[Guy_Fawkes]

Curtman Curtman:

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

Just so we're clear on this, you (and the Liberals apparently) believe he doesn't have the right to express his personal religious beliefs in an interview for a magazine that has dick all to do with the show on A&E, without getting fired from his show.

Uhhhhh, no. I believe A&E has a right to do what they see is best to please their advertisers on their network. You folks standing up for the racist homophobe should put him on your network instead.

That may just happen

I hope they do get picked up by another network and they are able to bring back Phil. Just because I dont agree with what they say doesnt mean they should never be on TV.

[Unsound]

The man has a right to state his opinions. Are they hateful opinions? Maybe. I don't think he sees them as such but no doubt some people are hurt by what he says. But then, it's really no worse than the kind of things supposedly tolerant people say about CHristians or conservatives or hundreds of other groups, all the time.

If you don't like what someone is saying stop listening to them, or say something better.

That said, no doubt A&E has some clauses about what these guys can say in public as far as embarrassing the network and if he's broken the rules that he reely signed on for they are 100% in the right to fire or suspend him.

Free speech, imo, means you don't get arrested for the things you say. It doesn't mean you can say whatever you want without consequences. If you call someone names you can't get indignant about your free speech rights if they call you names back. If you embarrass your employer you can't act like you're the injured party when they do what it takes to save their business.

This particular case is actually an example of the way I think bad free speech should be dealt with. The man isn't going to jail or being fined or suffering any government sanction. He's not even being told he can't express these opinions. He's just being told he can't express them as a representative of A&E, which is what he was under these circumstances. Does anyone think a mainstream magazine would've been interested in interviewing him if it wasn't for the show?

Personally I think, from a business standpoint, that a&E has made the wrong call. They probably would've been better off to issue a boiler plate "the views expressed are solely the views of the individual etc etc" type statement and then waited for it to blow over. Now they've alienated a good portion of their fan base and created an even larger story.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

Curtman Curtman:

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

Just so we're clear on this, you (and the Liberals apparently) believe he doesn't have the right to express his personal religious beliefs in an interview for a magazine that has dick all to do with the show on A&E, without getting fired from his show.

Uhhhhh, no. I believe A&E has a right to do what they see is best to please their advertisers on their network.

Bullshit, your first post shows your smug satisfaction with A&E's decision. You are one piss poor, hypocritical liar.

Curtman Curtman:

You folks standing up for the racist homophobe should put him on your network instead.

And what network would that be, pinhead? Sorry but your attempted strawman falls utterly flat. You should have long known by now that I don't agree one bit with his views on homosexuality. I have also watched the show only once and found it pretty lame, so I'm not a fan.

But trust you to throw the label of "racist homophobe" around. Typical retort of your kind when someone doesn't agree with your sanctimonious POV.
Tell me sport, where did Phil claim he hated gay people? His personal beliefs say it's a sin, that's just stupid, not homophobic.
And now he's a racist too because why, the NAACP says he is? So I guess that rodeo clown mocking Obama's piss poor job of being president was also a racist because the NAACP said he is? Do you just go along with whatever left-wing group tells you to think or do you actually think for yourself?

[PluggyRug]

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

Curtman Curtman:

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

Just so we're clear on this, you (and the Liberals apparently) believe he doesn't have the right to express his personal religious beliefs in an interview for a magazine that has dick all to do with the show on A&E, without getting fired from his show.

Uhhhhh, no. I believe A&E has a right to do what they see is best to please their advertisers on their network.

Bullshit, your first post shows your smug satisfaction with A&E's decision. You are one piss poor, hypocritical liar.

Curtman Curtman:

You folks standing up for the racist homophobe should put him on your network instead.

And what network would that be, pinhead? Sorry but your attempted strawman falls utterly flat. You should have long known by now that I don't agree one bit with his views on homosexuality. I have also watched the show only once and found it pretty lame, so I'm not a fan.

But trust you to throw the label of "racist homophobe" around. Typical retort of your kind when someone doesn't agree with your sanctimonious POV.
Tell me sport, where did Phil claim he hated gay people? His personal beliefs say it's a sin, that's just stupid, not homophobic.
And now he's a racist too because why, the NAACP says he is? So I guess that rodeo clown mocking Obama's piss poor job of being president was also a racist because the NAACP said he is? Do you just go along with whatever left-wing group tells you to think or do you actually think for yourself?

Cmon PA9 no need to be so ansi, after all the Liberals do know what's best for us. nudge..nudge.

[BRAH]

All is forgiven when you're Alec Baldwin. Yes his show was cancelled because of low ratings not the homophobic comments he made, oh the hypocrisy.

Don't forget the minimal backlash Perez Hilton faced after his infamous homophobic slander against Will.I.Am before his ass was kicked, GLADD turned on him the Mathew Shepard foundation wanted nothing to do with him, then again it was Perez who's burned more than enough bridges in his career.

[Guy_Fawkes]

I still will never get the idea that you can say "What gays do is an abdominal sin, and you are going to be tortured in eternal hell fire unless you stop and repent!" "I love and respect gays!"

[Unsound]

Guy_Fawkes Guy_Fawkes:

I still will never get the idea that you can say "What gays do is an abdominal sin, and you are going to be tortured in eternal hell fire unless you stop and repent!" "I love and respect gays!"

