The Duck Dynasty guy.

Posts : 4629 Join date : 2009-10-07

So what the Duck Dynasty guy said is it all that bad?

Posts : 2915 Join date : 2009-10-10 Location : Michigan

From what I saw all he said was that homosexuality is a sin and a perversion, so no it wasn't that bad. In fact it wasn't bad at all, basically he was fired because he holds Christian ideals and used his first amendment rights to express them in an interview. Just another example of Christianphobia and the protected class of homosexuals. He'll probably be charged with hate crime next.

Posts : 1131 Join date : 2012-11-14

Since you asked, no. All of it was true. But nothing hurts more or angers faster than the truth.

As for his comments on homosexuals, that is what it says in the Bible. But Phil was not always a Christian. So he added his own personal views on homosexual males. It was not at all "homophobic", hateful or even disrespectful.

I feel the same on his comments about blacks. I can promise you nobody in the NAACP or associated with it, ever was picking cotton with blacks anywhere in the deep south in the 50-60s. They were never poor either. Phil Robertson was both.

The bottom line is, if A&E wanted a bunch of foul mouthed, inbred, rednecks for a show, they should not have hired a christian family of self made millionaires to star in it. The Robertsons do not need the show, and never did.

Posts : 4629 Join date : 2009-10-07

Bandit wrote:: Since you asked, no. All of it was true. But nothing hurts more or angers faster than the truth.

As for his comments on homosexuals, that is what it says in the Bible. But Phil was not always a Christian. So he added his own personal views on homosexual males. It was not at all "homophobic", hateful or even disrespectful.

I feel the same on his comments about blacks. I can promise you nobody in the NAACP or associated with it, ever was picking cotton with blacks anywhere in the deep south in the 50-60s. They were never poor either. Phil Robertson was both.

The bottom line is, if A&E wanted a bunch of foul mouthed, inbred, rednecks for a show, they should not have hired a christian family of self made millionaires to star in it. The Robertsons do not need the show, and never did.

I agree they do not need the show. A&E did want them to be foul mouthed but the Robertson said no.

At this point what would I do? I would tell A&E sorry but since Phil cannot express his beliefs we have no choice but to step away from the show. How long you think it would take them to get a better deal? Two seconds. A&E would cave in. Besides I don't think many gays are watching Duck Dynasty.

Posts : 4629 Join date : 2009-10-07

Bandit wrote:: Since you asked, no. All of it was true. But nothing hurts more or angers faster than the truth.

As for his comments on homosexuals, that is what it says in the Bible. But Phil was not always a Christian. So he added his own personal views on homosexual males. It was not at all "homophobic", hateful or even disrespectful.

I feel the same on his comments about blacks. I can promise you nobody in the NAACP or associated with it, ever was picking cotton with blacks anywhere in the deep south in the 50-60s. They were never poor either. Phil Robertson was both.

The bottom line is, if A&E wanted a bunch of foul mouthed, inbred, rednecks for a show, they should not have hired a christian family of self made millionaires to star in it. The Robertsons do not need the show, and never did.

Phil has every right to say what he wants. However A&E being a private company can do what they did. It is not a first amendment thing. That only applies if you say something about the government.

Posts : 2915 Join date : 2009-10-10 Location : Michigan

Pissedoffvulcan wrote:: It is not a first amendment thing. That only applies if you say something about the government.

Um, no. The first amendment right of free speech does not only apply to saying something about the government. The 1st says that the government can't restrict the peoples right to free speech, which applies to all speech. (Of course there are a few exclusions like yelling fire when there is none, slandering somebody, etc.) A&E are not the government, so technically they can decide what speech they air. However, he didn't say this on their show he said it in a magazine article. So in effect they are claiming a right to restrict his speech in any and all aspects of his life. And although the 1st specifically addresses government restricting speech, it has also been used to protect peoples rights to free speech in public from outside censor. The magazine asked for his opinions, he gave them freely, the magazine as a private entity choose to publish them. A&E has no right to fire him for what he publicly said. As his employer they have a right to dictate his speech on their channel, but no right to dictate his public speech.

Here's an equivalent example. Your employer might be a big Obama supporter, which you may or may not even be aware of. Your boss finds this site and fires you because he read you posting a comment that Obama sucks. Your boss does not have a right to restrict your freedom of speech outside of work, and punishing you for what you have publicly said is just that.

