Duck Dynasty and the First Ammendment

[DasGout]

I know this is my first post so forgive me for standing on my soap box.

How free is our speech? I only ask this in light of recent events centering around the A&E series Duck Dynasty. For those who are not aware of the situation, allow me to fill you in. Duck Dynasty is a reality television show centered around the Robertson family of Monroe, LA. The family business produces duck calls. Within the last couple of years the show has become popular due in fact to the quirks of the family.

One of the traits of the family is a strong faith steeped in religion. It is not uncommon to see the family involved in regular prayer and worship.

The patriarch of the family is Phil Robertson. To be blunt Phil is a very opinionated person. I do not know him but he strikes me as being very straight to the point.

Recently A&E has suspended Phil from the show over some remarks he made in the January issue of GQ magazine. In short he stated that homosexuality is a sin. That is just one of his comments. As a result A&E issued a statement suspending Phil from the show indefinitely.

Here is the question. How free is speech? Are we not allowed to have an opinion? Please understand, I am not agreeing with his opinions, but it is his opinion. Personally if someone finds love and compassion with a member of the same sex, then who am I to judge. In fact even Phil said that he will not judge anyone on their lifestyle.

I also believe that if your speech is slanderous, unethical, or immoral, then that speech should not be tolerated. Just because you have free speech, does not mean you have the right to yell "fire" in a crowded building. Not only is that action irresponsible but also illegal in most states.

Here is another question? If someone finds his remarks offensive, does that call for an indefinite suspension? Of the people who were offended, how many of them actually watch the show? If you watch the show and are offended by his comments would you still watch the show? Don't we have the right to simply turn the channel if we do not agree with his opinions? At what point in our self created "not my fault" society, have we decided that one persons comments will bring about an end to that society?

In short, if you don't agree, then don't watch. If the show looses enough viewers, don't you think it will be canceled? I do not agree with his opinions, but I will respect them for his opinions.

If we continue to suspend or hide the people who speak their minds, then whats next? Are we going to wake up one morning to find someone did not like free cam videos. What if that offended person decided to suspended all the cam models?

That's just my :twocents-02cents:

 

[HiGirlsRHot]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.[1]

The key word here is Congress. We have free speech in this country only with respect to the government (Federal, State or Local). If Duck Dynasty ran on government TV network like the BBC (PBS doesn't real count) then there would be a free speech issue. However, A&E is a private enterprise. The same rules that allow Amber to censor and ban people on her forum (which fortunately she does very sparingly) also apply to A&E. If A&E wants suspend Phil because the top excecs are gay or very pro gay rights and they are very offended by Phil comments they are free to do so. They are also free to careful evaluate how many sponsors are saying we don't want to advertise on a show who's lead character is a homophobic and make the decision on strictly financial basis. My guess is it was combo of execs being offended and the money involved.

Phil isn't going to go to jail because of what is said. In surprising number of European countries, and possibly even Canada his statements would be considered hate speech and he could be tossed in jail. In fact, if Phil Robertson and shows producers wants they can move Duck Dynasty to another network say Christian Broadcast Network where he is views on gays would be more mainstream.

Anyway there is no free speech issue here. Just another example of someone newly famous finding out that downside of being famous. Namely, if you don't think before you speak it can be disastrous.

I have never watched the show, but given its popularity I figured I should check out. Maybe I'll get lucky and the whole show will get canceled first .


Oh and by the way, you do have the right under most circumstance to yell fire in a theater (the law has evolved).

 

[Brad]

Freedom of speech keeps the government from telling us what we can and can't say. It doesn't apply to private businesses such as A&E.


I have never seen the DD show nor know much about it/them. I read that one of the guys on the show made some poorly chosen statements about his views on homosexuality so the show/A&E suspended him. They have every right to do that and this is where the golden rule applies. Whoever owns their show owns the gold and gets to make the rules. It's the same thing that allows the NFL or CNN to suspend or even fire an employee for publicly making radical statements the company does not agree with. You work for them then you have to play by their rules period. When you are paid by a company to be in the public's eye then your opinion is what they tell you it will be. A&E is under no obligation to pay this man
for giving his personal opinions outside of their show, especially if those opinions may ultimately cost them money. Most contracts for athletes contain morals clauses for just this type of reason and I would guess that the same goes for most actors, especially ones on reality shows. And if it wasn't for A&E none of this would have even mattered as he wouldn't have been interviewed by GQ. He got the interview because of what A&E did for him.