It's along the same lines as, "I love you as a human being, but I really want you to top drinking. Your alcohol problem is causing harm to you and everyone who loves you and it will all and badly if you don't quit."

[Brenda]

$1:

Free speech, imo, means you don't get arrested for the things you say. It doesn't mean you can say whatever you want without consequences. If you call someone names you can't get indignant about your free speech rights if they call you names back. If you embarrass your employer you can't act like you're the injured party when they do what it takes to save their business.

[Guy_Fawkes]

Unsound Unsound:

Guy_Fawkes Guy_Fawkes:

I still will never get the idea that you can say "What gays do is an abdominal sin, and you are going to be tortured in eternal hell fire unless you stop and repent!" "I love and respect gays!"

It's along the same lines as, "I love you as a human being, but I really want you to top drinking. Your alcohol problem is causing harm to you and everyone who loves you and it will all and badly if you don't quit."

I suppose, it's just hard for me to equate alcoholism with homosexuality, thanks for helping me understand.

[BRAH]

She wasn't expressing her personal beliefs, god knows what the Fuck she was thinking.

[xerxes]

BRAH BRAH:

All is forgiven when you're Alec Baldwin. Yes his show was cancelled because of low ratings not the homophobic comments he made, oh the hypocrisy.

Don't forget the minimal backlash Perez Hilton faced after his infamous homophobic slander against Will.I.Am before his ass was kicked, GLADD turned on him the Mathew Shepard foundation wanted nothing to do with him, then again it was Perez who's burned more than enough bridges in his career.

Duck guy only said that after this whole ruckus started.

This smells like a PR stunt to me. It's the news doldrums before Christmas, so time to gin up a controversy. My bet is, ratings were sagging a bit, so they let him do the interview knowing how he'll answer certain questions. Or maybe they want to expand their audience base to include more hate-based Christians.

So A&E "suspends" him, and I'll bet before the new year A&E will "cave under pressure", he'll be unsuspended and they'll get the highest ratings ever for the show.

[Gunnair]

Unsound Unsound:

The man has a right to state his opinions. Are they hateful opinions? Maybe. I don't think he sees them as such but no doubt some people are hurt by what he says. But then, it's really no worse than the kind of things supposedly tolerant people say about CHristians or conservatives or hundreds of other groups, all the time.

If you don't like what someone is saying stop listening to them, or say something better.

That said, no doubt A&E has some clauses about what these guys can say in public as far as embarrassing the network and if he's broken the rules that he reely signed on for they are 100% in the right to fire or suspend him.

Free speech, imo, means you don't get arrested for the things you say. It doesn't mean you can say whatever you want without consequences. If you call someone names you can't get indignant about your free speech rights if they call you names back. If you embarrass your employer you can't act like you're the injured party when they do what it takes to save their business.

This particular case is actually an example of the way I think bad free speech should be dealt with. The man isn't going to jail or being fined or suffering any government sanction. He's not even being told he can't express these opinions. He's just being told he can't express them as a representative of A&E, which is what he was under these circumstances. Does anyone think a mainstream magazine would've been interested in interviewing him if it wasn't for the show?

Personally I think, from a business standpoint, that a&E has made the wrong call. They probably would've been better off to issue a boiler plate "the views expressed are solely the views of the individual etc etc" type statement and then waited for it to blow over. Now they've alienated a good portion of their fan base and created an even larger story.

Exactly. This guy is free to state his opinions, but those opinions do not have to be consequence free.

[BRAH]

xerxes xerxes:

BRAH BRAH:

All is forgiven when you're Alec Baldwin. Yes his show was cancelled because of low ratings not the homophobic comments he made, oh the hypocrisy.

Don't forget the minimal backlash Perez Hilton faced after his infamous homophobic slander against Will.I.Am before his ass was kicked, GLADD turned on him the Mathew Shepard foundation wanted nothing to do with him, then again it was Perez who's burned more than enough bridges in his career.

Duck guy only said that after this whole ruckus started.

This smells like a PR stunt to me. It's the news doldrums before Christmas, so time to gin up a controversy. My bet is, ratings were sagging a bit, so they let him do the interview knowing how he'll answer certain questions. Or maybe they want to expand their audience base to include more hate-based Christians.

So A&E "suspends" him, and I'll bet before the new year A&E will "cave under pressure", he'll be unsuspended and they'll get the highest ratings ever for the show.

This being a PR stunt is definitely a possibility. When A&E had their issue with Dog The Bounty Hunter the difference was Duck Dynasty is a juggernaut cash generating machine for A&E while Dog not so much so they were okay cutting all ties even after they brought him back.

[commanderkai]

I, quite frankly, don't get the outrage at all. You mean a religious (I'll assume Baptist) Christian is against homosexuality? He himself, at least in a quick glance of the original article, has a checkered past of alcoholism and who knows what other sins, before turning to religion. We're all sinners, even the most devout and religious of us. We're only human, after all.

In my opinion, I think this is the most important quote

$1:

“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?”

Basically, although he views those things as sins, including homosexuality, it's God's, and not his position to judge them for their sins to see if they'll go to Heaven or Hell. He has an opinion, certainly, but who doesn't?

[Brenda]

I guess you missed the point where he mentioned that being gay would 'morph' into bestiality, sex with multiple women etc, and that during the slavery days, blacks were actually happy?