# Phil Robertson kicked off Duck Dynasty show for bashing Gays!



## Oldcountryboy (Feb 23, 2008)

But the thing is, he wasn't bashing Gays from what I read.

_"Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there" he said. "Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and those men."_

_Still "We never, ever judge someone on who's going to heaven, h3ll. That's the Almighty's job," he added. "We just love'em, give'em the good news about Jesus - whether there homosexuals, drunks, terriorest. We let God sort'em out later, you see what I'm saying?"_

It sounds to me like what he trying to tell us is that we are not the judges of people, only God is. So why are they making a big issue out of this and kicking him off the show? He wasn't bashing Gays, he was bashing people who think they are the judge of certain people's behavior.


----------



## Oldcountryboy (Feb 23, 2008)

Oops, sorry! I thought I was posting on General Chat. Can someone shift this over to General Chat?


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

âI myself am a product of the 60s; I centered my life around sex, drugs and rock and roll until I hit rock bottom and accepted Jesus as my Savior,â he said in a statement sent to FOX411. 

*â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.*

That is what he said in a statement and who can argue over that. Tis The Truth.


----------



## Oldcountryboy (Feb 23, 2008)

Kicked off for telling the truth then!

Phil's family needs to support him by saying "If Pa ain't on the show, then we aint on the show either". 

So far the Robertson family has made some 80 million off the shows and products made with their picture on them. So they could easily live the rest of thier days with no more t.v. shows. The t.v. show and promotors will take a big, big, lose if they all just said "no more, if phil isn't on, we aint on".


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Oldcountryboy said:


> Kicked off for telling the truth then!
> 
> Phil's family needs to support him by saying "If Pa ain't on the show, then we aint on the show either".
> 
> So far the Robertson family has made some 80 million off the shows and products made with their picture on them. So they could easily live the rest of thier days with no more t.v. shows. The t.v. show and promotors will take a big, big, lose if they all just said "no more, if phil isn't on, we aint on".


Now if they canceled that Horrible horrible show Rodeo Girls that are just a bunch of bad girls. the S word seems to be in order.~! NOW with That show and this Duck Dynasty SNAFU and their way they are handling this. Boycott A&E is a real good thing to do. And all the companies that advertise.


----------



## Farmerjonathan (Mar 11, 2013)

I have already sent an email to A&E, here is their address if you want to support Phil also. [email protected]

This is what I said, 

To Whom It May Concern,

I don't care who the person is that made the decision to "punish" Phil for his opinions. Oh, sorry they are skewed and perverted like A&E wants them to be. You have denied him his right to free speech. You want A&E to be shown in my home again, get him back on his show. Otherwise I will block that channel. Also, I will watch the one I have saved in my dvr only to note the sponsors of the show and write them letters telling them if they don't tell you to get Phil back on the show, my family and I will not purchase any of their products. Now do the right thing as this 52 year old Christian white male sees it. GO PHIL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Sincerely,

Jonathan W. Shively


Feel free to make my note yours by changing the pertinent information. Man this irks me. I have to quit now or will say things not appropriate.


----------



## topofmountain (Nov 1, 2013)

Anybody that says anything that can be construed as anti tolerate of the Liberal agenda, which includes Christan's talking about God, is not acceptable these days. 
We must be tolerate of the intolerable.
It is all part of the brainwashing of America. It all fits with this new Core Curriculum in schools. 
I might be kicked off this board for what I just said who knows. You never know who your going to offend when you speak the truths you have been taught & lived by all you life.


----------



## CraterCove (Jan 24, 2011)

Freedom of expression does not include freedom not to be offended. In fact, that protection is there expressly so that someone can be offended by your words and you are _not_ supposed to be punished for that.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

A&E has a contract with this person. Those contracts have code of conduct terms. His free speech is his right. It is A&E's right not to employ someone that does not adhere to the contract or represent their business in the way they want them to.

We are seeing people terminated for professing to be pro choice or getting married to a same sex spouse.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

CraterCove said:


> Freedom of expression does not include freedom not to be offended. In fact, that protection is there expressly so that someone can be offended by your words and you are _not_ supposed to be punished for that.


And yet many here are expressing offense and outrage at at A&E for expressing their opinion that the comments in question may be detrimental to their business and acting upon that. The Constitution protects you from the govt restricting your speech. Last I checked, A&E is a private entity.


----------



## CraterCove (Jan 24, 2011)

They are also an entity we have no direct means of expressing our opinions back to. Do you think Dish or the cable company is going to remove them from the package I have and reduce their revenue that way? 

But heck, I'd be more afraid of left wing wackos if I was A&E anyway--- it always seems to be them that decide to go in and solve problems with guns.


----------



## CraterCove (Jan 24, 2011)

painterswife said:


> A&E has a contract with this person. Those contracts have code of conduct terms. His free speech is his right. It is A&E's right not to employ someone that does not adhere to the contract or represent their business in the way they want them to.
> 
> We are seeing people terminated for professing to be pro choice or getting married to a same sex spouse.


We are also seeing people being _forced_ to do business with people they disagree with by government forces. Does any of that seem right to you?


----------



## TenBusyBees (Jun 15, 2011)

The Robertson's don't need A&E...A&E needs them. They had $ and a successful business before the show and if the Robertson's are really all about family I doubt the clan will continue with A&E. 

I also think once A&E realizes they just gave their cash cow a swift kick they'll retrack and back track.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

CraterCove said:


> We are also seeing people being _forced_ to do business with people they disagree with by government forces. Does any of that seem right to you?


Lots of laws I don't like. Lots of things don't seem right to me that might seem right to you.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

CraterCove said:


> They are also an entity we have no direct means of expressing our opinions back to. Do you think Dish or the cable company is going to remove them from the package I have and reduce their revenue that way?
> 
> But heck, I'd be more afraid of left wing wackos if I was A&E anyway--- it always seems to be them that decide to go in and solve problems with guns.


You have a direct means of contacting them to express your opinion. They all have physical addresses for snail mail, e-mail addresses and phone numbers. Contact away. Just because your contact may not have your desired outcome shouldn't stop you from doing it. I learned long ago that no one always gets their way.


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

It's a TV show.

In 10 years (most likely less) NO ONE will remember, or care.

Freedom of Speech is an illusion.....you are free to say what you want, as long as it makes everyone happy, and offends no one, and for good golly's sake do NOT have an independent thought and express it in words.

It's a TV show.
It's a TV show.
It's a TV show........................


----------



## CraterCove (Jan 24, 2011)

painterswife said:


> Lots of laws I don't like. Lots of things don't seem right to me that might seem right to you.


There shouldn't be any laws except one against theft and one against murder. ~shrug~ So yeah there are lots of laws I don't like either.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

My inborn cynicism tells me that this will only resort in more viewers and money for both A&E and the Robertsons. Any publicity is good publicity.


----------



## SeanInVa (Oct 3, 2013)

don't watch the show, but know of it and its contents.

So, he expressed his opinion, that didn't include any hateful remarks or pro-violence-against-gays remarks. I fail to see a problem (with his remarks). And this is coming from someone who supports LGBT rights.


----------



## simi-steading (Sep 27, 2012)

So... lemme think about this for a moment.. 

Not too long ago, gay people, or being gay was offensive to people.. but gay people didn't care about being offensive to people then, and they pushed their agenda into the public eye, and caused morals to change.. or at least, caused people to not be so offended.. 

But now, one single person who is offended by it says something, and then the gay community can claim being offended.. 

HHHmmm.. as I say.. I'm offended that you're offended... It's a two way street.. 

If someone doesn't like what someone has to to say, all they have to do is not listen to them and go on with their lives, instead of making a bunch of noise and trying to push their beliefs back claiming being offended.. 

Personally, I didn't hear him using any derogatory names or words.. he just spoke his beliefs, without being offensive.. .

A whole lot of hubbub over nothing...


----------



## jwal10 (Jun 5, 2010)

Something else to stir the masses while this great country goes down the toilet....James


----------



## SeanInVa (Oct 3, 2013)

I'm curious, I haven't read more than a few small articles about this so maybe someone else knows. Did anyone actually cause a stink over this, or did A&E take it upon themselves to make this move?

IOW - were gays actually offended, or is A&E being overly PC for the sake of being PC?


----------



## simi-steading (Sep 27, 2012)

I'm going with A&E taking it over the top... trying to keep their advertisers, and probably doing just the opposite since a lot won't want to get caught up in the mess.. 

I'm hoping the rest of the family does something to get suspended too... since more than likely they just can't back out of their contract.. at least they can get tossed from it..


----------



## wwubben (Oct 13, 2004)

They would be welcome on a fox station.I have never watched the show but my kids,grandkids,friends and neighbors do and they like it.


----------



## jwal10 (Jun 5, 2010)

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/duck-dynastys-phil-robertson-indefinite-666808


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

There seem to be three issues here:

1. Phil can say whatever he wants. He can believe whatever he wants. And personally, I'm not seeing where he was really all that offensive, or even saying anything I didn't expect to hear. (Contrary to what some commentators are saying, he didn't compare being gay with bestiality, he said it "morphs out from there.")

2. A&E has a "face" they project to the public, that, as well as the money they're generating with their programming via advertisers is how they make their income. They have the right to set the terms and requirements their programming must meet.
That's the right of a corporate entity.

3. The Bible verse Phil quoted-- &#8220;Don&#8217;t be deceived. Neither the adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlers&#8212;they won&#8217;t inherit the kingdom of God. Don&#8217;t deceive yourself. It&#8217;s not right.&#8221; (ICor.6:9-10)

What's ironic with this is that people think he was insulting gay people with this quote. 

Well yes, _he_ was using this verse as support for his anti-gay sentiment, but he could just as easily have used it to support the point that it's an _equally egregious sin_ to:
--go out drinking (drunkards), 
--call people names (slanderers) like "libs", "yuppies," "****," etc. as an example
--put _any_ priority of above God (idolaters) including jobs, possessions and our children or spouses

So ask yourselves, do you ever talk about people? Call people names? Put anything above God..._ever_? 
Paul says we're in e_xactly the same place_ as the homosexual offenders. 
(And why does it say "offenders?" Why not just "homosexuals?")


----------



## simi-steading (Sep 27, 2012)

Maybe A&E should have stopped and thought before they ever signed the Robertson family if this is an issue.. I mean what did they expect.. the hired a southern family of religious ********... Did anyone do their research to even try and figure out what their beliefs about the LGBT community was going to be?


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

I'm quite surprised that A&E as well as his handlers allowed him to do an interview with a publication like GQ when they would know that he would be questioned extensively about his faith.


----------



## ||Downhome|| (Jan 12, 2009)

simi-steading said:


> Maybe A&E should have stopped and thought before they ever signed the Robertson family if this is an issue.. I mean what did they expect.. the hired a southern family of religious ********... Did anyone do their research to even try and figure out what their beliefs about the LGBT community was going to be?


Nope just greedy and wanting some of that ******* fad cash.

Personally think the whole family should walk and not come back.

Even if they where to reconsider Phil back on the show.

A&E showed their Colors.

I don't think as a man of conviction could keep company with such.

I had a post that addressed this very thing on my face book page sometime back. 

This is a perfect example supporting that post.



> "Lets say I don't agree with the gay life style, or something of that nature.
> Its "OK" for some one in "what ever" group to attack my beliefs.
> Possibly even force me to "accept" such in my life.
> But its wrong for me to force my views on them."


----------



## scooter (Mar 31, 2008)

Liberal intolerance.


----------



## hurryiml8 (Apr 15, 2009)

A few years down the road this won't matter, but I think Phil Robertson is about to become more famous than he ever thought. In that case, he will be able to reach more people with God's word. Probably not the worst thing that could have happened to him.


----------



## mamagoose (Nov 28, 2003)

Phil's statements, his foes' statements, and A&E's actions have exposed the truth of the current state of affairs on this earth. I am pleased to see that tens of thousands of people are posting comments along the same lines as the majority have here in regard to this "story" across the country (on the internet). God has not lost all of us yet!


----------



## KentuckyDreamer (Jan 20, 2012)

I think this is going to be one of those time I am going to have to meditate on the strong reaction I am having to this situation. I have not felt so "let down" in a long time.

At first, I was upset...I felt anxious and restless. This morning, I felt numb and on the verge of tears. Yes, "it is only a show" but it feels as if it is one more thing being taken away. I could be in a terrible mood, see a few seconds of "the boys" and end up watching for hours. I would be so happy after watching an episode or two. I even own all the seasons on DVD ( that is very rare in this home ). 

Yes, A & E has "the right" to terminate anyone who does not think as they do...but they knew this going into the show. The family has never "held back" on who they are and what they believed. Did they have a 'gag order" in the contract prohibiting the family from voicing certain opinions? 

I am a lesbian, I am a fairly conservative, I do like to hold onto "the old ways", etc. I never felt judged or hated when I watched the show. I take what I like and let the rest go "like water off a duck's back". 

To me, this is just another loss...another incident of those that are in charge manipulating everything from education to entertainment to fit their agenda. I think I will get out my old copy of "The Power Elite" and face reality again.


----------



## Becka03 (Mar 29, 2009)

I just read- that if you want to boycott A and E- and still want to purchase Duck stuff- buy Duck Commander things - NOT Duck Dynasty items- A and E profits from Duck Dynasty not Duck Commander


----------



## chickenista (Mar 24, 2007)

The quote in the OP was NOT all that he said.
The whole quote was nasty. I mean really nasty.
Talking all about lady parts and men parts etc..
Bringing in animals and children etc..

It was the whole thing that got him in trouble, not just the religious part, but no one is focusing on that.
He just got too chatty and went way too far.

And I am quite sure that he had a contractual obligation to not be stupid.. he failed.


----------



## simi-steading (Sep 27, 2012)

I read the whole thing.. I read the interview.. and no one so far has said anything about when he mentioned black people too.. 

I didn't find any of it to be disrespectful... I read it as he was speaking his beliefs.. not putting anyone down..

EDIT:

OH.. yeah.. now he is being accused of being racist... 

http://hollywoodlife.com/2013/12/19/duck-dynasty-star-phil-robertson-racist-interview/

*Phil Robertson Makes Racist Comments
Phil just doesn&#8217;t appear to want to soften his opinions, he will just come right out and slam all sorts of individuals.

&#8220;I never, with my eyes, saw the mistreatment of any black person. Not once,&#8221; he said. &#8220;Where we lived was all farmers. The blacks worked for the farmers. I hoed cotton with them. I&#8217;m with the blacks, because we&#8217;re white trash. We&#8217;re going across the field &#8230; They&#8217;re singing and happy. I never heard one of them, one black person, say, &#8216;I tell you what: These doggone white people&#8217;&#8212;not a word!&#8230; Pre-entitlement, pre-welfare, you say: Were they happy? They were godly; they were happy; no one was singing the blues.&#8221;*


----------



## dixiegal62 (Aug 18, 2007)

I find it funny that no adulterers are offended.


----------



## KentuckyDreamer (Jan 20, 2012)

As for talking "nasty"...I watched the Duck Dynasty episode where he was using crawfish to explain the facts to one of his grandsons...that is how they talk. A bit blunt for me, but just his way of talking. And for the most part, it looks as if he used correct terminology, not crude street or slang names.

And I firmly believe the interviewer knew it and took full advantage of Phil's openness.


----------



## KentuckyDreamer (Jan 20, 2012)

I read Happy, Happy, Happy. I cannot wonder if Phi's statements concerning African Americans were a carry over into his own life experiences. He was beyond poor and didn't know it. They were not "singing the blues" either. I may be wrong but I took it as just a continuation of the life he and his family were living.


----------



## CraterCove (Jan 24, 2011)

Those who think what he said was 'nasty' (lmao) I am going to go ahead and label prudes. Being blunt is not nasty, imho.


----------



## Farmerjonathan (Mar 11, 2013)

Here is the complete interview. I don't see anything nasty, nasty. He was asked and he responded. But I am biased.

http://www.gq.com/entertainment/television/201401/duck-dynasty-phil-robertson


----------



## emdeengee (Apr 20, 2010)

I thought what he said was crude and vulgar and quite reprehensible but so what? This is his opinion based on his current religious and social awareness. The man was a drunk who whored around on Miss Kay for years. Then he found Jesus. Personally I would rather see him as a zealot Christian then as a drunk driver or wife abuser. At least as a Christian he has the chance to continue to evolve into a decent human being - particularly if he follows the teachings of Jesus and not the garbage in the old testament.

He offended a lot of people but again - so what. You cannot force people to change their minds just because you want them to. All you can do is educate and expose and hopefully with time they will evolve. 

His comments were made in an interview and Arts and Entertainment should have kept their nose out.


----------



## mrsgcpete (Sep 16, 2012)

Phil has been saying for a while that he wanted off the show. The Robertsons have multiple MBAs between them. Its a well orchestrated machine. Do I think the rest of the Robertsons should follow him, if they are as family oriented as they say they are, yup... but if it was the plan all along, they got everyone talking didnt they.

I am not watching the show anymore because after season 3 it stopped being funny, it never was "reality" tv but now its just tv. 

and that Rodeo Girls.. i gave it 1/2 an episode, it did not impress.


----------



## CraterCove (Jan 24, 2011)

Rodeo girl's shows sexism and animal cruelty... yeah A&E is on the boycott list for sure.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

painterswife said:


> A&E has a contract with this person. Those contracts have code of conduct terms. His free speech is his right. It is A&E's right not to employ someone that does not adhere to the contract or represent their business in the way they want them to.
> 
> We are seeing people terminated for professing to be pro choice or getting married to a same sex spouse.


What exactly does his contract say?


----------



## secuono (Sep 28, 2011)

It's more so the african american comments he made than the gay stuff. 

It honestly doesn't matter, an opinion is just an opinion. As long as no one is forcing something on other people or being cruel, who cares what they believe or think. 

They said that the gay stuff won't hurt business, since most of the watchers are older and w/e. Unless black folks jump in to hound him. Something like that...

The station just doesn't want to associate with people who aren't accepting. It's their station, they can kick anyone off.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

JeffreyD said:


> What exactly does his contract say?


How am I supposed to know?


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

He said nothing wrong. He didn't bash anyone, he stated his beliefs. People are all for freedom of speech until it goes against their beliefs.



> Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter.


----------



## Harry Chickpea (Dec 19, 2008)

There is a phrase in the movie "Deliverance" that almost everyone misses. Right during the "dueling banjo" scene, Ned Beatty's citified character is being a jerk and the talk is about inbreeding. The old man comes up with a muttered angry phrase towards the group of tourists that is almost unintelligible - "Who's pick of the litter here?" It quickly sums up how those who heave stones are not any more spiritually enlightened than those they throw stones at. 

"He nods toward Uncle Si, who, with his mangy ponytail, looks very much like the squirrels he hunts." Should Si be "offended? That _is_ an uncalled for slur.

Willie has just come back from Washington, D.C., where he accepted an award at the Angels in Adoption Gala. (He and his wife, Korie, adopted a biracial child named Will and are dedicated advocates of the practice.)

Yep, that there SHOWS the racial hatred within the family...

"I smile politely and nod like the milquetoast suburban WASP that I am. If you can&#8217;t reconcile some of the things Phil says with his otherwise friendly demeanor&#8212;perhaps because you are gay, or a duck&#8212;I don&#8217;t blame you. And I don&#8217;t blame Duck Dynasty for keeping the show safely apolitical, ensuring smooth digestion for a mass audience."

And there we have it. There is a difference between accepting the right of people to be different, and being fearful of expressing how you are different than the people around you - _until you get safely away from them, when you spill your guts to anyone (or your "side") who will listen._

The supposedly offensive comment about blacks working in the field is not even an opinion, but a mere statement of the fact of his personal experience. When a culture denies the ability to state personal experience and observation, that culture is oppressing individuals. The side-statement about Jim Crow laws and how the blacks were not "separate but equal" is also a statement of fact, but does not negate Phil's experience of reality, merely appends it.

I have to say that I am pretty pleasantly astounded by the depth of real understanding of the various issues by the folks who have posted in this thread so far.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

painterswife said:


> How am I supposed to know?


