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

Xcalibur254
reply to post by grey580

 

Just because they put a disclaimer up doesn't change the fact that people will stop watching the show. People don't watch the show because it's on A&E. They watch it for the characters. If the viewers are offended and morally opposed by one of the major characters they're going to stop watching. All A&E is doing is protecting it's bottom line. This isn't a freedom of speech matter. It's a clear cut example of capitalism at work.

And what part of that show would make you think that Phil would have given a PC answer?

I think most people that watch that show (myself NOT being one of them) would accept his answer for what it was, rather than making it into some big deal slamming Gays.

I think the viewership will suffer as a result of A&E's actions, not Phil's honest answer to a question...

TownCryer
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.

Bestiality and homosexuality are both, traditionally, considered aberrant behaviors.

reply to post by Khaleesi


yeah i problly should have clarified he COULD but most likely will not,not like he needs their money.....now if they decide to switch networks and go to a competing network i personally think that would be more damaging then any potential lawsuit.

labor-employment-law.lawyers.com... another interesting link on the matter.

Prohibited Discriminatory Practices Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) prohibits your employer from discriminating against you on the basis of religion in the any aspect of employment, including: Hiring and firing Compensation, assignment or classification of employees Transfer, promotion, layoff or recall Job advertisements Recruitment, testing and job interviews Use of the employer's facilities Fringe benefit, retirement and disability plans Other terms and conditions of employment Prohibited discriminatory practices under Title VII also include: Harassment Retaliation against you for filing a charge of religious discrimination, participating in an investigation, or opposing a discriminatory practice Making employment decisions that are based on stereotypes or assumptions about your abilities, traits or performance because of your religious beliefs Forcing you to participate or not participate in a religious activity as a condition of employment Denying you employment solely because of your marriage to or association with a person of a particular religion

hope this futher clarifies some things

reply to post by TheWrightWing


Oh my gosh...Here's another one. Homosexuality, between two consenting adults is NOT the same as sex with an animal, or sex with a child. I'm not going to bother going into why I think that statement is self evident. I don't think those who are having trouble seperating Homosexuality/Beastiality/Pedophila will be able to understand anyway. Yes, homesexuality was one a crime. There are many things that were once crimial. Times change. Society changes. Those who don't change become part of an ever dwindling minority - a minority that starts yelling louder and louder as their view points become less and less relavent.

TownCryer
reply to post by TheWrightWing

 

Homesexuallity is generally accepted, in most parts of the world. It IS a sexual prefference.

It wasn't always, so how long until bestiality, incest and paedophilia also become "generally accepted"?

After all, they are simply "sexual -preferences" right?

And isn't "sexual -preference" the point? Remember, homosexuals are just born that way, so why should they be penalised (so to speak...) simply for their Sexual Preference?

I support what Phil Robertson said and I agree with him. If that is now labeled as hate speech so be it. If you don't like it you can go pout about it. Just bear in mind that there are country's that actually imprison and even kill people for acts of immorality. We can agree to disagree but calling an opinion of an individual hate speech crosses the line.

The first Amendment gives us the right to share our opinions even if its not popular we should respect the right to do so. If we bend on that we are no longer free...

TownCryer
Homosexuality, between two consenting adults is NOT the same as sex with an animal, or sex with a child.

Not always.

What does Consent have to do with Sexual Preference, again?

Aren't people 'born that way'? Why punish them for that?

Remember, that's the defense for homosexuality.

Well?

sepermeru

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.

Favorite post in this thread!

well said.

God Bless,

TheWrightWing

TownCryer
reply to post by TheWrightWing

 

Homesexuallity is generally accepted, in most parts of the world. It IS a sexual prefference.

It wasn't always, so how long until bestiality, incest and paedophilia also become "generally accepted"?

After all, they are simply "sexual -preferences" right?

And isn't "sexual -preference" the point? Remember, homosexuals are just born that way, so why should they be penalised (so to speak...) simply for their Sexual Preference?