Posts : 4629 Join date : 2009-10-07

eber322 wrote:

Pissedoffvulcan wrote:: It is not a first amendment thing. That only applies if you say something about the government.

Um, no. The first amendment right of free speech does not only apply to saying something about the government. The 1st says that the government can't restrict the peoples right to free speech, which applies to all speech. (Of course there are a few exclusions like yelling fire when there is none, slandering somebody, etc.) A&E are not the government, so technically they can decide what speech they air. However, he didn't say this on their show he said it in a magazine article. So in effect they are claiming a right to restrict his speech in any and all aspects of his life. And although the 1st specifically addresses government restricting speech, it has also been used to protect peoples rights to free speech in public from outside censor. The magazine asked for his opinions, he gave them freely, the magazine as a private entity choose to publish them. A&E has no right to fire him for what he publicly said. As his employer they have a right to dictate his speech on their channel, but no right to dictate his public speech.

Here's an equivalent example. Your employer might be a big Obama supporter, which you may or may not even be aware of. Your boss finds this site and fires you because he read you posting a comment that Obama sucks. Your boss does not have a right to restrict your freedom of speech outside of work, and punishing you for what you have publicly said is just that.

You have to remember Rosie Odonell said some horrific stuff and K Mart fired her. First amendment does not protect you from your employer. Sorry Eber your wrong on this. Phil has no case and would lose in court. The only the 1st amendment protects you from is not being thrown in jail for speaking your mind. Any private company can fire anyone if they speak in public. My employer can fire me if I say anything bad about them on the internet or in the media. No one has ever won a case that I know of against an employer that has been fired for speaking there mind. Now I agree with Phil and they are not hurting because of this and it will take about two seconds for another cable network to pick this show up.

Really Duck Commander is holding all the cards. They can very well say if Phil is not on the show than we quit. I am sure the Duck Commander lawyers are looking at this right now.

Posts : 333 Join date : 2012-11-07

eber322 wrote:: So in effect they are claiming a right to restrict his speech in any and all aspects of his life. And although the 1st specifically addresses government restricting speech, it has also been used to protect peoples rights to free speech in public from outside censor.

And he said what he wanted to, and continues to have that right. All A&E said is that you can't avow those opinions and continue to work for us, and that's their right. You're free to say whatever you please, but remember that espousing your opinion can have consequences. So no, this isn't a free speech issue.

Having said that I do think A&E went a little overboard with their reaction.

Posts : 2915 Join date : 2009-10-10 Location : Michigan

Pissedoffvulcan wrote:: First amendment does not protect you from your employer.

Actually it is very much illegal to be fired for your religious belief. Just as it is to be fired for age, gender, race etc. All he did was express his religious belief outside of work and he was fired for it.

Posts : 333 Join date : 2012-11-07

Since when did Phil Robertson have a right to work at A&E. And if you do work for a network you become a spokesperson for that network, it's just part of the job. A&E has the right to fire anyone they feel doesn't represent their brand properly. Put it this way. If you had a salesman who went around telling your clientele that blacks were lazy you'd be right to fire him. When Phil does interviews with magazines like GQ he's representing A&E, he's selling a brand, and not just Duck Commander.

No one is restricting anyone's rights here. Phil is free to equate homosexuality to beastiality all he wants on whatever platform will welcome him.

Edit: He wasn't fired for being a Christian. I don't think he was fired at all, but if that's the case it wasn't for being a Christian.

Posts : 4629 Join date : 2009-10-07

ilaugh wrote:: Since when did Phil Robertson have a right to work at A&E. And if you do work for a network you become a spokesperson for that network, it's just part of the job. A&E has the right to fire anyone they feel doesn't represent their brand properly. Put it this way. If you had a salesman who went around telling your clientele that blacks were lazy you'd be right to fire him. When Phil does interviews with magazines like GQ he's representing A&E, he's selling a brand, and not just Duck Commander.

No one is restricting anyone's rights here. Phil is free to equate homosexuality to beastiality all he wants on whatever platform will welcome him.

Edit: He wasn't fired for being a Christian. I don't think he was fired at all, but if that's the case it wasn't for being a Christian.

I agree with almost every thing you say. But I don't he was equating homosexuality with beastiality. I was saying both were sins just like adultery.