You talked about his contract in post #9, did you not? You mentioned what was in it! Did you not? If you don't really know exactly what's in his contract, why did you bring it up?I


----------



## CraterCove (Jan 24, 2011)

secuono said:


> It's more so the african american comments he made than the gay stuff.
> 
> It honestly doesn't matter, an opinion is just an opinion. As long as no one is forcing something on other people or being cruel, who cares what they believe or think.
> 
> ...


So what exactly does being accepting mean? Cause far as I can see they aren't terribly accepting themselves.


----------



## simi-steading (Sep 27, 2012)

Ya know.. if people would all get up in arms and into this heavy of a discussion about how the government is ruining this country, we might accomplish something..


----------



## dixiegal62 (Aug 18, 2007)

secuono said:


> The station just doesn't want to associate with people who aren't accepting. It's their station, they can kick anyone off.


 
If not being accepting of others views where reason enough to fire someone from your business over 80% of Liberals and/or Gays would be out of a job, just sayin


----------



## CraterCove (Jan 24, 2011)

simi-steading said:


> Ya know.. if people would all get up in arms and into this heavy of a discussion about how the government is ruining this country, we might accomplish something..


Past the point of discussion. 3% is the answer.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

JeffreyD said:


> You talked about his contract in post #9, did you not? You mentioned what was in it! Did you not? If you don't really know exactly what's in his contract, why did you bring it up?I


Stating that he would have a contract and that contract would have a code of conduct and could be used to fire him is why. That is exactly why I brought it up.


----------



## CraterCove (Jan 24, 2011)

painterswife said:


> Stating that he would have a contract and that contract would have a code of conduct and could be used to fire him is why. That is exactly why I brought it up.


So explain the intricacies of the contracts A&E has with it's people some more. 

Oh wait, you said you didn't know what was in his contract....:huh:


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

******


----------



## CraterCove (Jan 24, 2011)

No, you don't get it. But it's okay.


----------



## Shrek (May 1, 2002)

If he gets tossed off the show will his Chia pet statue pack be a collectable? :shrug:


----------



## Dixie Bee Acres (Jul 22, 2013)

Sarah Palin backed him up on fb or tweeter, or something like it saying this is another example of freedom of speech being attacked.


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

have you guys ever SEEN an employment contract? 

Code of conduct is a pretty standard clause... It has nothing to do with A&E in particular.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

painterswife said:


> Stating that he would have a contract and that contract would have a code of conduct and could be used to fire him is why. That is exactly why I brought it up.


How do you know his contract has a code of conduct clause, and how do you know what it says exactly? Not every contract has a clause like that! Was he fired?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

JeffreyD said:


> How do you know his contract has a code of conduct clause, and how do you know what it says exactly? Not every contract has a clause like that! Was he fired?


Please read my posts. I never said that I did.


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

NEWS FLASH! Religious people do not condone cheating on spouses eather. Where are all the "sensitive" Cheaters?
Are Gays really ignorant to what the Bible says, Really? They have to be treated with Kid gloves? Sounds just as bad as people saying Black people will riot if they find out Obama is a Fraud. A&E is making Gays look like pathetic idiots that need protecting.
So wrong, Kinda like when someone would tell me my car was too fast for a girl or my bike too powerful. Insulting.


----------



## Oggie (May 29, 2003)

I remember a star on another duck show that said that he hated Christmas.

The producers of the show went through a lot of trouble to get him to change his mind.


----------



## CraterCove (Jan 24, 2011)

painterswife said:


> A&E has a contract with this person. *Those contracts have code of conduct terms.* His free speech is his right. It is A&E's right not to employ someone that does not adhere to the contract or represent their business in the way they want them to.
> 
> We are seeing people terminated for professing to be pro choice or getting married to a same sex spouse.


Ya' kinda did. I sure hope those Kardasian chicks don't have codes of conduct with whatever station that shows their shows... I can't imagine what those must be like.


----------



## KentuckyDreamer (Jan 20, 2012)

I think the damage is done. Would Phil return if they asked? I doubt it. I just hope they go on being happy and prosperous. 

I saw where they were calling a boycott to the Duggar family show because of a statement made by the parents about one of their strongly held beliefs. 
When are they going to demand the boycotting of shows for sex, nudity, murder, etc? Oh well, different realities. May not need to worry about cable access when I find my homestead land.


----------



## viggie (Jul 17, 2009)

The folks I've talked to who don't believe it's an issue think that only because they see it as a freedom of speech issue. When you add freedom of religion and the fact that employers cannot discriminate against someone for their religious beliefs is where the outrage lies.


----------



## nodak3 (Feb 5, 2003)

Couple of thoughts: what he said that was supposed to be rude and crude? I'm a very conservative old grandma, but it wasn't rude or crude. What it did was make once again clear what "gay rights" are really supporting. Took it out of the realm of "can't we all just love who we want to love" and "civil rights" and once again reminded the world just exactly what we are talking about. And THAT upset the gay rights community because they have spent 25 years trying to get us all NOT to think about that. Too much uck factor.

As to A and E having a right to fire him for stating his views? Of course they do.

JUST EXACTLY the same way another network could fire a star for making pro gay remarks in public. Does anyone really want to go there? No? Then this guy should not have been fired.

The other thing he did was quote the NEW Testament. Gay rights groups want to keep hammering the idea only the OLD Testament bans gay sex. He brought it out in the open that the NEW Testament does, also.

We are done watching A and E. As much as possible, we will boycott business that advertise on them. 

Thanks for the head's up re Duck Dynasty vs Duck Commander.

I cannot imagine that my grandfather and father fought to keep America free so that quoting the Bible and speaking the truth (or your opinion of it, for that matter) could get you fired.

And yep, I judge gay sex wrong while freely admitting that I have my own, different set of sins. I'm no worse than nor no better than any gay person.

But I am saved. I am striving to overcome my sins. And I am ashamed of them.

That last is the sticking point for the gay rights crowd. They not only are not ashamed of their sins, they want them declared "not sin" and want to force all religions including Christianity to approve of their sin.

Either we speak up against all this PC garbage, or we will be forced to forever hold our peace.


----------



## Wolfy-hound (May 5, 2013)

So no one cares about him basically saying blacks were better off before they had rights too?

It's not just gays he bashed(and yes, saying basically that the morals of america going downhill is due to gays, then lumping gays with bestiality and such IS bashing), but also saying that blacks were happier when they was out pickin' cotton for the white man(past of the rest of his statement was how happy and singing the blacks were while working the fields).

I doubt he cares that they fire him. He's never struck me as a man who would temper his views at all for the media. I can respect him for sticking up for what he believes in, even as I'm disappointed that he believes it.

A&E can fire anyone they want to, especially when they start making statements like his. Freedom of speech has NOTHING to do with this at all. Freedom of speech means the government can't come imprison you for stating your opinions. It doesn't mean you can't get fired for publicly saying stuff your employer doesn't agree with. It also doesn't mean you can say whatever you want and no one can get mad at you or tell you that they think you're wrong or stupid. 

Freedom of religion ALSO doesn't come into play. He can still practice any religion he likes. His religious freedom does not give him the right to make any statement he likes and no one can say anything or do anything they want about it. It means the GOVERNMENT can't force you to be religious, follow a religion nor can a person or business discriminate against you for your choice of religion. It does not mean you can run around screaming "Jews should all die!" and claim that as a Muslim, it's your religious right to do so.

His statements weren't THAT extreme, but personally I feel that he definitely said gay people are bad people(for the country) and that blacks were better off before they had rights. I wouldn't support someone who believes that. I wouldn't hire him to work for me nor want him making statements with my name attached to it.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

ErinP said:


> have you guys ever SEEN an employment contract?
> 
> I see them every day!
> 
> Code of conduct is a pretty standard clause... It has nothing to do with A&E in particular.


Pretty standard and actually having one are two completely different deals. Unless you really know for sure, you can't say it does, can you?


----------



## Ozarks Tom (May 27, 2011)

I won't comment on the right or wrong in this situation, lots of that done already. My comment is on the stupidity of A&E in offending the audience of their most successful show ever. Do they really think the show is on the TV behind the bar in the "Saddle & Paddle"?

Some self-important producer is going to be looking for a job shortly.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

painterswife said:


> Please read my posts. I never said that I did.


You said:

*A&E has a contract with this person. Those contracts have code of conduct terms.* His free speech is his right. It is A&E's right not to employ someone that does not adhere to the contract or represent their business in the way they want them to.

Please clarify YOUR statement! Do you know for a fact that his contract contains code of conduct stipulations? Do they prevent him from putting forth his views and opinions? Did A&E know he's a Christian and allow for him to make statements about his religion in his contract? I saw them on Dr. Oz, A&E never batted an eye over that, why not?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

JeffreyD said:


> Pretty standard and actually having one are two completely different deals. Unless you really know for sure, you can't say it does, can you?


Yes, no one knows for certain that he has that clause in his contract. It is an industry standard though and the odds are that he has one.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

painterswife said:


> Yes, no one knows for certain that he has that clause in his contract. It is an industry standard though and the odds are that he has one.


So, you can't answer any of my questions? Why not?

None of my contracts in the "industry" ever had one, just saying!!


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

JeffreyD said:


> So, you can't answer any of my questions? Why not?
> 
> None of my contracts in the "industry" ever had one, just saying!!


Why do I have to answer your questions? You are not my employer.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

It's interesting that some folks when presented with facts, or have questions posed to them that point out their wrong, they can't answer the questions or admit they were wrong. Why does it seem mostly to apply to liberals?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

JeffreyD said:


> It's interesting that some folks when presented with facts, or have questions posed to them that point out their wrong, they can't answer the questions or admit they were wrong. Why does it seem mostly to apply to liberals?


When you prove someone wrong, I will start start answering those questions.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

painterswife said:


> Why do I have to answer your questions? You are not my employer.


You don't have too! You made statements that are not factually correct. I asked how you knew for sure, that's all. I know it paints you in poor light, but they were after all.... your statements!


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

painterswife said:


> When you prove someone wrong, I will start start answering those questions.


*A&E has a contract with this person. Those contracts have code of conduct terms.* His free speech is his right. It is A&E's right not to employ someone that does not adhere to the contract or represent their business in the way they want them to.

There ya go!


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

JeffreyD said:


> *A&E has a contract with this person. Those contracts have code of conduct terms.* His free speech is his right. It is A&E's right not to employ someone that does not adhere to the contract or represent their business in the way they want them to.
> 
> There ya go!


You have not proven that he does not have this clause in his contract.


----------



## countryfied2011 (Jul 5, 2011)




----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

painterswife said:


> You have not proven that he does not have this cause in his contract.


"A&E has a contract with this person. Those contracts have code of conduct terms."

Did you not make this statement?

The onus is on you to prove your statement is factually correct. I don't need to prove anything. You made the statement, you need to prove it's correct. Stand by it, or admit it's just your opinion because you don't know for sure what's in his contract.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

JeffreyD said:


> "A&E has a contract with this person. Those contracts have code of conduct terms."
> 
> Did you not make this statement?
> 
> The onus is on you to prove your statement is factually correct. I don't need to prove anything. You made the statement, you need to prove it's correct. Stand by it, or admit it's just your opinion because you don't know for sure what's in his contract.


????? I don't need to prove anything. Is that in the rules somewhere? Good luck with that one.


----------



## KentuckyDreamer (Jan 20, 2012)

Wolfy-hound,
I took the comments on the blacks differently. I read Phil's "Happy, Happy, Happy" and the man grew up dirt poor in the truest of definitions. I grew up shamefully poor but in a housing development. I am now 58.

Back then there were no food stamps...we got the occasional commodities. My mother had to find family to keep us while she stood in line for a block of cheese, a can of powered egss, powered milk, etc. Just the staples. We took pleasure in the littlest and the strangest things.

There was shame and exploitation to be sure. But I think emotionally we were better off than after the arrival of food stamps and public assistance. We saw the world differently; family helped, the church helped, we knew not to expect. Most importantly we KNEW nothing was coming so if you want something, find a way to pay for it ( collecting discarded pop bottles, etc. ). 

I read Phil's comments through that world view and did not see any offense.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

painterswife said:


> ????? I don't need to prove anything. Is that in the rules somewhere? Good luck with that one.


When someone makes a statement and doesn't provide any proof and refuses to provide proof when asked, it says a lot about that person! I know better now!

Being rude doesn't help either!!! You are who you are! I've never put anyone on ignore before!


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

And there is something wrong with the title of this thread also. Phil Did NOT BASH GAYS. He stead his religious believes according to the Bible and HIS Christian Faith This is not bashing gays that iOS just stating His Believes in the Bible and the teachings therein. A&E is wrong on this, they have Plenty of other shows that that are way worse and show nearly naked folks. If people are so called Offended on what Phil said then what is their thoughts on Rodeos Girls? Hmmmmmm


----------



## Raymond James (Apr 15, 2013)

My take is he was doing an interview about the show. Thus he was representing A&E his employer. An employer can fire you for saying inappropriate stuff at work. Has nothing to do with 1st amendment free speech. The government cannot punish you for something you said but your employer can discipline/ fire you for saying things at work / while you are working for them. Employer decides what is inappropriate . 

There are lots of things you can say to your friends at home but not in the work place. 

Many do not understand what was offensive in what he said. That is the issue. Let people live their life and you live yours not necessary to say anything about them. 

In a country where gays can still be fired for being gay, where there are still many states that limit their human rights it does not take much to offend. 

You may find gays offensive/ against your religion. That is ok for you to feel that way. Just do not discuss or say anything at work about it. 

You may think a black and a white person should never marry. Again think what you want but expect to get fired if you said something to the couple that walked into your workplace /store/restaurant/office. 

If you want Phil back tell A&E you want to see him.


----------



## simi-steading (Sep 27, 2012)

If anyone is interested, here's part 1 of a five part sermon Phil gave back in 2010... You can see the rest on Youtube... Yes, he talks about homosexuality in there... No one got riled up when he did it before.. 

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_3MwBGsj7kw[/ame]


----------



## Raymond James (Apr 15, 2013)

I have not read A&E contract with Phil but I have never seen a work contract that did not have this type of clause. To argue otherwise is ridicules. 

I question if the person not believing that such a clause was in the contract has ever had a work contract. I suspect they have always been an hourly employee or worked in an informal setting without a written contract.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Raymond James said:


> An employer can fire you for saying inappropriate stuff at work.


He was Not Working at the time,. It was Not On the show Duck Dynasty This was an interview that took place BTW months ago by GQ Magazine. Not Part of A&E at all`!


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Raymond James said:


> I have not read A&E contract with Phil but I have never seen a work contract that did not have this type of clause. To argue otherwise is ridicules.
> 
> I question if the person not believing that such a clause was in the contract has ever had a work contract. I suspect they have always been an hourly employee or worked in an informal setting without a written contract.


I have a business with 187 employees. I have had entertainment industry contracts when I was a professional musician. I deal with contracts of all sorts daily. I can assure you, the only ones who know what is in Phil contract are A&E, Phil, and their attorneys. To state that all contracts contain code of conduct stipulations is ridiculous! I suspect that those stating otherwise, have never owned or run a business that deals with contract law on a daily basis.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

I have to question the integrity of those that pontificate about things they really don't know anything about and then make derogatory comments about others wanting facts instead of conjecture! :shrug:


----------



## Raymond James (Apr 15, 2013)

Semi-steading : it is not what he said but where. If he is in church and he is saying what the congregation believes it is the churches business. Say it while representing your show on the network and it is the networks business.

Thus the employer can and will take issue with an employee who they think says or does something that they do not agree with. 

Again he can think anything he wants and say what ever he wants just don't go whining when you lose our job over it. Especially trying to make a constitutional protection when none exist. The 1st only covers actions by the government. The government cannot go after him for what he said. Totally different when it comes to employer.


----------



## Raymond James (Apr 15, 2013)

The interview with the magazine was talking about the show. Thus was employment related. 

As to contracts I have had several myself and am aware of several hundred thousand that have this type of clause. If I were you I would consult my attorney as to why or why not your firms contracts do not have this in them. 

What would you do if an employee of yours started acting in such a manner as to bring bad publicity to your firm and adversely affecting your firms relationship with your customers. What recourse with out such a clause do you have.


----------



## Raymond James (Apr 15, 2013)

https://scontent-b-dfw.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-frc3/1501781_793403877343829_1062911820_n.jpg


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Raymond James said:


> The interview with the magazine was talking about the show. Thus was employment related.
> 
> As to contracts I have had several myself and am aware of several hundred thousand that have this type of clause. If I were you I would consult my attorney as to why or why not your firms contracts do not have this in them.
> 
> What would you do if an employee of yours started acting in such a manner as to bring bad publicity to your firm and adversely affecting your firms relationship with your customers. What recourse with out such a clause do you have.


If your directing this at me........court and other avenues. My customers are the government. I don't have anything contractual with my employees about conduct, theirs or mine! I haven't had any problems....yet. And when I was a musician, there were certainly no codes of conduct clauses! The entertainment industry LOVES irrational behavior!


----------



## KentuckyDreamer (Jan 20, 2012)

http://duckcommander.com/news/robertson-family-offical-statement

The family has released an official statement. To me, this just further shows they have class and are an honorable family. Heart breaking.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Raymond James said:


> https://scontent-b-dfw.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-frc3/1501781_793403877343829_1062911820_n.jpg


Bashir directed his comments directly toward Palin. They were vile personal attacks. What person was Phil directing his opinion at? There's a huge difference between those two!


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

KentuckyDreamer said:


> http://duckcommander.com/news/robertson-family-offical-statement
> 
> The family has released an official statement. To me, this just further shows they have class and are an honorable family. Heart breaking.


Thanks for the link! That's the way families should be! United!


----------



## Harry Chickpea (Dec 19, 2008)

Those of you talking about employment contracts might remember that in "right to work" states, the average person has no recourse for a boss terminating employment like was done here. Only the critical part of management and talent get to even consider the idea of an employment contract.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

I don't know a lot about industry contracts but would Charlie Sheen also have a code of conduct clause?


----------



## Tiempo (May 22, 2008)

KentuckyDreamer said:


> http://duckcommander.com/news/robertson-family-offical-statement
> 
> The family has released an official statement. To me, this just further shows they have class and are an honorable family. Heart breaking.


Heartbreaking???

It's a TV show. Perspective.

:smack


----------



## Tiempo (May 22, 2008)

wr said:


> I don't know a lot about industry contracts but would Charlie Sheen also have a code of conduct clause?


Probably, he got fired from his show right?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Tiempo said:


> Probably, he got fired from his show right?


Yes, for his free speech.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

JeffreyD said:


> Thanks for the link! That's the way families should be! United!


Yes that was good thanks for sharing it. Nice family and that is cool.


----------



## Brighton (Apr 14, 2013)

KentuckyDreamer said:


> http://duckcommander.com/news/robertson-family-offical-statement
> 
> The family has released an official statement. To me, this just further shows they have class and are an honorable family. Heart breaking.


Heart breaking, they have all the money and fame they need, and it is a TV SHOW, a mostly scripted TV SHOW!!


----------



## Roadking (Oct 8, 2009)

Some how, I am seeing smoke and mirrors...what is the story not being told?
Many often mention that folks are more interested in Idol or Dancing with whatever and gloss over the REAL issues/news.
Maybe I'm just a cynic, but something is afoot...this is drawing too much attention.

Matt


----------



## Pyrenees (Oct 23, 2004)

I could really care less about reality TV and employment contracts but...

Phil Robertson answers a direct question in print posed during an interview and the media goes bonkers.

Miley Cyrus goes on national primetime and...I don't even know how to put it into words...and the media just grins.

Sometimes I wish my kids would just let me be ignorant.


----------



## Tiempo (May 22, 2008)

The media went bonkers over Miley Cyrus too.

Next week it'll be someone else. Rinse and repeat.


----------



## ||Downhome|| (Jan 12, 2009)

Roadking said:


> Some how, I am seeing smoke and mirrors...what is the story not being told?
> Many often mention that folks are more interested in Idol or Dancing with whatever and gloss over the REAL issues/news.
> Maybe I'm just a cynic, but something is afoot...this is drawing too much attention.
> 
> Matt


Every one keeps saying he was Fired, which is incorrect.