Really? We could have a intelligent conversation, and instead you want to go this way?

Two adult humans doing what they want to do to each other is none of your business. All the Slippery Slope Fallacies in the world will not overcome that.

Homosexuality has been accepted at various points throughout history. It still is, depending on where you are.

Now just stop it. We are talking about Phil Robertson, not your daydreams about what homosexuals do while you aren't looking.

TheWrightWing

TownCryer
Homosexuality, between two consenting adults is NOT the same as sex with an animal, or sex with a child.

Not always.

What does Consent have to do with Sexual Preference, again?

Aren't people 'born that way'? Why punish them for that?

Remember, that's the defense for homosexuality.

Well?

So when did you decide you would be straight? How hard to you choke back your homosexual urges so that you can continue choosing to be straight?

TownCryer
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....

Ok...so SNL makes a political statement using humor...that doesnt count?
SNL makes a religious statement using humor, that doesnt count either?
SNL makes a derogatory skit showing gays in the worst of light and damning their existence...that wouldnt count either?

Personally, I find your argument to be obtuse at best.

TownCryer
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.

For your own personal moral code, you agree with what is presently accepted and not accepted for your person reasons, gathered over the course of your life experience/desires.

For another individual using a religious moral code (allowing God's Word to define what is acceptable; what is sin), they would disagree with what is presently accepted.

For both of you, the reasons for adhering to personal morality are just as valid as one another.

The questions was not to define was is acceptable in modern law, it was to define sin.

God's Word groups these sins together, even if modern laws do not; for a Christian, they are to obey God's Word as Christ did.

God Bless,

bigfatfurrytexan
Really? We could have a intelligent conversation, and instead you want to go this way?

Homosexuality has been accepted at various points throughout history. It still is, depending on where you are.

Now just stop it. We are talking about Phil Robertson, not your daydreams about what homosexuals do while you aren't looking.

edit on 19-12-2013 by bigfatfurrytexan because: (no reason given)

Bestiality and paedophilia were also accepted "at various points throughout history" weren't they?

An intelligent conversation only if some people didn't spoil it by pointing out what pathetic and flimsy positions some argue from, hm? I hear ya.

"Sexual Preference" is the best defense gay activists have. Coincidentally, its the same defense paedos and sheep-shaggers have, too.

Consent has nothing to do with "being born that way"

bigfatfurrytexan
Two adult humans doing what they want to do to each other is none of your business. All the Slippery Slope Fallacies in the world will not overcome that.

Playing devil's advocate here...
Prostitution is illegal on the state level in 49 of the 50 states. Numerous substances are federally illegal for adults to partake in. If two men decide to fist fight each other, they will be arrested, even though it was a mutually acceptable fight for both of them.

The "two consenting adults" argument is convenient for the US to apply to social issues like homosexuality, but it blows up in the face of the law when used on most everything else.

Here's one that scarcely anyone can wrap their heads around... until the late 70's, the American Medical Association listed homosexuality as a mental disorder. That wouldn't really be all that big of a deal, if only the powers that be wouldn't still use the AMA's decisions on things in this modern era. "We were wrong before we were right and you can have full trust in all our decisions now. Just do as we say!"

The one thing that HAS NOT changed over the centuries is the context of the Bible that Phil uses to guide his life. Wishy-Washy, ever changing societal norms be damned, at least liturgically devout Christians are consistant as a Swiss watch.

TownCryer
reply to post by TheWrightWing

 

Oh my gosh...Here's another one. Homosexuality, between two consenting adults is NOT the same as sex with an animal, or sex with a child.

According to your own personal moral code, of which you live by and you are entitled to.

According to the Word of God, all of the above are grouped together as sin.

It depends on whether you live by your laws (personal morality), or God's laws.

God Bless,

bigfatfurrytexan

TheWrightWing

TownCryer
reply to post by TheWrightWing

 

Homesexuallity is generally accepted, in most parts of the world. It IS a sexual prefference.

