Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

As some of you may know, Duck Dynasty star Phil Robertson was singled out for media sensationalism because of homophobic comments. I've brought these to light because I'mboredhereatworkI'd like some discussion on it. I'm curious to see what everyone thinks and if anything finds his position defendable; as in, should people be allowed to say this on the air or in interviews and not be suspended from their jobs as TV stars?

For those not immediately aware, here below are some of the comments:

Interviewed for the January issue of GQ, Robertson said he could not understand why a man would choose to sleep with another man, instead of a woman.

"There's more there! She's got more to offer. I mean, come on, dudes! You know what I'm saying?" he was quoted as telling GQ. "But hey, sin: it's not logical, my man. It's just not logical".

Pressed to give his own definition of sin, he first suggested homosexuality, then added: "Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men."

"Don't be deceived," he continued. "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."

Robertson released his own statement through the network calling himself "a product of the 60s".

"I centred my life around sex, drugs and rock and roll until I hit rock bottom and accepted Jesus as my Saviour.

"My mission today is to go forth and tell people about why I follow Christ and also what the Bible teaches, and part of that teaching is that women and men are meant to be together."

Former US vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin defended Robertson, tweeting: "Free speech is endangered species; those 'intolerants' hatin' & taking on Duck Dynasty patriarch for voicing personal opinion take on us all."

Phil Robertson is not an actor, politician, sports figure, or any one else we expect to be PC aware. He's a guy on a reality show. I don't agree with his opinion, but he has the right to it. If you don't like his opinion, then don't watch the show. The point of a reality show is the "reality" part.

I can understand that in one way. People on reality TV shows are not bastions of reason and some shows are just hogwash.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Phil Robertson is not an actor, politician, sports figure, or any one else we expect to be PC aware. He's a guy on a reality show. I don't agree with his opinion, but he has the right to it. If you don't like his opinion, then don't watch the show. The point of a reality show is the "reality" part.

My thoughts exactly!

I mean he was asked for his opinion on the matter and he gave it. He wasn't even being derogatory about it. Since when should a person be penalized for having an opinion? If a person can voice that they are in support of homosexuality why can't other voice they are against it? Its one thing to be mean and derogatory about it but its another entirely to answer an interview question.

I have no sympathy for him. When you're in the public eye as much as someone like he is you have to be smart about what you say. We saw something similar with Paula Deen. Said something stupid at some point and it blew up in her face. That's the cost of fame.

That said it seems a lot of people, Palin included, don't understand that free speech is a two way street. He's obviously perfectly free to say whatever he wants, legally speaking. He won't get arrested by the government or anything. However, when he exercises his freedom of speech and says something stupid other people are perfectly within their rights of exercising THEIR freedom of speech to express their feelings that what he said was stupid and disgusting. And his employer is perfectly within their rights to take him off the air as they don't want his viewpoints to be identified with them. That's all that's happening here.

Freedom of speech isn't freedom from being criticized when you say something, just means you won't be legally forced to stop saying it.

Originally posted by BackFire

That said it seems a lot of people, Palin included, don't understand that free speech is a two way street. He's obviously perfectly free to say whatever he wants, legally speaking. He won't get arrested by the government or anything. However, when he exercises his freedom of speech and says something stupid other people are perfectly within their rights of exercising THEIR freedom of speech to express their feelings that what he said was stupid and disgusting. And his employer is perfectly within their rights to take him off the air as they don't want his viewpoints to be identified with them. That's all that's happening here.

Freedom of speech isn't freedom from being criticized when you say something, just means you won't be legally forced to stop saying it.

Oh good, everything that needs to be said is being said.

Y'all have a lovely day then.

I agree, Backfire basically wrapped this thread up in a red bow.

Agreed with Backfire's sentiments about freedom of speech.

However, as far as him being kicked off the show or something, well. It's reality television. I don't think its fair for him to receive disciplinary action for merely giving his opinion. It's a show about rednecks wandering around the everglades or something. These kinds of sentiments are too be expected.

