Breaking News: Elderly Lousiana Redneck is a Homophobic Racist

Duck Dynasty star Phil Robertson is known for being a born again Christian. You know, the type that doesn't regret all the things he did as a violent addict because "That was Old Phil. He's dead."

So people were apparently shocked when he listed who he thinks is going to hell, for some reason choosing to top his list with homos, because I'm guessing they're the real scourge of the nation:

Quote:

---

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 tells reporter Drew Magary. "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.

[...]

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.

---

He then dug the whole deeper by giving a little speech about how great Jim Crow laws were for black people:

Quote:

---

I never, with my eyes, saw the mistreatment of any black person. Not once," the reality star said of growing up in pre-Civil-Rights-era Louisiana. "Where we lived was all farmers. The blacks worked for the farmers. I hoed cotton with them. I'm with the blacks, because we're white trash. We're going across the field ... They're singing and happy. I never heard one of them, one black person, say, 'I tell you what: These doggone white people' — not a word!

Pre-entitlement, pre-welfare, you say: Were they happy? They were godly; they were happy; no one was singing the blues.

---

So he's "suspended" from his show. Which really means A&E is giving him a little wrist-slap to protect their image and keep the publicity going. This freaking Boycott A&E Until Phil is Back page on Facebook is getting like 40 'likes' a second.

And, yes, my dad and I are arguing about this right now. Favorite quote so far, from my dad:

Quote:

---

It may be ok to be gay, but progressives are going to have to understand this: It's also ok to NOT be gay.

---

What is this show?

I watched one episode of this show to see what the fuss was about and I legit don't understand it. Don't understand the appeal, don't understand what the show is even about, don't understand ANY of it. In the episode I watched, they were sitting around in an office talking about duck calls. I mean, wtf? It's mind-boggling and boring as all hell.

None of this makes any sense to me. Why do people care?? :eyebrow:

I mean.. Sure, maybe it wasn't right for him word some of that stuff the way he did, but he's entitled to his opinion.

I don't think he's necessarily defending that law, based on the quote.. I think he's just saying that that's what he saw around him. He didn't see a bunch of black people complaining about not having rights. He never actually -saw- any beatings or sexual assaults that occurred. It's a show of pure ignorance. He probably never heard them complain because -he- was there with them. This may be way off base, and I apologize if it is or I come off sounding sideways.. But I think that they -wouldn't- have talked to him about things like that -because- he's white... Regardless of his being poor.

I've never seen this show, but all of the conservative hicks and trash and up here in North Idaho eat it up like it's birthday cake. There is an entire store within Walmart here devoted to this Duck Dynasty trout.

Completely and utterly non-surprising that he feels this way. The others probably do as well and are just smart enough to keep their traps shut about it.

-smiles and pats Phil Robertson on the head- You just go right on believing that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shlup

Quote:

---

It may be ok to be gay, but progressives are going to have to understand this: It's also ok to NOT be gay.

---

---

Disagree.

I actually quite like the show. I mean, I've only seen a few episodes, but for the most part they seem to be a fun, nice family. And the show is heavily scripted so it's most like an episode of a sitcom.

The episode I saw that I really liked was about Uncle Si having bad luck with hunting dogs. And then he got a poodle and everyone made fun of him, but that poodle was the best hunting dog he ever had. It was cute.

It's mostly just weird to see people up-in-arms that "A&E is silencing Christians!" And by "weird" I mean sad that so many people believe telling people they're going to hell is simply the Christian thing to do.

What bothers me the most about this is people claim that somehow A&E is violating his free speech right. Just like he has a right to speak his mind A&E has the right to respond as they see fit (within the law). Free speech doesn't mean you can say what you want and everyone has to accept it.

there's Duck Dynasty crap in -every- Wal Mart.

I saw a whatever the son's name is Chia Pet in the Garden Center yesterday when we were picking up our Charlie Brown ass Giftmas tree...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by noxious.sunshine

I saw a whatever the son's name is Chia Pet in the Garden Center yesterday

---

That was my white elephant gift this year.