It wasn't always, so how long until bestiality, incest and paedophilia also become "generally accepted"?

After all, they are simply "sexual -preferences" right?

And isn't "sexual -preference" the point? Remember, homosexuals are just born that way, so why should they be penalised (so to speak...) simply for their Sexual Preference?

Really? We could have a intelligent conversation, and instead you want to go this way?

Two adult humans doing what they want to do to each other is none of your business. All the Slippery Slope Fallacies in the world will not overcome that.

Homosexuality has been accepted at various points throughout history. It still is, depending on where you are.

Now just stop it. We are talking about Phil Robertson, not your daydreams about what homosexuals do while you aren't looking.

edit on 19-12-2013 by bigfatfurrytexan because: (no reason given)

I think the question is whether, by stating his religious beliefs, did he denigrate gays?

Not whether homosexuality is accepted or not...dumb question. Of course it is not, and it is.

Homosexuality is nature's way of curbing population growth. The more dense the population the greater the predominance of homosexuality. Lots of animal studies have proved this. Homosexuality is not a choice.

Funny that you support what 2 humans do in the privacy of ...etc, and yet denounce a man's right to state his religious beliefs in response to a question.

I suppose you would have preferred that he lie and answer with a PC answer that denied his belief system. I hate the show, but I respect the man for standing up for his beliefs rather than weenie out with some stupid PC answer


OH...and just because homosexuality has been accepted in history does not make it right or wrong or anything, for that matter.

Slavery has also been accepted at times and places in history throughout the world. Doesnt make it right.

Facile argument.

bigfatfurrytexan
So when did you decide you would be straight? How hard to you choke back your homosexual urges so that you can continue choosing to be straight?

I didn't. I was "born that way", remember? Sexual Preference is not a choice?

The same defense (Sexual Preference) also applies to gays, paedos, and camel-bangers, doesn't it?

Or does "consent" validate sexual preference now?

If an animal or a minor consented, would that make it right? Well?

Keep moving that goal post...

bigfatfurrytexan
How hard to you choke back your homosexual urges so that you can continue choosing to be straight?

Isn't it great when those who claim to be champions of gays call you a "fag"?

It's the worse insult they can hurl; calling you a FAG!

Surely the irony isn't apparent only to me?

Robertson was right, as The Pretenders said: Stop your sobbing.

This is STUPID.

Phil is known for being a God fearing bible toting Christian. His statement here is not much different than other statements he's made on the show. The show is a family show that teaches good morals and values. Anyonw who wants to cancel the show because of this is PURE EVIL and needs to Die and go to Hell.

A&E said in a statement. "His personal views in no way reflect those of A+E Networks, who have always been strong supporters and champions of the LGBT community. The network has placed Phil under hiatus from filming indefinitely.

Sounds like they should move Duck Dynasty to another much less evil network. Whats the big deal.. actors Never speak for the networks during private interviews. A&E's using this so stop Phil's influence is just Evil. This is just A&E trying to sensor a good wholesome family show.

He'll likely appear in season four, which bows Jan. 15, since production is largely wrapped.

reply to post by bbracken677

Funny that you support what 2 humans do in the privacy of ...etc, and yet denounce a man's right to state his religious beliefs in response to a question.

I suppose you would have preferred that he lie and answer with a PC answer that denied his belief system. I hate the show, but I respect the man for standing up for his beliefs rather than weenie out with some stupid PC answer

I hate to jump in out of no-where here, but I think you missed almost all of Bigfatfurrytexan's posts in this thread. He has actually been in support of the man's right to state his religious beliefs in response to a question. He has clearly outlined that the perhaps fabricated "societal punishment" forced upon him by the media (and what they want US to perceive as "society" as a whole) should have never taken place.

The topic was changed from that, to now arguing about whether homosexuality is ok or not. It really brought down the value of this thread at that point, IMO.