Furthermore, it is a two way street. 20 years ago, making pro-homosexual comments could probably get you kicked off a show. I don't agree with that either.

I think that should be left up to the network. It's not unreasonable for them to want to distance themselves from such statements. That's all that's going on, they're covering their own ass.

If I may unwrap this thread for just a bit, I actually do have a problem with the media ostracizing and exiling celebrities who say intolerant or bigoted things. Not only does it vindicate those groups that support said intolerance and bigotry, but it also often forces the ostracized celebrities to become more hardline and embrace the reactionary elements of American culture that welcome them with open arms. I think instead of condemning and removing the celebrities, the aim should be to either rehabilitate or tolerate them, unless of course they're spewing outright hatespeech.

I'm just imagining a time in the near future when Paula Deen and Phil Robertson are both on Glenn Beck's network, funded by Chick Fil-A, and it will have the same effect as putting several hardened criminals together in squalid conditions: you get several even more hardened criminals.

Oh, don't anyone take this as a serious argument, I'm typing on an empty stomach and speaking my mind.

I mostly agree. I don't think this kinda thing should be news. When i first read his statements my first thought was "Who gives a shit?" Followed by "Well, he's probably ****ed, now." And that's it.

It's good that people know what he said - same goes for Chick Fil-A or whatever, so that they can use that knowledge to decide if that's a product they want to support or not.

It shouldn't be a national firestorm or anything, though, should essentially be a punch line and nothing else.

I....I...just don't give a shit.

That said, I don't see how it's any different from a person with a 'normal' job saying something on a public forum like Facebook and who has their place of employment visible and getting fired from their job for it. That happens on a daily basis nowadays.

I defend his right to speak his mind. He's being paid for this. It's not like some actor or other performer that chooses to use their fame to stand on a soap box and spew their beliefs and condemn others whom think otherwise. Should these people have fame? Maybe that is the important question...,why are they famous? Usually, when a persons opinion is under such scrutiny it's because they have an important station in life. A position that others hold in high regard. I don't agree with what people watch and find entertaining all the time but there are reasons behind it. I think the thirst for a family message and structure is so overwhelming in this society that people gravitate towards it anywhere they can find it. Either way, it's just one man speaking his beliefs. Agree or disagree that's the position we as the people put him in. As long as there is a dialogue happening I think that's whats most important.

He got fired for being too "reality"

Dang homersexualz are ruining 'Merica!

We are so screwed

NBC owns 50% of A&E

Originally posted by jaden101
I....I...just don't give a shit.

But I don't think he should be kicked off of the show just because he gave his honest opinion on something he was questioned about.

Well, freedom of speech and discrimination obviously have a blurry line between them. On one hand, it's okay to say certain things within the realm of freedom, such as "I hate Ford trucks" or "This sandwich is great" or "I advocate the Nova BullMoose Party". However, when it becomes a point of discrimination against a minority group or another person, rules become involved.

To those who replied above who disagree with his indefinite leave from the show: would you feel any differently if he had spouted off his definition of sin as including say, certain ethnic groups, religions, or nationalities?

Now the family is not going to do the show without the old man. Some other network will pick up the show, and Phil will be back as if nothing ever happened.

This just my fun prediction.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
Well, freedom of speech and discrimination obviously have a blurry line between them. On one hand, it's okay to say certain things within the realm of freedom, such as "I hate Ford trucks" or "This sandwich is great" or "I advocate the Nova BullMoose Party". However, when it becomes a point of discrimination against a minority group or another person, rules become involved.

To those who replied above who disagree with his indefinite leave from the show: would you feel any differently if he had spouted off his definition of sin as including say, certain ethnic groups, religions, or nationalities?

