RE: 646,000 likes on Facebook Page to boycott A&E until Phil Robertson is back on the air.

No duh wrote:

I have never seen the show. Did people watch it to laugh at hillbillies? Was there more to it?

Here is a brief description of the show.

They went out and got an already successful "redneck" guy family that married all non-redneck women and then went back to the 60s and 70s and regurgitated every funny sitcom skit that has ever been done. It does prove how little "acting" talent it really takes to be a sitcom star.

I actually enjoy the show because it's just a goofy show you can enjoy even if it only takes you a few seconds to figure out the punch lines of most of the jokes they tell or skits they do.

Lifeguardsarecool wrote:

I am guessing that A & E needs the Ducks way more than they need them. They could easily take their business elsewhere. And laugh all the way to the bank.

Who cares what they said? I do not.

Haha, no they can't. A&E owns the show and its intellectual property rights, so they can't just go to some other network and make a reality TV show about Bayou people with beards who sell duck calls.

Any statement using the words "God" and "exists" can't be taken too seriously.

And it's A&E's RIGHT to fire/suspend him for it. Can you grasp that?

Whining about things like not being allowed to marry, or have sex, or defend their country, or work, or rent an apt? Things like that?

That you point to fundamentalist Islam to support your perspective sums up just about everything one might say about your remarks.

Querfeldein wrote:

too funny wrote:

A&E knows the Robertsons are Christian. They can't be surprised by his views. He thinks homosexuality (& various other sex acts) are a sin and immoral. So what?

Being a Christian is not a license for intolerance (and while I'm not a Christian, I am sure most Christians would be offended by the suggestion). Sure, you can say what you want, but if what you say offends me, do I have to give you a platform and pay you for it? I don't think so.

He compared gays to "the adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlers" and implied that being gay is the natural consequence of promiscuity.

1) The above is not the same thing as simply thinking or stating that you believe being gay is wrong or sinful.

2) Insisting that gays not be stereotypically lumped in with adulterers, substance abusers, and criminals is not "being whiny" or "crying"

3) Criticizing a person's bigoted statements is not persecuting their faith or religious beliefs. There are many people of all religions who manage to not spew bigotry in public fora.

4) The First Amendment does not immunize you from criticism or consequences stemming from your intolerant speech.

So homosexuals have beliefs? Are they a religion? Lol. While you may not consider homosexual behavior to be normal, Mr. Robertson is implying that it is deviant. Again, no problem with him speaking his mind. I have only seen the show once. Its obvious that the people who choose to watch this show are the kind of people that go to professional wrestling matches, own 10 guns, have bull testicles on the back of their ford ranger with a 10" lift, can't speak proper English, and think that if you don't love God you are not an American. I would bet that the majority of people watching Duck Dynasty have never gone to college and make less than 30k a year. Duck Dynasty is the redneck version of "Keeping Up With The Kardashians".

Normalcy and decency are relative terms. There are people who only have sex to procreate. There are people that don't allow their kids to go to public school. There are people that think girls wearing shorts is an abomination. No one group should set a standard for morality because it is relative. Tolerance should be the norm. We all have opinions, but not all opinions need to be expressed. People need to understand that.

and his understanding of history obviously is a way warped (no surprise for a redneck)... of course he believes there was no jesus for the nazis despite their christian origins and beliefs

Wow Unbelievable wrote:

This is not a free speech issue. It's a human rights issue. The guy's a complete moron.

Why is there such a double standard in this country? Phil is entitled to his own opinion, just as a gay person is entitled to his or hers. Every time someone disagrees with homosexuality they are considered to be homophobic, hateful, closed minded, or bigoted. Phil was very open and honest about his reasoning, and said "We never judge 'em...give 'em the good news...and let God sort 'em out"

How many gays are that balanced in their reply when addressing someone who disagrees with homosexuality?

Once again a television network caves in to political correctness instead of standing by the man because he has strong moral convictions. Everybody knows we just can`t have that sort of positive behavior in America today. It`s just not allowed, and that is, in a nutshell a lot of what`s wrong with these United States today. We need more guys like Phil and this country would be a lot better off! Boycott A&E, they are a bunch of spineless jellyfish.

waltzin matilda wrote:

Why is there such a double standard in this country? Phil is entitled to his own opinion, just as a gay person is entitled to his or hers. Every time someone disagrees with homosexuality they are considered to be homophobic, hateful, closed minded, or bigoted. Phil was very open and honest about his reasoning, and said "We never judge 'em...give 'em the good news...and let God sort 'em out"

You forgot the part where he compared gays to "the adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlers" and implied that being gay is the natural consequence of promiscuity.

