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

[outhouse]

I think Paul was a homosexual and a liar. Is it OK to put those two in the same sentence?

Not according to forum rules.

As a staff member, I find it appauling that you denounce the faith of others.

As a person, Im not sure about the gay, but his truthfulness is in question.

 

[Awoon]

"Let God be true but every man a liar." Paul the apostle musta included himself.

 

[Ouroboros]

"Let God be true but every man a liar." Paul the apostle musta included himself.

Unless he considered himself to be God.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Moderator cut: image removed

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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.

If you think that everybody has a right to speak their minds, then why do you have such a problem with people speaking their minds about Phil Robertson's views?

 

[Me Myself]

Moderator cut: image removed

He practiced his freedom of expression and he got banned. What is the contradiction?

He could buy his own channel and spew hate 24/7 if he wanted. No one will ban that. Because he has freedom of expression.

 

[Me Myself]

People keep throwing around the word "punish" but I have not seen any.
Phil Robertson was suspended with pay.
Where is the "punishment"?

Agreed.

They merely selected their content as they have the right to do.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Moderator cut: image removed

ROFL Miley got all kinds of negative press from her twerking onstage with Robin Thicke. Where did the general sentiment become supportive of Miley Cyrus?

 

[The Sum of Awe]

ROFL Miley got all kinds of negative press from her twerking onstage with Robin Thicke. Where did the general sentiment become supportive of Miley Cyrus?

Of course, pretty much all actions taken by celebrities have negative press. However, her producers were more accepting of that action than A&E was with Rob expressing what he truly believed. Considering that A&E (the channel that shown the Duck Dynasty) banned his appearance, it is much more than just negative press.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

He practiced his freedom of expression and he got banned. What is the contradiction?

He could buy his own channel and spew hate 24/7 if he wanted. No one will ban that. Because he has freedom of expression.

Why should he have to? As far as I understand, he was interviewed and gave his opinion, right? Sure, he could have kept it simpler and less dramatic, but why should he have had to? He expressed his opinion because obviously he holds high value to that opinion.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Of course, pretty much all actions taken by celebrities have negative press. However, her producers were more accepting of that action than A&E was with Rob expressing what he truly believed. Considering that A&E (the channel that shown the Duck Dynasty) banned his appearance, it is much more than just negative press.

Every appearance on a television show or event has varying contractual specifications. We have that when we as a dance company agree to appear on stage at various theatres. Some stages are more lenient to content, while others are much more strict. The last theatre we had a contract with had us agreeing that we would not allow any raffle sales, where other theatre management would.

MTV stages an awards event that counts on crazy stunts (thank you Madonna for humping the stage in 1984). A&E don't offer the same contractual agreements as MTV, but both pay people for their appearances and for what personalities can do to bring people and sponsors in.

So, no. They're not the same.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Of course, pretty much all actions taken by celebrities have negative press. However, her producers were more accepting of that action than A&E was with Rob expressing what he truly believed. Considering that A&E (the channel that shown the Duck Dynasty) banned his appearance, it is much more than just negative press.

Duck Dynasty is produced by Gurney Productions. I haven't heard anything "unaccepting" from them about the show or Phil Roberston; have you?

Duck Dynasty | Gurney Productions

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Every appearance on a television show or event has varying contractual specifications. We have that when we as a dance company agree to appear on stage at various theatres. Some stages are more lenient to content, while others are much more strict. The last theatre we had a contract with had us agreeing that we would not allow any raffle sales, where other theatre management would.

MTV stages an awards event that counts on crazy stunts (thank you Madonna for humping the stage in 1984). A&E don't offer the same contractual agreements as MTV, but both pay people for their appearances and for what personalities can do to bring people and sponsors in.

So, no. They're not the same.

He didn't do any crazy stunt, he spoke what he believed in an interview. Like Paula Deen, say one word and you're gone!

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Duck Dynasty is produced by Gurney Productions. I haven't heard anything "unaccepting" from them about the show or Phil Roberston; have you?

Duck Dynasty | Gurney Productions

How isn't banning him an obvious sign that they are not accepting?