I personally don't think he should have been suspended. I would still feel the same way no matter the topic. He's not trying to start a revaluation and he wasn't trying to rally people behind him. He answered a question he was asked during an interview. While I may not fully agree with him and nor do I care for the show in question, he has the right to say what he said. Especially since he was actually being questioned about it. Like I always say the truth hurts so if you don't want the answer to a question then you shouldn't ask it. Although, I can agree A&E is in there right to suspend him because it is there show. However everyone should have known...I mean he's a southern christian. Chances are they already suspected his answer before they asked.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
Well, freedom of speech and discrimination obviously have a blurry line between them. On one hand, it's okay to say certain things within the realm of freedom, such as "I hate Ford trucks" or "This sandwich is great" or "I advocate the Nova BullMoose Party". However, when it becomes a point of discrimination against a minority group or another person, rules become involved.

To those who replied above who disagree with his indefinite leave from the show: would you feel any differently if he had spouted off his definition of sin as including say, certain ethnic groups, religions, or nationalities? I would not.

Please refrain from implying that I am only okay with it because he attacked homosexuals, lol.

So of course facebook is going crazy. I saw a post today that said, "It's time for people to tolerate Christians, too."
Made me laugh so hard I almost peed my pants.

I just heard that Walmart is out of Duck Dynasty stuff.

That stupid show's days are numbered. Thank the Lord, because between DD and Honey Boo Boo, I was beginning to think we were going to end up like Idiocracy. At least Phil Robertson can now be the poster boy of why being a redneck is pathetic rather than respectable.

Also, upon first hearing this, my immediate thoughts were "Phil Robertson? Is he related to that other dumbass zealot racist scumbag, Pat Robertson?"

Originally posted by Lestov16
That stupid show's days are numbered...

I don't think so, because money is more powerful then ideas. Oh, and I do agree that it is a stupid show.

Originally posted by Lestov16
That stupid show's days are numbered."

It's really not lol I think that there are other networks looking to pick it up.

Originally posted by Lestov16
That stupid show's days are numbered. Thank the Lord, because between DD and Honey Boo Boo, I was beginning to think we were going to end up like Idiocracy. At least Phil Robertson can now be the poster boy of why being a redneck is pathetic rather than respectable.

Also, upon first hearing this, my immediate thoughts were "Phil Robertson? Is he related to that other dumbass zealot racist scumbag, Pat Robertson?"

Phil Robertson isn't a redneck.

He'd have to be poor to be a redneck.

Originally posted by NemeBro
I would not.

Please refrain from implying that I am only okay with it because he attacked homosexuals, lol.

We're on to you.

Originally posted by NemeBro
Phil Robertson isn't a redneck.

He'd have to be poor to be a redneck.

Tell that to the Blue Collar Comedy Tour.

Originally posted by siriuswriter
So of course facebook is going crazy. I saw a post today that said, "It's time for people to tolerate Christians, too."
Made me laugh so hard I almost peed my pants.

Too much hypocrisy?

Originally posted by NemeBro
Phil Robertson isn't a redneck.

He'd have to be poor to be a redneck.
As someone who lives in Lower Alabama, I say unto you that this is bullshit. Being a redneck has almost nothing to do with how much money you have.

I know rednecks who have yachts and multiple houses.

I wish people could see how really screwed we really are.

Originally posted by BlackZero30x
It's really not lol I think that there are other networks looking to pick it up.

The family is contemplating leaving the network to stick with their patriarch

And I don't see another network picking up DD just so they can get boycotted by the NAACP and GLAAD. It's just not logical

And LOL at these Christian morons:
The unrelenting 'Gay Mafia' has bullied A&E into suspending 'Duck Dynasty' star Phil Robertson

I guess they just forgot all about the racist comments

They have a dozen other networks ready to pick them up, sad

Wow. That is just.....beyond pathetic. There seriously aren't words to describe the level of disgust I am feeling right now for the TV industry that they would want these ignorant pieces of garbage back on the air. Find me a list of these networks, so I can start boycotting ALL of them.

LoL @ "the male prostitutes" comment

Originally posted by Lestov16
Wow. That is just.....beyond pathetic. There seriously aren't words to describe the level of disgust I am feeling right now for the TV industry that they would want these ignorant pieces of garbage back on the air. Find me a list of these networks, so I can start boycotting ALL of them.