Posts : 4629 Join date : 2009-10-07

eber322 wrote:

Pissedoffvulcan wrote:: First amendment does not protect you from your employer.

Actually it is very much illegal to be fired for your religious belief. Just as it is to be fired for age, gender, race etc. All he did was express his religious belief outside of work and he was fired for it.

You cannot ask a person when being hired their religions beliefs that is true. Now A&E knew what they were getting when they started the show.

Subject: Re: The Duck Dynasty guy. Sat Dec 21, 2013 8:15 am

eber322 wrote:: Actually it is very much illegal to be fired for your religious belief. Just as it is to be fired for age, gender, race etc. All he did was express his religious belief outside of work and he was fired for it.

Well, Eber, you know as well as I do that this protection depends upon the particular set of beliefs you hold.

I don't watch the show, but as I understand it, the focus is upon family of Christians who are very strong in their faith.

If one of the characters on the show had "come out of the closet" and announced that he was gay, I'm willing to bet that A&E wouldn't have fired him for that. The equal employment laws would quickly come into play, based on discrimination against gays.

Isn't it strange how this same protection will never come into play if the person being discriminated against is a white male or someone who has or has expressed values that one of the whiny "specially protected" groups object to.

Hypocrisy of first order, if you ask me.

Posts : 1131 Join date : 2012-11-14

Pissedoffvulcan wrote:: Phil has every right to say what he wants. However A&E being a private company can do what they did. It is not a first amendment thing. That only applies if you say something about the government.

I never said anything about the first amendment. As for what you think it means, check again.

You are correct, in this has nothing to do with the first amendment. It also has nothing to do with "free speech", freedom of religion, Christianity, or civil rights either. All those clowns are just clouding the issue.

The reason for Phil's admonishment, is for exercising extremely poor judgement as a representative of the A&E network. Simply put, it was a business decision and the correct one to make.

That being said, I stand by my last post. I found nothing really bad about his comments.

Posts : 2915 Join date : 2009-10-10 Location : Michigan

Annoyed wrote:

eber322 wrote:: Actually it is very much illegal to be fired for your religious belief. Just as it is to be fired for age, gender, race etc. All he did was express his religious belief outside of work and he was fired for it.

Well, Eber, you know as well as I do that this protection depends upon the particular set of beliefs you hold.

I don't watch the show, but as I understand it, the focus is upon family of Christians who are very strong in their faith.

If one of the characters on the show had "come out of the closet" and announced that he was gay, I'm willing to bet that A&E wouldn't have fired him for that. The equal employment laws would quickly come into play, based on discrimination against gays.

Isn't it strange how this same protection will never come into play if the person being discriminated against is a white male or someone who has or has expressed values that one of the whiny "specially protected" groups object to.

Hypocrisy of first order, if you ask me.

Everything you said is absolutely correct. It is very much not acceptable to be a Christian in this country anymore, and if you are, you'd better keep it to yourself.

Posts : 2915 Join date : 2009-10-10 Location : Michigan

Bandit wrote:: I never said anything about the first amendment.

I think POV was actually replying to me there, but accidentally quoted you.

Bandit wrote:: It also has nothing to do with "free speech", freedom of religion, Christianity, or civil rights either.

This has everything to do with freedom of religion. He expressed his religious beliefs, outside of work no less, and was fired for it.

Bandit wrote:: The reason for Phil's admonishment, is for exercising extremely poor judgement... I found nothing really bad about his comments.

Make up your mind, either it was "extremely poor judgement" or there was "nothing really bad about his comments."

Posts : 1131 Join date : 2012-11-14

eber322 wrote:: I think POV was actually replying to me there, but accidentally quoted you.

I was not sure, but did not wish to be rude and ignore him.

eber322 wrote:: This has everything to do with freedom of religion. He expressed his religious beliefs, outside of work no less, and was fired for it.

You clearly have no clue what the First Amendment means. I can explain it to you if you like. And it was not outside of work. It was in fact work as he was being compensated (paid).

eber322 wrote:: Make up your mind, either it was "extremely poor judgement" or there was "nothing really bad about his comments."

What are you failing to comprehend? I speak for myself Eber. You should try it sometime. Everybody under your Gods' blue sky, has at one time or another said something at the wrong place and/or time. That does not mean it was something bad.