Sorry but I just can't feel sorry for someone who is either this foolish or simply wanted to piss off his employer. Plus I don't agree at all with his opinion and he comes across as just another narrow minded asshole! My parents were also deeply religious and both were PKs. (pastor's kids). They didn't go around yapping about how they didn't like gays. Really, who does that even help? My folks just walked the walk and were good, honest, loving, and kind people. They would help a stranger and loved to discuss their faith when asked. They did NOT go around telling gays, or any other group of people, that they are sinners. Nor did I ever hear them judge any one sin worse then another and last I knew everyone sins. Instead my folks tried to do good rather then just telling others that they were sinners. I never found that type of behavior to be very Christian anyway but what would I know, I'm Jewish.
:twocents-02cents:

 

[mellymay]

Freedom of speech keeps the government from telling us what we can and can't say. It doesn't apply to private businesses such as A&E.


I have never seen the DD show nor know much about it/them. I read that one of the guys on the show made some poorly chosen statements about his views on homosexuality so the show/A&E suspended him. They have every right to do that and this is where the golden rule applies. Whoever owns their show owns the gold and gets to make the rules. It's the same thing that allows the NFL or CNN to suspend or even fire an employee for publicly making radical statements the company does not agree with. You work for them then you have to play by their rules period. When you are paid by a company to be in the public's eye then your opinion is what they tell you it will be. A&E is under no obligation to pay this man
for giving his personal opinions outside of their show, especially if those opinions may ultimately cost them money. Most contracts for athletes contain morals clauses for just this type of reason and I would guess that the same goes for most actors, especially ones on reality shows. And if it wasn't for A&E none of this would have even mattered as he wouldn't have been interviewed by GQ. He got the interview because of what A&E did for him.

Sorry but I just can't feel sorry for someone who is either this foolish or simply wanted to piss off his employer.

This has been the first argument that I find myself agreeing with. Private businessed make their own rules, even shitty, unpopular ones.

 

[Sevrin]

That's why you don't see models taking MFC to court to contest getting banned for having a guy on camera on Free Speech grounds.

I don't think he should have gotten canned, just like I don't think Bill Maher should have been canned by ABC, but I don't have to deal with their advertisers. This has nothing to do with principles and everything to do with money. Their TV channel, their rules.

 

[Kunra9]

This is not a first amendment issue at all.

 

[HiGirlsRHot]

As I suggested the family is threatening to take the show to another network.

So now A&E has a choice of standing by their principals or losing the #1 cable show.

 

[DasGout]

Thank you everyone. I see now this is not a first amendment issue. I spoke before I thought.

The part that upsets me the most is the controversy that sprung out of this. I guess what I'm trying to say is that it is his opinion. Like I said, I don't agree with his opinion, but it is his opinion.

If the network wants him gone, then that is their right.

Thanks again

 

[JoleneBrody]

As I suggested the family is threatening to take the show to another network.

So now A&E has a choice of standing by their principals or losing the #1 cable show.

This show is still relatively new and the anti-gay comments did nothing but put the already very successful network in danger. I don't see them backing down, they have no reason too.

 

[JoleneBrody]

As I suggested the family is threatening to take the show to another network.

So now A&E has a choice of standing by their principals or losing the #1 cable show.

This show is still relatively new and the anti-gay comments did nothing but put the already very successful network in danger of losing advertising sponsors. I don't see them backing down, they have no reason too.

 

[JerryBoBerry]

As I suggested the family is threatening to take the show to another network.

So now A&E has a choice of standing by their principals or losing the #1 cable show.

This show is still relatively new and the anti-gay comments did nothing but put the already very successful network in danger of losing advertising sponsors. I don't see them backing down, they have no reason too.