His second paragraph just sounds like the misinformed beliefs that most people who are against homosexual marriage have about homosexuality being entirely about sex.

The first paragraph is a little worse, but I'm going to choose to believe it's a rant coming from an old fart who is stuck in what he was taught, and views anything else as anarchy.
The racial paragraph seems like an open and shut case of not knowing when to shut up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flying Mullet

What bothers me the most about this is people claim that somehow A&E is violating his free speech right. Just like he has a right to speak his mind A&E has the right to respond as they see fit (within the law). Free speech doesn't mean you can say what you want and everyone has to accept it.

---

If people in this country actually understood their own constitutional rights, this place would be much different than it is.

What bothers me the most is that this trout isn't news. A bigot being a bigot should not be one of the most talked about things on the internet right now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bunny

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flying Mullet

What bothers me the most about this is people claim that somehow A&E is violating his free speech right. Just like he has a right to speak his mind A&E has the right to respond as they see fit (within the law). Free speech doesn't mean you can say what you want and everyone has to accept it.

---

If people in this country actually understood their own constitutional rights, this place would be much different than it is.

What bothers me the most is that this trout isn't news. A bigot being a bigot should not be one of the most talked about things on the internet right now.

---

And yet that's basically the only time you show up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bunny

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flying Mullet

What bothers me the most about this is people claim that somehow A&E is violating his free speech right. Just like he has a right to speak his mind A&E has the right to respond as they see fit (within the law). Free speech doesn't mean you can say what you want and everyone has to accept it.

---

If people in this country actually understood their own constitutional rights, this place would be much different than it is.

What bothers me the most is that this trout isn't news. A bigot being a bigot should not be one of the most talked about things on the internet right now.

---

The controversy over how far our freedom of speech should extend and whether or not condemning homosexuality is still mainstream Christianity is news.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hypoallergenic Chie

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bunny

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flying Mullet

What bothers me the most about this is people claim that somehow A&E is violating his free speech right. Just like he has a right to speak his mind A&E has the right to respond as they see fit (within the law). Free speech doesn't mean you can say what you want and everyone has to accept it.

---

If people in this country actually understood their own constitutional rights, this place would be much different than it is.

What bothers me the most is that this trout isn't news. A bigot being a bigot should not be one of the most talked about things on the internet right now.

---

And yet that's basically the only time you show up.

---

I'm not even sure what this means but I'm almost positive it is stupid.

Quote:

---

The controversy over how far our freedom of speech should extend and whether or not condemning homosexuality is still mainstream Christianity is news.

---

Except this isn't a First Amendment issue and has absolutely nothing to do with freedom of speech.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bunny

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hypoallergenic Chie

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bunny

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flying Mullet

What bothers me the most about this is people claim that somehow A&E is violating his free speech right. Just like he has a right to speak his mind A&E has the right to respond as they see fit (within the law). Free speech doesn't mean you can say what you want and everyone has to accept it.

---

If people in this country actually understood their own constitutional rights, this place would be much different than it is.

What bothers me the most is that this trout isn't news. A bigot being a bigot should not be one of the most talked about things on the internet right now.

---

And yet that's basically the only time you show up.

---

I'm not even sure what this means but I'm almost positive it is stupid.

Quote:

---

The controversy over how far our freedom of speech should extend and whether or not condemning homosexuality is still mainstream Christianity is news.

---

Except this isn't a First Amendment issue and has absolutely nothing to do with freedom of speech.

---

Yeah. It does. He's free to believe whatever he wants without being punished for his beliefs.

So.. you have no idea what freedom of speech is or what the First Amendment entails, do you?

Losing Your TV Job Is Not a First Amendment Issue | TIME.com

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hypoallergenic Chie

Yeah. It does. He's free to believe whatever he wants without being punished for his beliefs.