What's so hard to understand about greed? This family's antics seem to be popular to a segment of Americans and I hate to blanket, but I'm guessing the vast majority of the people who watch this kind of show, wouldn't mind the star spouting homophobic like comments.

If some other network picks them up, they can only expect a rise (probably temporary) in viewers due to the controversy already created.

I don't give a phuck what's popular. Ignorance should never be peddled. I understand it's greed, but that doesn't make it any less disgusting or pathetic.

Really don't see a difference between a network airing some ZZ Top looking fool spouting on how gays make baby Jesus cry so they won't inherit the "Kingdom of Heaven" and any given pastor on TV proselytizing and saying like comments.

To clarify my previous post: redneck is not a socio-economic class, it's more of a worldview.

It would be easy to say that a redneck is a working class southerner with a low level of education, socially and fiscally conservative politics, and an appreciation for the outdoors (hunting, fishing, muddin'), but there are people I'd call rednecks any day of the week who (as noted in the previous post) are much more wealthy than my family, who vote democrat, who come from Northern or Western states (Eastern Washington is apparently filled with rednecks)--in fact the one unifying trait of being a redneck is a passion for outdoorsing and an identification with a more homey, simple, small-town or even bucolic way of life.

With that in mind, the cast of Duck Dynasty certainly qualifies.

TBF, those discriminatory religious figures (like the similarly named Pat Retardson) should be booted off TV as well. It's.....terrifying how Freedom of Religion is essentially Freedom to be Ignorant. It's like "Ignorance Is Strength" from 1984, only worse.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
To clarify my previous post: redneck is not a socio-economic class, it's more of a worldview.

It would be easy to say that a redneck is a working class southerner with a low level of education, socially and fiscally conservative politics, and an appreciation for the outdoors (hunting, fishing, muddin'), but there are people I'd call rednecks any day of the week who (as noted in the previous post) are much more wealthy than my family, who vote democrat, who come from Northern or Western states (Eastern Washington is apparently filled with rednecks)--in fact the one unifying trait of being a redneck is a passion for outdoorsing and an identification with a more homey, simple, small-town or even bucolic way of life.

With that in mind, the cast of Duck Dynasty certainly qualifies.

Dude...did you just analyze rednecks as a socio-political entity?

https://31.media.tumblr.com/93040b66361c8f0181e51baf3538e33f/tumblr_my4ksntLmI1qj6nl8o1_500.png

Seems legit.

Rosa Parks seems a bit more attractive, though.

Other than that, it is clearly a PEEEERRFECT comparison. No flaws. At all.

Freedom of Speech...

Can get you out of job as well

http://img43.imageshack.us/img43/5950/nnpw.jpg
#HasJustineLandedYet

EDIT:now it shows the image

Originally posted by dadudemon
Dude...did you just analyze rednecks as a socio-political entity?
I think I analyzed rednecks as a cultural entity.

While rednecks are overwhelmingly conservative, I don't believe that political leaning is an essential attribute of being a redneck.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
I think I analyzed rednecks as a cultural entity.

While rednecks are overwhelmingly conservative, I don't believe that political leaning is an essential attribute of being a redneck.

My bad. I thought your statement about the Democrat voting stuff was a political commentary.

As a person living in redneck land, I view the social norms and political views of "rednecks" to be so varied as to render a particular voting habit fairly useless.

Oklahoma is the most conservative state in the union by voting propensity. But it is not that starkly contrasted to more liberal states. It is just a lean more this way or that way.

To make a better example, Oklahoma sometimes has a majority democratic congress. Not recently, though. Man, the GOP has been cleaning house (pun!) lately.

Who cares. No big deal. I want moooooooooo oo ooo ooooore.

Originally posted by Robtard
Really don't see a difference between a network airing some ZZ Top looking fool spouting on how gays make baby Jesus cry so they won't inherit the "Kingdom of Heaven" and any given pastor on TV proselytizing and saying like comments.

Good point.

they should have picked there interviews more carefully

Cracker Barrel, after outcry, resumes selling 'Duck Dynasty' products

http://www.latimes.com/business/money/la-fi-mo-cracker-barrel-duck-dynasty-20131223,0,480592.story#axzz2oKgq4x3u

Money, money, money!

