'Duck Dynasty' Dad Suspended Following Anti-Gay Remarks

[jimnyc]

You know what else bugs me? A&E has an issue with the comments and wants to separate themselves from the situation. But now they are running a week long marathon of the shows over Christmas week to profit from the show. Both A&E and the actors will profit from the show being aired. Season 4 has already been completed as well, so they haven't technically shut down anything. All they are trying to do is vilify Robertson - while profiting from him.

Also, the CEO has no come out and stated that her reasoning for the suspension was the gay workers at A&E. She said that the comments would have been out of line if directed at black folks or asians, so why should comments directed at homosexuality be different? Perhaps because one was a religious view based on another persons actions, and the others aren't even a part of the discussion?

The only fallback I have read thus far is that Cracker Barrel removed from the shelves anything that had Phil out and in the forefront, but the rest of the Duck Commander stuff is still there.

All this because a man explained what he thought was sinful when asked, as per his religious views. Not a peep still about the gay man from Storage Wars who made a disgusting comment about gays, and what he prefers to penetrate. Both the major media and A&E have been hypocrites, making a huge deal out of what Phil said, and not even an honorable mention to what a gay guy says.

Welcome to the USA, the land of the fr... Land of the place where you will never be offended, where you have the right to silence those you disagree with, where people are brave enough to talk down others and take away your livelihood because of your beliefs.

[KitchenKitten99]

I don't necessarily disagree, but they'll say that it had nothing to do with religion but rather that he brought a bad image to the show/channel. I can only assume whatever their contract states, it probably has various clauses about behavior and image. They will also argue that Title 7 is designed to protect employees on the job. Trust me, I know what you're saying, just playing devils advocate here!

They can SAY it has nothing to do with religion, but they'd be proven wrong because the comments he made were in DIRECT relation to being asked the question "What in your mind is sinful?"

Sinful in itself is directly related to religion, and almost all of them have behavior they consider to be 'sinful' or shameful, or disgraceful, etc. So that point would be moot.

It is NO secret that Christianity, Judaism, and even Islam condemn homosexuality and consider it a sin.

So if Phil was a Muslim, and said the same thing--what do you want to bet he'd get a pass?

What about black southern Baptists? If any of the leaders were interviewed...what would the outcry be?

A&E contracted them WITH their own iron-clad clause of no-compromise on their religion and open practice of faith on and off TV. How is an interview with GQ, that is a magazine not owned or affiliated in any way with A&E, somehow the breaking point?

While your argument is of devil's advocate... even I could disprove those statements myself with what I just stated, and I am not an attorney.

[aboutime]

A & E has only one thing in mind. The ALMIGHTY...OBAMABUCK.

All of the FREE Advertising A&E has had since the announcement of PHIL being suspended has probably increased Viewers for A&E...and DUCK DYNASTY.

And, with all of this Broohaha.....Duck Dynasty products have been SOLD OUT...almost everywhere.

So...the whole FIASCO was probably designed to do exactly what they wanted.

The ALMIGHTY DOLLAR...OR OBAMABUCKS have been pouring in and Duck Dynasty, with A&E are the WINNERS.

[DragonStryk72]

He has freedom of speech, he also has freedom of consequences.

Sorry, but I blame A&E on this one. You knowingly a group of guys who pride themselves on being backwoods hillbillies from Louisiana, and you didn't expect one of them to say something that wasn't PC? It's like hiring Chris Rock for an HBO special, then getting pissed cause he started saying cracker, nigger, and fuck a lot. I mean, at a certain point, the company has to understand that they are hiring people with their own personal beliefs. Suspending him for one off comment, and possibly cancelling the show, is just moronic.

For most companies, there would be a press conference with the person, or an interview where they better explain themselves, but they went straight to suspension.

[fj1200]

Sorry, but I blame A&E on this one.

I do not disagree. There is just no government actor here to make a FoS claim.

[glockmail]

Also, the CEO has no come out and stated that her reasoning for the suspension was the gay workers at A&E. She said that the comments would have been out of line if directed at black folks or asians, so why should comments directed at homosexuality be different? Perhaps because one was a religious view based on another persons actions, and the others aren't even a part of the discussion?

Being black or Asian isn't a sin. And you can't ignore the religious component of Phil's argument.

A&E CEO's argument =

[DragonStryk72]

I think this post states it best, even if bluntly. And the bitching in the media and from glaad wasn't about his comparison, but rather because he stated that homosexuality was a sin. He is supposed to be more accepting and tolerant of others, but there is no need for others to be tolerant of the views and/or beliefs of another. We should be tolerant of gays, but their intolerance is what got this man suspended.