---

What does being free to believe something have to do with being free to express it, and what does a private enterprise punishing an employee have to do with government censorship?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spuuky

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hypoallergenic Chie

Yeah. It does. He's free to believe whatever he wants without being punished for his beliefs.

---

What does being free to believe something have to do with being free to express it, and what does a private enterprise punishing an employee have to do with government censorship?

---

The right to express your beliefs is freedom of speech. If I were to go on tv and say Santa is real, should I be punished for being wrong?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hypoallergenic Chie

The right to express your beliefs is freedom of speech. If I were to go on tv and say Santa is real, should I be punished for being wrong?

---

The network should have the right to tell you not to come back on their TV program, absolutely. That's what you're asking, right?

Firing someone isn't the government punishing them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spuuky

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hypoallergenic Chie

The right to express your beliefs is freedom of speech. If I were to go on tv and say Santa is real, should I be punished for being wrong?

---

The network should have the right to tell you not to come back on their TV program, absolutely. That's what you're asking, right?

---

That's not what I mean and you know it.

Would this thread exist for someone being wrong about santa? No.
However, because it was something homophobic, not only is the network punishing him, but so are the people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hypoallergenic Chie

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spuuky

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hypoallergenic Chie

Yeah. It does. He's free to believe whatever he wants without being punished for his beliefs.

---

What does being free to believe something have to do with being free to express it, and what does a private enterprise punishing an employee have to do with government censorship?

---

The right to express your beliefs is freedom of speech. If I were to go on tv and say Santa is real, should I be punished for being wrong?

---

He has every right to express his belief that homosexuality is wrong. The government is not oppressing him, which is what the First Amendment is. The network, which he likely has a contract which says that he will be suspended if he brings any type of negative attention to himself, the show they produce, or the network itself, is the one punishing him. Again, this is not a freedom of speech or First Amendment issue because the person "oppressing" him is not a governmental body.

I suggest you take five minutes to read the First Amendment before spouting nonsense like you have a clue.

Quote:

---

Would this thread exist for someone being wrong about santa? No

---

I know this argument probably sounded genius in your head but it is so far removed from what the conversation is about that you should really just stop.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hypoallergenic Chie

That's not what I mean and you know it.

Would this thread exist for someone being wrong about santa? No.
However, because it was something homophobic, not only is the network punishing him, but so are the people.

---

No, I didn't know it. I guess I do now. This thread wouldn't exist if it was about Santa because Santa isn't an actual person who is actually being oppressed; see the EoEO thread. If this thread was about him saying something terrible about actual people, it would exist, regardless of whether the specific was homosexuality or something else.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bunny

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hypoallergenic Chie

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spuuky

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hypoallergenic Chie

Yeah. It does. He's free to believe whatever he wants without being punished for his beliefs.

---

What does being free to believe something have to do with being free to express it, and what does a private enterprise punishing an employee have to do with government censorship?

---

The right to express your beliefs is freedom of speech. If I were to go on tv and say Santa is real, should I be punished for being wrong?

---

He has every right to express his belief that homosexuality is wrong. The government is not oppressing him, which is what the First Amendment is. The network, which he likely has a contract which says that he will be suspended if he brings any type of negative attention to himself, the show they produce, or the network itself, is the one punishing him. Again, this is not a freedom of speech or First Amendment issue because the person "oppressing" him is not a governmental body.

I suggest you take five minutes to read the First Amendment before spouting nonsense like you have a clue.

---

I suggest you not twist what I say to fit your argument.

I'm not upset about the network suspending him. I'm upset about people being intolerant of his beliefs, which to him are tied to his own religion.

If someone were to attack him for this, would that not be a hate crime?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bunny

Except this isn't a First Amendment issue and has absolutely nothing to do with freedom of speech.

---

Well I know that. The crazy right-wingers that agree with him are the ones refusing to acknowledge it.

Don't make sweet Santa a str aw man! He's got enough on his plate this month as it is.