Posts : 4629 Join date : 2009-10-07

Bandit wrote:

Pissedoffvulcan wrote:: Phil has every right to say what he wants. However A&E being a private company can do what they did. It is not a first amendment thing. That only applies if you say something about the government.

I never said anything about the first amendment. As for what you think it means, check again.

You are correct, in this has nothing to do with the first amendment. It also has nothing to do with "free speech", freedom of religion, Christianity, or civil rights either. All those clowns are just clouding the issue.

The reason for Phil's admonishment, is for exercising extremely poor judgement as a representative of the A&E network. Simply put, it was a business decision and the correct one to make.

That being said, I stand by my last post. I found nothing really bad about his comments.

I was replying to eber. Must of hit the wrong button sorry.

Posts : 4629 Join date : 2009-10-07

I guess the boycott people are out. However no one that watches this show is going to boycott it. I don't think the liberals have any clue who the audience is for this show. They want a real religious show watch Porter Ridge.

Posts : 2915 Join date : 2009-10-10 Location : Michigan

Bandit wrote:: You clearly have no clue what the First Amendment means. I can explain it to you if you like. And it was not outside of work. It was in fact work as he was being compensated (paid).

I'll make this simple for you, it is illegal (against the law) to terminate (fire) somebody because of their religious convictions (beliefs). That's what happened, he stated his religious beliefs and was fired for it. And yes it WAS outside of work, he was being interviewed (talked too) by a periodical (magazine) not by his employer A&E, and he stated his personal beliefs.

eber322 wrote:: Make up your mind, either it was "extremely poor judgement" or there was "nothing really bad about his comments."

Bandit wrote:: What are you failing to comprehend?

What your opinion is. You say it was wrong for him to do, but you say at the same time there was nothing wrong with what he said. So which is it? Is fire hot, or is it cold? It's one or the other. If there was nothing wrong with what he said then it COULD NOT have been poor judgement to say it.

Bandit wrote:: I speak for myself Eber. You should try it sometime. Everybody under your Gods' blue sky, has at one time or another said something at the wrong place and/or time. That does not mean it was something bad.

I always speak for myself, unless I'm recounting what somebody else said. And if that is the case I clearly state so.

So, you believe revealing to somebody in an interview that you believe in Christian ideals is a bad thing huh? Now I get your contradictory statements, you think there is nothing wrong with Christian beliefs as long as they are kept private and out of public. Interesting how gays are allowed to operate freely in public but Christians aren't. If Phil had said "There is nothing wrong with man on man buttsex" in that article and A&E fired him they'd be sued out of existence or he'd end up owning the network.

Posts : 1131 Join date : 2012-11-14

eber322 wrote:: I'll make this simple for you, it is illegal (against the law) to terminate (fire) somebody because of their religious convictions (beliefs). That's what happened, he stated his religious beliefs and was fired for it. And yes it WAS outside of work, he was being interviewed (talked too) by a periodical (magazine) not by his employer A&E, and he stated his personal beliefs.

You crack me up Eber. You have no clue what Phil ALL said, now do you? You're making yourself out to be a complete idiot, again, because you have no idea what you're talking about. Forget his religion, forget what he said about homosexuals. What else did he say Eber? I'll give you a hint. It had nothing to do with religion. :afro:

Phil is, as is anybody in his family associated with "Duck Dynasty" under contract with A&E, who holds them libel. GQ approached Phil as the star of the show which is owned by his boss A&E. As he was paid, he was making money off the property of A&E which has him under contract. ANYTHING involving the show is work Eber. Had GQ done this with Phil as the President of Duck Commander, we wouldn't even be having this discussion.

eber322 wrote:: What your opinion is. You say it was wrong for him to do, but you say at the same time there was nothing wrong with what he said. So which is it? Is fire hot, or is it cold? It's one or the other. If there was nothing wrong with what he said then it COULD NOT have been poor judgement to say it.

Your confusion stems from the fact that what he said, and what he did, are NOT the same thing. POV asked if what he SAID was that bad, NOT what he did (gave the interview). A&E made it clear he was not authorized to give that interview. Under contract, Phil is libel for any damage done to the show or the network, because of his statements as a representative of the A&E network.

