• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Duck Dynasty star indefinitely suspended for anti-gay remarks - right move or PC run amok?

McBell

McBell

Unbound
Reverend Rick said:
Yeah, I can't see a good fit for Phil to do an interview with GQ in the first place.

Let's review his Christian Doctrine, he believes we all are sinners and are in need of God's grace.

I really don't see hate in his heart or wishes anyone bad will.

Now his speech is offensive to many and I support A&E to run their network as they please.

I personally don't think they will put their sensibilities before profit, but if they do, I actually will be impressed.

The Robinsons will not sell out their father, they will all walk putting their principles before money.

This is going to be a very interesting event.
Click to expand...

Except he was suspended with pay...
 
sojourner

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
Pine said:
So he should shut up just because someone won't like his opinion?
Click to expand...
He can say what he wants, but he should realize that actions have consequences. If ministers of 95% of Christian denominations speak out in favor of homosexual equality, we don't just get laid off -- we get fired. Actions have consequences. I don't feel a bit sorry for Phil having been laid off for propagating this kind of dehumanization.
 
sojourner

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
Pine said:
I don't think he cares about the fallout. He was asked a question and he answered it honestly. I respect him for that.
Click to expand...
I don't. That sort of dehumanizing speech has no place in mainstream media where it is given credence as somehow authoritative. We don't use the "N" word in mainstream media -- nor should we. This sort of speech shouldn't be used, either.
 
sojourner

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
In a democratic country, people have the right to be homophobic as well as they have the right to support homosexuality
Click to expand...
Maybe the mainstream media should simply allow bigots to openly call blacks the "N" word, because that's how they feel, and should allow bigots to call women the "C" word, because that's how they feel. perhaps the mainstream media should allow bigots to call any minority group by any of the ample derogatory and dehumanizing terms. Because, after all, our right to say what we please is far, far more important than our social responsibility, and the mainstreaming and normalizing of such terms doesn't hurt anyone and doesn't serve to further objectify groups that are fighting for equality.
 
Saint Frankenstein

Saint Frankenstein

Here for the ride
Premium Member
sojourner said:
Maybe the mainstream media should simply allow bigots to openly call blacks the "N" word, because that's how they feel, and should allow bigots to call women the "C" word, because that's how they feel. perhaps the mainstream media should allow bigots to call any minority group by any of the ample derogatory and dehumanizing terms. Because, after all, our right to say what we please is far, far more important than our social responsibility, and the mainstreaming and normalizing of such terms doesn't hurt anyone and doesn't serve to further objectify groups that are fighting for equality.
Click to expand...

Paglia is just a contrarian attention whore. She's best ignored.
 
Pine

Pine

-
What's missing here is that you can't force people to think the way you do. The brain doesn't work that way. You can paint them into a corner and get them to parrot your mantra, but unless they personally embrace a belief it ain't gonna happen.

The gays will have to accept that some people have an aversion to their lifestyle. Not everyone is going to show them the love and there's nothing wrong with that. THAT is normal.
 
dust1n

dust1n

Zindīq
Pine said:
I've been following this controversy for a couple of days now and I'm firmly behind this man, Robertson. I don't watch the show, but when I heard about the attack on his First Amendment rights I was appalled.

He is protected by the Constitution in his beliefs and no one should try to silence him.

I realize A&E has the right to end his contract, and that's fine, but they shouldn't expect him to compromise his personal beliefs or ethics.
Click to expand...

I don't get it. You say A&E has the right to end his contract. So how exactly was this guy's First Amendment rights attacked? Did A&E attack his right to say something by exercising their right to fire them?
 
Pine

Pine

-
Robertson has specific religious beliefs and he freely expressed them and was attacked for it. That is an assault on his First Amendment rights to freedom of religion and speech.

Everybody seems to think the First doesn't apply here, but it does. We are free to speak our minds in this country and no special interest group has the right to silence us because they don't like what we say. They can disagree all they want, but they can't silence us.

I don't care if they fire him. He's covered.
 
dust1n

dust1n

Zindīq
Pine said:
Robertson has specific religious beliefs and he freely expressed them and was attacked for it. That is an assault on his First Amendment rights to freedom of religion and speech.
Click to expand...

So no has the right to attack some for their speech? What, are you against free speech or something?
 
A

AmbiguousGuy

Well-Known Member
Pine said:
Robertson has specific religious beliefs and he freely expressed them and was attacked for it. That is an assault on his First Amendment rights to freedom of religion and speech.

Everybody seems to think the First doesn't apply here, but it does. We are free to speak our minds in this country and no special interest group has the right to silence us because they don't like what we say. They can disagree all they want, but they can't silence us.

I don't care if they fire him. He's covered.
Click to expand...

I don't think he's in any danger of being arrested. Is that what you mean by 'he's covered'?
 
Pine

Pine

-
dust1n said:
So no has the right to attack some for their speech? What, are you against free speech or something?
Click to expand...

Reread my entire post. If you had comprehended it you would have noticed that I said we have the right to disagree with each other, which is in defense of free speech.
 
dust1n

dust1n

Zindīq
Pine said:
Reread my entire post. If you had comprehended it you would have noticed that I said we have the right to disagree with each other, which is in defense of free speech.
Click to expand...

And A&E has a right to fire people. And the guy has a right to say whatever he wants. And everyone in the world has a right to comment on it. So, I still fail to see where an attack on First Amendment rights took place. The Bill of Rights doesn't apply to television networks. Who attacked his First Amendment rights?

In order for me to comprehend the post, it has to first be comprehensible.
 
Pine

Pine

-
1. Yes, they have the right to fire him. I never disputed that.

2. He was essentially punished for speaking his mind based on his beliefs. That is an attack on his First Amendment rights.

3. They "punished" him both for his religious outlook and for speaking it aloud.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top