Believe it or not a lot of people found that judgmental and offensive, especially gay people who don't think they are like prostitutes, criminals or alcoholics because they prefer their own gender!

Yes...we need to embrace people who base their 'moral convictions' on an ancient comic book

and that despite mounds of evidence that the jesus was gay himself

sad

Thanks for summarizing all the advertisers as I plan to call them and ask them to continue supporting stations like A&E. As a matter of fact, I'm watching A&E right now.

Those advertisers sell a lot of product to gay people and black people. If any advertiser succumbed to right wing hysteria, that would certainly be an eye-opener. Not a whole lot of gays or black people watch Duck Dynasty but they will remember those advertisers. More likely, they will pull their ads because they don't want their brands politicized.

I had never even heard of this show until I read about this controversy. Watching this show automatically makes you ineligible to comment on serious social issues. Turn off your TVS folks.

dumb wrote:

You forgot the part where he compared gays to "the adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlers" and implied that being gay is the natural consequence of promiscuity.

Believe it or not a lot of people found that judgmental and offensive, especially gay people who don't think they are like prostitutes, criminals or alcoholics because they prefer their own gender!

I view the statement as a crude way of talking about a society that has grown to accept complete moral relativism. Ignoring any individual's beliefs about homosexuality, simply listing a string of sinful behavior that you believe prevents people from inheriting the kingdom of God (Phil's phrase) does not necessarily equate those behaviors as all equal. There is a comparison, for sure, but not equivocation. If I'm asked to list the top 10 social ills in our society, I'm making a comparison between the items, on some level, but not necessarily saying they are equal. I don't defend the crude nature of his statement, but I also think the meaning of some components of it are getting stretched to meet the agenda of those that oppose him.

Wtfunny wrote:

Libtards unite! wrote:

So your intolerance of someone's faith is ok, but him stating that his belief that it is wrong is intolerable? Wow, that's so convoluted I'm sure even God is having a hard time trying figure out how much hypocrisy exists in that statement.

Any statement using the words "God" and "exists" can't be taken too seriously.

INCORRECT! Didn't you notice this guy's handle? Not only did he use the word, 'libtard', IT IS HIS NAME! His posts must ALL be taken, very, VERY seriously.

The Economy wrote:

and that despite mounds of evidence that the jesus was gay himself

Never heard this. What a revelation someone could write a book or five about this.

Just one of the awesome things I learn on LetsRun this week. This place is better than an Ivy education.

21918514 wrote:

I view the statement as a crude way of talking about a society that has grown to accept complete moral relativism. Ignoring any individual's beliefs about homosexuality, simply listing a string of sinful behavior that you believe prevents people from inheriting the kingdom of God (Phil's phrase) does not necessarily equate those behaviors as all equal. There is a comparison, for sure, but not equivocation. If I'm asked to list the top 10 social ills in our society, I'm making a comparison between the items, on some level, but not necessarily saying they are equal. I don't defend the crude nature of his statement, but I also think the meaning of some components of it are getting stretched to meet the agenda of those that oppose him.

You're ignoring the long historical context of those comparisons. Deliberately.

Look - this is so easy:

Mr. Duck is entitled to his opinion.

Mr. Duck can babble on about whatever it is he wants to babble on about.

Mr. Duck can go on a incoherent, nonsensical rant about people who eat shellfish (clearly against god's will as defined by the holy bible).

But Mr. Duck (and everyone else), at some point, needs to come to the realization that somewhere along the way, someone in his chain of people who write his paycheck, eats shellfish.

And when that person gets word that Mr. Duck is saying not nice things about people who eat shellfish, that person is not going to be happy.

And that person may decide that Mr. Duck should no longer receive a paycheck.

It's not about the first amendment, or christian beliefs, or intolerance, or the bible, or god and baby jesus. It's about pissing off people that work above you who write your check by saying stupid things.