That's ok, I read an article where I see he's getting an awful lot of support, outside of the celebrity whores out for attention. Even the media experts who chimed in stated he wouldn't lose his job, as the show is too big, too many fans and people supporting him, and the show will probably have better ratings as a result. Way to go to bring the attention, glaad idiots! Those in charge at A&E need to know what it is they're broadcasting. I'm betting that 75%+ of the viewers to Duck Dynasty are going to be God fearing Christians. Maybe not that high, but I'm betting it's up there.



http://cnsnews.com/mrctv-blog/eric-s...phil-robertson

Actually, you're kind of wrong here, but not how you think. It's a bit hilarious, but a number of Robertson's most ardent supporters right now are gay folks, and people who support gay rights. I'm not kidding, if you look at a number of the articles, you'll see them in the comments section having his back.

For many of them, they've gotten to know Robertson through the show, and his appearances outside the show, and so, see that he has no animosity toward them. He's a Christian redneck from the backwoods of Louisiana, and for them, they understood there was a good chance he was going to eventually say something that wasn't exactly PC. They think the whole suspension is an overblown response, as A&E knew who they hired when they got him and his family for the show, and shouldn't be shocked by this.

As to the homophobe label, it's a crutch argument used by people who labor under the delusion that those who are against gay rights are such way because they are afraid. This is not the case, and never really has been, because it is a matter of moral/ethical belief. I say this as someone who has backed up gay marriage and gay rights repeatedly. My father is gay, but you know what? I can argue with everyone here from now to Judgment Day, and still respect them enough to not hurl childish insults at them. If childish insults are hurled at me, I can still act like the adult that I am, and continue to debate them on their points.

[jimnyc]

Actually, you're kind of wrong here, but not how you think. It's a bit hilarious, but a number of Robertson's most ardent supporters right now are gay folks, and people who support gay rights. I'm not kidding, if you look at a number of the articles, you'll see them in the comments section having his back.

For many of them, they've gotten to know Robertson through the show, and his appearances outside the show, and so, see that he has no animosity toward them. He's a Christian redneck from the backwoods of Louisiana, and for them, they understood there was a good chance he was going to eventually say something that wasn't exactly PC. They think the whole suspension is an overblown response, as A&E knew who they hired when they got him and his family for the show, and shouldn't be shocked by this.

As to the homophobe label, it's a crutch argument used by people who labor under the delusion that those who are against gay rights are such way because they are afraid. This is not the case, and never really has been, because it is a matter of moral/ethical belief. I say this as someone who has backed up gay marriage and gay rights repeatedly. My father is gay, but you know what? I can argue with everyone here from now to Judgment Day, and still respect them enough to not hurl childish insults at them. If childish insults are hurled at me, I can still act like the adult that I am, and continue to debate them on their points.

There have been a number of articles written by gay folks since the suspension, basically stating the same thing you just did. I wish they would get the airtime, as voices of reason. But it seems the loudest voices are heard and broadcast - those from the groups like GLAAD, and from the hollywood elite, who can make a simple "tweet" and it'll get national attention. And it's not even that one must agree, or even state that he has 'rights', but rather how one responds. Politely disagreeing, or even rudely disagreeing, I can see that. But it just seems that far too often the response is to try and silence others, have them fired, lose sponsors...

[DragonStryk72]

Okay, poet, realize you're already banned, but I read your post, and your article, and I just can't let stand. As a proponent of gay rights and equality, I just let you act like you represent my dad:

Umm, yes. You, and others like you are fearful....petrified, that you no longer hold any sway, power, or influence over the course of event, mindsets, or how people perceive you.

Nope. They believe, wrongfully in my opinion, that being gay is morally wrong, based upon their faith in the word of the Bible, but they are not afraid of gays, blacks, or otherwise. The whole "Homophobe" has been incorrectly thrown around, and while there are those who suffer from Homophobia, none of them are on this message board as far as I can tell.

You are the "emperors", without any clothes on....and it's not pretty, or "big". You can disagree until cows come home, but the truth remains....some white people ain't s***. Many others are... it's just not you.

This is sanctimonious, self-serving bullcrap.

You can't tell the truth. You refuse common decency, and you think you run things. Delusion.