The advertising sponsors revenue isn't even a blip on the radar in the decision. At this point it could go commercial free and not even notice a dent in the bottom line.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/clareoc...rned-camo-into-400-million-merchandise-sales/

For legions of devoted viewers — 11.8 million for August’s season premiere, a reality TV record – these duck-hunters-turned-millionaires are the new faces of the American Dream. And boy, do their faces move merchandise.

By the end of 2013, Duck Dynasty product tie-ins will have raked in a massive $400 million in revenues according to industry sources. Sales in Walmart alone account for about half of that bounty, with some stores devoting entire aisles to Robertson-themed merchandise. Other major chains selling Duck Dynasty goods include Target and Kohl's

Both A&E and Walmart pounced, with the help of Brandgenuity, a branding agency overseeing more than 75 licensing deals for everything from rain boots to antibacterial bandages.

One might reasonably ask how a show based on a duck call company in West Monroe, Louisiana became a retail business worth hundreds of millions of dollars. For Charlie Anderson, CEO of retail marketing agency Shoptology, the answer is tied to Walmart’s demographic.
“The cast members pray at the end of the show,” he said. “That’s very Middle America and resonates with Walmart customers. It’s the rural consumer. It’s the American dream: they made themselves into millionaires. Yet people working for $8 an hour can still relate to them.”

The 'gay being a sin' comment is right in line with Walmart's business ideology. Since they are pretty much the Lion's Share of the 400 million revenue reasons to bring him back and keep the cash cow going, I'm betting A&E caves.

This hit home yesterday when I was grocery shopping in Walmart and saw Duck Dynasty sugar cookies. :? SUGAR COOKIES. I was perplexed at the need and the fact that people are probably buying them.

 

[JoleneBrody]

As I suggested the family is threatening to take the show to another network.

So now A&E has a choice of standing by their principals or losing the #1 cable show.

This show is still relatively new and the anti-gay comments did nothing but put the already very successful network in danger of losing advertising sponsors. I don't see them backing down, they have no reason too.

The advertising sponsors revenue isn't even a blip on the radar in the decision. At this point it could go commercial free and not even notice a dent in the bottom line.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/clareoc...rned-camo-into-400-million-merchandise-sales/

For legions of devoted viewers — 11.8 million for August’s season premiere, a reality TV record – these duck-hunters-turned-millionaires are the new faces of the American Dream. And boy, do their faces move merchandise.

By the end of 2013, Duck Dynasty product tie-ins will have raked in a massive $400 million in revenues according to industry sources. Sales in Walmart alone account for about half of that bounty, with some stores devoting entire aisles to Robertson-themed merchandise. Other major chains selling Duck Dynasty goods include Target and Kohl's

Both A&E and Walmart pounced, with the help of Brandgenuity, a branding agency overseeing more than 75 licensing deals for everything from rain boots to antibacterial bandages.

One might reasonably ask how a show based on a duck call company in West Monroe, Louisiana became a retail business worth hundreds of millions of dollars. For Charlie Anderson, CEO of retail marketing agency Shoptology, the answer is tied to Walmart’s demographic.
“The cast members pray at the end of the show,” he said. “That’s very Middle America and resonates with Walmart customers. It’s the rural consumer. It’s the American dream: they made themselves into millionaires. Yet people working for $8 an hour can still relate to them.”

The 'gay being a sin' comment is right in line with Walmart's business ideology. Since they are pretty much the Lion's Share of the 400 million revenue reasons to bring him back and keep the cash cow going, I'm betting A&E caves.

This hit home yesterday when I was grocery shopping in Walmart and saw Duck Dynasty sugar cookies. :? SUGAR COOKIES. I was perplexed at the need and the fact that people are probably buying them.

I guess maybe that why this is the first I've hear of this show... I don't shop at Wal-Mart. :lol:

In this case I'm giving A&E HUGE props and kudos as a private organization for standing up for what they believe is right OVER money. Right on A&E, right on.

I hope A&E holds their ground and shows the whole world that even in media and entertainment, money isn't everything.

