

    The existence, or lack of existence, of Gods has nothing to do with whether gays should be treated fairly.

    I support the rights of minority groups because it is the right thing to do.

    Gay marriage does not harm others, but does encourage people to examine the authority of the Big Brother religions (monotheisms).

    The American Constitution protects minority rights because it is the right thing to do.

    Religious authorities have been telling women and gays that God hates them because of what they are.

    Some people will realize that the authority is a scam.

    The most influential atheists are not gay or female.

    The problems with culture may be partly related to a crumbling of the failed paradigm that God is good, or moral, or even real.

    People tend to look for something to fill a void in their lives, but the problem is that religion is a fraud, not that people are realizing that religion is a fraud.

    People look for all sorts of substitutes for religion and having swallowed one ridiculous belief, may just find another to replace it.

    The problem of religious fraud is not going to be solved by a return to religious fraud.

    The whaling industry was devastated by the electric light bulb.

    Should we have protected the whaling industry?

    The recording industry has been devastated by the portability of digital information.

    Should we have protected the recording industry?

    The religious industry is being devastated by the availability of information.

    Should we protect the religious industry?

    An industry that fails to adapt to the conditions of the real world destroys itself.

    Religion will still satisfy those who do not want to think, who oppose logic and science, but civilization will not be held back by these Luddites, not even by Luddites with computers.

    .

  • rwlawoffice,

    The Bill of Rights is designed to protect minority groups from the tyranny of the majority.

    Big Brother deciding which consenting adults may marry which other consenting adults is an example of the tyranny of the majority that is coming to an end.

    People are realizing that the moral authority of religion is a fraud.

    Using fraud as a basis for moral authority is harmful..

    .

  • All he really said is that it is not the moral equivalent of heterosexual monogamous sex within a marriage.

    The duck seducer didn’t say anything about bestiality or the benefits of Jim Crow laws?

    .

  • That would be like Christians saying- I don’t steal but I know other people do;

    No.

    Stealing hurts others.

    Homosexuality is consenting activity between adults, just as heterosexuality is.

    But what they want is moral acceptance to behavior that our faith teaches is a sin.

    All that matters is legal acceptance of behavior that only some religious people oppose.

    Nobody needs moral approval by an immoral organization.

    .

  • You just need the special God Glasses™ – only available to true believers in the most recent revision of the never changing word of our loving genocidal imaginary friend.

    The price is the sacrifice of your morality, rationality, and responsibility to the Nanny Church.

    .

  • Bill Santagata

    And Orthodox Jews believe that a cheeseburger is an abomination unto God. Your religion is your religion and applies only to you. You think sex outside of marriage is sinful? Wonderful: many people disagree.

    As it is not against the law to have sex outside of marriage (indeed, the Constitution grants people the right to have sex outside of marriage), non-Christians can have sex outside of marriage if they want. Non-Christians can be gay, they can refuse to go to church, and they can take the Lord’s name in vain.

    You follow your religion’s rules and they’ll follow their religion’s rules.

  • I’ve given up trying to keep track of this thread. So my thanks to Bill and everyone else who has the energy on this one.

    Personally I can’t wait for this Duck shit to die down so I can go back to cat pictures on my FB feed.

  • allein

    [Cue “Sex with Ducks” by Garfunkel & Oates here]

  • Bill Santagata

    It’s all staged publicity. A&E of course isn’t really taken aback by his comments because they know he’s a conservative Christian and all that that entails.

    The point is that now the entire country is talking about “Duck Dynasty.”

  • The Captain

    O.K. a day latter I am now convinced everyone here had it wrong, even me. I thought he was probably “suspend” because I’m sure there is gay people working pretty high up in the network, and he he basically said sex with their partners is akin to fucking a dog. A pretty good way to piss off your boss. But now that more of the interview has come out, I need to hand it to A&E, they did an brilliant job of spinning this in their favor and we all fell right into it.

    I think A&E saw that the really offensive thing he said was the comments he made about black people and civil rights, that was the potential show killer. Yes, the comments about gays are bad, but pretty much even many anti-gay right wing christians could potentially look at his comments on black people and say fuck you to this show. But by leaking the anti-gay comments first they buried his race comments under all the internet noise, and most importantly turned him into a right wing christian hero/martyr before anyone could hear about the race stuff. So now by using the gay comments A&E has galvanized support for the show from the anti-gay segment of the country, who now will overlook (or never hear) his race comments.

    So now rather than the national discourse being “holly crap this guy thinks black people where happier under segregation and now all live on welfare” which would have very little support, they turned the dialogue into one of being anti-gay, which sadly does have a lot of support.

    Well played A&E… well played!

  • nattytheknight

    Oh I agree with your point about being confronted with it. I guess I just have more experience seeing these things having a background in history and for the record, I’m not that old either (grew up in the ’80s). I was shown this type of stuff in some of my college history classes (which weren’t all for history majors only), so I was just surprised that adults wouldn’t have ever seen something similar. This is why the white-washing of museums and the damage inflicted by groups such as the Daughters of the Confederacy (who exist primarily to rewrite Civil War history as an idyllic time of harmony) need to go away.

  • allein

    “Homosexuality does not get special treatment.”