Edit: Seriously, the str aw man filter is the most ghetto filter this place has ever had.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flying Mullet

Don't make sweet Santa a str aw man! He's got enough on his plate this month as it is.

Edit: Seriously, the str aw man filter is the most ghetto filter this place has ever had.

---

We have a filter for really valid point and i'm impressed by your thinking.?

Edit: hahaha holy crap that's awesome.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hypoallergenic Chie

I suggest you not twist what I say to fit your argument.

I'm not upset about the network suspending him. I'm upset about people being intolerant of his beliefs, which to him are tied to his own religion.

If someone were to attack him for this, would that not be a hate crime?

---

I'm sorry. Do you even think about what you are typing or do you just vomit on the keyboard and hope someone else makes sense about it eventually?

Also, I didn't twist anything you said. You said it was a First Amendment issue and I said it wasn't. Largely because it isn't. That's not twisting anything, that's pointing out that you are wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bunny

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hypoallergenic Chie

I suggest you not twist what I say to fit your argument.

I'm not upset about the network suspending him. I'm upset about people being intolerant of his beliefs, which to him are tied to his own religion.

If someone were to attack him for this, would that not be a hate crime?

---

I'm sorry. Do you even think about what you are typing or do you just vomit on the keyboard and hope someone else makes sense about it eventually?

---

You seem to enjoy insulting people quite a bit. Have fun, you'll have to do the rest of this conversation without me.

Edit: I doubt you'll care, but you are the first person to make my ignore list. Good day.

Crossing the line, Bunny. Behave.

So I guess first amendment rights don't apply anymore? Oh right I forgot we don't have a constitution anymore. Just politically correct bulltrout.

I know the thread is a whole 34 posts long, but this issue was already addressed:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flying Mullet

Losing Your TV Job Is Not a First Amendment Issue | TIME.com

---

A&E is not the US government.

So what?
On May 9, Greensboro, NC country station 93.1 The Wolf reported that after receiving complaints over prayers to God and the frequent use of guns on air, Duck Dynasty patriarch Phil Robertson said, "God and guns are part of our everyday lives [and] to remove either of them from the show is unacceptable."\Details regarding the source of the complaints have not been released. Nor has anyone clarified whether they originated within or without of A&E. Breitbart News has reached out to the network for comment.

One thing that has been reported is that A&E signed the Robertson family for another season, "under Phil Robertson's terms."

They knew what he stood for what he says. Why would they put him on the air if they didn't want him expressing his beliefs? And then they silence him?

So I'm assuming you've read the contract between the Robertson family and A&E as a whole then?

What do you mean "So what?"? You brought up the First Amendment when it's not a First Amendment issue. That's what.

You can disagree with their decision if you want, that's fine. I don't personally care if he stays employed or not.

He's stated multiple times he would not be one the show if he was not allowed to say his opinions, and that he did not want to be on the show but was told it was an avenue to voice his opinions so he agreed to be on the show. This is pretty public knowledge for anyone who follows the family.

and sorry that gasp, a good portion of American live in rural areas and have conservative values.


I mean so what to A&E isn't the government.

Except he did not make them on the show. He made them during an interview with GQ magazine and it brings negative attention to the entire network, not just Duck Dynasty and the Robertson family. There is, almost assuredly, a portion of the contract dedicated to how negative press will be handled as that is standard fare for any contract of that nature.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by escobert

He's stated multiple times he would not be one the show if he was not allowed to say his opinions, and that he did not want to be on the show but was told it was an avenue to voice his opinions so he agreed to be on the show. This is pretty public knowledge for anyone who follows the family.

---

I don't claim to know the specifics of their contract. I don't really have an opinion on A&E's decision anyway though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by escobert

and sorry that gasp, a good portion of American live in rural areas and have conservative values.

---

No need to apologize; I don't hold you responsible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by escobert

I mean so what to A&E isn't the government.

---

So they're a private company; the First Amendment doesn't apply.

Freedom of Speech is not freedom from repercussions. It's crazy how people think it's carte blanche to say whatever they want.