 

[Kunra9]

This reminds me of Chik fil a

 

[Sevrin]

This reminds me of Chik fil a

Poultry is the common thread.

 

[Meoff_69]

Okay, this is where the Libertarian in me has to throw in :twocents-02cents: ...

**Disclaimer...While I am certainly not an expert in law, in particular U.S. Constitutional law, I am a student and staunch supporter of what it stands for**

The exact wording from the 1st Amendent..

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Lately, people have been very quick to play "He/She/They are violating my first amendment rights!" card, with many different issues and instances. What people seem to forget and overlook, is one key word in the 1st Amendment. That being the first word, Congress. The United States Congress cannot pass any law that impedes the aforementioned rights and privileges. It does not pertain to individuals and owners of private businesses and institutions. This is why an amendment banning same sex marriage isn't seen in the Constitution. However, local municipalities and state congresses have set their own laws banning same sex marriage, which could be considered going against the Constitution. But again, the key word is "Congress" of the United States, and not a state congress, or local governing body.

As for A&E suspending Mr. Robertson indefinitely, that is their right to do so as a privately owned company! Although the Robertsons own all "likenesses" to the characters they portray on their show, they are still employees of the A&E network and are required to follow their employer's policies. If I'm at work and having a stressful day and start shouting cuss words and raical slurs, I could be written up and sent home without pay...or terminated. While that may seem far-fetched, there is section in my employee handbook, stating the prohibition of using such language. And I had to sign it, in order to be hired. With that being said, I'm sure there is a similar type of clause in the contract between A&E and the Robertsons.

Try to look at this a different way...If I were to suddenly start spouting hateful and racial slurs in this public forum, or act like a complete and total ass-hat, Amber would most likely ban me from this forum. It is her right to do so, because Amber owns this forum! I would have no argument that Amber would be taking away my 1st Amendment rights, because Amber is NOT the Congress of the United States.

Like many, I think this whole thing has been blown completely out of proportion. Phil Robertson expressed a view that many of us don't agree with. His employer has exercised their right to suspend him, something that many don't agree with as well. But this is a matter that government needs to, and should, stay out of. However, a case could be made if the Robertsons refuse to hire or terminate anyone, based on their race, creed, sex, color, religion, or sexual orientation. Remember, they do own a duck call making business. The same case could be made against A&E doing the same. Now, before anyone jumps in and says "A&E is suspending Phil because of his religious views!" go back to the subject of "key words." They have suspended Phil Robertson, they have not terminated him. If the Robertsons feel that their civil liberties are being infringed upon, then they should take the matter up with a civil court, and then move up the chain to state and federal courts. And only, if it is deemed necessary.

I for one, do not agree with Phil Robertson's views and opinion on the matter of homosexuality. But I would fight to the last breath in my body, to help him keep the right to express his views and opinions, no matter how much I disagree them. I have many dear friends and family members that are gay. And here's an interesting nugget of information...many of them are devout Christians! Yes, I feel that anyone in this world has the right to love and be with whomever they choose, without any government or religious organization interfering with that basic human right. But what people seem to forget these days is that in order to make changes in our world for the better, one must "start small and expand outwards." In other words, start changing the person that you see in the mirror, then move on to local, state, and federal governments.

If you don't agree with A&E's judgement, don't watch the network! If you don't agree with the Robertsons views, don't watch their show, and don't purchase their products or any product with their likeness on it! And last...if anyone doesn't agree with my own comments in this public forum, that's fine, too! Everyone is entitled to their own views and opinions. If you disagree with any of mine, I think no less of you.

Thanks for listening to my own opinion on this, and remember that while we may disagree on each other's views and opinions, I will fight for your right to express them!

 

[HiGirlsRHot]

I guess maybe that why this is the first I've hear of this show... I don't shop at Wal-Mart. :lol:

In this case I'm giving A&E HUGE props and kudos as a private organization for standing up for what they believe is right OVER money. Right on A&E, right on.

I hope A&E holds their ground and shows the whole world that even in media and entertainment, money isn't everything.