    I’ll believe that When you start calling for straight people who have premarital sex to be disallowed from getting married by the state.

  • lafred

    “…a societal protection of children…”??!! My husband and I should not have been allowed to marry when in our 50s because we could not have children? BS

  • That may have come up briefly in a history class but we spent over a week on this material. You really can’t understand the development of American popular music or theater without a knowledge of this tradition. (Otherwise you’d think that certain theatrical or musical traditions suddenly sprang from nowhere in the 1920s.) There is some very good academic research and a lot of the music is up on the Library of Congress website (with pdfs of much of their sheet music collection). I think it was the extended scenes of it and seeing how mainstream it was that was a shock. And also just how horrible it was. It’s one thing to know something vaguely and quite another to watch an extended sequence in which it’s presented so unapologetically, especially when it features mainstream celebrities or parts of movies that have long been edited out. I’m older than you and I remember rather racist cartoons shown on tv when I was very young. But that was long ago and it’s not something I choose to think about. So horrible and not really that long ago.

    A side story. When I was living in Germany about 10 years ago there were two productions of Krenek’s opera Jonny spielt auf. Jonny is an African American jazz musician and the role in the Vienna production was played by Danish baritone Bo Skovus. I was horrified at the picture of a white man in dark makeup (though nothing resembling blackface) and a giant afro. (They appeared to have moved the whole thing to the disco era.) I was horrified. My friends couldn’t understand the problem since there is no history of that specific performance tradition there. (Although there are similar kinds of racist entertainment in their own past.) For one thing it wouldn’t be that hard to find an African American baritone to take the part. (There are plenty of them. I’d be happy to make some recommendations. I probably have at least a half dozen acceptable options just among my facebook friends.) “Aren’t people past that yet?” was my German friend’s response. No, not as long as people who attended segregated schools (which in my hometown is anyone even a year older than me) are still around.

  • Jeremiah Traeger

    Phil Robertson + Gordon Ramsy. NOW. I never watch reality shows or cooking shows, but I would watch the shit out of that.

  • Little_Magpie

    Funny how you don’t see Sarah Palin defending…

    okay I’ll stop now..

  • Little_Magpie

    just had to say… leaving the redneck part out, there are bearded hunter guys who look and dress like this guy, who ARE gay.

    Human diversity, folks. 🙂

  • UWIR

    I take it you mean “then”, not “then”. Even with that change, that sentence is incoherent. What have I said that is in conflict with Phil Robertson being called a bigot, and how?

    To be a bigot is to have animus without good reason. I don’t have animus towards gay people. So if you differ from me with respect to me not having animus towards gay people, then you are a bigot. That’s just another way of saying that if you fulfill the conditions of being a bigot, then you a re bigot. What is odd about that? That is a self-evident statement. Why do you keep harping on the fact that we are saying that if you fulfill the conditions of being a bigot, then you are a bigot? What is your point?

    You seem to be trying to engage in an equivocation game: you point out that if you disagree on one particular issue, you are a bigot, and you then word it as if disagreeing with us on any issue leads you to being called a bigot, which is plain dishonest.

    You are a liar and a bigot.

    And I notice that you refused to answer my question of whether there is such a thing as actual bigotry. Why do you refuse to answer that?

  • Rwlawoffice

    Sure there is actual bigotry. My point is that this word is thrown around when there is a difference of opinion on an issue. You claiming that bigotry exists when there is no good reason to hold that view is an improper definition and lessens what true bigotry is. By your definition if you cannot come up with a good reason to disagree the other person is a bigot. All you are really being is intolerant. For example, I could say I see no good reason why anyone would want to be gay, therefore all gays are bigots. I don’t think that even though I am not gay.

  • UWIR

    “Sure there is actual bigotry.”

    Name something that you believe is bigotry.

    “My point is that this word is thrown around when there is a difference of opinion on an issue.”

    My point is there are some matters on which a difference is bigotry. For instance, on the question of whether gays should be killed, differing from my opinion is bigotry. I have made this point AGAIN and AGAIN, and the fact that you simply keep making the same fallacious point shows that you’re not only a bigot but a dishonest one as well.

    “You claiming that bigotry exists when there is no good reason to hold that view is an improper definition and lessens what true bigotry is.”

    I never said that any view without a good reason is bigotry, you lying piece of shit. I said animus without a good reason is bigotry.

    And I note you refused to answer the question “What have I said that is in conflict with Phil Robertson being called a bigot, and how?”, which joins “Can you name anyone for whom the label “bigot” is perfectly valid?” in the list of questions that you are evading.

  • The Starship Maxima

    “I am the Starship Maxima and I personally believe homosexuality is a form of sexual immorality and is hurtful to the individuals who practice it and to society as a whole. However, I am fully aware that others don’t see it the same way and that I agreed to uphold the laws of the land in which I live which give people the right to completely ignore the Scripture.
    Further, my God tells me that it is not my place to force compliance with the Word.
    It is my conviction that gays are honorable, hard-working, tax-paying, Americans and what they do with other consenting adults is their business just as what I do with other consenting adults is mine.”

  • The Starship Maxima

    I didn’t know that. At all.