The Network put him on a indefinite suspension from what I understand.

So they can call him back if it was a Blunder.

Which it was.

If you haven't noticed , certain networks have taken notice that the general public has shifted from the force fed programming.

Many of us are Red Necks and Hill Billies... 

I Identify more with the Robertson's then the Cosby's or Will and Grace.

Now the small group in the center, the ones that stated making the Noise,
Their pet was threatened and its a opportunity to push it back in everyone's face.

A&E stuck to the PC script... Going to cost them a Show it sounds like.

They did not take into account the reaction from the target audience,which identify with the Robertson's.

My facebook feeds been mostly about this and its all in support of Phil.

Even My very liberal family in Taxachusetts!


----------



## Oldcountryboy (Feb 23, 2008)

KentuckyDreamer said:


> http://duckcommander.com/news/robertson-family-offical-statement
> 
> The family has released an official statement. To me, this just further shows they have class and are an honorable family. Heart breaking.


Awesome family! 

Just to remind everyone, you are not condemned by God till you die the 1st death, have not received his son Jesus as your savior, and have not tried to better yourself. 

I said "Have not tried to better yourself". I say this because I believe that you can be a sinner with weakness and just cannot redeem yourself to look godly in the publics eye. I personally knew of a man who served in WWII and was captured by the Japenese and done the Batong Walk (or something like that) and he was tortured severely and saw a lot of his buddies totally mutulated. This caused a severe depression in him and he would always drink a lot. He was a alcoholic right up to his death. He always went to work, and he would attend church services if he wasn't on a drinking beng. He expressed his love for Jesus and credited him for saving his life during WWII. But he just could not stay away from alcohol when bothered by his past. So I believe that God maynot condem him for his drunkardness. Cause he tried! 

Now there maybe similar situations with a few homosexuals, lesbians, prostitutes, and various other sinners for whatever reason they have. And I believe if they are trying to be faithful and keep asking God for forgiveness, then they may have a right to pass through those Perly Gates to heaven. But only Jesus will have the right to do the judging, not us.


----------



## Tiempo (May 22, 2008)

A&E has just released the following statement regarding the Phil Robertson "The Duck Commander" controversy: 

"We know that Phil Robertson is a deeply religious man and our decision to suspend "Duck Dynasty" was not because of his recent statements to GQ magazine. Our decision was based in the Holy Scripture contained in Matthew 19:24 "Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.&#8221; 

We at A&E are deeply concerned about Phil's soul, in fact, we are as concerned about his soul as he is about all the homosexual's souls. Therefore, we have suspended Phil's income so that A&E, and all of its subsidiaries, are not complicit in the eternal ----ation of this brave and noble man's eternal soul.


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

Less than 5% (1/22 to be exact) of the TV viewing population in America watches that show. That's not a lot of people. If the show is discontinued it won't be any loss to A&E and it's only a very tiny percentage of the viewing population that will be disappointed to see their Duck Dynasty idols gone. For a little while. Then they'll find something else to watch and idolize. The other 95.something % of the viewing population will probably be happy to see that show gone.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

It had 11.5 Million viewers the Highest in Cable History for a Non Sports related programming. That is a HUGE amount of folks watching it. period~!


----------



## Oldcountryboy (Feb 23, 2008)

Tiempo said:


> A&E has just released the following statement regarding the Phil Robertson "The Duck Commander" controversy:
> 
> "We know that Phil Robertson is a deeply religious man and our decision to suspend "Duck Dynasty" was not because of his recent statements to GQ magazine. Our decision was based in the Holy Scripture contained in Matthew 19:24 "Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.â
> 
> We at A&E are deeply concerned about Phil's soul, in fact, we are as concerned about his soul as he is about all the homosexual's souls. Therefore, we have suspended Phil's income so that A&E, and all of its subsidiaries, are not complicit in the eternal ----ation of this brave and noble man's eternal soul.


It's not Phil's soul they should be concerned about, but their own. However, if this is the best comment A&E can come up with, then it don't sound as if they're intelligent enough to be running a t.v. channel to begin with.


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

arabian knight said:


> It had 11.5 Million viewers the Highest in Cable History for a Non Sports related programming. That is a HUGE amount of folks watching it. period~!


It has 14 million viewers. That is a very small percentage of the total viewing population.

Like I said, no loss to A&E and no loss to the other 95% of viewers who don't watch it.


----------



## ||Downhome|| (Jan 12, 2009)

Paumon said:


> Less than 5% (1/22 to be exact) of the TV viewing population in America watches that show. That's not a lot of people. If the show is discontinued it won't be any loss to A&E and it's only a very tiny percentage of the viewing population that will be disappointed to see their Duck Dynasty idols gone. For a little while. Then they'll find something else to watch and idolize. The other 95.something % of the viewing population will probably be happy to see that show gone.


Well they did not count me, or my brothers or any one else that was not participating in Nielsen Company Sweeps or like... 

http://splitsider.com/2011/01/why-nielsen-ratings-are-inaccurate-and-why-theyll-stay-that-way/
* "How Ratings Work*

Nielsen's ratings, in the most basic sense, are like a poll: a sample of people, which the company claims fully represents the TV-watching public, is asked to report their viewing habits back to Nielsen. These people, of which there are about 50,000 (in 20,000 households), are approached by Nielsen to participate, and paid a token amount for their time and effort. (This broad sample differentiates Nielsen from smaller competitors like TiVo, whose subscribers tend to be wealthier than average.)"

That is a very small sampling.


----------



## Wolfy-hound (May 5, 2013)

First: You cannot prove a negative. Also, no one can PROVE that Phil's contract has that clause or doesn't have that clause without having the actual contract. So no one in this thread can require proof in that manner. I've never heard of a contract of a high profile celebrity that did not contain such a clause myself. When you ask "Why would the Kardassians get to act that way etc etc?" it's because their networks and the viewers of those shows are fine with the Kardassian's behavior. If one of the family-oriented shows started saying that child sex was okay, then the network would dump them pretty much instantly. 

Charlie Sheen's behavior was actually because they fired him(or he was fired after/during his behavior) so I'm not certain he's a good example. The media was all over both Sheen and Miley's behaviors and are often all over the other celebrities that do dumb stuff or voice opinions that could be contentious. 


Again, it has nothing to do with Freedom of Speech.

Let's put it this way, if I worked for a church and I stood outside the church and said that Satan was better than God and people who go to church are stupid, do you think he church would be wrong in firing me? I don't think so. I would be hurting the church's image(and being extremely stupid).

It would not affect my freedom of speech, because #1 the government wouldn't be coming to get me for speaking my opinion, and #2 because not one person was keeping me from voicing my opinion. No one is telling Phil that he can't voice HIS opinion. A&E is simply saying that they don't want Phil representing them and that's their right too. Just as the church would be saying they no longer want to pay me to represent them.

Heart-breaking is hardly a term I'd use, it's a tv show. If they fire Phil and cancel the show, I highly doubt it will much affect Phil or the rest of the family. Phil doesn't strike me as someone who is going to change his life or let a TV show affect how he does things. People who are avid watchers of the show will get mad, declare they'll never watch A&E, threaten to write letters... then most of them will watch whatever next TV show catches their interest, never write anything more deep than a post on their facebook wall or a comment on a news article online and forget about it mostly.

Life will go on. Some folks will continue to try to say hateful things, claim it's not hateful and some will try to sugarcoat comments to try to say they aren't hurtful, people will continue to ignore the love and tolerance that would better the whole stinking nation.

And the nation will continue to slide.. not because some people might love someone of the same sex... not because blacks have rights... not because food stamps or Obamacare exists... but because the people of this country find it better to divide and point fingers and hate rather than to love each other, help those who need it and try to fix all the stuff that's wrong.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Paumon said:


> It has 14 million viewers. That is a very small percentage of the total viewing population.
> 
> Like I said, no loss to A&E and no loss to the other 95% of viewers who don't watch it.


 You are forgetting the "Other" media around. Social Media. Millions are following such things as this Around the World On Facebook, Twitter, and others as well. This is now a Well Connected World Wide Media that has not only followed DD but now are getting behind the whole Duck Dynasty phenomenon. They don't even have to have a TV or Cable, just a Smart Phone and the internet Period.


----------



## Wendy (May 10, 2002)

> If they fire Phil and cancel the show, I highly doubt it will much affect Phil or the rest of the family.


I was thinking the same thing. I really doubt he would care if the show was canceled. They do not seem to be people that would lose any sleep over it. I for one would hate the attention & having no privacy, no matter how much money I made.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Paumon said:


> It has 14 million viewers. That is a very small percentage of the total viewing population.
> 
> Like I said, no loss to A&E and no loss to the other 95% of viewers who don't watch it.


Having been in the industry and having family(mostly) born and raised in the entertainment industry, losing 50000 viewers, let alone 500,000 is a catastrophe of epic proportion! This show sell ads for more than all the other shows combined. A&E is stroking out about this, I guarantee they are. The Lost viewership will cost them millions every week! Somebody WILL be fired (or if their lucky, resign) over this for sure.


----------



## Jeffery (Oct 25, 2011)

If A&E cancels the show some other network will certainly pick it up.
May not be a bad thing.


----------



## dkhern (Nov 30, 2012)

i read a&e was making 400 million off products. thats serious money in corp america.

i dont see this as 1st admn issue but it probally could warrent an investigation by eeoc. cant discriminate based on sex, race, marrital stattus, age or religon. in right to work states you can fire someone because their brown eyes arent blue but you better not fire someone because of their religous beliefs. regardless it will be intersting to watch this play out.


----------



## dixiegal62 (Aug 18, 2007)

I still don't really get why people are up in arms about this. Yeah PR named what he considered a sin and being gay was among the list. So was drunkards and greedy and adulterers and I don't see anyone getting all bent out of shape about the others on the list. Where are those sinners activists? Why is nobody standing up for their rights? Is it because gay rights activists think they are beneath them and not worthy of defense? Wouldn't that make them bigots?
They zeroed in on the word beastologist and said PH insulted gays therefor he was a bigot BUT yesterday there was a lot of talking by gay supporters about how animals perform homosexual acts too... some dumb bunny on the news said, "Ducks are gay too!" Nobody is up in arms about gays being considered no better than dumb animals. There was a time when blacks where considered no better than animals, evidentially many gay supporters feel the same about them and gays are embracing the comparison. Someone tell me how that makes any sense!


----------



## Becka03 (Mar 29, 2009)

Tiempo said:


> A&E has just released the following statement regarding the Phil Robertson "The Duck Commander" controversy:
> 
> "We know that Phil Robertson is a deeply religious man and our decision to suspend "Duck Dynasty" was not because of his recent statements to GQ magazine. Our decision was based in the Holy Scripture contained in Matthew 19:24 "Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.â
> 
> We at A&E are deeply concerned about Phil's soul, in fact, we are as concerned about his soul as he is about all the homosexual's souls. Therefore, we have suspended Phil's income so that A&E, and all of its subsidiaries, are not complicit in the eternal ----ation of this brave and noble man's eternal soul.


Yea cause A&E totally has bible study before each show is produced:gaptooth:


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

dixiegal62 said:


> I still don't really get why people are up in arms about this. Yeah PR named *what he considered a sin* and being gay was among the list.
> 
> *So was drunkards and greedy and adulterers *
> and I don't see anyone getting all bent out of shape about the others on the list.
> ...


It does not make sense.
It will not make sense, no matter how you spin it.

What is the best way to get 'attention'? 
Do something outrageous.

What is the best way to boost revenue?
Do something outrageous, that grabs, attention.

And so the circle is complete.

Shut your mouth, put one foot in front of the other and do as the master says.


----------



## Dixie Bee Acres (Jul 22, 2013)

Jeffery said:


> If A&E cancels the show some other network will certainly pick it up.
> May not be a bad thing.


Possibly, but not likely. I don't know for sure, as I have no access to their contracts, (and from what I have seen in this thread, you can't make blanket or generally speaking type comments without being ridiculed), but there may be some sort of a no compete clause. 
If the show is taken on by another network, it would likely have a new name, and varied content.


Note to add: I have no true knowledge of any contracts between any personality and/or their networks. I do not know any persons personal or business information. I do not know their banking info nor their underwear size or ovulation cycles.
You know who you are, please do not construe my oppinions as absolute factual statements and try to cause unneeded drama by dragging out anything stated as across the board fact.


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

I know of one network that has stated they would work with Duck D.


----------



## Nate_in_IN (Apr 5, 2013)

Tiempo said:


> A&E has just released the following statement regarding the Phil Robertson "The Duck Commander" controversy:
> 
> "We know that Phil Robertson is a deeply religious man and our decision to suspend "Duck Dynasty" was not because of his recent statements to GQ magazine. Our decision was based in the Holy Scripture contained in Matthew 19:24 "Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.â
> 
> We at A&E are deeply concerned about Phil's soul, in fact, we are as concerned about his soul as he is about all the homosexual's souls. Therefore, we have suspended Phil's income so that A&E, and all of its subsidiaries, are not complicit in the eternal ----ation of this brave and noble man's eternal soul.


I can't believe A&E would have made this an official statement. Aren't they saying they terminated his employment because they feel he is too rich, and in their religious beliefs that would prevent him from acceptance into Heaven? This is firmly against Federal Labor Laws. Can you provide a link?

I tell you what, if you support this logic then you would also support employers firing employees because they used birth control, or obtained an abortion. An employer should not fire an employee because they do not practice a certain religion.


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

Oldcountryboy said:


> It's not Phil's soul they should be concerned about, but their own. However, if this is the best comment A&E can come up with, then it don't sound as if they're intelligent enough to be running a t.v. channel to begin with.


I find it real had that they said anything so , well (?), dumb.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Nate_in_IN said:


> I can't believe A&E would have made this an official statement. Aren't they saying they terminated his employment because they feel he is too rich, and in their religious beliefs that would prevent him from acceptance into Heaven? This is firmly against Federal Labor Laws. Can you provide a link?
> 
> I tell you what, if you support this logic then you would also support employers firing employees because they used birth control, or obtained an abortion. An employer should not fire an employee because they do not practice a certain religion.


It was a joke.


----------



## dixiegal62 (Aug 18, 2007)

7thswan said:


> I know of one network that has stated they would work with Duck D.


Even if another network took them I doubt the show would be the same. It wouldn't be the same format that it's fans love. They might be able to make it work but generally fans of shows don't like change.

People are right when saying it's just a tv show but I know in our family we look forward to Wed night very much because it's on the air. It's been a long time since we where all very excited about tv night, there just aren't many choices out there anymore. Phil reminds me of my husband and who doesn't have a relative like Uncle Si? Miss Kay is a sweet heart. Yeah it's just a reality show but the Roberson family won my families heart from the get-go.


----------



## KentuckyDreamer (Jan 20, 2012)

It is "just a show". But to some of us, it was about the only show worth watching. I saw a post recently in which a man said the Robertson family "makes him want to be a better man...not perfect, but better". I like that. 

This is the only show where I feel better after watching. It is the only show I can watch with my 3 sons and we all enjoy it...they are 33, 24, and almost 9, and as different as can be. 

It is of concern to me because it seems as if the pendulum has swung too far to one side and I just want at least a middle ground.


----------



## dixiegal62 (Aug 18, 2007)

painterswife said:


> It was a joke.


A joke at the expense of Christian values? How tolerant of the op!


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

dixiegal62 said:


> A joke at the expense of Christian values? How tolerant of the op!


I never said it was a good or bad joke, just sharing my opinion that it was a joke.


----------



## Nate_in_IN (Apr 5, 2013)

painterswife said:


> It was a joke.


I would hope so. Guess I took the hook. Has A&E made an official statement as to the cause of the suspension?


----------



## Centralilrookie (Jul 12, 2012)

Just a thought....did A&E somehow see this shows popularity going down and create this whole media blitz to rejuvenate show ratings? I distrust the media and feel that they have the power to manipulate the masses. This being said, I do support his right to express his beliefs and the content of what he said.


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

Centralilrookie said:


> Just a thought....did A&E somehow see this shows popularity going down and create this whole media blitz to rejuvenate show ratings? I distrust the media and feel that they have the power to manipulate the masses. This being said, I do support his right to express his beliefs and the content of what he said.


Never know, they sure don't want anyone to focus on the train wreck of obamacare.


----------



## Tabitha (Apr 10, 2006)

Centralilrookie said:


> Just a thought....did A&E somehow see this shows popularity going down and create this whole media blitz to rejuvenate show ratings? I distrust the media and feel that they have the power to manipulate the masses. This being said, I do support his right to express his beliefs and the content of what he said.


If that were so, he would be the worst shyster and no Christian. 

To post #70.
Turning words in people's mouth. 
He said he worked with blacks in the fields and they were happy and singing. He said he saw no animosity. 
That is his experience. Did you work with blacks in the fields in the day? How would you know how they were? 

I was dirt poor, barefooted, not enough clothing to keep warm in winter, I worked in the field, not with blacks but with my grandmother, and I was happy and singing harmony.
When you are hard up in a natural setting, every nice little thing weighs so much more and is a source of happiness. I have never been dirtpoor in the city, but I can imagine seeing fancy stores and well off people would have a different impact. 

Years ago , the black Base Chaplain would stop by my shop a lot and we talked a lot about the good ole days, He was rural SC. He was not too impressed with modern society.


----------



## simi-steading (Sep 27, 2012)

dixiegal62 said:


> So was drunkards and greedy and adulterers and I don't see anyone getting all bent out of shape about the others on the list.


Some probably are bent out of shape, but too drunk or too busy adulterating to say anything.. 

The real reason is, is because being drunk, greedy, or an adulterer isn't socially acceptable yet.. Ok, well, maybe being greedy is, at least in the greedy social circle.. 

Gay people have pushed their agenda for a long time to become socially acceptable.. and I'll really boil that down to more like being socially tolerated... Many people still have gay fears, yet they know not to speak of them, or else they will be publicly humiliated too.. 

Until the day drunks and such stand up and demand the same respect, since their problems could be considered a medical disease or a disability, they won't get a say in anything since they are looked down upon..

The way things have been changing so much though with sexuality, adultery is becoming more tolerated than it's ever been... Some day, who knows, it may be pushed and we all gotta share our lovers..


----------



## dixiegal62 (Aug 18, 2007)

simi-steading said:


> Some probably are bent out of shape, but too drunk or too busy adulterating to say anything..
> 
> The real reason is, is because being drunk, greedy, or an adulterer isn't socially acceptable yet.. Ok, well, maybe being greedy is, at least in the greedy social circle..
> 
> ...


Some would argue being an alcoholic is not a choice and some people are born with the predisposition to be an addict. Even if they stopped drinking alcohol and switched to say ice tea, they would always crave the alcohol. Not much difference. Some would also say humans where not meant to mate for life and it goes against their basic instinct.


----------



## grandma12703 (Jan 13, 2011)

I love all human beings. I am Christian and I am a sinner. Would I treat anyone differently because they were gay, no. Would I tell folks in an interview that I have nothing against being gay...NO! Would I tell them why...YES! Would I try to use scripture to accomplish this...YES. He did not say anything against A gay person, he only stated what his Bible tells him is right and wrong about a gay lifestyle (as well as other things) and expressed his own beliefs based on the Bible's teachings. 

Now, I just question why it is not considered to be offensive when many television shows right now encourage gay lifestyles. I hear them make jokes towards heterosexual relationships and no one says a word. Why one way only?


----------



## Jeffery (Oct 25, 2011)

Tiempo's comment was a joke. A&E made no such statement.


----------



## homstdr74 (Jul 4, 2011)

Wolfy-hound said:


> *So no one cares about him basically saying blacks were better off before they had rights too?*
> 
> It's not just gays he bashed(and yes, saying basically that the morals of america going downhill is due to gays, then lumping gays with bestiality and such IS bashing), but also saying that blacks were happier when they was out pickin' cotton for the white man(past of the rest of his statement was how happy and singing the blacks were while working the fields).
> 
> His statements weren't THAT extreme, but personally I feel that he definitely said gay people are bad people(for the country) and that blacks were better off before they had rights. I wouldn't support someone who believes that. I wouldn't hire him to work for me nor want him making statements with my name attached to it.