I am afraid I am pretty cynical in this situation. A&E is jointly owned by Disney & Hearst corporation (a medium sized media company). Over the decades the "Arts" programming of the Arts & Entertainment Network" has pretty much disappeared to be replaced by such high brow stuff as Dog the Bounty Hunter, Storage Wars and other reality programming that I've missed.

My perception is that Disney has been a pretty progressive media organization as far as gay rights goes. So the parent companies risk some backlash no matter what A&E does. So I think money will be a huge factor.

By all accounts A&E knew Phil Robertson was deeply religious/homophobic long before the show was aired. They basically told him to keep his mouth shut. A&E took a risk that Phil's opinions were going to get out which in hindsight seems totally predictable. I finally took the time to read the who GQ article. Phil comes across as nice guy, more ignorant, opinionated and just plan wrong than evil. People are wrong about a lot of stuff, and I am sure I'm no exception, so I try not to condemn them too much.

Prior to the controversy, the only thing I knew about Duck's Dynasty was that it was crazy popular, and the main dude had a long beard from the 30 seconds snippets I've seen channel surfing. Now I am probably going to try and watch a whole episode.

The cynic in me also thinks "Any publicity is good publicity as long as they spell your name right."

 

[CharlotteLace]

The cynic in me also thinks "Any publicity is good publicity as long as they spell your name right."

:text-yeahthat: I can't help but think this was done on purpose. Their new season starts in a couple weeks. As much as we hate to admit it, controversy brings in viewers. People rage and get loud, it attracts more attention, people tune in to see what the fuss is about, and there you have a nice little ratings boost. I mean, Miley's "outrageous" performance at the VMA had people talking about her incessantly, didn't it? And oh, then she has a new song and music video right after! And everybody hates her but it sure did bring in a lot of people watching her videos. Or on a lighter note, when they "killed off" Brian the dog in Family Guy, let people rage a couple weeks, and then said, "oh, okay. We'll bring him back, then!" and of course now everybody's excited to watch those new episodes. (Though in the case of Family Guy, they already had future episodes featuring Brian in the title, so yeah, they were always planning to bring him back)

It just seems a little formulaic. :twocents-02cents:

 

[Bocefish]

The A&E media company big wigs are a bunch of quintessential hypocrites. As if they didn't know exactly what Phil's viewpoints were long before hiring them, but now they're suddenly offended. It's all PC bullshit and I hope DD takes their business to another network. All they had to do is run the standard disclaimer about the DD's viewpoints in no way represents A&Es, blah, blah, blah and let the viewership decide.

 

[mynameisbob84]

Apparently Sarah Palin has lamented the "endangerment of free speech" and has labeled those who maybe don't agree with this guy's beliefs about homosexuality, as "intolerant" (!!! irony, thy name is Sarah !!!).

This clearly isn't a free speech/first amendment issue. The guy is employed by an entertainment conglomerate. He said something in public that could potentially lead to his employer losing money. His employer is under no obligation to continue paying him to appear in one of its shows. It really is that simple. He's not being censored. He's not being wronged. His right to free speech has not been impeded and none of this is unconstitutional.

Also, someone on Twitter amusingly pointed out that the bible also states that no man should let his hair grow long and unkempt. Isn't this guy pretty much known for having a wild unkempt beard? I guess that part of the bible doesn't count. The bit about homosexuals being evil though, that part's right on the money...

 

[Bocefish]

Heard from one source that Phil Robertson will be returning to Duck Dynasty on January 15.

It appears as though the war on Phil Robertson and his freedoms of free speech and religions aren’t quite so savage. Although A&E declared they were suspending the star “indefinitely, ” it was apparently only a façade for the gay community as sources say they still intend to air episodes featuring Robertson .

Cracker Barrel is reversing their decision too.

Dear Cracker Barrel Customer:

When we made the decision to remove and evaluate certain Duck Dynasty items, we offended many of our loyal customers. Our intent was to avoid offending, but that’s just what we've done.

You told us we made a mistake. And, you weren't shy about it. You wrote, you called and you took to social media to express your thoughts and feelings. You flat out told us we were wrong.

We listened.

