-
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
Enai de a lukal
Well-Known Member
Sure doesn't seem like it.
As are the choice of words one uses if one decides to be open about it. If Robertson had said "I disagree with/morally oppose homosexuality", without talking about beastiality, abominations, and the usual fundamentalist twaddle, he likely wouldn't have had much of a problem.
Yeah, if one is prejudiced against and intolerant of an entire segment of the population, and one has a highly visible job, why would one want to keep quiet about that?
He has all the right in the world to be open about it. He does NOT have the right, however, to expect people to react in a certain way. A&E has the right to disagree with his statements, even find them morally repulsive, and part ways with his employment.
Why? Spewing intolerance and religious-based bigotry isn't bad as long as it only happens infrequently?
I know this. I'm not saying that they are stopping Phil from having his views or publicly expressing them, at least not technically. The company, on the other hand, threatened his career with them for doing so. That's all the power they have, who's to say if they had more power that they wouldn't allow him to ever?
It's not allowing gay hatred to be proclaimed through their channel, Phil hasn't expressed it on the show, only in the interview. If he were going to express it on the show, I would definitely understand why they wouldn't allow it. But this was an interview, separate from their channel!
You misunderstood me. All beliefs should be allowed in public media, but if a private business is based around a certain belief, then contradicting beliefs would have an obvious reason to not be allowed. Public is literally public, remember that. Not "public except from homophobes".
Not really. Sure they are technically public, but they were more intended to be private for people of a certain religion. It's public for people in the religion, and for people outside of that religion that are not going to express anything against that religion.
It's better to think about it as a form of bribing. It doesn't seem so bad if he's getting paid, right?
Imagine, for another example, a gay guy not allowed to work but the company still pays him. If he really enjoyed his job, it is probably not fair for this to happen.
That's nothing to do with homophobia, that's just his religious beliefs. I can't come to terms with how ridiculous it is to not allow people to express their religion on their channel. Unless the channel were meant to be about a certain faith or meant to be completely devoid of faiths in general, it is crazy for such a thing. America is changing how it views homosexuality, that's good. But to the point where we turn down the entire acceptability of religion, that's ridiculous.
So do you think that such a case would be unjust? If so, how is the persecution of atheists unjust but the persecution of Christian or homophobic beliefs (as long as they are kept only as beliefs, not physical harming) justified?
Right. I don't think it was. A&E didn't care if he was Christian, so that wasn't the reason. It was only the homophobic views being expressed. They just don't want to condone that kind of views or be associated with it. Think of the viewers they would lose. Basically, any gay would boycott A&E for being anti-gay. I don't think they wanted to lose the viewers.
I doubt they would lose many. If anything, there would be boycotts of Duck Dynasty instead of A&E.
Why not?
I wouldn't put too much money on that. But even if that were true, that's how he views it, and obviously he holds it strong.
Because they believe it and are not only brave to express that believe, they want to express it. Views intolerant against their intolerance are no better.Yeah, if one is prejudiced against and intolerant of an entire segment of the population, and one has a highly visible job, why would one want to keep quiet about that?
I've never said they didn't in fact I've mentioned that they did have the full right to disagree with his statements.
People have the rights to do stupid, radical things. I have the right to point out that they are stupid and radical things.
Why? Spewing intolerance and religious-based bigotry isn't bad as long as it only happens infrequently?
No...
Annoyance is a justifiable reason to make such an action, that's all I meant by that. He clearly didn't push this belief on anyone or repeatedly say it to the point it would be annoying.
It just seems so ignorant how a lot of the times bigotry isn't frowned upon unless it is religious-based.
If they were to kick someone off of Television every time someone said something controversial or what others may not agree with or be offended by then there would be very few things left on television to watch.
It isnt so much political correctness run amuck as it is selective censorship on Freedom of Expression.
It isnt so much political correctness run amuck as it is selective censorship on Freedom of Expression.
I got an idea...I do an entire show that focuses entirely on the opinion that Christians are bigoted, hateful, uneducated, and destined to be unworthy of the same freedoms as me.
I lose audiences as a result. People boycott my studio and my shows.
Can I claim I'm being censored because people aren't patronizing my business just because of what could be my views?
(Which they're not, to be clear, just being hypothetical)
I lose audiences as a result. People boycott my studio and my shows.
Can I claim I'm being censored because people aren't patronizing my business just because of what could be my views?
(Which they're not, to be clear, just being hypothetical)
Kilgore Trout
Misanthropic Humanist
I think we should get Honey-Boo-Boo to weigh in on the situation and offer her perspective on the issue before coming to any decisions. If the appropriate course still isn't clear, we can get the Real Housewives to offer their sage and erudite insights on the matter.
No you can't and neither can Phil and be legit. The chips fall where they may.
Hahaa, yeah. Pretty much my feelings on it.
I do business with all sorts of people. I learned very early on to refrain from expressing opinions of religious or political nature so candidly.
Tact and discretion. It's a business owners best friend.
LOL, you have not seen anything yet. We have a Muslim family that bought a carryout next to a factory. They make breakfast and lunch for their customers. Seeing them make and serve bisquits and saugage gravy blew my mind.Hahaa, yeah. Pretty much my feelings on it.
I do business with all sorts of people. I learned very early on to refrain from expressing opinions of religious or political nature so candidly.
Tact and discretion. It's a business owners best friend.
Whoot! That's awesome!
I admit to still being a newbie. Haven't reached that benchmark of 3 years straight in operation yet. But already, a LOT has opened my eyes.
Kind of like riding a bike, in a way. The nuts and bolts can be explained pretty easily, but you still have to get on it and ride while learning and weathering all the bumps and bruises and scrapes along the way. It's more of an experiential thing than theoretical. And like riding a bike, the best thing to do is to keep moving.
But back to your post....that's totally wild. And now I'm hungry for bisquits and gravy. :drool:
I did not know you skinny, long legged, tiny butt, dancer types ate stuff like that.
I did not know you skinny, long legged, tiny butt, dancer types ate stuff like that.
1) I'm not long-legged. LOL
2) Bisquits and gravy is rather like whiskey. Every once in a while is awesome. Every day....not so much.
I heard on MSNBC that he apparently said that black people were better off before civil rights, too. :/
Jeremy Mason
Well-Known Member
FranklinMichaelV.3
Well-Known Member
Yeah, that part had me laughing.
Jeremy Mason
Well-Known Member
Wow. That comment is just an epic fail.
It is and I don't really buy the "oh, it's a cultural thing" either. His unabated ignorance of the horrors that African-Americans went through is sicking.