So, basically, you're saying that the guy's a racist because he was describing *the folks who he worked with* in the fields? What, you think this guy was some sort of eccentric millionaire who chose to hoe the fields? He was right there with them; if there is one thing most anyone who has ever been around blacks knows, it's that most of them know how to laugh. They can laugh through almost anything, and make fun of anything that happens to them. I don't know why, but it's a fact. So he was only reporting what he saw. 

If you want to know what racism looks like, here's some racism for you: 

"I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy. I mean, that's a storybook, man." --Joe Biden on Barack Obama


----------



## simi-steading (Sep 27, 2012)

grandma12703 said:


> Now, I just question why it is not considered to be offensive when many television shows right now encourage gay lifestyles. I hear them make jokes towards heterosexual relationships and no one says a word. Why one way only?


It's kinda like the same thing when they started putting quotas on how many minorities a college or school had to admit.. They would pass over whites, because they had to have so many non whites.. .

The white population became the ones being discriminated against, in the name of not being discriminating... White were forced to be silent, or else they them selves would accused of being racist.. 

It's pretty much impossible to not offend anyone while trying to pander to someone else...


----------



## Centralilrookie (Jul 12, 2012)

In reply to post #140-

I never considered that Mr. Robertson was a part of any kind of corporate ratings scheme. This type of thing could only be dreamed up by media powers for their own gain. I'm sorry if I didn't explain myself well enough.


----------



## SteveD(TX) (May 14, 2002)

If this hasn't been said already, it needs to be. I got this off of Facebook, and believe it to be true. 

If you support Phil Robertson's right to say what he believes, and think A&E is wrong in firing him, please do this when buying their merchandise:

"DUCK COMMANDER" branded items are owned by the Robertson family. Buy these.

"DUCK DYNASTY" branded items are owned by A&E. Do NOT buy these.


----------



## galfriend (Nov 19, 2004)

I haven't watched any tv in years, so I've never watched the show myself. Have seen headline news lately about the show. Recently wasn't one of them in trouble for mentioning God repeatedly? Now this latest headline news maker. 

It would be nice for a change if someone actually lives by what they said and not saying something for that all mighty dollar. Sounds like neither of them (A&E or the Robertson family) had done their home work and read that contract.


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

SteveD(TX) said:


> If this hasn't been said already, it needs to be. I got this off of Facebook, and believe it to be true.
> 
> If you support Phil Robertson's right to say what he believes, and think A&E is wrong in firing him, please do this when buying their merchandise:
> 
> ...


Thank You for posting that, I was just comeing here to ask. I have shopping to do. And I do not even watch DD.


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

See, that is what some of us wounder, some of us that belive what the Bible says. Ok, so people are born attracted to the same sex, it doesn't meen that they have to act on those impulses. There is such a thing as self control,choice,Will ect. A whole mess of Sinners that don't want to hear THAT in Any shape , form or....


----------



## Dixie Bee Acres (Jul 22, 2013)

7thSwan,
I agree with the "don't act on their impulses"
No different from being so enraged at someone that you want to hurt or kill them. What seperates one from the other, is one learns to control themselves and act correctly, the other doesn't.


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

Yup, if we are all born with our own cross to bear, that cross can come in many forms. The Bible, Faith, Love, these things are the roadmap to make our way thru it.


----------



## SeanInVa (Oct 3, 2013)

simi-steading said:


> It's kinda like the same thing when they started putting quotas on how many minorities a college or school had to admit.. They would pass over whites, because they had to have so many non whites.. .
> 
> The white population became the ones being discriminated against, in the name of not being discriminating... White were forced to be silent, or else they them selves would accused of being racist..
> 
> It's pretty much impossible to not offend anyone while trying to pander to someone else...


Temporary thread hijack - this works both ways in some places. My step daughter was admitted to "Head Start" in the city before we moved. Why? They needed at least one white child per class.

That said, racial "minimums" in schools(or anywhere) are a joke - it's affirmative action for schools.

/back to your regularly scheduled Duck Dynasty discussion


----------



## MullersLaneFarm (Jul 23, 2004)

dixiegal62 said:


> A joke at the expense of Christian values? How tolerant of the op!


Oh crickey! It we can't laugh at ourselves, who can we laugh at? :stars:


----------



## Guest (Dec 20, 2013)

Gee..I'm 65 years old..I lived in the deep South when I was a child..had Black neighbors, went to school with Blacks..never once did I witness any kind of verbal or physical attacks upon even ONE of the Black people whom I knew..we were all poor..I, like Phil Robertson, would say that the Black people I associated with behaved just as happily as anyone else..

Does that mean that I am unaware that there were numerous atrocities in that time frame, racially motivated.?? Of course not..it means that I personally didn't witness any..just because a person is old enough to have experienced the South in the 1950's, does not logically follow that we saw lynchings, beatings, and cross burnings..not witnessing an event does not translate into, "that never happened."


----------



## Tiempo (May 22, 2008)

7thswan said:


> See, that is what some of us wounder, some of us that belive what the Bible says. Ok, so people are born attracted to the same sex, it doesn't meen that they have to act on those impulses. There is such a thing as self control,choice,Will ect. A whole mess of Sinners that don't want to hear THAT in Any shape , form or....


So they should stay celibate and lonely because it makes some other people feel squicked out?

That's so incredibly selfish.


----------



## Tiempo (May 22, 2008)

Dixie Bee Acres said:


> 7thSwan,
> I agree with the "don't act on their impulses"
> No different from being so enraged at someone that you want to hurt or kill them. What seperates one from the other, is one learns to control themselves and act correctly, the other doesn't.


It TOTALLY different! 

You're saying love that falls outside your definition of love is the same as hurting or killing someone.

Dang.


----------



## CraterCove (Jan 24, 2011)

So sex is the only way to react to love? That seems pretty shallow.


----------



## Tiempo (May 22, 2008)

CraterCove said:


> So sex is the only way to react to love? That seems pretty shallow.


Of course it isn't and I didn't say it was the 'only' way, but why shouldn't a committed couple who love each other be able to do what the heck they want in private?

Why is it anyone else's business?


----------



## Dixie Bee Acres (Jul 22, 2013)

Tiempo said:


> It TOTALLY different!
> 
> You're saying love that falls outside your definition of love is the same as hurting or killing someone.
> 
> Dang.


Well, sin is sin. Only one sin is looked upon harsher than all others, that is blastphemy of the Holy Spirit. Otherwise, pride, lust, fornication, adultery, etc, etc are all measured equally as sin.


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

Tiempo said:


> Of course it isn't and I didn't say it was the 'only' way, but why shouldn't a committed couple who love each other be able to do what the heck they want* in private*?
> 
> Why is it *anyone else's business*?


AMEN AMEN AMEN

Private
No one else's business.

You do your thing, and I will do mine.
I will not try to infringe on your thing and don't infringe on my thing.

I'm not gonna tell you what goes on in my bedroom.
I don't wana hear what goes on in yours.

There are not separate restroooms, water fountains, bus seats for those who are in same sex relationships. Calm down.

I won't ask you to celebrate hertoseuxality.
Don't ask me to celebrate homosexuality.

It seems so dang easy?


----------



## Tiempo (May 22, 2008)

Dixie Bee Acres said:


> Well, sin is sin. Only one sin is looked upon harsher than all others, that is blastphemy of the Holy Spirit. Otherwise, pride, lust, fornication, adultery, etc, etc are all measured equally as sin.


Only if that's what you chose to believe. Personally I don't believe in sin.

Dandy if you believe in it. Those who do should spend more time working on their own and leave others out of it.


----------



## Dixie Bee Acres (Jul 22, 2013)

Tiempo said:


> So they should stay celibate and lonely because it makes some other people feel squicked out?
> 
> That's so incredibly selfish.


No, not because it "squicks" me out, but because otherwise it is wrong. As defined by our creator and YOURs and my savior.


----------



## Tiempo (May 22, 2008)

Not mine.


----------



## Dixie Bee Acres (Jul 22, 2013)

Tiempo said:


> Only if that's what you chose to believe. Personally I don't believe in sin.
> 
> Dandy if you believe in it. Those who do should spend more time working on their own and leave others out of it.


I agree, everyone should work on their own sins. Lets face it, only one man ever walked this planet without sin.
But I also try to not openly flaunt my sins and take pride in them.


----------



## Dixie Bee Acres (Jul 22, 2013)

Tiempo said:


> Not mine.


Then i truely feel sorry for you.


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

Tiempo said:


> So they should stay celibate and lonely because it makes some other people feel squicked out?
> 
> That's so incredibly selfish.


Has nothing to do with being "squicked out". You really think people can't live without sex? So you are saying rules are selfish,laws are selfish,ect. I do realize this is why some do not want to belive in a religion, because it is all about their desires and they resent being told what they Desire is Wrong.


----------



## Tiempo (May 22, 2008)

Dixie Bee Acres said:


> Then i truely feel sorry for you.


No need, I'm content.


----------



## Tiempo (May 22, 2008)

7thswan said:


> Has nothing to do with being "squicked out". You really think people can't live without sex? So you are saying rules are selfish,laws are selfish,ect. I do realize this is why some do not want to belive in a religion, because it is all about their desires and they resent being told what they Desire is Wrong.


The point is, why should they have to because someone else thinks it wrong?

Someone for whom it's absolutely none of their business?


----------



## Dixie Bee Acres (Jul 22, 2013)

Tiempo said:


> The point is, why should they have to because someone else thinks it wrong?
> 
> Someone for whom it's absolutely none of their business?


I see the direction you are coming from, but, I must say, moral decay and the degredation of society is everyones business.

I'm sure Phil would agree, the entire purpose of sex is for procreation, I have yet to see that happen any way other than a man and a woman.


----------



## CraterCove (Jan 24, 2011)

Tiempo said:


> Only if that's what you chose to believe. Personally I don't believe in sin.
> 
> Dandy if you believe in it. Those who do should spend more time working on their own and leave others out of it.


People who don't believe in sin shouldn't be seen posting anything negative about any behavior someone else chooses. I mean, if nothing is wrong then everything must be acceptable.


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

Tiempo said:


> The point is, why should they have to because someone else thinks it wrong?
> 
> Someone for whom it's absolutely none of their business?


Noone has said anything about what you are changing the subject to.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

God for those who want him, no God for those that that don't. I just wish those that have chosen would stop telling those who chose the opposite that they are wrong in their choice.


----------



## Tiempo (May 22, 2008)

CraterCove said:


> People who don't believe in sin shouldn't be seen posting anything negative about any behavior someone else chooses. I mean, if nothing is wrong then everything must be acceptable.


Not at all, not believing in the concept of sin does not preclude someone from having a concept of right and wrong.


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

painterswife said:


> God for those who want him, no God for those that that don't. I just wish those that have chosen would stop telling those who chose the opposite that they are wrong in their choice.


Ya, sure. But you are all for the government dictateing that I have to buy health insurance. There is a word for that.


----------



## KentuckyDreamer (Jan 20, 2012)

Just a question; no judgement. If sin is sin, and the Bible has all sin as equal with the exception of blasphemy, how do we approach those that are overweight, unwed parents, those who are jealous, etc ? Those are listed sins and are quite visable to others. I have put on a number of pounds the past five years and I KNOW I ALONE am responsible AND I was gluttonous. I was eating more than what my body needed, more than it could use, and it was not my right to take that food from others, let alone the effect on the environment my over eating has created. 

My sin is visable, it is out there, and Biblically, it is equal to adultery, homesexuality, etc.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

7thswan said:


> Ya, sure. But you are all for the government dictateing that I have to buy health insurance. There is a word for that.


I find that part of the problem, government and laws about health care have nothing to do with anyones belief in God. Just as a law against murder does not have anything to do with someone not believing in God.


----------



## Dixie Bee Acres (Jul 22, 2013)

KentuckyDreamer said:


> Just a question; no judgement. If sin is sin, and the Bible has all sin as equal with the exception of blasphemy, how do we approach those that are overweight, unwed parents, those who are jealous, etc ? Those are listed sins and are quite visable to others. I have put on a number of pounds the past five years and I KNOW I ALONE am responsible AND I was gluttonous. I was eating more than what my body needed, more than it could use, and it was not my right to take that food from others, let alone the effect on the environment my over eating has created.
> 
> My sin is visable, it is out there, and Biblically, it is equal to adultery, homesexuality, etc.


I don't know what your question, exactly, is, nor do I have all the answers. In my oppinion, I can only offer advice. If you realize you are living with a sin, it can only be rectified by how or what you choose to deal with it.

Years ago, pride and lust became the two biggest sins in my life. I lived on my Harleys. If I wasnt on my bikes, i was thinking about them. Showing off on them because of how proud i was of my bikes. And I spent more time on my bikes, and partying, and lusting after every cute lady I came across.

This almost cost me my family before I finally woke up, consciously realized what I had been doing. I walked away from the lifestyle. I kept 3 of my bikes for a couple more years, this year I ended up giving them up.

Point is, I realized my sin, and quit. All sin, other than blastphemy is forgivable, all you have to do is repent of your sin and ask for forgiveness.


----------



## jwal10 (Jun 5, 2010)

I thought I heard or saw where Phil was not going to be on the show much in 2014, they were bringing in the beardless Son. Wasn't he on the show this year? I do not have TV but I think I saw it somewhere....James


----------



## CraterCove (Jan 24, 2011)

Tiempo said:


> Not at all, not believing in the concept of sin does not preclude someone from having a concept of right and wrong.


Well, my sense of right and wrong is likely different from yours. God related or not, there is a concept of sin against natural law and the universe.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

"Religion is sort of like a lift in your shoes. If it makes you feel better, fine. Just don't ask me to wear your shoes." George Carlin


----------



## Brighton (Apr 14, 2013)

Dixie Bee Acres said:


> I'm sure Phil would agree, the entire purpose of sex is for procreation.


WHAT???? Then why do post menopausal women who are in relationships still have sex?


----------



## big rockpile (Feb 24, 2003)

bostonlesley said:


> Gee..I'm 65 years old..I lived in the deep South when I was a child..had Black neighbors, went to school with Blacks..never once did I witness any kind of verbal or physical attacks upon even ONE of the Black people whom I knew..we were all poor..I, like Phil Robertson, would say that the Black people I associated with behaved just as happily as anyone else..
> 
> Does that mean that I am unaware that there were numerous atrocities in that time frame, racially motivated.?? Of course not..it means that I personally didn't witness any..just because a person is old enough to have experienced the South in the 1950's, does not logically follow that we saw lynchings, beatings, and cross burnings..not witnessing an event does not translate into, "that never happened."


 Chopped Cotton and Beans back in the days he talks of, we all made $1 an hour, worked 10 hour day. When we wasn't doing this we picked produce at Truck Farms. If you was lucky later you had a Job at the Cotton Jen. In Louisiana you was either rich or poor, never count on the rich they were crooks and would rob you, my best friends that I could depend on was black.

big rockpile


----------



## CraterCove (Jan 24, 2011)

Brighton said:


> WHAT???? Then why do post menopausal women who are in relationships still have sex?


Dude, because it feels good. The reason it feels good is because it's designed to make procreation attractive. Of course humans have emotional reasons for it as well but; the whole reason for sex is procreation... the recreation of it all is there to make us forget how onerous carrying a child can be


----------



## Tiempo (May 22, 2008)

CraterCove said:


> Well, my sense of right and wrong is likely different from yours. God related or not, there is a concept of sin against natural law and the universe.


Clearly we disagree.


----------



## dixiegal62 (Aug 18, 2007)

Tiempo said:


> Only if that's what you chose to believe. Personally I don't believe in sin.
> 
> Dandy if you believe in it. Those who do should spend more time working on their own and leave others out of it.


 
You don't believe in sin and that is your right. It's also your right to voice your belief if asked, or even if you just feel it needs to be said. Isn't it? Or should you have to lie to appease other people?


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

painterswife said:


> God for those who want him, no God for those that that don't. I just wish those that have chosen would stop telling those who chose the opposite that they are wrong in their choice.


 And Phil Robertson was NOT taling to you in any way. This was a interview done for THOSE that READ Gentlemen's Quarterly.
And should not be considered that article addressing anyone else only THOSE readers. And A&E did a Knee Jerk Reaction and Made something out of of this and went WAY WAY overboard and now look where they are. Probably going to lose the entire SHOW, just for not Waiting to see what would happen IF anything at all would stake place. Had they not acted like this Nothing Absolutely Nothing would have been come of this, and being this and having them lose the best rated show on Cable TV.


----------



## dixiegal62 (Aug 18, 2007)

painterswife said:


> God for those who want him, no God for those that that don't. I just wish those that have chosen would stop telling those who chose the opposite that they are wrong in their choice.


Good to know you feel this way. So you feel PR had the right to say what he believes without being told he was wrong.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

dixiegal62 said:


> Good to know you feel this way. So you feel PR had the right to say what he believes without being told he was wrong.


Actually I do. I personally don't care what he believes. I also don't think that free speech should make you lose your job unless you are voicing that speech in the work place. The laws in the US allow that though.


----------



## Brighton (Apr 14, 2013)

CraterCove said:


> Dude, because it feels good. The reason it feels good is because it's designed to make procreation attractive. Of course humans have emotional reasons for it as well but; the whole reason for sex is procreation... the recreation of it all is there to make us forget how onerous carrying a child can be


Um, Dude, I am not a Dude! We are all animals, and I am pretty sure my old female barn cat was NOT enjoying it when the local Tom Cat came around.


----------



## Buffy in Dallas (May 10, 2002)

For those of you on Facebook.

https://www.facebook.com/Philrobertsonsupport


----------



## sidepasser (May 10, 2002)

Wolfy-hound said:


> So no one cares about him basically saying blacks were better off before they had rights too?
> 
> It's not just gays he bashed(and yes, saying basically that the morals of america going downhill is due to gays, then lumping gays with bestiality and such IS bashing), but also saying that blacks were happier when they was out pickin' cotton for the white man(past of the rest of his statement was how happy and singing the blacks were while working the fields).
> 
> ...


Actually he believes the same as I do: hate the sin, love the sinner and he stated that in the interview here:

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journa...k-dynasty-roberts-compared-bestiality-to-gays

*And here is something else Robertson said that is getting almost no media play:*

_Our culture has accepted two huge lies. The first is that if you disagree with someoneâs lifestyle, you must fear or hate them. The second is that to love someone means you agree with everything they believe or do. Both are nonsense. You donât have to compromise convictions to be compassionate.
Anti-Christian CNN is not only lying about what Robertson said; they are putting all Christians in a ----ed if you do or don't situation. If you single out homosexual behavior, you're a bigot. If you talk about the many sins listed in the Bible, you are comparing those sins._


----------



## sidepasser (May 10, 2002)

big rockpile said:


> Chopped Cotton and Beans back in the days he talks of, we all made $1 an hour, worked 10 hour day. When we wasn't doing this we picked produce at Truck Farms. If you was lucky later you had a Job at the Cotton Jen. In Louisiana you was either rich or poor, never count on the rich they were crooks and would rob you, my best friends that I could depend on was black.
> 
> big rockpile


I too am a product of the old south, my granny had sharecroppers and I hoed beans with them. We all worked together and not once did my granny put up with anyone talking down to her help. Matter of fact, she gave them a plot of land, porkers and took care of them till they died and payed for their burial.

I swear folks think that every.black.person in the south prior to 1970 was mistreated, ill treated, lied to, talked bad about and that is not the way of it for many in the south. My granny made sure that her help was cared for, had medical help and was PAID fairly and had a house (lot nicer house than many white folk had too).

The problem is that there is a vocal contingent of folks (both black and white) that can't see past the wrongs that was done (and yes, there was some more wrongs done including hanging and burning whites that supported blacks - my granny kept a shotgun right handy cause she was visited by the KKK more than once). I was one of the first white kids to go to an all black school..yep, that was intergration in our little town, ship the whites to the black school and the blacks to the white school. Most whites refused to send their kids..not my mom. I got right on the bus and went. Lots of police on both sides of the walk way, I was more scared of them than the black kids. I was raised going to school with black kids, I was raised in the military where I didn't think nothing of playing with black kids and they played with me. 