More crap, but looking over the thread, also blatantly inaccurate. They've told you the truth, whether you care for it or not being completely irrelevant to the fact that they've told you the truth of how they feel. I would like to bring up a new label and that is hypocrite. You have slapped people on here repeatedly about their spelling and/or reading levels, but your grammar is completely horrible. Delusion is not a sentence in and of itself, and just seems like more posturing. Really, if you are to insult the intelligence of others, then you had best make certain that your grammar is in order, or you just look like an ass.

Whatever you are claiming you see in me (racism, intolerance, bigotry, mendacity, stupidity, arrogance) is your "projecting" those things that you possess.

Oh, I see pretty much all of that in you, but that's because it is what you are showing here. You've shown racism in your treatment of other races, you've shown intolerance in your inability to respect any viewpoint that does not match your own. Bigotry has been shown in the way that you castigate whole groups, sweeping them all under the same banner with no regard for who they are as people. Mendacity is the lie you try to sell us that you are an intellectual. Your stupidity is in going on the attack before anyone has done anything to fight, arrogantly throwing your weight around because you feel you're so much better than everyone here.

It is not projection when people see what you have shown, and treat you in a matter consistent with that presentation.

But, because you would never admit to your own frailties and shortcomings, you distract, and point fingers at easy targets.....me, an arrogant, uppity Negro, who happens to outshine you with 2 years of college behind me, coming from an illustrious and talented family, whose members are award-winners, known around the world. Hate, why don't you? I perfectly understand. Pretending to be more than you are, and using white privilege to do so, because you can't compete on a level playing field...because without favoritism, cronyism, and nepotism, you'd be at the bottom rung of the corporate, intellectual, and economic ladder. I didn't have to steal to get where I am. I made it on the merits.

Frankly, no one here gives a rat's ass that your black. You're the only one who keeps bringing it up. I have no college under my belt, and yet I can still argue you on a level superior to the one you occupy. You speak of hate, but no one here has thrown hate upon you. Oh, they've fought back at the punches you threw, but you started the fight, threw hate, and then accuse others of it when they fight back. Nor are they elitist enough to throw their families' accomplishments up as some sort of shield of superiority.

Always with the race card, even in the face of arguments that never even concern it. You've even now stated that white people are incapable of the same level of success that black people are, because apparently, it's all about cronyism and nepotism. You know, I don't come from a prestigious family, I'm the son of an accountant and a hospice worker. My dad was a former Marine, not particularly special at it, but he served in Vietnam. So really, I made it on my own too, and here's the thing: It doesn't matter to this argument, or anything on this entire forum. Your argument is entirely self-aggrandizement.

But the knowledge of that, upsets your "applecarts"......just like Barack Obama, cannot be stomached, because he represents the antithesis to the lie you promote...that white people are "everything", and the end all and the be all. Ironically, I'm convinced that the majority of my liberal white friends on Facebook, would agree with me in totality...and they wouldn't be "race traitors", but decent human beings, knowing the truth. But carry on, in your little white forum, espousing your little white views, which seeks to demonize anyone that doesn't look like you. See how well, that works out for you.

Actually, no one here gave a shit he was black. They were against him because of the D next to him name in political context. When Herman Cain was up for the Presidential nod, many here were willing to back him, and happy to do so because he was a conservative. No one here is a white supremacist, and never have been. This is your greatest section of prejudice, and racism here, that we must be less because we're white. Had Obama's politics not essentially been all the way out to the left, and instead been more conservative, we'd have voted for him. Really, it's got nothing to do with his race.

Here....here is a little something extra, from a black intellectual who writes for "The Atlantic":
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/...sident/309064/



I surmise few can read on this level....those that can, I challenge you to read it in its' entirety, and then give an informed response. Most will, cowardly, dismiss it as "liberal tripe"...but will have no logical or intelligent defense. Such is the way with dinosaurs and Neanderthals...they go "extinct". LOL

And one final prejudiced argument born of hate on the way out. Way to stay classy, there.

Okay, now to the article. Oh that's right, we're doing this shit:

As a candidate, Barack Obama said we needed to reckon with race and with America’s original sin, slavery. But as our first black president, he has avoided mention of race almost entirely. In having to be “twice as good” and “half as black,” Obama reveals the false promise and double standard of integration.

This is an assumption on the article writer's part. The vast, overwhelming majority of Americans no longer have a problem with the concept of a black president. The few whackjobs that did were relegated to obscurity by their own side of the political spectrum, and roundly ignored. Maybe back in the early days of his childhood and adult life, but certainly not in 2008.