One last note. The fact the show is so popular, is because the Robertson family is not at all what they appear to be. They are devout Christians, extremely well educated, and self made millionaires. With nothing more than their faith in Christ and their education, they created a "Duck Dynasty". So you and...NOBODY will believe he was fired for his religious beliefs.

Posts : 4629 Join date : 2009-10-07

One thing bandit when Phil mentioned blacks he was talking about spiritually and the black family not being broke up.

Posts : 333 Join date : 2012-11-07

Pissedoffvulcan wrote:

ilaugh wrote:: Since when did Phil Robertson have a right to work at A&E. And if you do work for a network you become a spokesperson for that network, it's just part of the job. A&E has the right to fire anyone they feel doesn't represent their brand properly. Put it this way. If you had a salesman who went around telling your clientele that blacks were lazy you'd be right to fire him. When Phil does interviews with magazines like GQ he's representing A&E, he's selling a brand, and not just Duck Commander.

No one is restricting anyone's rights here. Phil is free to equate homosexuality to beastiality all he wants on whatever platform will welcome him.

Edit: He wasn't fired for being a Christian. I don't think he was fired at all, but if that's the case it wasn't for being a Christian.

I agree with almost every thing you say. But I don't he was equating homosexuality with beastiality. I was saying both were sins just like adultery.

I'd probably give you that. But it is condescending when Christians say something like “ I don't dislike homosexuals. It just saddens me to know their living a life of sin and are on the road to hell.” Because if they didn't have a problem with it they wouldn’t have brought it up.

Posts : 4629 Join date : 2009-10-07

ilaugh wrote:

Pissedoffvulcan wrote:

ilaugh wrote:: Since when did Phil Robertson have a right to work at A&E. And if you do work for a network you become a spokesperson for that network, it's just part of the job. A&E has the right to fire anyone they feel doesn't represent their brand properly. Put it this way. If you had a salesman who went around telling your clientele that blacks were lazy you'd be right to fire him. When Phil does interviews with magazines like GQ he's representing A&E, he's selling a brand, and not just Duck Commander.

No one is restricting anyone's rights here. Phil is free to equate homosexuality to beastiality all he wants on whatever platform will welcome him.

Edit: He wasn't fired for being a Christian. I don't think he was fired at all, but if that's the case it wasn't for being a Christian.

I agree with almost every thing you say. But I don't he was equating homosexuality with beastiality. I was saying both were sins just like adultery.

I'd probably give you that. But it is condescending when Christians say something like “ I don't dislike homosexuals. It just saddens me to know their living a life of sin and are on the road to hell.” Because if they didn't have a problem with it they wouldn’t have brought it up.

I don't say anyone is going to go to hell. Not up to me.

Posts : 333 Join date : 2012-11-07

Pissedoffvulcan wrote:

ilaugh wrote:

Pissedoffvulcan wrote:

ilaugh wrote:: Since when did Phil Robertson have a right to work at A&E. And if you do work for a network you become a spokesperson for that network, it's just part of the job. A&E has the right to fire anyone they feel doesn't represent their brand properly. Put it this way. If you had a salesman who went around telling your clientele that blacks were lazy you'd be right to fire him. When Phil does interviews with magazines like GQ he's representing A&E, he's selling a brand, and not just Duck Commander.

No one is restricting anyone's rights here. Phil is free to equate homosexuality to beastiality all he wants on whatever platform will welcome him.

Edit: He wasn't fired for being a Christian. I don't think he was fired at all, but if that's the case it wasn't for being a Christian.

I agree with almost every thing you say. But I don't he was equating homosexuality with beastiality. I was saying both were sins just like adultery.

I'd probably give you that. But it is condescending when Christians say something like “ I don't dislike homosexuals. It just saddens me to know their living a life of sin and are on the road to hell.” Because if they didn't have a problem with it they wouldn’t have brought it up.

I don't say anyone is going to go to hell. Not up to me.

Yea, yea, I know. Love the sinner but hate the sin. And I'm sure there are people who actually practice what they preach, but far too many people use their religion to justify their bigotry, and Christians should learn to tolerate gays because they're not going anywhere. Most have seemed to adjust just fine to an anti-slavery worldview so I'm sure that if they really tried they could learn to live with the fact that some people are gay and will remain that way their entire life.

So if certain Christians are going to use the bible to justify their stands on homosexuality they should at least be consistent and be pro-slavery as well.