Someone on my Facebook posted this:

Quote:

---

All the crap on TV and in the media today and Phil Robertson "The Duck Commander" is offensive? Didn't A&E just air Bonnie & Clyde, glorifying a couple of thugs who robbed and killed people? But they boycott a wholesome family man who quotes the Bible? They've got a brand to protect, they can't let a bearded redneck right winger spout his beliefs. (Oh the horror! We must shut down beliefs, opinions and ideas and get back to selling sex and debauchery to our children!!) A Christian man said something that aligns with his faith...EVERYBODY FREAK THE FREAK OUT!! ...what he said was not anti-gay, he didn't say it out of hate or judgement, but out of his faith. Those often shouting tolerance are often the most intolerant when they see things differently.

---

Followed by some "preach it sister" comments. This offends me greatly because they are not at all speaking for religious people and this is the type of crap that gives us all a bad name. This doesn't align with the faith. This aligns with morons twisting things to suit themselves and/or going along with what they hear and assuming it is correct.

I don't have a great opinion on this. I think everyone has the right to be whatever sexuality they are and not be criticized for it. I also believe people are allowed to hate whoever they want for whatever dumb reason they want. But I don't think its right to publicly shame those people and make them feel bad for being who they are. Keep that to yourself and in private dumb conversations with other intolerant people.

Comparing the Bonnie and Clyde thing to these Duck Dynasty folks is comparing apples and oranges. Allowing a show to air about two lovebirds who have gone down in history vs. an old white hick bastard making intolerant comments are not the same things in any capacity. The Duck Dynasty dude is very much alive and is fully capable of controlling his actions, and I don't think it's okay to say, "well you allowed this completely unrelated thing to happen, why can't I act the way I want to act!" That's shifting blame and responsibility and it's stupid. Everyone knows the nature of Bonnie and Clyde's story and killing and robbing is pretty commonplace among television shows and regular media. Comments slighting a specific sexual preference are not.

I don't understand how his comments can be viewed as "not anti-gay" and I don't understand that it's intolerant to disagree purely because it's based on religion. If they weren't religious and had these same views, would it still not be intolerant then?

NCG is so spot on with this issue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by shion

Quote:

---

All the crap on TV and in the media today and Phil Robertson "The Duck Commander" is offensive? Didn't A&E just air Bonnie & Clyde, glorifying a couple of thugs who robbed and killed people? But they boycott a wholesome family man who quotes the Bible? They've got a brand to protect, they can't let a bearded redneck right winger spout his beliefs. (Oh the horror! We must shut down beliefs, opinions and ideas and get back to selling sex and debauchery to our children!!) A Christian man said something that aligns with his faith...EVERYBODY FREAK THE FREAK OUT!! ...what he said was not anti-gay, he didn't say it out of hate or judgement, but out of his faith. Those often shouting tolerance are often the most intolerant when they see things differently.

---

---

I guess I missed the part in the bible where it says black people should be second class citizens.

The First Amendment really isn't a very complicated issue. It's one sentence long. Some of you should read it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Man

The First Amendment really isn't a very complicated issue. It's one sentence long. Some of you should read it.

---

Too much effort. The TV will tell me what to think.

As in the other bigotry thread at the moment, I'm not saying it's okay to be that person who silently doesn't like gay people. But there's a big difference in not agreeing with someone's sexuality and lifestyle and still being decent to people AS THE BIBLE SAYS, and saying "men should like vaginas, men who like anuses are gross."

For someone who's supposedly "simply stating his oh-so-Christlike beliefs," he sure does seem intent on making sure everyone knows just how evil gays are. Apparently in 2010 he gave a sermon on it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shlup

For someone who's supposedly "simply stating his oh-so-Christlike beliefs," he sure does seem intent on making sure everyone knows just how evil gays are. Apparently in 2010 he gave a sermon on it.