 

[MysticSang'ha]

He didn't do any crazy stunt, he spoke what he believed in an interview. Like Paula Deen, say one word and you're gone!

Right.

Michael Richards went on a rant onstage in a stand-up act, and reacted to a heckler saying the n-word repeatedly. Not only that, but he invoked lynching to the black audience member, saying that if it were 50 years ago, he could have him strung up with a pitchfork up his ***.

Michael Richards understandably suffered for it, and could not find much - if any - work afterward.

At one time, it was perfectly okay to portray women with overtly negative stereotypes as flaky, emotional, and frail people in product advertisements. It's NOT okay now to portray them as such. At one time, it was perfectly okay for a white performer to present himself in blackface. It's NOT okay to do that now.

Understanding the history behind the use of the n-word and how it fit in the subjugation of blacks helps people to see why Paula Deen was shunned so quickly.

10 years ago, Phil Robertsons comments probably would have been glossed over. These days, however, culture has changed - fortunately - to show that queers like me are not inhuman freaks who are only running around looking to destroy the institution of traditional marriage. Just a couple of years ago, I was in corporate meetings with people who boasted about how far they had come with accepting homosexuals by saying they'd only "beat them up a little bit" rather than finding them and killing them.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Right.

Michael Richards went on a rant onstage in a stand-up act, and reacted to a heckler saying the n-word repeatedly. Not only that, but he invoked lynching to the black audience member, saying that if it were 50 years ago, he could have him strung up with a pitchfork up his ***.

Michael Richards understandably suffered for it, and could not find much - if any - work afterward.

At one time, it was perfectly okay to portray women with overtly negative stereotypes as flaky, emotional, and frail people in product advertisements. It's NOT okay now to portray them as such. At one time, it was perfectly okay for a white performer to present himself in blackface. It's NOT okay to do that now.

Understanding the history behind the use of the n-word and how it fit in the subjugation of blacks helps people to see why Paula Deen was shunned so quickly.

10 years ago, Phil Robertsons comments probably would have been glossed over. These days, however, culture has changed - fortunately - to show that queers like me are not inhuman freaks who are only running around looking to destroy the institution of traditional marriage. Just a couple of years ago, I was in corporate meetings with people who boasted about how far they had come with accepting homosexuals by saying they'd only "beat them up a little bit" rather than finding them and killing them.

I agree, but as a means to ban his appearance I disagree.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

10 years ago, Phil Robertsons comments probably would have been glossed over. These days, however, culture has changed - fortunately - to show that queers like me are not inhuman freaks who are only running around looking to destroy the institution of traditional marriage. Just a couple of years ago, I was in corporate meetings with people who boasted about how far they had come with accepting homosexuals by saying they'd only "beat them up a little bit" rather than finding them and killing them.

While I consider his anti-gay comments offensive and harmful, I've seen that sort of thing ignored enough times that I'm not too surprised to hear people defend Robertson.

What really surprises me is that his comments about the treatment of African Americans isn't stopping more people from rushing to support him. In that interview, he didn't only equate homosexuality with bestiality; he also claimed that he never saw any unhappy or mistreated black people while growing up in 1950s rural Louisiana... a claim that someone else who grew up in rural Louisiana just can't understand:

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

While this is possible, it is highly improbable. Robertson is 67 years old, born into the Jim Crow South. Only a man blind and naïve to the suffering of others could have existed there and not recognized that there was a rampant culture of violence against blacks, with incidents and signs large and small, at every turn, on full display.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/21/opinion/blow-duck-dynasty-and-quackery.html?hp&rref=opinion&_r=0

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

How isn't banning him an obvious sign that they are not accepting?

Did Gurney Productions ban him? All the coverage I've heard said that the decision was made by A&E.

 

[Awoon]

Did Gurney Productions ban him? All the coverage I've heard said that the decision was made by A&E.

Nine of the first ten episodes have already been recorded. He isn't banned from them or edited out as far as I know, people will still see him for nine weeks. After that the ban begins if it isn't changed. The show must go on.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Did Gurney Productions ban him? All the coverage I've heard said that the decision was made by A&E.

I was talking specifically about A&E