Really don't see the reason for the outcry, dude just reiterated well known religious views (gays = bad), albeit in a less intelligent manner.

Is it not okay for him to say it cos he's not a religious figure like Pat Robertson?

I don't think it's okay for a religious figure to say it.

It should be ok to say anything in response to a question. I think it should also be ok to speak your mind freely as long as your not promoting physical harm or for people to break laws, at least in a one sided forum. I don't know much at all about "the Ducks". I have no real opinion on them one way or another but from the context of which I saw this interview, it was simply one man speaking his mind in an interview. Even if the comment came during his show as conversation with another person that is also apart of the show it shouldn't be ridiculed because that is what he is being paid for. I don't necessarily agree with the guys views but it's not as though he formed a public speaking platform to spew his views.

Looking at the context of the entire interview, his launch into "gays = sin" seemed to portray sin, something evil, with a lifestyle similar to other sexual deviations from the 'hetero norm' instead of choosing something more objectively evil like humans rights violations in other countries, sex trafficking, politicians abusing public power, or domestic abuse.

When your top of the list sin assignment has to do with how people handle their own private sex lives, you just might have your priorities mixed up. Whether or not he was merely expressing his opinion, it is a troubling one. Kind of like Sutton, who backtracked after her racist tweet about Africa, I don't buy the idea that such statements aren't reflective of the individual's true feelings, unless said under circumstances such as powerful drugs or you know, torture.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
Looking at the context of the entire interview, his launch into "gays = sin" seemed to portray sin, something evil, with a lifestyle similar to other sexual deviations from the 'hetero norm' instead of choosing something more objectively evil like humans rights violations in other countries, sex trafficking, politicians abusing public power, or domestic abuse.

When your top of the list sin assignment has to do with how people handle their own private sex lives, you just might have your priorities mixed up. Whether or not he was merely expressing his opinion, it is a troubling one. Kind of like Sutton, who backtracked after her racist tweet about Africa, I don't buy the idea that such statements aren't reflective of the individual's true feelings, unless said under circumstances such as powerful drugs or you know, torture.

There are a lot of people who believe just like Phil.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
There are a lot of people who believe just like Phil.

Which is very troubling. Peace on earth, but only for those who fit your ideal.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
Which is very troubling. Peace on earth, but only for those who fit your ideal.

I agree.

So another question: If a religion considered any group of people to be sinful, such as blacks (Hametic thesis), non-believers, people who put the toilet paper on wrong, etc. should we respect their rights to say this without reprocussion? And if so, on what levels? Is it okay for celebrities to have such views and priests but not politicians or teachers?

Where is the line drawn?

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
So another question: If a religion considered any group of people to be sinful, such as blacks (Hametic thesis), non-believers, people who put the toilet paper on wrong, etc. should we respect their rights to say this without reprocussion? And if so, on what levels? Is it okay for celebrities to have such views and priests but not politicians or teachers?

Where is the line drawn?

That is way I find this controversy so fascinating. If people would stop and think, maybe our society could learn something from this.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
So another question: If a religion considered any group of people to be sinful, such as blacks (Hametic thesis), non-believers, people who put the toilet paper on wrong, etc. should we respect their rights to say this without reprocussion? And if so, on what levels? Is it okay for celebrities to have such views and priests but not politicians or teachers?

Where is the line drawn?

Is it really the people that have these beliefs that are the problem or the ones that actually rally behind the soapbox? Maybe "Sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me". Im just saying if you are confident in your own skin then you shouldn't have a problem with people thinking that. What if Chuck Norris hated gays and wanted to own slaves? I mean yes that would make him ignorant but wouldn't it be on each individual person for not being able to make up their own mind instead of just following? The people that are overly sensitive are probably more worried about what people think of them then they should be.

So in short, I disagree with his statements but I believe in his right to say it...especially if being specifically asked about it. Those who are offended shouldn't put so much stock in what an ignorant person says.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
I don't think it's okay for a religious figure to say it.