But in podunk little Ga. cracker town, it was a big.deal. Again, my family was in the forefront on making sure that there wasn't "never no mind" paid to how I got schooling as long as I went. 

But there is no credit given to the WHITES who, like Phil Robertson, grew up in the cotton and bean fields with blacks. I did, my cousins did. We are not one bit different than the black folks that hoed beans. Folks gotta eat and if the beans weren't hoed and picked, we wasn't eating.

"Our" blacks were not complaining because they had a JOB, a HOUSE, medical care and went to school. The whites weren't complaining neither cause we had the same thing. Matter of fact my granny's help had more land than my parents. My granny GAVE them the land, we had to buy ours.

So make of that what you will, those who grew up like Phil and myself, we know. We helped make a difference, and no one now days gives a fat rat's patoot about it. All folks care about nowdays is "how the black folk are downtrodden". 

Maybe they are. In some areas. Just like there are white folks downtrodden in some areas. Life ain't all that and a bag of chips for any of us.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

sidepasser, thanks for the additional quote from the article and I really enjoyed reading you perspective in life in that particular era. I found it fascinating.


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

> If sin is sin, and the Bible has all sin as equal with the exception of blasphemy, how do we approach those that are overweight, unwed parents, those who are jealous, etc ?


Those are OK sins because they don't creep me out. 
Consequently, THOSE sinners can get married... (Or continue to eat Pringles and peppermint Kisses, as the case may be)


----------



## CraterCove (Jan 24, 2011)

Brighton said:


> Um, Dude, I am not a Dude! We are all animals, and I am pretty sure my old female barn cat was NOT enjoying it when the local Tom Cat came around.


Everyone is a dude, I'm from California.

And just how do you know? Why did she 'back up on that' if she didn't get something out of it? And where did I say that human's weren't animals? Don't really understand what you comment has to do with menopausal females and sex...


----------



## Rural Economist (Dec 14, 2013)

I just think its funny that everyone wants to be the victim so bad. They do not realize by willingly being a victim they give someone victory over them.


----------



## sidepasser (May 10, 2002)

I grew up in two different worlds, one was the military but every time my dad deployed overseas, we were shipped to "granny's" to live. Last time was for three years straight while my dad was in Vietnam. I lived there off and on from 61 - 77. I graduated HS in 77, my granny passed away at age 80. She was born in 1899. When living with her, we did things "her way". Wasn't no back talk, and we sure wouldn't question her ideas. 

She was quite a little spit fire too, by little I mean around 5"1" tall and maybe 85 lbs. soaking wet. She kept a big "truck" garden which is what I speak of regarding the bean hoeing. We hoed all day long in that garden, it was well over an acre and there were tomatoes, beans, corn, okra, squash, onions - whatever she thought would "sell" in the village (the mill village). What didn't sell was canned up by my her and my mom.

She had help - her help had been there since my mom was little. Moot and "Foot" and I have no clue what their given names were, that was what they called each other and what I called them "Mr. Moot" and Mr. Foot". Mr. Foot only had one foot. Now he used a cane/crutch contraption to get around and had a "wooden" leg. My gram kept him employed shucking corn, stocking fires to smoke the hams, and stuff that didn't take so much walking. Moot handled the mules and the haying, the bottom land corn (80 acres of corn that we kids had to "shock" the stalks for the mules and the cows).

My granny ran a tight ship, and raised six kids during the depression. But they didn't know they were poor. My mom said they had the mill (the sawmill) and the timber, the truck garden, the eggs and milk they sold in the mill village (there was a plant that had a whole village around it).

But we were raised to treat black folks with the same respect that white folks got. My granny said "we were all God's chilren" and that God expected us to be civil and fair to everyone. 

I still believe that. I believe Phil Robertson knows that too. Might have took him a while to get to that place, but I believe he was speaking of that as well. The old south, what we call the "real" south, most were more interested in getting the corn in than mistreating those that would help get it in. 

There are racist folk in every community but I believe Phil is describing just what he experienced, same as I experienced. It's the BAD things that get the attention, never the normal, every day, good things.

If you try to tell how it use to be in the south to an outsider, they won't get it. They won't believe it, and don't want to believe it. They want to believe that every southern white family had a whip, a cross, a fire and went out and hunted down black folks to torture. Don't want to hear that it simply didn't happen that way for the majority of black/white relations. 

People get offended if the wind don't blow their way. Really, for the majority of folks, we just don't have time to deal with all those that are offended. Volunteer, hoe some beans..you won't have time to be offended. Might be too tired to even think about it.


----------



## homstdr74 (Jul 4, 2011)

sidepasser said:


> I grew up in two different worlds, one was the military but every time my dad deployed overseas, we were shipped to "granny's" to live.
> 
> But we were raised to treat black folks with the same respect that white folks got. My granny said "we were all God's chilren" and that God expected us to be civil and fair to everyone.
> 
> ...


Re: that in bold above: So true, we don't have the time to be offended. 

And your latter two sentences speak loudly to the crux of the problem: very few work enough to take their minds off the mischief they contrive. Lazy people make up these nightmares that pester everyone; oh, sure, they claim they are "working", doing whatever takes less labor to do, but they don't know the meaning of the word because if they did, they wouldn't have the time to be offended, they'd be "early to bed and early to rise", and during the day so busy they could care less about the things "they think they think".


----------



## susieneddy (Sep 2, 2011)

I wonder if all of those who are so against same sex marriage/sex, love and companionship would say if their child turned out to be gay. Unless you are in that situation don't say you would feel the same way because you have no idea how you would feel. Really easy to believe one way until it happens to you.


----------



## homstdr74 (Jul 4, 2011)

susieneddy said:


> I wonder if all of those who are so against same sex marriage/sex, love and companionship would say if their child turned out to be gay. Unless you are in that situation don't say you would feel the same way because you have no idea how you would feel. Really easy to believe one way until it happens to you.


That comment is very much like all the other weapons in the Agenda handbook. It is designed to divide, not integrate. 

Nothing personal, susieneddy, as I'm sure you read it somewhere else---I've seen it all over the internet.


----------



## susieneddy (Sep 2, 2011)

homstdr74 said:


> That comment is very much like all the other weapons in the Agenda handbook. It is designed to divide, not integrate.
> 
> Nothing personal, susieneddy, as I'm sure you read it somewhere else---I've seen it all over the internet.


well no it is nothing I have read as it is my own thoughts and Susie's also. Sorry you don't think people can think and say for themselves. Everything is not black and white.

Again unless you are in that situation you can't comment with an open mind.


----------



## CraterCove (Jan 24, 2011)

susieneddy said:


> well no it is nothing I have read as it is my own thoughts and Susie's also. Sorry you don't think people can think and say for themselves. Everything is not black and white.
> 
> Again unless you are in that situation you can't comment with an open mind.


Of course you can comment on something without being in the situation. You can even comment with an open mind and heart. You can also change your mind if you come to new input. Don't be so restricting.


----------



## Riverdale (Jan 20, 2008)

One more time, just for giggles


----------



## KentuckyDreamer (Jan 20, 2012)

susieneddy said:


> I wonder if all of those who are so against same sex marriage/sex, love and companionship would say if their child turned out to be gay. Unless you are in that situation don't say you would feel the same way because you have no idea how you would feel. Really easy to believe one way until it happens to you.


This is where it gets a bit tricky for me. I am a lesbian and GLAAD does not represent my views, I have no respect for them. 

In the same vein, I do not speak for any other GLBT person. I am just me, with my values, beliefs, and life experiences. 

I was very anti same sex marriage..very against. I am old school and my beliefs are well ingrained. That said, I have moved a bit from my hard core position.

I figure I have lived my life, and if the next generation want to change things, so be it. I won't vote or be in support of, but I will no longer be hard core anti gay marriage. 

I am just going to sit back, live by my values, and trust that the next generation is smart enough to listen to all sides and make their own life choices. I simply cannot live my life in anger, righteous indignation, etc. I will support what is important to me, and allow others to do the same.


----------



## hillbillygal (Jan 16, 2008)

susieneddy said:


> I wonder if all of those who are so against same sex marriage/sex, love and companionship would say if their child turned out to be gay. Unless you are in that situation don't say you would feel the same way because you have no idea how you would feel. Really easy to believe one way until it happens to you.


It really doesn't matter how I feel about a matter. The Bible will not change based on what I want it to say. If it says its wrong, its wrong. If my children told me they were gay, it wouldn't change the Bible. I'd love them regardless. Same as if they came home and said they were having a child out of wedlock or even that they were having relations outside of marriage. All wrong and their participation in it doesn't make it any less so.

I agree with Phil that you love your neighbor. I've got my own sins I'll be held accountable for so I'm not sitting around passing judgement on others. I'm also not going to say all my sins aren't really wrong to make myself feel better either.


----------



## mommatwo2 (Nov 7, 2013)

I agree with Phil! If you read the whole interview he was asked a question told his opinion and also stated GOD has the power to judge and he will love all human kind regardless. The gay community didn't bother with that part. We love the show but I hope the family gets out of the contract and stands behind him. 

If we have to stand by and listen to their views they should listen to ours. You want the right to be heard well.. So do straight Christians.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

susieneddy said:


> I wonder if all of those who are so against same sex marriage/sex, love and companionship would say if their child turned out to be gay. Unless you are in that situation don't say you would feel the same way because you have no idea how you would feel. Really easy to believe one way until it happens to you.


I would feel the same way about it as Phil whether it was my kid or not. He made clear he does not hate gays or anyone else, only that their lifestyle is a sin. That is clearly true to any Christian. He was answering a direct question posed to him and not answering it honestly would also have been a sin.


----------



## whiterock (Mar 26, 2003)

I havent read all the posts on here, but i did read the interview online. I'm more offended by the language used by the writer that what was said by any of the Robertsons.


----------



## Tiempo (May 22, 2008)

> Nothing personal, susieneddy, as I'm sure you read it somewhere else---I've seen it all over the internet.


That was a very patronizing thing to say.


----------



## CraterCove (Jan 24, 2011)

Tiempo said:


> That was a very patronizing thing to say.


In my mind what she said is patronizing too. ~shrug~


----------



## homstdr74 (Jul 4, 2011)

Tiempo said:


> That was a very patronizing thing to say.


Why? Itâs the truth, you know. Most of us are handicapped with the concept of âtabula rasaâ when it comes to such social knowledge, and we pick things up along the way---yes, Iâm included in that, so the response could have been something like âSoâs your old manâ, claiming that I had to have read whatever I posted somewhere else.

Few of us are original thinkers. Most of those are quite well known----Shelley, Einstein, Jefferson, etc. The rest of us either know we are not all that original, or suffer the ignorance of the ages. That is especially true when it comes to âpicking sidesâ. Think about it---given the *choice, *would you have even thought of any of this stuff if you had been born say, three hundred years ago?

I try to take it easy---to lighten up a little and not start some sort of offhanded flame war over nothing. As an old man once told me long, long ago: âTheyâll never know the difference in a hundred yearsâ. So true.


----------



## Tabitha (Apr 10, 2006)

"They" won't, true, but someone else possibly will.


----------



## homstdr74 (Jul 4, 2011)

Tabitha said:


> "They" won't, true, but someone else possibly will.


Apparently so.


----------



## grandma12703 (Jan 13, 2011)

KentuckyDreamer said:


> Just a question; no judgement. If sin is sin, and the Bible has all sin as equal with the exception of blasphemy, how do we approach those that are overweight, unwed parents, those who are jealous, etc ? Those are listed sins and are quite visable to others. I have put on a number of pounds the past five years and I KNOW I ALONE am responsible AND I was gluttonous. I was eating more than what my body needed, more than it could use, and it was not my right to take that food from others, let alone the effect on the environment my over eating has created.
> 
> My sin is visable, it is out there, and Biblically, it is equal to adultery, homesexuality, etc.


You admit you are a sinner. I admit I am a sinner but I am not going to stand up and tell everyone that they must accept my sin as right. If someone approaches me and tells me I should quit eating so much or that my best friend is a sinner because she divorced her husband I would agree with them and tell them that I know it is wrong and I am working on being a better person. I would not yell and scream and tell them that there is nothing wrong with what I am doing and that they should just accept it and that the Bible is incorrect.


----------



## grandma12703 (Jan 13, 2011)

I will not stand in judgement of another human, however I will also not say something my Bible tells me is not the way it should be. I think that is the problem here. Phil did not judge a person but spoke against a sin.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

How many who have commented have read the article? I can't post a link to it because the writer uses language not allowed here but I found it interesting that the two comments that people seem to take exception to are literally two quotes, there is no indication of what questions were asked that brought generated the comments.

Because the writer indicates that Phil has taken exception to A&E having edited Jesus out of most of their shows, one may guess that's how the discussion of faith started. 

The writer seems to have some very negative feelings about living off the land, firearms, hunting and the family's strong faith and does seem quite condescending in many ways but there were some interesting points made. Jeb was asked if he shared his father's faith and he indicated he was but not as vocal as Phil but if asked, he was certainly share his thoughts about his thoughts. 

The article indicates that other family members were present and the writer's twitter account indicates that an A&E publicist was in attendance for the entire interview which left me with more questions than answers.

Why would A&E condone an interview with GQ when it is in conflict with their target audience, why would a publicist allow a conversation about faith continue if they knew Phil's opinions on the subject and why would a well educated CEO of a large corporation allow the discussion to continue, unless it's all a PR stunt that either went very well of very poorly but intended to coincide with that unnamed new cast member joining the show next season.


----------



## Wanda (Dec 19, 2002)

A&E are airing around 40 hours of DuckDynasty programing this coming week. Just maybe some people will check it to see what all of the uproar is about. I am sure the Robertson family will share some part of the proceeds. I read the article but did not see who set up the interview. Why would we believe what the writer says about someone from A&E being present the whole time?


----------



## Molly Mckee (Jul 8, 2006)

Don't you think that A&E would say Phil had violated his contract since they have stirred up such a mess, if he had? 
I think people that have some knowledge of what the Bible says understand what Phil said, those that choose to believe other people's telling them what Phil said see it differently. 
Phil's statements have been twisted and taken out of context by the gay community. It has gotten them and A&E lots of publicity, which of course we are all helping.

I have never seen a whole show, don't intend to watch it, but I am getting tired of Christian bashing. If the gay community wants freedom of speech, they better allow others the same.


----------



## CraterCove (Jan 24, 2011)

wr said:


> Why would A&E condone an interview with GQ when it is in conflict with their target audience, why would a publicist allow a conversation about faith continue if they knew Phil's opinions on the subject and why would a well educated CEO of a large corporation allow the discussion to continue, *unless it's all a PR stunt* that either went very well of very poorly but intended to coincide with that unnamed new cast member joining the show next season.


I think you hit that nail squarely on the head.


----------



## Guest (Dec 22, 2013)

susieneddy said:


> I wonder if all of those who are so against same sex marriage/sex, love and companionship would say if their child turned out to be gay. Unless you are in that situation don't say you would feel the same way because you have no idea how you would feel. Really easy to believe one way until it happens to you.


If my child said he was living an active homosexual life, I'd treat him the very same way that I'd treat a grown heterosexual child of mine who chose to live with a woman who wasn't his wife..love him, but wouldn't do anything which showed support for living a sinful life..homosexual behavior is no different from any other sexual sin..that's what Phil Robinson was saying, that's what the bible says, and that's what I believe.


----------



## CraterCove (Jan 24, 2011)

Some of us have been watching both... It's not a pay attention to one and ignore all else. But it's cool that you've now demeaned everyone who has taken part in this conversation.


----------



## RichInPA (Nov 13, 2013)

He broke his contract. This isn't about free speech, it's about breaking a contract he signed, saying he wouldn't engage in inflammatory speech with a rival news body....


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

Wanda said:


> A&E are airing around 40 hours of DuckDynasty programing this coming week. Just maybe some people will check it to see what all of the uproar is about. I am sure the Robertson family will share some part of the proceeds. I read the article but did not see who set up the interview. Why would we believe what the writer says about someone from A&E being present the whole time?


I just happened to have some time this afternoon and a whole lot of questions so I kinda worked backwards. One of my first questions was what kind of writer this was and if he always used profanity in articles so a quick search turned up a twitter account in which had a photograph of several people (including Phil) and a a comment, responding to an article (?) on TMZ that the A&E publicist was not at the interview or skipped out part way through. I did go and check out TMZ, who did have piece saying that 'unnamed sources' had indicated that the publicist had not chose not to attend a portion of the interview when they went out to the land on ATV's.


----------



## CraterCove (Jan 24, 2011)

RichInPA said:


> He broke his contract. This isn't about free speech, it's about breaking a contract he signed, saying he wouldn't engage in inflammatory speech with a rival news body....


Um yeah so since there was an A&E rep involved with the interview that means nothing? You don't think they might have maybe ought to have objected then instead of after the fact?

I haven't seen any proof at all the a) he's been fired b) it's because he broke his contract.


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

Wanda said:


> ...... Why would we believe what the writer says about someone from A&E being present the whole time?


I don't believe it. I read the article plus have read some other recent articles about it. Some media websites are saying that the A&E representative wasn't in attendance at all times and the discussions about gays and religions took place when Phil and the writer took off alone together on an ATV to tour some of the property.


----------



## CraterCove (Jan 24, 2011)

Paumon said:


> I don't believe it. I read the article plus have read some other recent articles about it. Some media websites are saying that the A&E representative wasn't in attendance at all times and the discussions about gays and religions took place when Phil and the writer took off alone together on an ATV.


We'll never know the whole story... but that means we get to participate and guess and make up the story. If it's a pr stunt it's a doggone fine one.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

RichInPA said:


> He broke his contract. This isn't about free speech, it's about breaking a contract he signed, saying he wouldn't engage in inflammatory speech with a rival news body....


And you Know for A FACT what that so called Contract says verbatim??


----------



## RichInPA (Nov 13, 2013)

All television contracts contain clauses pertaining to rival media outlets, and also a guide of behavior. And yes, I have seen some. He either violated a clause about giving interviews, or a clause regarding personal behavior (ie saying something the network does not approve). Either way, he took it upon himself to say/do something the network disagreed with. And in this litigious society, do you think they would have suspended him without adequate support, aka a contract?


----------



## CraterCove (Jan 24, 2011)

RichInPA said:


> All television contracts contain clauses pertaining to rival media outlets, and also a guide of behavior. And yes, I have seen some. He either violated a clause about giving interviews, or a clause regarding personal behavior (ie saying something the network does not approve). Either way, he took it upon himself to say/do something the network disagreed with. And in this litigious society, do you think they would have suspended him without adequate support, aka a contract?


Cool, so you're like in television and have extensive experience with such contracts and could post us up a standard one so we could all see this? I wonder how any magazine or news outlet or network ever bags an interview with anyone not under the same parent company? Hmm...


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

If you don't know it or can't put a link to it then it is a moot discussion to keep going on about it. Go and find a link and Post it. Can't then it has nothing to do with what happened. Don't agree with Phil Fine. But Don't tell others to shut up about it. The huge majority in this country that are not gay like the show, don't like don't watch it, just don't come on here and make false claims that you can not back up. Besides what he said was Not On The Show, it was directed to readers of GQ. A VERY Few readers in the population of the USA.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

RichInPA said:


> All television contracts contain clauses pertaining to rival media outlets, and also a guide of behavior. And yes, I have seen some. He either violated a clause about giving interviews, or a clause regarding personal behavior (ie saying something the network does not approve). Either way, he took it upon himself to say/do something the network disagreed with. And in this litigious society, do you think they would have suspended him without adequate support, aka a contract?


Not true! All entertainment contracts are different depending on who the entertainers are. I have had them in the past, no code of conduct stipulations at all.

If you want us to believe what your saying, provide a link to his contract! Its that simple!


----------



## RichInPA (Nov 13, 2013)

lulz, I don't have to prove anything. Ya'll keep on keeping on  tiocfaidh arla


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

RichInPA said:


> lulz, I don't have to prove anything. Ya'll keep on keeping on  tiocfaidh arla


You right, you don't! And we will be happy to keep on keeping on without you too!

Yes, our day will come!


