'Duck Dynasty': A&E warned Phil Robertson about speaking out too much [W:1111]

disneydude said:

Sorry Digs...but being intolerant of intolerance is neither intolerance nor bigotry.

Click to expand...

mac said:

And you agree to allow them to do that when you sign up.



Censorship is also punishing someone for what was said. And, if there were such clauses in his contract, oh well for Phil.

Click to expand...

mac said:

What did he say should happen to all those sinners, out of curiosity? Are they to be stoned in the streets? Shunned? Exiled? Drawn and quartered?

Click to expand...

Mason66 said:

OK so the question is then, why did A&E set up the interview with a magazine like GQ for Phil Robertson. They are polar opposites. I am sure there were representatives from A&E on set during the interview so why was nothing said until it was released in the actual magazine.

The reason is because A&E had no problem with what he said until GLAAD told them they did.

That makes A&Es position very weak.

Click to expand...

CRUE CAB said:

Nope, he said he prays for them.

Click to expand...

justabubba said:

A&E is a brand

likely few LGBT viewers of the duck dynasty program
would be surprised if there are many black viewers
but the brand, and what it stands for has to be protected from wingnut ravings by one of its employees

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

shrubnose said:

There are a lot of duck hunters in the USA, I lived in the Mississippi River Delta for a number of years but I never got into duck hunting, I did do a lot of fishing and caught a lot of fish.

I never watched the Duck Dynasty program (I watch very little TV.).

It will be interesting to see if Duck Dynasty survives the current kerfuffle and stays on TV.

Click to expand...

paddymcdougall said:

I found Robertson's AND Bashir's comments obnoxious. They both had the right to say them; but the networks also have the right to decide to suspend or fire them for those remarks.

Freedom of speech isn't freedom from consequences.

Click to expand...

Perotista said:

There was a time when the old adage applied, "I may disagree with what you have to day, but I will defend your right to say it." Who cares or who should care what a radio or tv talk show host says, or an entertainer for that fact. We either listen or watch because we enjoy the show or we don't. If one does not like what an entertainer said, just stop watching the show. Change the dial or turn off TV and spend some family time together.

It seems to me ever since this crazy PC talk started, it has been more about muzzling folks. What one says seems to warrant more punishment than any action one does. This is crazy.

Click to expand...

justabubba said:

i am not ashamed to point out phil robertson's intolerant positions
it would be hypocritical to endorse equal rights for all but to also accept phil robertson's objection to homosexual behavior

you, on the other hand, stand with westboro baptist church in support of phil robertson's intolerance of those from the gay community. your refusal to accept equal rights for all is duly noted

Click to expand...

SouthernDemocrat said:

Read his quote, it cannot be reasonably construed any other way. Most peopled don't follow up homosexuality with beastality.

Click to expand...

Mason66 said:

You see but that doesn't make any money for GLAAD which is what this is about.

Now they will have more people giving them money so they can stop other horrible people from speaking out about gays.

Now the NAACP is getting into the act about what Phil said about blacks for the same reason.

Click to expand...

SouthernDemocrat said:

This is his quote:

“Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men,” he tells reporter Drew Magary. “Don’t be deceived. Neither the adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlers—they won’t inherit the kingdom of God. Don’t deceive yourself. It’s not right.”

'Duck Dynasty's' Phil Robertson sounds off on gays, civil rights - latimes.com

His implication is clear as day. Start with homosexuality then it morphs into raping an animal. No decent person makes such a comparison. Moreover, he then goes on to paraphrase a verse as you say, but that verse never mentions bestiality. That is a comparison he made himself. You don't find that one in scripture.

Click to expand...

Perotista said:

So be it, that is their choice. Mine is to either watch Mr. Duck or not. Since I have never watched the program and never had a desire to do so, I am not going to watch it now or not watch it for whatever reason GLAAD or the NCAACP wants me to stop watching it. As it stands now, this whole things has brought a ton of free publicity to the program and probably made the program more popular than ever. For those in the movie, show or TV business there is no such thing as bad publicity, it is when there is none that those folks start to worry.

I hear A&E will be running a ton of reruns of Mr. Duck this week, this is just what they needed. More viewers because of all this publicity.

Click to expand...

crue cab said:

i can pretty much guarantee that phil robertson didnt sign a contract that muzzled his religious beliefs.

Click to expand...

if you can 'pretty much guarantee', that means that you have some proof that you can show us, eh?

I'd like to see it.

Click to expand...

CRUE CAB said:

I can pretty much guarantee that Phil Robertson didnt sign a contract that muzzled his religious beliefs.

Click to expand...

Mason66 said:

That is exactly right.

These people are playing checkers when they should be playing chess.

Click to expand...

SouthernDemocrat said:

I am not saying the Robertsons are not good people. I think Phil is a nice man and a good person. However, I think the vast majority of Americans believe that comparing homosexuality to bestiality is indecent. I also think the vast majority of Americans believe that to imply that blacks in the south were happy under Jim Crow is offensive. If don't agree then simply make such comparisons in mixed company and see what happens.

Click to expand...

justabubba said:

no you can't
all you can offer is wistful speculation

Click to expand...

shrubnose said:

[/color][/b]

Click to expand...

mac said:

It reads like a list of what he thinks are sins, I don't see a comparison of one to the other...no matter how you slice it.

Click to expand...

shrubnose said:

A&E Warned Robertson to watch his mouth and he ignored that warning.

I have zero sympathy for the guy, he has shown with his comments that he's a hater.He has brought this on himself.

Here's what got Phil Robertson in trouble:http://www.businessinsider.com/when-you-defend-phil-robertson-heres-what-youre-really-defending-2013-12

Robertson is out of touch with most American's attitudes about a number of things.

Click to expand...

CRUE CAB said:

Telling a grown man to "watch your mouth" will usually get yours slapped. They pray at the end of the show, they are from the south, they are rednecks. Just what did A&E think was going to happen

Click to expand...

?

Click to expand...

Mason66 said:

The Obama doctrine is, repeat it enough times until they believe it.

I think that is what is going on here.

Click to expand...

calamity said:

What throws me for a loop is the constant gay bashing on the Right. I'm not exactly a fan of gay sex myself, but I also know that gay relationships go far beyond just sex. I guess I empathize with a person or group of them being offended by someone reducing their love for a partner to comparisons between a vagina and an asshole. It's crass, to say the least.

Now, that being said, I can understand why people feel gays are an affront to what is decent and healthy in our society. After all, an 800 lbs gorilla in the room is the Aids epidemic, which we all know was primarily spread--in the USA, at least--through gay sex. When religious people and others complain about the practices of gay men, arguing that such behaviors can take down our society/country/whatever, they should not be discounted out of hand; it's not like the risks there are negligible.

However---and, this is where I draw the line in the sand--every human being has a right to happiness. And, in a free society, that includes having sex and marrying any consenting adult they fancy. If someone is attrated to same sex partners, and they find one--we should not interfere with their happiness.

Click to expand...