---

There is a part of the bible about it. If you at certain parts, then he's simply doing what a pastor should.
(I don't know if he is a pastor or not, anyone can give a sermon)

That being said, if the sermon was from the part about Sodom and Gomorrah, I always took it to be that god blew the city up because it was full of rapists, murderers, and theives, not because they practicing homosexuality.

Holding the Bible and standing at a pulpit does not make you less of a jerk for preaching that homosexuals are evil. There is no excuse for discriminating against people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shlup

Holding the Bible and standing at a pulpit does not make you less of a jerk for preaching that homosexuals are evil. There is no excuse for discriminating against people.

---

Did he actually say homosexuals are evil, or did he just say it was a sin according to the bible? There is a difference.

He wasn't discussing what's in the Bible, he was preaching it. So both.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shlup

He wasn't discussing what's in the Bible, he was preaching it. So both.

---

Yes or no, did he call homosexuals evil, using the actual word evil?

I don't know why you're talking to me about the video when you obviously didn't watch it.

Semantics.

Anything that's a "sin" is inherently evil.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shlup

I don't know why you're talking to me about the video when you obviously didn't watch it.

---

I don't make a habit of watching anything TMZ makes.
But I just did. He didn't call them evil. He called the act of homsexuality a sin, which is something he pulled from his holy book.

Is there going to be a day where you understand that no one cares if someone's bigotry comes from a book?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shlup

Is there going to be a day where you understand that no one cares if someone's bigotry comes from a book?

---

Freedom of Religion. I don't have to like what he believes, but as long as he isn't hurting anyone, I'm not going to hate him for what he raised to believe.

When you're in your 60s you can't really use the "I was raised to believe this" excuse. You are an adult. You have every capability to choose something better than bigotry. Countless people have done it and will continue to do so. He chose to believe what he believes and act the way he does.

And just because someone has the Freedom of Religions doesn't mean that their beliefs are beyond scrutiny. That's not what Freedom of Religion means. Freedom of Religion means that you can practice any religion that you want; it doesn't mean that people have to respect your beliefs, only that you have the right to believe them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jinx

When you're in your 60s you can't really use the "I was raised to believe this" excuse. You are an adult. You have every capability to choose something better than bigotry. Countless people have done it and will continue to do so. He chose to believe what he believes and act the way he does.

And just because someone has the Freedom of Religions doesn't mean that their beliefs are beyond scrutiny. That's not what Freedom of Religion means. Freedom of Religion means that you can practice any religion that you want; it doesn't mean that people have to respect your beliefs, only that you have the right to believe them.

---

To me it means something different. But yes, legally, that is entirely correct.

Just because you choose to interpret it one way does not mean the definition of Freedom of Religion has changed and we must all start being okay with the hateful things that come from religion.

Like Jinx said, Freedom of Religion is not freedom from criticism.

And he is hurting people. He's preaching that homosexuals "invent new evils." Yes, I get it, he read that in a book. Now what I need you to get is that getting that information from a book does not make that information immune to other people saying it's smurfed up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shlup

Like Jinx said, Freedom of Religion is not freedom from criticism.

And he is hurting people. He's preaching that homosexuals "invent new evils." Yes, I get it, he read that in a book. Now what I need you to get is that getting that information from a book does not make that information immune to other people saying it's smurfed up.

---

No it doesn't, but in a polite and advanced society we shouldn't hate someone for being incorrect.

I think we've been over this in another thread. There's nothing wrong with being incorrect. There's something wrong about being incorrect and being vocal and hateful about your incorrectness and expecting everyone to accept your incorrectness as their way of life.

Do you see anyone saying they hate him? I'm just stating he's incorrect. He's inciting hatred against a minority group, using the Bible to justify it, and I think I have at least a right, if not an obligation, to state that what he's doing is wrong.

I'm sorry if I'm misunderstanding. I felt from the posts in this thread that some people hate the guy simply for being religious.

Only assholes hate people for "simply" being religious. If anyone hates him, it's for using his religion to justify being a bigot.