----------



## CraterCove (Jan 24, 2011)

RichInPA said:


> lulz, I don't have to prove anything. Ya'll keep on keeping on  tiocfaidh arla


I declare that Rich hasn't a clue and by his own words declare I don't have to prove that to be a fact. I can just declare it and thus it becomes so.


----------



## RichInPA (Nov 13, 2013)

"The problem with internet quotes is that you cant always depend on their accuracy" -Abraham Lincoln, 1864


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

And you want US to Believe THAT????? 
Wheres my Popcorn. I was born at night but Not Last Night 
You Put a quote From Lincoln saying something about The Internet. WOW :nono: And you want to be taken seriously? Yes A Spam Bot has been spotted for sure.


----------



## RichInPA (Nov 13, 2013)

AK, Thanks mate, I genuinely laughed out loud.


----------



## GrammaBarb (Dec 27, 2012)

Hi Folks,

Trying to take something positive from all of this, I'm sitting here just pleased as punch that I live in a country based on the Constitution, truly one of the human race's finest accomplishments.

Daddy Duck want to sound off? Let rip!

Gay community wants to sound off? Let rip!

Individuals wishing to define the actions or beliefs of others as "sin", well, they get to sound off also. 

So, briefly, and in the interests of full disclosure, I'm not Christian, but most of my friends are. I'm more of a pan-theist, that is, I believe God is everywhere and everything. And that's OK, because happily we live in the United States. 

We all get to believe what we will. I don't have to agree with you, nor you with me. We simply have to agree to follow our Constitution, and the vast majority of problems become simply personal preferences. Think being gay is a "sin"? That's OK----as long as you don't force gay people to live your religious reality. (After all, you wouldn't want them to force you to live as a gay person, right?)

I'm hoping in the sturm und drang of heated emotion, we can all celebrate the absolute FACT that we have a beautiful tool by which to all end up getting to live fairly close to the way we want. God--who or whatever He/She may be--Bless America and our Constitution!

Now, if we could just get the gummint on board with this Constitution thing..............:shrug:

Barb


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

Well now A&E producers are getting death threats.

How immature. That's taking obsession with a TV show too far.

This entire ballyhoo just goes to show that freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Yes and like the left who in the case of our Conservative, Governor Scott Walker wanted wisconsinites to have "More Freedom" and spoke out about it and had a successful campaign and got elected and then came the recall and during the Recall time He also Got Many Death Threats. The liberal left just can't stand freedom of speech and freed for Americans.
And Sarah Palin spook out about freedom and getting this country back to more of a conservative and freedom country ands she had some of the most Vile things said about to to her and STILL has these things said about her. And once again the left just can't stand those that have a opposite view and must in anyway they can to stop such people even if it means making death threats and saying some of the most vile things they can at them to them and about them to make them Shut Up. 
And now sure Phil could have stated things in a different way but he is not a seasoned speaker nor has speech writers telling him what to says or not say, and sure doesn't have a Teleprompter like Obama does, and when he does not have that even Obama gets into trouble when speaking off the cuff and unrehearsed.
And then you have VP Joe Biden who has gotten into lots of trouble when speaking, but the left just laughs it off and life goes on.


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

The left is sending A&E death threats??


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

LOL. AK, are you saying it's the left are issuing death threats to A&E producers so as to coerce them into reinstating Robertson? I doubt that it has anything to do with people's political affiliations. It's his fans that are issuing the death threats. Some may be leftists and some may be rightists - I don't care - they're being stupid and if anything their threats will probably have the opposite consequence. The threateners just signed the death warrant for that particular TV show.

So maybe Robertson can forget about Duck Dynasty that's given him the exposure he needed and opened the door for him to fame so he can become the full-fledged adulated preacher that he apparently wants to be. :shrug:


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

ErinP said:


> The left is sending A&E death threats??


The death threats are coming from Duck Dynasty fans. :hysterical:


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

RichInPA said:


> He broke his contract. This isn't about free speech, it's about breaking a contract he signed, saying he wouldn't engage in inflammatory speech with a rival news body....


I'm going to have to disagree. Phil has given several interviews over the last year or so to faith based publications and his message has always been the same. In my opinion, they would be considered as much a rival news body as GQ and if he engaged in inflammatory speech now, it would be just as inflammatory then.


----------



## CraterCove (Jan 24, 2011)

Paumon said:


> Well now A&E producers are getting death threats.
> 
> How immature. That's taking obsession with a TV show too far.
> 
> This entire ballyhoo just goes to show that freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences.


I am going to agree entirely with what you are saying.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

CraterCove said:


> I am going to agree entirely with what you are saying.


 True and I was making a comparison as to what that the left has done over the years so some of this coming form DD fans is NOTHING as to what the liberal left have done over the years and still are. And there are so many out there I couldn't even remember the count, the left has done over the time. And now a few are just giving it back. LOL Not that i condone this behavior at all, but what is good for there Goose is also good for the Gander.


----------



## CraterCove (Jan 24, 2011)

Everyone has the right to an opinion and I have the right to disagree. But keep in mind i really enjoy hearing opinions that question my own. And, for the most part, I consider you all reasonable and respectful and consider it an honor to disagree with you.


----------



## CraterCove (Jan 24, 2011)

btw you all realize these duck dynasty dudes are all mbas and were millionaires before this silly show, right? This is so calculated it's not even funny.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

CraterCove said:


> btw you all realize these duck dynasty dudes are all mbas and were millionaires before this silly show, right? This is so calculated it's not even funny.



I think it was too. This is a group that has a great understanding of brand identity and marketing. 

Willie and his wife were in Calgary a while back and did a radio interview that I found quite interesting. He was all CEO, discussing the business, how they pitched the show, what outlets locally carried product and plans to further explore Canadian markets.


----------



## homstdr74 (Jul 4, 2011)

Apparently there are other networks hoping that A&E drops Duck Dynasty so they can pick them up:

http://www.tmz.com/2013/12/22/duck-dynasty-other-networks-interested-the-hunt-channel-a-and-e/

Robertson will still be on the programs set to begin airing in January:

http://www.upi.com/Entertainment_Ne...n-Duck-Dynasty-in-January/UPI-17251387647442/

From the article; "Citing a source it identified only as someone close to the show, Entertainment Weekly said Saturday new episodes set to begin airing Jan. 15 will feature Robertson, and A&E is hoping the controversy will die down. 
"There's no negotiation to have; we're doing the show," the report quoted the insider as saying. "We'll figure out a solution." End of quotes. 

Cracker Barrel has pulled some Duck Dynasty products, discounted others. They're still selling Duck Commander products:

http://nation.foxnews.com/2013/12/21/cracker-barrel-pulls-duck-dynasty-products


----------



## SeanInVa (Oct 3, 2013)

Ran across this today (slight language, mods please remove if this is a violation - the only curse word I saw was another word for "butt")

(removed the image preview because of the slight cursing)
http://i.imgur.com/G8QE3tq.jpg


----------



## dixiegal62 (Aug 18, 2007)

Paumon said:


> Well now A&E producers are getting death threats.
> 
> How immature. That's taking obsession with a TV show too far.
> 
> This entire ballyhoo just goes to show that freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences.


So they tell us, ever notice how when the left is disagreed with they holler death threats. I don't put much faith in A&E's honesty or integrity. I haven't seen any quotes threatening death so it's just rumors.


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

Death threats?
Over a TV SHOW?

Let's talk about the root of this problem.......

American humans are willing to risk imprisonment, an official police record, maybe lose their job, benefits, potentially become homeless................
Over a TV SHOW. Last time I checked, it is against the law to make death threats, and it is prosecutable. Official record and all....

American's are really willing to throw their lives and their families lives down the toilet because their entertainment may not be available to them.

They are completely and emotionally overwhelmed with entertainment, they have lost all touch with reality.

This sounds like the description of 'sheeple' the term frequently used in the SE&P forum.

Remove the 'issue' in which this whole 'drama' stemmed from, and look at the root.

Humans are willing to ruin their real lives, and the real lives of their loved ones because their favorite form of entertainment may not be available.......

Chew on that for a second.


----------



## dixiegal62 (Aug 18, 2007)

Laura Zone 5 said:


> Death threats?
> Over a TV SHOW?
> 
> Let's talk about the root of this problem.......
> ...


This is so much bigger than a TV show... I think a better question would be, Are some American's really willing to throw their lives and their families lives, their freedom down the toilet to protect their right to have a voice?


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

No one is or was denied a voice. Mr Robertson is still perfectly able to express any opinion he wishes. A&E is perfectly within their right not to support those opinions. There's an interesting, yet quieter, story involving Justine Sacco and something she posted on a private twitter account.


----------



## FarmChix (Mar 3, 2013)

painterswife said:


> A&E has a contract with this person. Those contracts have code of conduct terms. His free speech is his right. It is A&E's right not to employ someone that does not adhere to the contract or represent their business in the way they want them to.
> 
> We are seeing people terminated for professing to be pro choice or getting married to a same sex spouse.


Should any contract be legal if it violates the Constitutional right of free speech?


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

dixiegal62 said:


> This is so much bigger than a TV show... I think a better question would be, Are some American's really willing to throw their lives and their families lives, their freedom down the toilet to protect their right to have a voice?



This is a TV show.
ACTORS (implying pretenders)

This is for entertainment purposes only.
It's a TV SHOW.

Human beings are threatening to take THE LIFE of another human being because their form of entertainment may not be available to them.

Murder, for entertainment.......

THAT is the issue.
Humans are threatening to KILL other humans over a TV SHOW / ENTERTAINMENT...by ACTORS: NOT REAL LIFE, yet they are threatening to EXTERMINATE A REAL LIFE???

That is jacked up.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

FarmChix said:


> Should any contract be legal if it violates the Constitutional right of free speech?


Read your copy of the constitution and tell me where Mr Robertson's rights were violated.


----------



## Twobottom (Sep 29, 2013)

Al Sharpton calling Greeks "homos" and all white people "crackers";

[YOUTUBE]eorpMrHAi3E[/YOUTUBE]


No calls to have him removed as host from MSNBC?


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

Because two wrongs always make a right?

AGAIN.......root problem.......humans........


----------



## homstdr74 (Jul 4, 2011)

FarmChix said:


> Should any contract be legal if it violates the Constitutional right of free speech?


Absolutely not. Anyone who would be OK with our Constitution being tampered with for business purposes should consider this: Are you willing to abolish the 13th amendment just because slavery is better for the "bottom line" of a business? Do away with the First Amendment because religion, the right to protest, and free speech offend someone? 

Of course there are other instances, but we must be vigilant when it comes to our Bill of Rights--no business or wannabe king has the right to tamper with the rights of the People.


----------



## dixiegal62 (Aug 18, 2007)

mmoetc said:


> Read your copy of the constitution and tell me where Mr Robertson's rights were violated.


 
If a wife had to constantly fear voicing an opinion in a marriage for fear of backlash from her husband, would you consider her rights being violated? Every last person in this country should be able to voice their opinions on any given subject without fear of special interest groups and media bullying them into submission.


----------



## homstdr74 (Jul 4, 2011)

mmoetc said:


> Read your copy of the constitution and tell me where Mr Robertson's rights were violated.


It's larger than "Mr. Robertson". The upshot of this mess is that one small segment of a large society is committing extortion against the majority by threatening to withhold their right to an income if they don't say the politically correct things that are demanded of them.


----------



## dixiegal62 (Aug 18, 2007)

Laura Zone 5 said:


> Because two wrongs always make a right?
> 
> AGAIN.......root problem.......humans........


 
As far as I know there is no proof that anyone's life has been threatened.


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

I don't have cable/have never seen the show but from what I gather, it's quite obvious that Phil is a Christian. Now isn't it ironic that A&E had no problem profiting from the Christian 'slant' but when Phil goes into some depth, in an interview (which BTW, the question was asked specifically re: what he considered to be sinful), they're going to fire him?

Yes, A&E can fire whom they choose. It just seems hypocritical to me that they chose to do so in this instance.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

dixiegal62 said:


> If a wife had to constantly fear voicing an opinion in a marriage for fear of backlash from her husband, would you consider her rights being violated? Every last person in this country should be able to voice their opinions on any given subject without fear of special interest groups and media bullying them into submission.


No I wouldn't. She is free to walk away any time she likes. If some force is being used to keep her there we have a problem. You're right that every person has the right to express their opinion. This includes A&E and those that disagree with what Mr. Robertson said. Should the "special interest group" of Phil Robertson supporters be allowed to suppress their speech?


----------



## MJsLady (Aug 16, 2006)

I have never watched the show. Though now I kind of want to just to watch how Christians deal with reality Tv. 

I seriously don't get the big brouhaha. He was asked a point blank question. Told a truthful straight answer from the Bible (the authority on sin) and as usual instead of being tolerant the media got nasty. All the while whining about intoerlance... ummm yeah a blind person should see the irony and hypocrisy here. 

He didn't defame any one, he didn't call names, he didn't make judgements. He repeated what God, the one HE serves, says. 

Folks don't have an issue with Phil if this angers them, they have an issue with God. They need to leave Phil alone and start yelling at and calling God names... oh wait... they can't hurt God or get him on tv to submit to their lunacy...

IIRC there was an issue with A&E and the Robertson's before where A&E tried to hint they cursed by using false bleeps... A&E it seems can't believe that a faith filled family could possibly have a following with out the sex and other garbage of most reality tv stars. A&E is WRONG. 

Now I plan to look up Duck Commander and see if there is anything they sell I can possibly use so I can support them. They were a success before A&E they will continue successfully with out A&E.


----------



## viggie (Jul 17, 2009)

Why do the arguements tend to ignore Freedom of Religion and Title VII? It's not just free speech or a TV show that people are upset about. We are fighting for our faith and freedoms when things like this happen.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

homstdr74 said:


> It's larger than "Mr. Robertson". The upshot of this mess is that one small segment of a large society is committing extortion against the majority by threatening to withhold their right to an income if they don't say the politically correct things that are demanded of them.


Then we'll expand the question. Whose constitutional right has been violated? Aren't those calling for a boycott of A&E equally guilty of using coercion to deny their right to make an income for expressing their views?


----------



## homstdr74 (Jul 4, 2011)

mmoetc said:


> Then we'll expand the question. Whose constitutional right has been violated? Aren't those calling for a boycott of A&E equally guilty of using coercion to deny their right to make an income for expressing their views?


If you don't want return fire, you shouldn't fire the first salvo.


----------



## Guest (Dec 22, 2013)

RichInPA said:


> All television contracts contain clauses pertaining to rival media outlets, and also a guide of behavior. And yes, I have seen some. He either violated a clause about giving interviews, or a clause regarding personal behavior (ie saying something the network does not approve). Either way, he took it upon himself to say/do something the network disagreed with. And in this litigious society, do you think they would have suspended him without adequate support, aka a contract?


and yet, MSNBC happily hires Al Sharpton who has far out-distanced Phil Robertson, Imus, and Paula Dean in the category of racist/homophobic remarks..LOL..there he sits..so much for the outrage from the leftists..so much for offensive remarks which hurt the image of the corporation.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

I am going to watch The NFL Today show on FOX just to see if Terry Bradshaw will sway anything about this Phil Robertson stuff.


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

arabian knight said:


> True and I was making a comparison as to what that the left has done over the years so some of this coming form DD fans is NOTHING as to what the liberal left have done over the years and still are.


:indif:
You're seriously using the "But he did it first!" defense? 
I don't buy it from 2nd graders, I sure don't buy it here. lol



Twobottom said:


> No calls to have him removed as host from MSNBC?


MSNBC _wants_ conflict, same as FOX or any of the others. It drives their ratings. A&E, on the other hand, was not going for that direction (unless, of course, they were...The timing of this _is_ interesting afterall; how it falls right before they're set to start broadcasting season 5, which is already in the can).


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

dixiegal62 said:


> Every last person in this country should be able to voice their opinions on any given subject without fear of special interest groups and media bullying them into submission.


I'm a teacher. 
_I_ can't go "voicing my opinion on any given subject," without fear of reprisal from my employer. Shoot, I know of teachers who were fired for nothing more than being gay. Not marching in parades, not proselytizing from the desk, just _being_... :shrug:

That's just the risk we run when we work for someone else.
For that matter, we run that risk when we're self-employed, too.

I have a dear friend who runs the local drive-in/ice cream joint. The only one in town. She's also a very vocal Democrat in a tiny ag-based town in western Nebraska. She has a few people who absolutely refuse to do business with her. She's tell you it's a consequence of her opinions and she's probably right. Though most people are willing to overlook that fault to get a blizzard.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

homstdr74 said:


> If you don't want return fire, you shouldn't fire the first salvo.


And if you can't answer a question just say so.


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

Ya'all just like to fuss.
Shame.....so much can be learned.

Life is like a box of chocolates.
All different, but at the end of the day....all chocolate, and chocolate, is good!!

Go on and bite and devour each other.
It's a shame, each and everyone of us has something to offer, and learn from, and about.......


----------



## dixiegal62 (Aug 18, 2007)

mmoetc said:


> No I wouldn't. She is free to walk away any time she likes. If some force is being used to keep her there we have a problem. You're right that every person has the right to express their opinion. This includes A&E and those that disagree with what Mr. Robertson said. Should the "special interest group" of Phil Robertson supporters be allowed to suppress their speech?


I never said A&E or anyone else couldn't. I just wish the had enough morals to be truthful about it. Where would you have Christians who's beliefs are causing some people to try and shut them up to walk away to?


----------



## dixiegal62 (Aug 18, 2007)

mmoetc said:


> Then we'll expand the question. Whose constitutional right has been violated? Aren't those calling for a boycott of A&E equally guilty of using coercion to deny their right to make an income for expressing their views?


oh please! LOL A&E firing PR is not the issue, they can fire whoever they want. Suppressing Americans right to express and believe what they want is. wrong Trying to force someone to think or say what you want them to think or say by public flogging is wrong. Twisting someone's words so you can condemn them is wrong. Demanding an apology because someone said something you disagree with is wrong.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

dixiegal62 said:


> I never said A&E or anyone else couldn't. I just wish the had enough morals to be truthful about it. Where would you have Christians who's beliefs are causing some people to try and shut them up to walk away to?


The same place that those who have other religions or no religion have to go when Christians try to silence them.


----------



## dixiegal62 (Aug 18, 2007)

ErinP said:


> I'm a teacher.
> _I_ can't go "voicing my opinion on any given subject," without fear of reprisal from my employer. Shoot, I know of teachers who were fired for nothing more than being gay. Not marching in parades, not proselytizing from the desk, just _being_... :shrug:
> 
> That's just the risk we run when we work for someone else.
> ...


 
It not right but as far as I know firing someone for being gay is not against the law. Firing someone based on the religious beliefs is. IMO neither should be fired.


----------



## KentuckyDreamer (Jan 20, 2012)

I do not have any issues with boycotting A & E...they spoke loud and clear when they made the following statement;

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

I had remembered the promo for Rodeo Girls where they are humiliating a naked man and the statement made by Mandy Patinkin on why he left Criminal Minds. 

I also had first hand knowledge of a family featured on A & E Intervention and it was the shoddiest, superficial, documentation. The intervention was nonsense as they had not considered the true situation...just sensationalism.

With that information, A & E identifies its target audience and it isn't me. If they want a different target audience, they will offer different programs. Duck Dynasty is the only show that brought me to their channel.


----------



## Halfway (Nov 22, 2010)

Why is there so much bullying of Christians and hatred towards the Bible? Isn't "bullying" frowned upon?

Hollywood and the government have not done a good job in providing our morals....why are we destroying ourselves in order to "get along".

Naive question...I know.


----------



## dixiegal62 (Aug 18, 2007)

painterswife said:


> The same place that those who have other religions or no religion have to go when Christians try to silence them.


Saying something is a sin is not trying to silence anyone. Maybe some feel like it is because somewhere deep inside of them they know it's true, but if they admit it to themselves it means they and they alone are responsible for their own actions.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Halfway said:


> Why is there so much bullying of Christians and hatred towards the Bible? Isn't "bullying" frowned upon?
> 
> Hollywood and the government have not done a good job in providing our morals....why are we destroying ourselves in order to "get along".
> 
> Naive question...I know.


Just as much bullying going in the other direction.


----------



## dixiegal62 (Aug 18, 2007)

painterswife said:


> Just as much bullying going in the other direction.


Really? Where is the media demanding people apologize to PR for the name calling....there's been a lot of insults thrown around the last few days. *******, bigot, backwoods, hick are the mild ones. My favorite being what do you expect from a southerner.Funny but after reading the GQ interview several times I cant recall one single insult to any person being said by PR.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

dixiegal62 said:


> Really? Where is the media demanding people apologize to PR for the name calling....there's been a lot of insults thrown around the last few days. *******, bigot, backwoods, hick are the mild ones. My favorite being what do you expect from a southerner.Funny but after reading the GQ interview several times I cant recall one single insult to any person being said by PR.


I am not a Christian and I have faced bigotry, hatred and bullying my whole life because of it.

I was told I would burn in hell many many times. I have been expected to say religious prayers in school and other public events and looked down upon if I did not. 

I can't even imagine how the Muslims in this country feel or even the ones who frequent this forum.


----------



## Tiempo (May 22, 2008)

> Why is there so much bullying of Christians and hatred towards the Bible?


Christians (in a general sense, not all) have been bullies for centuries and now they wonder why there's pushback?

It boggles my mind that they have to ask why. Look within.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

dixiegal62 said:


> Saying something is a sin is not trying to silence anyone. Maybe some feel like it is because somewhere deep inside of them they know it's true, but if they admit it to themselves it means they and they alone are responsible for their own actions.


 There is no bullying going on. This war on Christmas has been going on of some time, and now the Majority of this country is standing up and saying Enough IS enough. They have taken all they are43 going to take, this IS a Christ Like Nation some might not like it but that IS what the country is and was founded to be.
And Just because Phil Told what was on HIS mind when asked a direct question from a not so widely read magazine except for the yuppies in this country, he AND other Christians are getting put down by those that do not believe. So they do not believe but WHY of why most the Christians in this country be made to shut their mouths? And the teachings of the Bible which has been around for over 2,000 years us still going strong, even if some do not be leave it. It maybe a good thing this is happening at CHRISTMAS time so the Focus is not just about what he said about gays, but what Christians think about that side of things. And CHRISTmas and the liberal left sure want to have their way, and this is the Line Drawn In The Sand for many.
The majority which has been silent for to long are finally saying something. And that positive is getting under the skin of some many thin skinned folks, but many being pushed into a corner for so many years and this Why Don,t You Just Keep Your Mouth Shut are not standing for it any longer.
Well it IS time for the very few minority to buck up and let others say what they want without worrying about the repercussions that Phil Robertson is going through.


----------



## FarmChix (Mar 3, 2013)

mmoetc said:


> Read your copy of the constitution and tell me where Mr Robertson's rights were violated.


I'm not pushing my beliefs on anyone. What I believe is what I believe. What I do hold to be true is that anyone, including Mr. Robertson, has a right to say how they feel publicly or in private as part of their freedom of speech. Our discussions on the board should also be evident of that. If a "contract" states that you or I are not allowed to vocalize our opinions on any given topic, how does that NOT violate the constitution. I see this thread all over the place....some calling it anti-Christian, some calling it anti-gay....my only point was that it doesn't matter where you stand on those issues--you should be allowed to stand there.


----------



## Wanda (Dec 19, 2002)

I would be very interested to hear what the moral leader of the Robertson family has to say about the matter at hand. I read Happy Happy Happy cover to cover twice. It is a very good book that everyone should read. Miss Kay impressed me as being a very devout Christian in every way and would love to hear her take on this whole mess. Unless I am completely mistaken she would not share the views of a lot of people posting on this thread. Does anyone think there is a chance that Phil could be thinking about a run for the US House or Senate?


----------



## KentuckyDreamer (Jan 20, 2012)

painterswife said:


> I am not a Christian and I have faced bigotry, hatred and bullying my whole life because of it.
> 
> I was told I would burn in hell many many times. I have been expected to say religious prayers in school and other public events and looked down upon if I did not.
> 
> I can't even imagine how the Muslims in this country feel or even the ones who frequent this forum.


I would think a Muslim, Christian, Theist, whatever that is strong in their selves and their faith would "take what they want and leave the rest". They know their heart and do not take the opinions of others personally.:soap:

I was raised hard school Catholic, I studied with Jehovah's Witness's and with an Orthodox Jew. I love the Toa and think that comes close to what I feel and believe. I am a lesbian, a strict vegetarian, I boycott Nestle's and California table grapes. I am so anti smoking and abortion I simply avoid smokers or militant pro abortion factions. I am all these things and more, so much more. And I as long as you are not being confrontational or nasty, I will agree to disagree. I am not offended or feel bullied when someone makes their opinion known. 

I am strong in my values and beliefs ergo I could care less what anyone else thinks of me. I am not easily offended or I would not be on a site where people can be very opinionated and "horrors of all horrors", eat meat.  And I am certainly not interested in changing anyone else's opinions. I just value them for who they are and where we connect. 

I look back over my life and know that I have made some big mistakes all the while insisting I was right. What is to say I am right now? Who knows? Ergo, I will value my views, I will value the views of Phil Robertson, and anyone else with a loving heart.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Tiempo said:


> Christians (in a general sense, not all) have been bullies for centuries and now they wonder why there's pushback?
> 
> It boggles my mind that they have to ask why. Look within.


I'm not centuries old! Yes, I see the liberal agenda is to demonize Christians. It's very prevalent. I thought liberals were all for tolerance and compassion. Yeah, right! It appears it only applies to their personal causes!


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

Tiempo said:


> Christians (in a general sense, not all) have been bullies for centuries and now they wonder why there's pushback?
> 
> It boggles my mind that they have to ask why. Look within.


I will agree with you insomuch that those who "claim" to be 'christian' sure don't seem to live out what The Word says...

Much like a cafeteria, people pick and choose what they like, and discard the rest.....

I absolutely love this verse, and I think non-Believers can appreciate it:

1 Thessalonians 4:11-12
*And to make it your ambition to lead a quiet life*: *You should mind your own business and work with your hands*, 
just as we told you, *so* that _your daily life may win the respect of outsiders _and so that you will not be dependent on anybody.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

KentuckyDreamer said:


> I would think a Muslim, Christian, Theist, whatever that is strong in their selves and their faith would "take what they want and leave the rest". They know their heart and do not take the opinions of others personally.:soap:
> 
> .


I don't take them personally. I however have felt what it is like to be bullied and I don't have to take that or deny that it happens. Those that feel they are now being bullied should understand that they are neither the first or the last and think about what those of their religion might have done to others.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

homstdr74 said:


> *Cracker Barrel has pulled some Duck Dynasty products, discounted others. They're still selling Duck Commander products:*
> 
> http://nation.foxnews.com/2013/12/21/cracker-barrel-pulls-duck-dynasty-products


 After thinking it over Cracker Barrel has put the products Back~! YEAH









America Has Spoken. Good deal


----------



## Tiempo (May 22, 2008)

AK, the tide of public sentiment is still flowing heavily away from anti homosexuality and towards inclusion.

It won't be stopped. You might not like it or accept it, but you'll have to get used to it.


----------



## Wanda (Dec 19, 2002)

arabian knight said:


> After thinking it over Cracker Barrel has put the products Back~! YEAH
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Why are you happy that they are putting A&Es products back on the shelf:shocked: Sometimes I think people just love to argue and lose sight of what the issue truly is!


----------



## SteveD(TX) (May 14, 2002)

Buy "Duck Commander" products, and not "Duck Dynasty" if you support Phil. I ordered my Phil bobble head doll yesterday. It will take a place of honor on my desk. :nana:


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

Tiempo said:


> AK, the tide of public sentiment is still flowing heavily away from anti homosexuality and towards inclusion.
> 
> It won't be stopped. You might not like it or accept it, but you'll have to get used to it.


I find you to be very reasonable, and I have a totally serious question to ask:

In your opinion, does the thought ever cross your mind that "big business" uses GLBT to promote their own wealth?

Meaning, do you think that it is possible that situations like this duck issue, is staged at the very worst, or GROSSLY inflamed, for the SOLE purpose to 'sell something" (be that duck calls, ratings, subscriptions, t-shirts, you name it)

Being the suspicious type, I wonder how much of the hoopla is 'staged' to line some businesses pockets AND NOT to bring 'awareness, or education"?

I hope my question is clear, if not let me know and I will try to explain it further.


----------



## Tiempo (May 22, 2008)

wanda said:


> why are you happy that they are putting a&es products back on the shelf:shocked: Sometimes i think people just love to argue and lose sight of what the issue truly is!


sssshhhhhhhh!


----------



## Ozarks Tom (May 27, 2011)

Laura Zone 5 said:


> Meaning, do you think that it is possible that situations like this duck issue, is staged at the very worst, or GROSSLY inflamed, for the SOLE purpose to 'sell something" (be that duck calls, ratings, subscriptions, t-shirts, you name it)
> 
> Being the suspicious type, I wonder how much of the hoopla is 'staged' to line some businesses pockets AND NOT to bring 'awareness, or education"?


Never underestimate the pettiness and short sightedness running free in the world.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

FarmChix said:


> I'm not pushing my beliefs on anyone. What I believe is what I believe. What I do hold to be true is that anyone, including Mr. Robertson, has a right to say how they feel publicly or in private as part of their freedom of speech. Our discussions on the board should also be evident of that. If a "contract" states that you or I are not allowed to vocalize our opinions on any given topic, how does that NOT violate the constitution. I see this thread all over the place....some calling it anti-Christian, some calling it anti-gay....my only point was that it doesn't matter where you stand on those issues--you should be allowed to stand there.


I ask you once again to actually read the constitution and tell me what right has been violated. A&E is not a governmental body. The constitution defines our interactions with the government. The distinction is simple and clear cut. I have no problem with Mr Robertson having made the comments he made. His opinion does differ from mine but he is free to hold it and express it. He is also free to suffer the consequences of expressing those opinions whether it be from his employer or from facing criticism from those who disagree. I'm quite certain that since no lawsuits have been filed or threatened that A&E was under its contractual rights when putting Mr Robertson on hiatus. Events going forward could prove me wrong in this but lawyers drew up these contracts and were likely consulted before action was taken.


----------



## Tiempo (May 22, 2008)

Laura Zone 5 said:


> I find you to be very reasonable, and I have a totally serious question to ask:
> 
> In your opinion, does the thought ever cross your mind that "big business" uses GLBT to promote their own wealth?
> 
> ...


It wouldn't surprise me.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Laura Zone 5 said:


> I find you to be very reasonable, and I have a totally serious question to ask:
> 
> In your opinion, does the thought ever cross your mind that "big business" uses GLBT to promote their own wealth?
> 
> ...


I'm not answering for Tiempo, she's quite able to speak for herself, but I've felt this whole thing had smelled a bit since the story broke. Both sides will profit a bit more than before and many others will feast on the righteous indignation of the masses.


----------



## Tiempo (May 22, 2008)

I just saw something in the form of a FB meme but haven't looked it up yet (ALWAYS question anything in meme form  )

It quoted this Phil guy saying that he doesn't want anyone to stand up for him, that he can stand up for himself and instead to stand up for veterans' rights.

If this is true, good for him.


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

I wonder if 'we' quit 'biting' on the bait?

Any group of folks, pick any group of folks.......when the media plays out "group 1 has attacked group 2'........we just walk away.
We don't pull stuff off the shelves, run out and buy stuff, 
Tune into a program, tune out a program.

What if everyone just carries on.....and we don't pay any attention when the media 'chums the water'?

I just have a feeling folks are being "used".
People of power "pretend" like they are 'caring and compassionate'.....but they are checkin' their stocks by the minute....and laughing at the group they just used to boost their income?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Laura Zone 5 said:


> I wonder if 'we' quit 'biting' on the bait?
> 
> Any group of folks, pick any group of folks.......when the media plays out "group 1 has attacked group 2'........we just walk away.
> We don't pull stuff off the shelves, run out and buy stuff,
> ...


Whether it is a plan or not it brings to light something that is very much up for discussion and learning in today's society. Shining a light on things is never a waste of time.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> If a wife had to constantly fear voicing an opinion in a marriage for fear of backlash from her husband, would you consider her rights being violated? Every last person in this country should be able to voice their opinions on any given subject without fear of special interest groups and media bullying them into submission.


Let's try a mental exercise to see whether your position is valid.

Dixie, you and your husband are business owners, right? Say you had an employee, and one day, you overheard them talking to a customer, exercising their Constitutional right to tell said customer that your products are lousy, and that they could get a better deal from another store up the street.

Would you support their Constitutional right to free speech, or would you attempt to stop them from doing something that you perceived as being harmful to your businesses' image?


----------



## CraterCove (Jan 24, 2011)

Why are wait staff not allowed to be rude to their customers? They are only expressing themselves.

The thing is, even though I find the situation to be an illustration of how pressure groups throw their weight around in order to silence people and make people who actually have majority views believe they are out there all on their lonesome; A private company should be able to hire and fire as they please.

I still think it's BS and will boycott and speak my mind in response. Free market solutions are usually the best ones.

All of the rights covered in the Constitution/ Bill of Rights are there to protect the sovereignty of the individual and the states from the federal government. Not the reverse and not in respect to each other.


----------



## deaconjim (Oct 31, 2005)

CraterCove said:


> Why are wait staff not allowed to be rude to their customers? They are only expressing themselves.
> 
> The thing is, even though I find the situation to be an illustration of how pressure groups throw their weight around in order to silence people and make people who actually have majority views believe they are out there all on their lonesome; A private company should be able to hire and fire as they please.
> 
> ...


Our rights are not necessarily limited to those enumerated in the Constitution. In fact, the 9th Amendment specifically addresses that issue: 



> The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.


It is entirely possible for individuals or non-government entities to violate the rights of an individual and to protect individuals against those who would violate their rights, we formed governments and passed laws. In my opinion, although it is true that no law has been violated, A&E is treating Phil Robertson unfairly because he chose to exercise his right to express his religious beliefs.

Phil Robertson did not make any comments regarding homosexuality on the television show, he made his remarks in an interview for a magazine in which he was specifically asked about his religious views. He had a choice of refusing to answer the question, lying, or giving an honest answer. Obviously, lying would have been something he would object to morally. Refusing to answer the question would have presented a similar moral problem since it would have indicated that he was ashamed of his belief, and Jesus pointedly said: "_For whosoever shall be ashamed of me and of my words, of him shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he shall come in his own glory, and in his Father's, and of the holy angels_."

His only option then, was to give an honest answer to the question, which is exactly what he did.

The views he expressed reflect those of a large portion of mainstream Christians, including the Pope. No one should have been surprised by his position. 

Obviously, A&E also has rights, including the right to hire and fire anyone they chose. The rest of us have rights as well, including the right to decide if we want to watch their programming, and the right to speak out against their unfair treatment of Phil Robertson.


----------



## CraterCove (Jan 24, 2011)

that's exactly what I said... only longer...


----------



## dixiegal62 (Aug 18, 2007)

willow_girl said:


> Let's try a mental exercise to see whether your position is valid.
> 
> Dixie, you and your husband are business owners, right? Say you had an employee, and one day, you overheard them talking to a customer, exercising their Constitutional right to tell said customer that your products are lousy, and that they could get a better deal from another store up the street.
> 
> Would you support their Constitutional right to free speech, or would you attempt to stop them from doing something that you perceived as being harmful to your businesses' image?


 
Good question. Hard to say how I would handle it, on one hand I could talk to the potential customer and offer him or her some kind of deal to try our services and judge for themselves. Then speak to the employee and give them a warning. Or of course I could just fire them on the spot. I think I would go with the first choice, sometimes it's hard to say what we would do until we are faced with any given situation.

Either way I don't consider the question the same as this DD drama. PR never said A&E was lousy or that people could get a better deal from another company. He voiced his beliefs when asked. Any employee is certainly welcomed to have any opinion on anything but saying their employer offers lousy service would speak more about that employee's work ethic to me since that person is the one giving me the service.


----------



## dixiegal62 (Aug 18, 2007)

Tiempo said:


> AK, the tide of public sentiment is still flowing heavily away from anti homosexuality and towards inclusion.
> 
> It won't be stopped. You might not like it or accept it, but you'll have to get used to it.


 
That's fine, I can live with people choosing their own path as long as they can live with me choosing mine. I will never understand why some gay's are so insulted by those that feel it's a sin and try to force them to change their beliefs anymore than I'll understand why some Christians feel its their job to be the country's moral police. I'll let God do the judging but I will never say it's not a sin just to pacify someone. I will however say it's their right to sin if they want to, but it's not their right to force me to back up their choices. I'll just try to love everyone and treat them the way I want to be treated.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

dixiegal62 said:


> Good question. Hard to say how I would handle it, on one hand I could talk to the potential customer and offer him or her some kind of deal to try our services and judge for themselves. Then speak to the employee and give them a warning. Or of course I could just fire them on the spot. I think I would go with the first choice, sometimes it's hard to say what we would do until we are faced with any given situation.
> 
> Either way I don't consider the question the same as this DD drama. PR never said A&E was lousy or that people could get a better deal from another company. He voiced his beliefs when asked. Any employee is certainly welcomed to have any opinion on anything but saying their employer offers lousy service would speak more about that employee's work ethic to me since that person is the one giving me the service.


Well the truth has already come out that the created of Duck Dynasty has been in gay Adult movie. So that may explain why the fast knee jerk reaction to fire Phil. The guy is a gay and made movies about them, so his "FEELINGS" were hurt by what Phil Robertson said. Ah too bad so sad, now move on Scott and tell America that was the reason.


----------



## Oggie (May 29, 2003)

If folks are going to claim to be big fans of the free market, I would prefer that they not whine while it is at work.


----------



## CraterCove (Jan 24, 2011)

Oggie said:


> If folks are going to claim to be big fans of the free market, I would prefer that they not whine while it is at work.


Um no, freedom of expression.


----------



## Oggie (May 29, 2003)

CraterCove said:


> Um no, freedom of expression.


They are free to whine even though that's not my preference.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

arabian knight said:


> Well the truth has already come out that the created of Duck Dynasty has been in gay Adult movie. So that may explain why the fast knee jerk reaction to fire Phil. The guy is a gay and made movies about them, so his "FEELINGS" were hurt by what Phil Robertson said. Ah too bad so sad, now move on Scott and tell America that was the reason.


If it is wrong to sling mud at Phil Robertson, is it any less wrong to sling mud at someone else? A better question would be, do you feel that Phil Robertson would condone slinging mud and hoping it sticks somewhere else? 

If Scott Gurney is gay, would it not be better to following Phil's lead and consider his lifestyle (if it is true) to be a sin and show compassion?

The only article I can find to back up your claims comes from a couple of rather sketchy websites but I can find several articles that announce Gurnsey Productions have sold controlling interest to ITV and the suspension originates with A&E not Gurnsey Production or ITV so if the creator of Duck Dynasty is gay, it really has no bearing on the situation.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

In realty this has nothing to do with the right to free speech or expression. When signing a contract or entering into an employment contract (verbal or written) the First Amendment does not apply in the private sector.


----------



## CraterCove (Jan 24, 2011)

painterswife said:


> In realty this has nothing to do with the right to free speech or expression. When signing a contract or entering into an employment contract (verbal or written) the First Amendment does not apply in the private sector.


Again with this contract that you at once claim to know all about and to know nothing about. Sorry, it's tiring.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

CraterCove said:


> Again with this contract that you at once claim to know all about and to know nothing about. Sorry, it's tiring.


I spoke in general terms as there is no way to know what their contract contains. However it does not really matter what is in the written contract, the First Amendment does not apply to employees in the private sector.


----------



## dixiegal62 (Aug 18, 2007)

painterswife said:


> In realty this has nothing to do with the right to free speech or expression. When signing a contract or entering into an employment contract (verbal or written) the First Amendment does not apply in the private sector.


 
OK I'll bite.. what about basic human rights? Do you believe the only rights humans have are the ones their government gives them?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

dixiegal62 said:


> OK I'll bite.. what about basic human rights? Do you believe the only rights humans have are the ones their government gives them?