Today, we are putting all our Duck Dynasty products back in our stores.
And, we apologize for offending you.

We respect all individuals right to express their beliefs. We certainly did not mean to have anyone think different.

We sincerely hope you will continue to be part of our Cracker Barrel family.

 

[mynameisbob84]

Dear Cracker Barrel Customer:

When we made the decision to remove and evaluate certain Duck Dynasty items, we offended many of our loyal customers. Our intent was to avoid offending, but that’s just what we've done.

You told us we made a mistake. And, you weren't shy about it. You wrote, you called and you took to social media to express your thoughts and feelings. You flat out told us we were wrong.

We listened.

Today, we are putting all our Duck Dynasty products back in our stores.
And, we apologize for offending you.

We respect all individuals right to express their beliefs. We certainly did not mean to have anyone think different.

We sincerely hope you will continue to be part of our Cracker Barrel family.

Lolz. "We originally assessed that we stood to lose money by continuing to sell this shit, but as it turns out, we actually stand to lose even more money by not selling it. So fuck it, we'll start selling it again"

 

[JoleneBrody]

I just feel like this issue of human rights when it comes to sexuality hasn't really become a big enough issue yet, if people are still fighting for others rights to hate freely. It boggles my mind, honestly.

If this was all over comments about Race (trust me plenty of Aryan ass hats relate their hate also to religion) nobody would even be questioning A&E.

We are in the middle of a human rights movement, similar to that of the human rights movements involving race. Their was a time not too long ago in this country when believing black people were less than white people was normal and a totally acceptable way to think. Crazy right? We have the same thing going on now with Gay rights, people are becoming enlightened and the world is changing. Small moves like a company temporarily suspending their highest earning contract for anti-gay comment makes a statement that pushes our society just one step further in the direction of progress.
When it comes to this subject I will always be on the side of making a stand for equal human rights. It is the future, it is progress.

It is the only damn thing that will save our pathetic species from destroying each other... Evolving into a better and loving society.
*puts a daisy in your gun barrel and flies off on a rainbow*

 

[Shaun__]

This is the creator and producer of the Duck Dynasty in his 2001 role as a gay-for-pay meth addict. I think this whole thing was made up to get ratings.Link

The producer and creator of the A&E show “Duck Dynasty” once starred in a dark, homoerotic indie film about the gay porn industry called “The Fluffer.”

 

[Bocefish]

I just feel like this issue of human rights when it comes to sexuality hasn't really become a big enough issue yet, if people are still fighting for others rights to hate freely. It boggles my mind, honestly.

I'm confused.

Are you saying his right to free speech and freedom of religion is violating human rights?

Human rights are commonly understood as inalienable fundamental rights to which a person is inherently entitled simply because she or he is a human being.

Since when did people have the inalienable right to never be offended?

Just because you don't agree with somebody's viewpoint or religion doesn't mean they shouldn't have the right to speak about them.

 

[JerryBoBerry]

Heard from one source that Phil Robertson will be returning to Duck Dynasty on January 15.

It appears as though the war on Phil Robertson and his freedoms of free speech and religions aren’t quite so savage. Although A&E declared they were suspending the star “indefinitely, ” it was apparently only a façade for the gay community as sources say they still intend to air episodes featuring Robertson .

Cracker Barrel is reversing their decision too.

Dear Cracker Barrel Customer:

When we made the decision to remove and evaluate certain Duck Dynasty items, we offended many of our loyal customers. Our intent was to avoid offending, but that’s just what we've done.

You told us we made a mistake. And, you weren't shy about it. You wrote, you called and you took to social media to express your thoughts and feelings. You flat out told us we were wrong.

We listened.

Today, we are putting all our Duck Dynasty products back in our stores.
And, we apologize for offending you.

We respect all individuals right to express their beliefs. We certainly did not mean to have anyone think different.

We sincerely hope you will continue to be part of our Cracker Barrel family.

In other words...Wins the day once again. Can't say I'm shocked.

 

[PepperoniPiz]

...
You all know the show's fake, right? His comments were fake. It's all fake.


