Phil Robertson and freedom to have an opinion

[Retro Rob]

It's just like how stating "I don't agree with biracial marriage" gets one branded as a racist, hateful bigot.

How is one "hateful" for not agreeing with interracial marriage?

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

How is one "hateful" for not agreeing with interracial marriage?

So it's only racist and bigoted then and that's what makes it OK?

 

[nehalem256]

It's just like how stating "I don't agree with biracial marriage" gets one branded as a racist, hateful bigot.

Everyone knows the reason.

Opposition to same-sex marriage is predicated on the truth that men and women are fundamentally different and therefore same-sex marriage is different than opposite-sex marriage.

You would have to be a racist to draw a comparison between biracial marriage and same-sex marriage. As the only way you could conflate the 2 is if you believe that black people and white people are also fundamentally different.

 

[Texashiker]

So it's only racist and bigoted then and that's what makes it OK?

It is "racist and bigoted" when one group wishes to deny the other group certain civil rights.

Which is not what this thread is about.

As far as I know Phil never said anything about taking civil rights away from gays. he just disagreed with their lifestyle.

I do not see how disagreeing with a certain lifestyle makes someone a bigot.

 

[Retro Rob]

It is "racist and bigoted" when one group wishes to deny the other group certain civil rights.

Which is not what this thread is about.

As far as I know Phil never said anything about taking civil rights away from gays. he just disagreed with their lifestyle.

I do not see how disagreeing with a certain lifestyle makes someone a bigot.

This.

 

[jhbball]

It is "racist and bigoted" when one group wishes to deny the other group certain civil rights.

Which is not what this thread is about.

As far as I know Phil never said anything about taking civil rights away from gays. he just disagreed with their lifestyle.

I do not see how disagreeing with a certain lifestyle makes someone a bigot.

And the fact that he calls it a 'lifestyle', makes him a bigot.

 

[Texashiker]

And the fact that he calls it a 'lifestyle', makes him a bigot.

I do not like my uncle being an alcoholic, does that make me a bigot?

He is a 60 year old man, drinks alone in his home, does not bother anyone, but I still do not like it. I am bothered that he is an alcoholic.

Am I a bigot?

 

[fskimospy]

I get your point, perhaps I didn't make mines clear:

Yes, I agree with you generally, but if they were put under pressure to discipline him for his remarks, then you CAN'T express your opinion(s)...plain and simple.

You absolutely can. Anti-gay bigotry is for the most part no longer considered acceptable in this country, however. A&E could have not only not disciplined him, but publicly endorsed his comments. They would have to face the consequences in public opinion for that, but that's again, their private choice.

The fact is, homosexuals/lesbians/bi-sexuals are now an class exempt from any kind of ridicule...even a bland statement of "I don't agree with gay marriage" would get one branded as a homophobic, hateful, bigot and could possibly cause one to lose his position of employment, depending on what that is.

Fact is, we're being forced to accept what they do, who they marry, etc.

Any comment contrary to "I fully support gays and their rights" is no longer tolerated, no matter the reason.

Next time hate speech is directed at any religion or religious person, I suspect you'd come to their defense as well.

You aren't forced to do anything. If you hold views that society believes to be reprehensible and you make those views public, you might be subjected to scorn. I'm sure all those years where approving of homosexual behavior was met by scorn or even violence, that Christians were at the forefront of protecting gays.

I don't approve of hate speech in any form, and I find a lot of the vitriol directed at Christians to be silly and wrong. Not all of it though.

 

[dpodblood]

It is "racist and bigoted" when one group wishes to deny the other group certain civil rights.

Which is not what this thread is about.

As far as I know Phil never said anything about taking civil rights away from gays. he just disagreed with their lifestyle.

I do not see how disagreeing with a certain lifestyle makes someone a bigot.

Very true. While I completely disagree with everything he said he's not doing anything anything wrong by expressing his opinion. I grew up in the church, and while homosexuality is very much "against their religion" I never saw or heard of someone treating a gay person with disrespect or persecuting them in any way.

 

[Daverino]

It's issues like this that completely bastardize the entire Free Speech discussion. This has nothing to do with First Amendment protection. You are not immune from reprisal from comments you make. His employer in this case took exception, which they have every right to.

I see no action by the government to limit his speech. Thus ends the Free Speech debate.

Winner right here.

If you want to publicly express your opinion and your employer objects to your opinion, you can be fired. If I went on TV and said that the CFO of my company is a total douchebag because he is 'un-Christian', I'd be fired in a heartbeat.

Furthermore, as a practicing Protestant Christian, can we please stop trying to protect anti-gay opinions using Christianity? I personally find it offensive.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

I do not like my uncle being an alcoholic, does that make me a bigot?

He is a 60 year old man, drinks alone in his home, does not bother anyone, but I still do not like it. I am bothered that he is an alcoholic.

Am I a bigot?

Asks the guy equating homosexuality and interracial marriage to the "lifestyle" of chemical addiction.

 

[nehalem256]

Winner right here.

If you want to publicly express your opinion and your employer objects to your opinion, you can be fired. If I went on TV and said that the CFO of my company is a total douchebag because he is 'un-Christian', I'd be fired in a heartbeat.

So then by the logic you just presented. If you publicly get gay married, and your employer objects to it you can be fired.

Your employer cannot fire you for your religion, but he can fire you for making your religion public.

Your employer cannot fire you for being gay, but he can fire you for making your homosexuality public.

Seems, like "Don't ask Don't tell" is the best policy after all

 

[Texashiker]

Asks the guy equating homosexuality and interracial marriage to the "lifestyle" of chemical addiction.

Don't make excuses, just answer the question.

Gays are supposed to be born gay.

Addicts may have a genetic trait for addiction.

So its ok not to like drug addicts, but to say the same thing about gays makes someone a bigot?

 

[Daverino]

So then by the logic you just presented. If you publicly get gay married, and your employer objects to it you can be fired.

You really don't read the news much, do you.

Catholic school teacher fired for gay wedding.

 

[fskimospy]

So then by the logic you just presented. If you publicly get gay married, and your employer objects to it you can be fired.

Your employer cannot fire you for your religion, but he can fire you for making your religion public.

Your employer cannot fire you for being gay, but he can fire you for making your homosexuality public.

Seems, like "Don't ask Don't tell" is the best policy after all

No. Go revisit the SCOTUS opinion for a third (fourth?) time.

 

[Retro Rob]

You absolutely can. Anti-gay bigotry is for the most part no longer considered acceptable in this country, however. A&E could have not only not disciplined him, but publicly endorsed his comments. They would have to face the consequences in public opinion for that, but that's again, their private choice.

Yes, I can say what I want, but that's not what I mean. Texashiker actually put it well when he stated it's not bigotry when he isn't restricting gay rights.

But my point is focused around the fact that gays and their advocates don't want ANY contrarian remarks...period. You would likely call those Muslims who wanted to kill the dude who make the anti-Muhammad video extremists, yet, gays would piss and moan to get a person removed from his job for doing something much less, but that isn't extremism?

I don't understand why there seems to be a double-standard with some of you. No, those aren't exactly the same things, but we have (A) a group of sensitive extremists who want to restrict unfavorable opinions, and (B) a politically powerful gay advocacy group(s) who call for jobs when people SPEAK THIER MINDS.

You aren't forced to do anything. If you hold views that society believes to be reprehensible and you make those views public, you might be subjected to scorn. I'm sure all those years where approving of homosexual behavior was met by scorn or even violence, that Christians were at the forefront of protecting gays.

Public scorn, I can deal with. But that's not the same as calling for someone's livelihood to be taken away from him because of his "remarks".

You guys ought to be ashamed or yourselves....

I don't approve of hate speech in any form, and I find a lot of the vitriol directed at Christians to be silly and wrong. Not all of it though.

So you're basically ok with vitriol being spewed at religious people. You can't approve "some" vitriol.

lol

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Don't make excuses, just answer the question.

Gays are supposed to be born gay.

Addicts may have a genetic trait for addiction.

So its ok not to like drug addicts, but to say the same thing about gays makes someone a bigot?

Why stop at drug addicts? Please keep on comparing homosexual and interracial couples to other "lifestyles" to show how you're not a bigot Mr. Roberston.

 

[Daverino]

No. Go revisit the SCOTUS opinion for a third (fourth?) time.

Seriously why bother with him.

Remember that nehalem256 is convinced that the laws that require a restaurant to serve black customers also require straight male prostitutes to have anal sex with gay men.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

You really don't read the news much, do you.

Catholic school teacher fired for gay wedding.

Guess you overlooked the employment contract the person had with a religion based private school.

 

[nehalem256]

No. Go revisit the SCOTUS opinion for a third (fourth?) time.

Why would I care to review some that you are claiming is an avalanche of bullshit.

You really don't read the news much, do you.

Catholic school teacher fired for gay wedding.

Cool then it appears I am right :thumbsup:

Although it seems rather odd that you can fire someone for getting gay married, but cannot refuse to sell a gay wedding cake.

 

[fskimospy]

Yes, I can say what I want, but that's not what I mean. Texashiker actually put it well when he stated it's not bigotry when he isn't restricting gay rights.

But my point is focused around the fact that gays and their advocates don't want ANY contrarian remarks...period. You would likely call those Muslims who wanted to kill the dude who make the anti-Muhammad video extremists, yet, gays would piss and moan to get a person removed from his job for doing something much less, but that isn't extremism?

I don't understand why there seems to be a double-standard with some of you. No, those aren't exactly the same things, but we have (A) a group of sensitive extremists who want to restrict unfavorable opinions, and (B) a politically powerful gay advocacy group(s) who call for jobs when people SPEAK THIER MINDS.

Are you serious? They are so incredibly far from the same thing that it is ridiculous.

There are all sorts of positions in America that if you made extreme anti-Christian remarks that you would be fired. There are countless sources in America where you can read anti-gay remarks on a daily basis. This argument is shit.

Public scorn, I can deal with. But that's not the same as calling for someone's livelihood to be taken away from him because of his "remarks".

You guys ought to be ashamed or yourselves....

TV networks frequently do not want to employ publicly scorned individuals.

You should be ashamed of yourself for apologizing for bigotry and trying to force businesses to continue to publicize an individual of this sort, all under the guise that Christians are the truly persecuted group as opposed to the group that they have spent the last few centuries persecuting.

Disgusting and shameful.

So you're basically ok with vitriol being spewed at religious people. You can't approve "some" vitriol.

lol

Of course I am! I mean what kind of person isn't? When religions engage in reprehensible behavior I'm all for them being criticized, and harshly. Just being a religion doesn't give you a pass on encouraging horrible things.

 

[michal1980]

Irrelevant. Saying someone is making stupid and bigoted statements is bad is not the same as a judgment as to whether or not they are protected by law.
.

thats your opinion.

Your just part of the mob / bullies that thinks people all have to believe the same crap you do.

If they dont think like you they are 'idiots' 'bigots' etc etc.


Go mobs.

 

[fskimospy]

Why would I care to review some that you are claiming is an avalanche of bullshit.

The reason you wouldn't care to review it is because the actual law is quite clear and proves you wrong. For whatever reason you've got some sort of mental disorder where you can't admit fault no matter how obvious it is, so you avoid contrary information at all costs.

For those that actually understand the law, this situation is pretty incredibly simple.

Cool then it appears I am right :thumbsup:

Although it seems rather odd that you can fire someone for getting gay married, but cannot refuse to sell a gay wedding cake.

Religious organizations are not subject to anti-discrimination laws in the same way that public businesses are.

 

[fskimospy]

thats your opinion.

Your just part of the mob / bullies that thinks people all have to believe the same crap you do.

If they dont think like you they are 'idiots' 'bigots' etc etc.

Go mobs.

No, that's just fact. The legal protections of an activity and personal decisions to condemn an activity are not the same thing.

I do find it hilarious that conservatives, who have been furiously attempting to oppress gays for centuries now, are now complaining that their inability to continue to oppress gays is actually a sign that THEY are being oppressed.

It's simultaneously fascinating, pathetic, and hilarious.

 

[Daverino]

Guess you overlooked the employment contract the person had with a religion based private school.

And you're assuming that Phil Robertson's contract didn't also have something about "Don't go out in public and offend a bunch of people because we make all our money on advertising?"