Well, you're different. Most people don't have a problem with others stating their religious views, so long as no one's rights are violated and/or harmed because of it.

Though I'm still of the opinion that when people use religion to debase homosexuality/homosexuals, it's often just a cowardly coverup cos they're just too scared to come out and just say "I hates ****", so they use god as a shield.

Originally posted by Robtard
Well, you're different. Most people don't have a problem with others stating their religious views, so long as no one's rights are violated and/or harmed because of it.

Though I'm still of the opinion that when people use religion to debase homosexuality/homosexuals, it's often just a cowardly coverup cos they're just too scared to come out and just say "I hates ****", so they use god as a shield.
I make a distinction between having the right to say something and it being "okay" to say it. Everyone has the right to religious expression (obviously with some restrictions--I don't think people have the right (nor should they) to call for bloody crusades/jihads on the basis of religious beliefs), but that doesn't mean it's "okay." Religious speech shouldn't ever be privileged above secular speech in any society that considers itself modern.

"The A&E channel said it's reversing its decision to drop "Duck Dynasty" patriarch Phil Robertson from the show for his remarks about gays."

http://www.charter.net/news/read/category/Top%20News/article/ap-ae_reverses_decision_on_duck_dynasty_pat-ap

Must be the realization that the show makes them a lot of money.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
Must be the realization that the show makes them a lot of money.

and BINGO was his name O lol What makes the world go around? I don't know, I would like to think, maybe the company saw the people's backlash but since I don't follow the, "ducks" I have no idea. I don't know what their fan base is saying but I have a good idea. At any rate, the moment I saw a duck dynasty t-shirt and bobblehead at a dollar store...,I knew they had "arrived". lmao So, yea it's all about money when it comes to ratings but the people influence the ratings, so, I guess take that for what it's worth. This, does feel like a good thing ultimately, I just wish it were for different reasons, like, protecting freedom of speech and a show generates traffic to your station. It's probably all about money though.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
Must be the realization that the show makes them a lot of money.

When I was working at Walmart, I found it ****ing staggering how well DD merchandise sold. I've still never seen the show.

Originally posted by NemeBro


When I was working at Walmart, I found it ****ing staggering how well DD merchandise sold. I've still never seen the show.

I tried to watch the show, just to get a real idea of what is going on, but I lasted for only about 15 min. I still don't know why people like the program.

Originally posted by NemeBro


When I was working at Walmart, I found it ****ing staggering how well DD merchandise sold. I've still never seen the show.

Here in the Bible belt, their stuff is everywhere. Book stores, Wal-Mart, Target, gas station, gun store, etc. This part of the country is scary.

Originally posted by NemeBro


When I was working at Walmart, I found it ****ing staggering how well DD merchandise sold. I've still never seen the show. I believe they live around the everglades or some comparable shithole. I imagine that resonates quit well with the shithole that is Florida.

I'd have taken any excuse to cancel the show too.

In the end, the scandal helped the show. Money rules!

Noli pecuniae tuae oblivisci.

Now everyone knows that under that beard, is a mouth that wants a cock.

Translate that into Latin.

Uh...

Homophylophiles sunt?

Originally posted by Robtard
Now everyone knows that under that beard, is a mouth that wants a cock.

Translate that into Latin.

I thought you said that NOT all homophobes are gay?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I thought you said that NOT all homophobes are gay?

I'm not saying wannabe ZZ Top douche is gay.

Originally posted by Robtard
I'm not saying wannabe ZZ Top douche is gay.

Hey! don't be insulting ZZ Top!

I really don't understand the fascination that surrounds these men and this absurd television series.

I suppose it's simply not my thing.

Reality tv in general baffles me with its popularity.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
Reality tv in general baffles me with its popularity.

You can me both. Wait! Is Pawn Stars on?

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
Reality tv in general baffles me with its popularity.

I have regular people as friends on Facebook.

I'm not baffled at all at what regular people like.

Originally posted by dadudemon
...I'm not baffled at all at what regular people like.

As apposed to constipated people?