At least Seth admitted on Twitter that Brian's death was a publicity stunt :lol:

 

[HiGirlsRHot]

I just feel like this issue of human rights when it comes to sexuality hasn't really become a big enough issue yet, if people are still fighting for others rights to hate freely. It boggles my mind, honestly.

If this was all over comments about Race (trust me plenty of Aryan ass hats relate their hate also to religion) nobody would even be questioning A&E.

Sorry not true. Did you read the interview? Because frankly his racial comments to me are more way offensive than his comments about gays.

Phil Robertson on blacks (I'm half surprised he didn't call them Negros or darkies)

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.

This is a man would have been teenager during the late 50s and 60s in Louisiana and all the black he saw were happy :shock: . That is really WTF comment, and revisionist history at is worst.
Plus isn't New Orleans like birthplace of the Blues?

 

[JoleneBrody]

I just feel like this issue of human rights when it comes to sexuality hasn't really become a big enough issue yet, if people are still fighting for others rights to hate freely. It boggles my mind, honestly.

I'm confused.

Are you saying his right to free speech and freedom of religion is violating human rights?

Human rights are commonly understood as inalienable fundamental rights to which a person is inherently entitled simply because she or he is a human being.

Since when did people have the inalienable right to never be offended?

Just because you don't agree with somebody's viewpoint or religion doesn't mean they shouldn't have the right to speak about them.

He absolutely has the right to speak about anything he wants to while not actively representing another private entity or organization. That's not the case here.

And HiGirls... Really? These are not the straws you're grasping for... *waves hand*

 

[HiGirlsRHot]

And HiGirls... Really? These are not the straws you're grasping for... *waves hand*

I am hardly alone in pointing out his racial comments.
I first came across them reading this Atlantic article. http://www.theatlantic.com/politics...ndal-phil-robertsons-comments-on-race/282538/
That prompted me to read the GC interview.
But the huff post, MSNBC, and of course the NAACP have all wondered why the gay comments are overshadowing the racial comments.

In the CG article the racial quote is highlighted even.

Here is what Phil said about gays.

It seems like, to me, a vagina—as a man—would be more desirable than a man’s anus. That’s just me. I’m just thinking: There’s more there! She’s got more to offer. I mean, come on, dudes! You know what I’m saying? But hey, sin: It’s not logical, my man. It’s just not logical.”

I had something like this conversation 30 years ago before I knew I had any gay friends, and most people understood that being gay was not a choice. So I can forgive his ignorance, he obviously doesn't get that gay men are sexually attracted to other men.

But I honestly I don't understand why people aren't more offended by his racial comments.

 

[Bocefish]

I read the interview twice and didn't see anything particularly hateful about it. He spoke about the tenets of his faith in his own redneck way.

What, in your mind, is sinful?

“Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men,” he says. Then he paraphrases Corinthians: “Don’t be deceived. Neither the adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlers—they won’t inherit the kingdom of God. Don’t deceive yourself. It’s not right.”

During Phil’s darkest days, in the early 1970s, he had to flee the state of Arkansas after he badly beat up a bar owner and the guy’s wife. Kay Robertson persuaded the bar owner not to press charges in exchange for most of the Robertsons’ life savings. (“A hefty price,” he notes in his memoir.) I ask Phil if he ever repented for that, as he wants America to repent—if he ever tracked down the bar owner and his wife to apologize for the assault. He shakes his head.

“I didn’t dredge anything back up. I just put it behind me.”

As far as Phil is concerned, he was literally born again. Old Phil—the guy with the booze and the pills—died a long time ago, and New Phil sees no need to apologize for him: “We never, ever judge someone on who’s going to heaven, hell. That’s the Almighty’s job. We just love ’em, give ’em the good news about Jesus—whether they’re homosexuals, drunks, terrorists. We let God sort ’em out later, you see what I’m saying?”

Read More http://www.gq.com/entertainment/televis ... z2oG17lc4G

If I missed the hateful part of the interview, please enlighten me. I've known a few born again Christians and they're the worst as far as trying to push their views on others but they also feel it's part of their duty. I would hardly consider any of that hateful though.

:twocents-02cents: