Why is that? It's an opinion, it can't hurt anybody. He doesn't seem like he would harm a gay person.
Is it fair to act this way simply because some find it offensive? I'm sure that the opposite opinion would be found offensive by some as well.
-
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?
- Thread starter MysticSang'ha
- Start date
Why is that? It's an opinion, it can't hurt anybody. He doesn't seem like he would harm a gay person.
Is it fair to act this way simply because some find it offensive? I'm sure that the opposite opinion would be found offensive by some as well.
I disagree. When a public figure advocates something, he helps to normalize it. A big part of the fight against drunk driving and spousal abuse, for instance, involved changing how these things were portrayed in the media. Same with homophobia.
Nobody's entitled to being the star of a TV show. If we were trying to decide who should be on TV based on "fairness", we'd be calling for Duck Dynasty's timeslot to be given to Firefly... even before Robertson's GQ interview.
YmirGF
Bodhisattva in Recovery
Still, I find it troubling that Robertson's comments were just not taken as a difference of opinion. I don't get the self-righteous condemnation of the man for saying what he believes is the truth. (And that is coming from a man who is proud to be gay. Go figure.)
Sees
Dragonslayer
I think it would have helped his cause if he gave an original, personal opinion and used more tact. For me doctrine and dogma are not really the same as a man or woman's opinion.
Me Myself
Back to my username
Do you want to negate their right to choose against him?
As ling as he can say all he wants on media he owns, there is no infringement of free speech at all.
I understand that, and he has every right to do this thing. People have the rights to do silly things - I'm merely just pointing out it was one of those silly things and hope that they'd reconsider.
Me Myself
Back to my username
Meh.
I dont know how silly or not it was, but they have every right to take him out and it has nothing to do with freedom of speech.
McBell
Unbound
It seems to me that, while they have every right to do that, just because they disagree with his opinion is so judgmental. To me it is similar to, if not the same as, firing a person based on their religion.
If they were to ban a guy from their channel because they are an atheist or a homosexual as well, I wouldn't doubt that most of you would justify it. I find such things foolish - beliefs are a part of one's personality, and unless their personality is actually a threat, there is no excuse for such intolerance.
Last edited:
McBell
Unbound
He was not fired.
He was suspended with pay.
Out of curiosity, why should A&E have to give up their right to suspend him?
I'm not saying giving up any right, my main point is not very impacting. My point is that this is an immature thing to do. That's not to say that I want them to bring them back if they don't want to, I simply want to understand why it is justified.
Sees
Dragonslayer
They don't want to be associated with what was said by the man... So they do a public display of disapproval.
Acting out freedoms always has it's limits outside of privacy or your own home.
I've heard two versions of this - When somebody is homosexual and are kicked out of people not wanting to be associated with it, then they are shamed. Chick-fil-A for example created quite a controversy. Another example is many boyscout groups did not allow gays to be in the groups.
But when it comes to beliefs, people lose their mind. They claim to be tolerant of all, but when it comes to disagreement often times said people will be so critical and intolerant of it.
Sees
Dragonslayer
I agree. Sad that people do double standards too often. Religious actions/words/views don't get a pass from me any more than independent, personal actions/words/views. Harmful, intolerant, oppressive, etc. is what it is even if
wearing religious or cultural clothing.
People need to have integrity with this stuff and fairness across the board.
Legal and right isn't the same and people/corporations will do what they do.
dawny0826
Mother Heathen
EXACTLY!
These were my thoughts too. They very well could have taken advantage of an opportunity to separate themselves from his statements without letting him go.
They may shot themselves in the foot. I fear the audience they're concerned about isn't the same audience enjoying the show.
Isnt it supposed to be some sort of real tv. So they should be speaking their real mind. I wouod be more disappointed to find that they are under contract not to say such things. If he is supoosed to be real then let him. He is hilarious with his yuppie technology comments and doesnt surpirse me in the least that he has those sort of controversial, typically conservative views.
dawny0826
Mother Heathen
That's their choice. A&E, Walmart and others can conduct their business as they see fit. But, to a great extent I believe they're shooting themselves in the foot, as the show, partnerships and merchandising targets audiences that are less likely to be offended by Robertson.
And each establishment has the option of issuing statements, separating themselves from Robertson's comments. A&E did this, but, took it a step further and suspended him. Was that necessary when considering the context of the GQ article? He was openly sharing and asked for opinion.
The GQ article is excruciating to read. Let me be clear, Margary's arrogance is as nauseating as Robertson's purported ignorance.
I don't know the specifics of Robertson's contract. From a business perspective, I respect the rights of A&E and others to do what they feel best to protect their profitability.
I'm of the opinion that Robertson should have exercised better judgement. He's damaged his own reputation by his own commentary. But, I'm not blind to the underlying hypocrisies here and am not impressed with Margary or O'Connor.
Last edited:
A few people have talked about hypocrisy and double standards. Can any of you explain this more? So far, I'm not seeing it.
To me, there is no obvious hypocrisy of A&E specifically. But, there are some people who would feel comfortable claiming that they support freedom, yet at the same time they do not support Phil's freedom to believe such things.