Well then, I guess conflict resolved.
Have a wonderful day.

Attachment 49377

I wonder what his beard smells like.

Well, he's been quoted as saying "I take regular baths, every Saturday" so if that's any inclination...:erm:

I think it's a bit silly for A&E to suspend an elderly, hick redneck that they hired to be an elderly, hick redneck for... being an elderly, hick redneck. That doesn't remotely justify any of Robertson's bigotry and his disturbing lack of empathy for black people in the pre-Civil Rights era, but I'm just not sure why this became such a big deal to begin with.

Of course, none of that remotely justifies that manufactured outrage of the religious right over "discrimination!" and "free speech!" and other such buzzwords. A&E has the right to refuse to give Robertson a platform under the exact same free speech principles that give Roberston the right to spout off in the first place. The First Amendment does not protect you from social consequences that others voluntarily inflict on you in response to your speech. You have the right to say what you want, and everyone else has the right to react to it in the legal manner of their choosing.

To sum up my opinion: everyone is being stupid. That seems to be the case in many controversies manufactured by the media.

Instead of going into more detail, I'll just bug all of you to read Popehat's take, which, as usual, is among the best and most reasoned responses on the internet. I especially want to highlight two parts:

Quote:

---

2. The phrase "the spirit of the First Amendment" often signals approaching nonsense. So, regrettably, does the phrase "free speech" when uncoupled from constitutional free speech principles. These terms often smuggle unprincipled and internally inconsistent concepts — like the doctrine of the Preferred+ First Speaker. The doctrine of the Preferred First Speaker holds that when Person A speaks, listeners B, C, and D should refrain from their full range of constitutionally protected expression to preserve the ability of Person A to speak without fear of non-governmental consequences that Person A doesn't like. The doctrine of the Preferred First Speaker applies different levels of scrutiny and judgment to the first person who speaks and the second person who reacts to them; it asks "why was it necessary for you to say that" or "what was your motive in saying that" or "did you consider how that would impact someone" to the second person and not the first. It's ultimately incoherent as a theory of freedom of expression.

[...]

Discussions about corporate decisions in the wake of controversy are dominated by (1) people who normally excoriate corporate decision-making but suddenly applaud it when the outcome suits their political beliefs, and (2) people who normally celebrate the market and promote the privilege of corporate decision-making but suddenly find it unpalatable when it produces a result that offends their politics. Some of the people applauding A&E are people who last week were furious at the concept that companies have First Amendment rights. Some of the people trying to conflate A&E and the government are people who last week were vigorously arguing that companies should not have to insure birth control if it offends their religious sensibilities.

---

Quote:

---

I think it's a bit silly for A&E to suspend an uneducated, hick redneck that they hired to be an uneducated, hick redneck for... being an uneducated, hick redneck.

---

He has a bachelor's in Physical Education and a masters in Education. I wouldn't really say he's uneducated.

Also his contract apparently included a moral clause which told Robertson to shut up about LGBT issues.

Oh fair, enough, I must correct myself. I actually have no idea about him personally and only know of him through what I've heard of Duck Dynasty. Though I'm not sure that impacts whether A&E really anticipated that he held any contrary view about homosexuality.

I don't think it's contradictory to think corporations have too much control over the public discourse and still not really feel particularly bothered by, or even gladdened by, Robertson's suspension. The simple fact is that this is how capitalism works and a rather large number of people are only bothered by it when it results in the stifling of views they hold or sympathise with. Meanwhile, companies tend to be rather unpleasant institutions but there's nothing wrong with disliking them on principle but applauding them when they shut down bigotry or stand up for the little guy.

I am actually kind of heartbroken over how numerous and how loud the voices screaming "But he's just a Christian man!" are. As though these are "just Christian views." Is this still what mainstream Christianity is in America? Cracker Barrel pulled all their DD merch and then caved because all the "Christians" yelled at them. I made the mistake of reading a few tweets with #crackerbarrel and now am like in a pit of depression over it.