Duck Dynasty's Phil Robertson: The Latest Victim of the PC Police

TownCryer
reply to post by TheWrightWing

 

Phil equated homosexuallity with Beastiallity, (sp?). THAT'S the stupid thing he said.

Both are Sexual Preference, are they not?

What makes anyone gay, straight, peado or a sheep-shagger besides Sexual Preference?

Is "Sexual Preference" not the argument gay activists declare is the only justification for acceptance of gays?

If there is something else that makes one a gay, then please let us know.

Lingweenie
I challenge any of you to go into work tomorrow, and say the most outrageous and disgusting things to your coworkers and your bosses/managers. And let's see how long your free speech will keep your job security. The fact is, you have your right to opinion. But those around you are not guaranteed to tolerate it. And you may see an unfavorable outcome from the words that you had spoken.

Let's stop beating around the bush here...
I don't find anything that Phil said to be in the least outrageous or disgusting. I whole-heartedly agree with what he said and in the manner in which he said it. If someone is offended by that, then that offense is their own responsibility... the listener always has the right to take offense or not take offense, the do not have the right to expect the speaker to coddle to their sensitivities.

The countrys political correct attitudes are totally out of control.

I can support his right to freedom of speech, but I also have the right not to support someone who thinks anyone was was better off under Jim Crow laws.

Mr. Robertson claims that, from what he saw, African Americans were happier under Jim Crow.

tv.yahoo.com... tml

reply to post by burdman30ott6


Im sorry but i would say it outright. Im not gay nor would I ever be. The idea behind being gay is disgusting to me. It is against my religion and just plain wrong in my books. Dont get me wrong Im not saint but the thought of one man doing that to another is just wrong. I may get smashed for this comment but when is it wrong to speak your mind and speak the truth. Its just not the way life is supposed to be.

The A&E is on indefinite hiatus until A&E decides to listen to the population and not the PC Police and O-Stupid.
When A&E stands beside pedophiles and perverts over normal US Citizens, that tells you something!

beezzer
reply to post by burdman30ott6

 

When did the country become a population of cowards, afraid of offending even the smallest group?

I remember "SNL" offending everyone.

"In Living Color" offending everyone.

In my humble opinion, we've become a nation of sissies, drinking hot chocolate in our onesies, on our parents sofa.

When you can no longer laugh at yourself, then you have lost all rights to mock others.

!00% Accruate..Awesome comment.

rupertg
Phil Robertson will probably release a sex tape which will resurrect his career.

Phil's career is making millions of dollars selling the best duck calls and most entertaining hunting videos you can find. He made his fortunes before A&E ever came knocking on his door and I can guaran-damn-tee his recent comments will have ZERO impact on the sale of the Duck Commander line of products.

In all reality the to-do over this hurts one entity and one entity alone: A&E. It has to suck to be them because they will eat their ass either way they go on this. Either do nothing and watch a minor advertiser backlash from the GLAAD threats and boycotts or "suspend" Phil and watch a major advertiser/ratings backlash from the massive number of the show's fans who flip the bird at them as they flip their cable box away from A&E. The decision they made as a network makes no sense... a small freak-out from the gay rights folks likely doesn't impact their ratings in the least and may have actually boosted viewership overall, censoring one of the reasons fans watch the show, however? Bad move, essa.

BobAthome
reply to post by Lingweenie

 

the following quote used as a justification????



"If I bully someone (verbally) to the point of suicide. I was enacting my free speech."

i hope u don't think that if "killed with words",,don't count,,???
unless ive miss read your thoughts.

I said that if I went around saying whatever I want about someone. It's my free speech. But I would not be free from the repercussions that may result in the words that I had spoke (the person killing them self.)

The words I had spoken wouldn't have killed the person. I can scream the word "pancake" at someone all day and they wont drop dead. However, I am not guaranteed that my free speech will not harm other people. And harming other people is an obvious crime.

The point I was making, is that people can go around and say what they like. But that does not free them from what will happen as a result of the words that they had spoken.

reply to post by intrepid


its not a first amendment issue its a civil rights issue,they are firing him for his religious views something the 1964 civil rights act expressly prohibits so hopefully he sues the crap out of them and takes the family show to a new network

www.libertynews.com...

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), which prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. SEC. 2000e-2. [Section 703] (a) Employer practices It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer - (1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. - See more at: www.libertynews.com...

www.judiciary.senate.gov...
en.wikipedia.org...

www.archives.gov...