The irony of President Barack Obama is best captured in his comments on the death of Trayvon Martin, and the ensuing fray. Obama has pitched his presidency as a monument to moderation.

HAHAHAHAHAHA.... Sigh, God, that was a good one. Obama has, at every turn of his candidacy and presidency, slapped the other side of the aisle directly and repeatedly in the face, and then been shocked when they refuse to work with him, as though they might have some degree of self-respect.

Despite his sloganeering for change and progress, Obama is a conservative revolutionary, and nowhere is his conservative character revealed more than in the very sphere where he holds singular gravity—race.

Barack Obama is not a conservative in any sense of the word, and never has been. Words mean shit!

Y'know, I am going to sum up the Trayvon Martin stuff in the article thusly: I was against Zimmerman in the whole affair, and argued a number of times against on these forums, but even I want to slap the living crap out of this author. I mean, seriously, it's the height of race-baiting sanctimony. For one, Zimmerman wasn't white, and it wasn't about skin color, but how Trayvon was dressed, which yes, is a stupid thing to make a judgment call like that on, but it doesn't make it any more about race. It was about a member of neighborhood-watch deciding he was dirt harry, and taking the law into his own hands against the orders of 911 operators, and escalating an encounter that ended in unnecessary death. To my mind, when you do everything involved in starting the fight, you don't get a claim of self-defense anymore.

Oh sweet mother of God, there's five pages of sanctimonious crap like this in the article. Okay, having read the whole thing I'm going to sum up: The article at no point, in all of it's pages and PAGES of text wall, puts even a single instance of racism against Obama or fear about Obama being black. Nothing, not a god damned thing. So the whole article is a wash as regards its title.

Okay, apologies everyone for the wall of text that is this post, but I just can't stand this kind of crap.

[jimnyc]

Okay, apologies everyone for the wall of text that is this post, but I just can't stand this kind of crap.

VERY well stated. We don't always agree on this subject - but I know I always learn more and move a little more towards that direction, just because of the way you approach it. If only so many others couldn't learn that little secret.

[gabosaurus]

It's all an American culture war. http://www.smh.com.au/world/how-duck...224-hv6qm.html

[DragonStryk72]

It's all an American culture war. http://www.smh.com.au/world/how-duck...224-hv6qm.html

I don't tend to agree here. Having seen many who support gay rights back Phil Robertson, I don't think this issue is actually about gay rights. More and more it seems to be a line in the sand that people have arrived at, where we're starting to protect the right to simply disagree with us without having to lose your livelihood, and that is a very good thing.

In any movement for greater rights, there has to be a point where an overstep occurs. That's just the way human nature works. While highly intolerant behavior should not be countenanced, at the same time, turning every comment into a witch-hunt is wrong as well. This line is being reached now, as people have gotten to know Robertson over the past couple years through YouTube and the show, and it's obvious if you know him that he has no issue with gays, but the company instead focused on one sentence they didn't like, and made an enormous deal out of it that didn't need to occur, without attempting to get clarification of any kind, or even looking at the rest of the interview, where he talks about loving everyone, living by example, and let God sort the rest out.

Destroying the livelihood of every person who disagrees with you is simply the height of intolerance. The scope of their opinion's reach shouldn't matter, either, because that's inherently hypocritical. Yeah, he mouthed one bad, barely intelligible line (sorry, cajun accents just get muddled to hell), and shouldn't have to watched his career go down the toilet for it.

[DragonStryk72]

VERY well stated. We don't always agree on this subject - but I know I always learn more and move a little more towards that direction, just because of the way you approach it. If only so many others couldn't learn that little secret.

That's the core problem of my side of the argument, unfortunately. Too many times, in their ardor for equality, they create greater inequality, rather than bringing everyone together. It would be a simple enough thing to converse about these things, and present a strong, solid argument.

For instance, gay pride parades: While it's all well and good to be proud of who you are, it's part of what builds healthy self-esteem, there is also a fine line between being proud of yourself, and rubbing it in the face of others, which is a step backwards, both for those involved, and the movement as a whole. This becomes ever more outlandish showings at said parades.

Then, of course, you have those who go on the attack, such as poet, and at times, Gabs. While I agree with them on the premise of gay rights, I do not agree with their arguments, or standoffish way in which they approach the subject. There's no need for getting all worked up, and slamming people all over the place. We can talk like rational adults, and hopefully win some people over by showing them that we really aren't trying to destroy a way of life, but simply to bring greater equality to the table.