I have already stated that I don't think he should be able to be fired for what he said. However the courts and the law state otherwise. That would be something that he would have to take to court.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

CraterCove said:


> Again with this contract that you at once claim to know all about and to know nothing about. Sorry, it's tiring.


Here is your proof as with regards to my statement. Please note this was not about a clause on code of conduct and therefore had nothing to do with my previous posts that were so tiring to you.

http://www.lcwlegal.com/83599
"4. Private Sector Free Speech:

One of the most uncertain areas of free speech law in employment, and one that will certainly receive significant attention in 2013, is the area of employee workplace-related speech in the private sector. The First Amendment does not apply to the private sector, since private employers are not state actors. But the U.S. National Labor Relations Act gives private sector employees substantial rights to engage in free speech as part of "concerted activity for mutual aid or protection." This protection applies regardless of whether the workplace is unionized, and has recently been interpreted by the National Labor Relations Board ("NLRB") to protect employees from discipline when they complain to other employees, even if distastefully and inappropriately, concerning workplace-related issues. Indeed, the NLRB recently determined that a BMW dealership's "Courtesy Rule" and a Costco policy against employees making any statement that "damages" the company violated the Act because they potentially stifled the "concerted activity" the Act protects. The NLRB has applied the protection vigorously to employee posts on Facebook and other social media. This line of NLRB decisions has garnered very substantial attention from commentators and the media.

There is one fragility in this entire new body of law, however, especially as applied to social media: It is mainly the creation of the NLRB itself. No federal appellate court reviewing the "concerted activities" statute has as yet approved of the vast scope that the NLRB regional offices, and the Board itself, have recently accorded it. Many believe federal courts reviewing NLRB decisions will soon cut back on the new protections available to private sector employee speech, including speech on social media. In the meantime, commentators continue to express surprise at how the "concerted activities" protection seemingly makes it possible, for example, to shout expletives at the boss, as long as it relates to workplace issues covered by the National Labor Relations Act, or to post numerous types of anti-employer sentiments on Facebook or elsewhere."


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Here is another good article.

http://www.modvive.com/2013/12/21/private-sector-freedom-speech-actions-consequences/

"Does he have a right to freedom of speech? Why, yes, he sure does have a right to freely speak. A&E is not saying he cannot make whatever statements he wants. A&E did not go run to GQ Magazine and order that the article be pulled. He was not arrested for making the statements he did. The FCC nor any other governmental entity infringed on his right to make those statements.
The First Amendment says that Congress shall make no law abridging the right to freedom of speech. It says absolutely nothing about any private entity or business punishing one of their employees or paid contractors for making statements that put the business in bad light. A business has the right to fire or suspend an employee for violating a contract. It is as simple as that. We do not know what was in his contract with A&E or at least I do not know the specifics, but I would imagine they would have certain terms in there about how they represent the network that pays them handsomely for this show. I am sure he read the contract before signing on the dotted line. And letâs be honest â he went to GQ, which is not exactly Highlights Magazine. They are known for controversial articles. Seriously, people, calm down."


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination by employers on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin.
A&E suspended Phil Robertson because of his religion and sexual preference. How is this legal? Does the Civil Rights Act not apply to white hetero Christian males?
And he did not say this on the show it was a magazine aimed at upper mobile class of folks.


----------



## Nate_in_IN (Apr 5, 2013)

painterswife said:


> In realty this has nothing to do with the right to free speech or expression. When signing a contract or entering into an employment contract (verbal or written) the First Amendment does not apply in the private sector.


That's correct. However Title VII of the Civil Rights Act (1968) does detail labor code which applies to private sector employers.



> DEFINITIONS
> (b) The term âemployerâ means a person engaged in an industry affecting commerce who has fifteen or more employees for each working day in each of twenty or more calendar weeks in the current or preceding calendar year, and any agent of such a person, but such term does not include (1) the United States, a corporation wholly owned by the Government of the United States, an Indian tribe, or any department or agency of the District of Columbia subject by statute to procedures of the competitive service (as defined in section 2102 of Title 5 [United States Code])


And this I believe is the relevant section of the law which may be disputed


> UNLAWFUL EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES
> SEC. 2000e-2. [Section 703]
> 
> (a) Employer practices
> ...


This law should apply to A&E, and should be available to Phil should he choose to pursue it.

Contrary to what a lot of people have said, the market place is not "free" for employers to dispose of employees for any reason. I'm not a fan of government regulation, but I do agree there should be protection for an employee for choices/beliefs/statements/etc which do not impact their employer or their ability to perform their work.


----------



## homstdr74 (Jul 4, 2011)

arabian knight said:


> Well the truth has already come out that the created of Duck Dynasty has been in gay Adult movie. So that may explain why the fast knee jerk reaction to fire Phil. The guy is a gay and made movies about them, so his "FEELINGS" were hurt by what Phil Robertson said. Ah too bad so sad, now move on Scott and tell America that was the reason.


Thank you for providing this information. It's much as I thought---a very few started all this nonsense because their "feelings" were/might possibly be hurt:

http://chicago.gopride.com/news/article.cfm/articleid/51112449

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3104313/posts

http://guardianlv.com/2013/12/duck-dynasty-creator-played-gay-adult-film-star/

http://www.tmz.com/2013/12/21/a-and-e-duck-dynasty-gay-gq-phil-robertson/


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Nate_in_IN said:


> That's correct. However Title VII of the Civil Rights Act (1968) does detail labor code which applies to private sector employers.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I agree and that would make this about discrimination and not freedom of speech.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

painterswife said:


> In realty this has nothing to do with the right to free speech or expression. When signing a contract or entering into an employment contract (verbal or written) the First Amendment does not apply in the private sector.


I would think that if he had violated his contract, I would think he would be terminated instead of simply being put on hiatus.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

wr said:


> I would think that if he had violated his contract, I would think he would be terminated instead of simply being put on hiatus.


Lots of companies put people on leave while consulting with their lawyers.


----------



## Nate_in_IN (Apr 5, 2013)

arabian knight said:


> Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination by employers on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin.
> A&E suspended Phil Robertson because of his religion and sexual preference. How is this legal? Does the Civil Rights Act not apply to white hetero Christian males?
> And he did not say this on the show it was a magazine aimed at upper mobile class of folks.


You beat me to it AK. Forgive my post immediately after this one. I agree with the above. This would be a case under Title VII.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Nate_in_IN said:


> You beat me to it AK. Forgive my post immediately after this one. I agree with the above. This would be a case under Title VII.


He did not say this on the show, however it was reported it was an interview that was monitored by A&E and the problem quotes were gathered by the reporter when they had taken a snowmobile ride and that A&E person was not part of. It could therefore be argued it was an work interview.


----------



## Nate_in_IN (Apr 5, 2013)

painterswife said:


> He did not say this on the show, he however did say it in an interview that was monitored by A&E and the problem quotes were gathered by the reporter when they had taken a snowmobile ride and that A&E person was not part of. It could therefore be argued it was an work interview.


Yes, there are many little details to this case. In addition, as I mentioned ina previous post, celebrities are treated differently. When highering a celebrity the network is in part purchasing the celebrities image. This is indicative of the higher wages paid to the most popular actors. This gives more lee-way to employers of celebrities than other professions.

What can't be disputed is the fact A&E does not feel their reality show Duck Dynasty is worthy of providing a religious discussion of LBGT issues.


----------



## chickenista (Mar 24, 2007)

Dixie Bee Acres said:


> Sarah Palin backed him up on fb or tweeter, or something like it saying this is another example of freedom of speech being attacked.


 

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/12/...erview-but-anus-remark-is-quoting-the-gospel/

I just have to laugh.
And laugh very, very hard.
All along I have been saying that I bet a lot of the people that were squeaking about all of this had not even read what he had to say.
And look!!!
Sarah Palin even says that she hasn't even read the article.
Sheesh.
It takes only a few minutes.

But it is all knee jerk.
And knee jerk is totally meaningless and without value at all.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

chickenista said:


> http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/12/...erview-but-anus-remark-is-quoting-the-gospel/
> 
> I just have to laugh.
> And laugh very, very hard.
> ...


So your saying that conservatives are learning the knee Jerk response from Liberals? Yeah, I suppose it's about time we started using their tactics against them to point out their hypocrisy!


----------



## Riverdale (Jan 20, 2008)

painterswife said:


> I can't even imagine how the Muslims in this country feel or even the ones who frequent this forum.


Alot more comfortable than a Christian (or an atheist or an agnostic, or a woman, or a gay person) would feel in an Islamic country, especially those ruled by sharia law.

Egypt is one of the 'progressive' Muslim countries.
Google 'Coptics in Egypt'
Google 'reporter rape in Egypt'
Google 'gay in Egypt'

Nice try, tho.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Riverdale said:


> Alot more comfortable than a Christian (or an atheist or an agnostic, or a woman, or a gay person) would feel in an Islamic country, especially those ruled by sharia law.
> 
> Egypt is one of the 'progressive' Muslim countries.
> Google 'Coptics in Egypt'
> ...


Nice try there yourself. Trying to say that what happens in this country or this forum is all right because it is worse in other countries. Fail.


----------



## sidepasser (May 10, 2002)

If Phil Robertson doesn't approve of Gays, that is his opinion and his right. BTW - A&E reversed themselves and he is "back in" the show.

Of course I doubt seriously if he cares, he is what he is. 

People are so darned PC these days. As my gram would say " most folks would not say ----te if they had a mouth full"..
and that is the truth. Even here on HT, we have to be C.A.R.E.F.U.L. not to offend anyone.

Got 12 pages of folks either indignent that Phil was put on hiatus or ----ed that he wasn't summarily fired...lol.. 

Can't have the show without Phil..and the bottom line is really what matters. A&E could care less about Gays, Lesbians, Transgenders or any other orientations. *They care about the bottom line and firing Phil killed their bottom line.*

Personally, I like Phil. He states what he believes and stands by it. No wishy washy PC to keep the masses entertained. I may not believe exactly like he does, but at least he has his beliefs and doesn't compromise.


----------



## Wanda (Dec 19, 2002)

If it is about making a statement and not the money,why is he going back?


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

The LOVE of money, is THE root, of all evil.....


----------



## deaconjim (Oct 31, 2005)

Wanda said:


> If it is about making a statement and not the money,why is he going back?


Why wouldn't he go back? It was never his desire to leave the show, that was a decision made by A&E, who soon realized the error of their ways. If Phil was making any kind of 'statement', it was that he did nothing wrong and would not back down to the PC police. A&E retreated, Phil's 'statement' was made, so he has no reason to not return.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Me Robertson gets to go back with his head held high and his backers get to claim a victory over the godless masses. A&E will run a series of anti-intolerance PSAs so the special interest groups on that side can claim victory also. The Robertsons and A&E can continue to make money. Everybody wins.


----------



## deaconjim (Oct 31, 2005)

mmoetc said:


> Me Robertson gets to go back with his head held high and his backers get to claim a victory over the godless masses. A&E will run a series of anti-intolerance PSAs so the special interest groups on that side can claim victory also. The Robertsons and A&E can continue to make money. Everybody wins.


I hope they do continue to make money. That is, after all, what being in business is all about, and what makes the economy work.


----------



## ajaxlucy (Jul 18, 2004)

sidepasser said:


> Can't have the show without Phil..and the bottom line is really what matters. A&E could care less about Gays, Lesbians, Transgenders or any other orientations. *They care about the bottom line and firing Phil killed their bottom line.*


This is exactly right.

I think Phil's comments on societies where there is no Jesus are bizarre in their ignorance of history. If they were made by a history teacher or judge or someone in political office, I'd be worried about that person's good judgement, but from a reality show celebrity? He's just another entertainer.


----------



## Wanda (Dec 19, 2002)

deaconjim said:


> Why wouldn't he go back? It was never his desire to leave the show, that was a decision made by A&E, who soon realized the error of their ways. If Phil was making any kind of 'statement', it was that he did nothing wrong and would not back down to the PC police. A&E retreated, Phil's 'statement' was made, so he has no reason to not return.



If there view is against what he believes in why would he want to make money for them?:shrug: Do you suppose he makes donations to other groups that go against what he believes in? It is my opinion that money wins out in this case.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Wanda said:


> It is my opinion that money wins out in this case.


Sure it is That is why A&E caved. They have Heard from America, and that Knee Jerk Reaction they did was not the thing to do, and they found out about it in a big way. They would lose a Bunch of money. And The Robertson's, they could care less they have other 'outlets' to go with their Duck Calls and Deer Hunting related items, and have a show on The Outdoor Channel doing just that.


----------



## deaconjim (Oct 31, 2005)

Wanda said:


> If there view is against what he believes in why would he want to make money for them?:shrug: Do you suppose he makes donations to other groups that go against what he believes in? It is my opinion that money wins out in this case.


Do you think he was ever under the impression that they shared the same views? Phil is an intelligent man, and knew who he was dealing with. He stood his ground and they backed down. He has no reason to not honor his contractural obligations, nor should he forfeit the platform they have given him to show his family values and morality.


----------



## Wanda (Dec 19, 2002)

So it sounds like everyone thinks it is all about money and that makes it a win for both sides.


----------



## deaconjim (Oct 31, 2005)

Wanda said:


> So it sounds like everyone thinks it is all about money and that makes it a win for both sides.


I think you may have missed the whole point. A&E was certainly motivated by money, but I sincerely doubt that is true for Phil Robertson. 

Robertson is a man that turned down an opportunity to play for the NFL because it would interfere with hunting season. Despite that, he managed to build his own business and become quite wealthy, long before A&E came along. If Duck Dynasty ceased to exist today, Phil and his family would continue to do quite well. 

I don't know anything about you so I have no idea if you are familiar with people like the Robertsons or not, but I have been around them my whole life and I understand what motivates them. I cannot imagine Phil, or any of the other Robertsons for that matter, sacrificing their beliefs and principles over money.


----------



## KentuckyDreamer (Jan 20, 2012)

Here is something I am wondering; GLAAD is insisting A & E have Phil Robertson sit down with different minority groups and hear how his words have hurt them.

Phil quoted from the Bible and spoke from what he personally experienced when young. What is there to talk about? Are they saying he should not discuss his personal experiences because it hurts someone?

I was born in 1955, ergo I was young and self centered in the 60's. All I can tell you is what was happening in my neighborhood...and that was not indicative of what was happening in the world. But it is all I can tell you, for it is all I witnessed. If I hurt feelings that is not my intentions, it is my life story.


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

Wanda said:


> So it sounds like everyone thinks it is all about money and that makes it a win for both sides.


All about money?
Absolutely

Win for both sides?
Absolutely not.

Both sides (christians, glbt) were carefully selected, to be MOCKED, prodded, insighted, exposed, and used.
ALL PARTIES INVOLVED knew that these two groups of people are:

1. Already pitted against one another.
2. Already feel violated by the other.
3. Already feel THEY are right, period.
4. Are easily excited. 
5. Are VERY vocal (Read: lots of FREE press, Face book, twitter, forums such as this....)

Both sides did exactly what was expected.
The beauty?
It was right around christmas time.....SALES for t-shirts, novelty items, dvd's SKYROCKETED. 

Seriously folks, seriously?
Anyone who thinks this is ANYTHING other than a publicity stunt?
I have a LOVELY bridge for sale...I can send you photos from my Nigerian email address......


----------



## dixiegal62 (Aug 18, 2007)

Seems the media is not done with PR yet. Had the news on a local channel this morning and they're going after him now because he married Miss Kay when she was 16. I've heard him tell the story many times on youtube. He said his Grandpa use to say,' If you marry a woman at 16 she'll pick your ducks, if you marry her at 20 she'll pick your pockets.' I'm guessing 50 years ago many married young, I know my parents did. Another forum I read is now calling him a pedophile.


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

Was she 16 when he was 50?
THen yeah, that's gross.
Were they young 50 years ago?
Um, then that's 'normal'.......

Sheesh.

HE IS 4 YEARS OLDER THAN HER.......omg people, get a grip. Get a life. Stop living vicariously through TV....go outside, get some sunshine....
WOW.
Just wow.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Riverdale said:


> Alot more comfortable than a Christian (or an atheist or an agnostic, or a woman, or a gay person) would feel in an Islamic country, especially those ruled by sharia law.
> 
> Egypt is one of the 'progressive' Muslim countries.
> Google 'Coptics in Egypt'
> ...












If one is going to bring up how muslims feel here I think they're opening up the discussion about what is done where they came from...


----------



## KentuckyDreamer (Jan 20, 2012)

Laura Zone 5 said:


> Was she 16 when he was 50?
> THen yeah, that's gross.
> Were they young 50 years ago?
> Um, then that's 'normal'.......
> ...


Not sure how I feel about this...
Loooong ago I read a great book "Four Arguments for the Elimination of Television". I completely agreed with the premise that the media is controlled by a certain number of people and they program according to the direction they would like society to go. Ex. sitcoms about successful single parenting before it was common.

While this may be a wasted endeavor, I think it can be a good thing if people make known they will not tolerate certain things. It may change the direction of entertainment, or at least insure special interest groups do not totally dictate what is available to the masses.

Getting my point across is not easy for me, so I hope this makes sense.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Tricky Grama said:


> If one is going to bring up how muslims feel here I think they're opening up the discussion about what is done where they came from...


Where they came from? Maybe they were born here. That would make the discussion about other countries moot.


----------



## dixiegal62 (Aug 18, 2007)

Hard to keep up with all the tolerance lessons, let me make sure I have this right.... 

saying you believe gays are sinners...intolerant
saying people who believe this are bigots...tolerant
saying you believe all southerners are racists...tolerant
saying generations of men who married young brides are pedophiles...tolerant

Many kids are waking up today only to learn their fathers and grandpas are sexual predators thanks to the media...priceless


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

All the more reason parents, need to parent, instead of letting media dictate truth.


----------



## Oggie (May 29, 2003)

Perhaps this might be an appropriate moment to point out that often the free market does work:



> 2013 has been Justin Bieber's toughest year yet, and it's going out with a really bad bang.
> 
> 
> "Believe,"his new documentary, opened to a dismal $1.25 million on Christmas Day. That's just about $1,200 per theater in the U.S. &#8212; the movie didn't crack the top 10.
> ...


From: http://www.ajc.com/news/entertainment/celebrity-news/justin-biebers-believe-flops-box-office/ncYJn/


----------



## NJ Rich (Dec 14, 2005)

The minister on Sunday said people from A&E were present when the interview was done. No one had a problem until the so-called Reverend Jackson of GLADD complained. There was applause when the Minister talked about the verses in the Bible said homosexual acts and other acts violate the teachings of the Bible.

Apparently Rebberund Jackson, of no real church, picks and chooses what part of the Bible he believes in.

Duck Commander has many other offers waiting to see what happened. The Duck Commander items were flying off the shelves in most stores. I wouldn't buy the Duck Dynasty products put out by A&E.

I don't let the Politically Correct Police dictate to me. Interesting how the gay community has no problem trashing those who do not agree with their lifestyle. I guess they would trash me! 

Don't forget your :flameproofundies::flameproofundies::flameproofundies:


----------



## SteveD(TX) (May 14, 2002)

Just got my Phil Robertson bobblehead off of the Duck Commander site a couple of days ago. He has a place of reverence in our home.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

How about this MSNBC report? Can't they just leave gun control alone?
*MSNBC Associates Duck Dynasty Gun Line With Mass Shootings*


> Roberts used leading questions to guide Everett in making these points throughout the segment.
> For example, Roberts introduced Everett by pointing out that the new line of guns includes a &#8220;semi-automatic pistol&#8221; and &#8220;two semi-automatic rifles.&#8221; Moreover, &#8220;the pistol and one of the rifles have military style designs with large capacity magazines holding at least 25 rounds.&#8221;
> This allowed Everett to respond in disbelief that Mossberg firearms would partner with a family like the Robertsons to make guns, especially guns with &#8220;high capacity&#8221; magazines.
> Everett pointed out the common elements in &#8220;mass shootings&#8221; are &#8220;the semi-automatics&#8221; Roberts described and &#8220;high capacity ammunition magazines.&#8221;



















http://www.infowars.com/msnbc-associates-duck-dynasty-gun-line-with-mass-shootings/


----------