As West defines the term, affirmative action "refers to both mandatory and voluntary programs intended to affirm the civil rights of designated classes of individuals by taking positive action to protect them" from discrimination. The issue for most Americans is fairness: Should the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment be used to advance the liberty of one class of individuals for good reasons when that action may infringe on the liberty of another?

seems like a relevent part and this could complicate A and E decision and possibly have consequences for them.

firing some one for their own opinions/interpretations that are founded in their region seems like something that should not be legal

www.law.cornell.edu... relevent legal article clarifiying things abit in legalese

TownCryer
reply to post by TheWrightWing

 

Phil equated homosexuallity with Beastiallity, (sp?). THAT'S the stupid thing he said. Then, he went on to talk about his impressions of the racial climate in the 60's. THAT'S the other stupid thig he said. Phil, and you, and I all have the right to say whatever we want, in most cases, (see my earlier example regarding yelling, 'Fire!', in a crowded movie theater). And, the rest of the world has the right to react to whatever someone says. You say something offensive, you're going to offend some people. It's a pretty easy equation. THINK what you want / watch what you SAY.

He also equated straight men sleeping with multiple women with bestiality. IN THE SAME SENTENCE. I swear I've heard people complain that some Christians single out gays, but I guess that goalpost just moved.

He also called out a whole bunch of other sins. And he was answering a question honestly. He has the right to believe in his religion. He is not trying to force his beliefs on people, but to share them. As a queer person, I have been and CONTINUE to be inspired by Phil Robertson, including by the integrity he shows in speaking to his beliefs. Not only was he not offensive, he literally could not have said anything LESS offensive without lying or silencing himself entirely.

reply to post by sepermeru

Damn, I like your posts.
I wish a lot of people could be more like you.
Tolerant.
I also miss the 'thumbs up' emote, I would give you a string of them, because I can only give you one star!

reply to post by TheWrightWing


Homesexuallity is generally accepted, in most parts of the world. It IS a sexual prefference. Just like Heterosexuality is a sexual preferrence. Both are socially acceptable in our society. Yes, some people don't approve of homosexual activities. That's fine. Like it, don't like it - whatever. Sex with animals is not the same thing. Animals do not have the ability to refuse. Sex with animals is a crime. Sex between 2 consenting adults, no matter their gender, is not a crime. Homosexuallity is not the same as beastiality. I guess I shouldn't be surprized that some of the folks on this site don't accept that.

reply to post by Jobeycool


SNL and Living Color are COMEDIES! Geez! I can't believe I have to explain this. IF Phil had said, at the end of his stupid comments, 'Hey everybody, I'm just kidding around', there'd be no controversy. Great argument....

reply to post by TownCryer


Sexuality is not a preference.

How we express our sexuality with each other is.

Big difference.

RalagaNarHallas
reply to post by intrepid

 

its not a first amendment issue its a civil rights issue,they are firing him for his religious views something the 1964 civil rights act expressly prohibits so hopefully he sues the crap out of them and takes the family show to a new network.

I agree that he could possibly sue and win his case but, my personal opinion is he will not sue. I base that opinion on being raised in the same church. Different congregation but still the same church. There is biblical scripture that frankly I'm sure no one is interested in reading to back up my opinion on how Christians are to deal with disputes. This scripture is taught in the Church of Christ and we were encouraged to read and understand the Bible. I am confident Phil knows that scripture and his belief in the Bible will influence his decision.

TownCryer
ex between 2 consenting adults, no matter their gender, is not a crime. Homosexuallity is not the same as beastiality. I guess I shouldn't be surprized that some of the folks on this site don't accept that.

Homosexual sex was once a crime, too.

The only thing that makes one a homosexual is sexual preference, this also applies to collie molesters, it is their sexual preference, isn't it?

Sexual Preference is no defense, if it is, then that equally applies to other deviants: Bestiality and paedophilia.

After all, its just "Sexual Preference" right?

Or is it something more? Why not tell us?

daveinats

The A&E is on indefinite hiatus until A&E decides to listen to the population and not the PC Police and O-Stupid.
When A&E stands beside pedophiles and perverts over normal US Citizens, that tells you something!

I don't know what kind of rainbow colored crack you got your hands on...but you need to stop. You obviously can't afford to lose any more brain cells.

reply to post by sepermeru


Phil has the right to believe what he wants, to say what he wants. The rest of the world has the right to react.