Phil Robertson and freedom to have an opinion

[piasabird]

If they don't like his comments they would pull all the episodes and take his show off the air. They are not telling the truth. Duck dynasty is popular because the viewers have a lot of the same views. That is what sells the show. This why they did not fire him.

If you don't want to hear a person's view that claims to read the Bible and has good family values then don't ask him questions about gays. These liberal idiots purposely ask people questions like this because they want to cause trouble. So Celebrities need to recognize that the question is a trap and dance around the subject and divert it to something else.

If people are allowed to say all kinds of evil things about Christians, then the reverse should be allowed also. However, Liberals only like freedom of speech when they are winning the argument.

 

[Texashiker]

Personally I think this dude just proved himself to be an idiot, but then again I don't get my jollies by vicariously sneering at some hicks on TV. I guess the "poke fun of the rednecks" game is over.

Part of living in a free society is living a lifestyle of our choosing.

 

[Retro Rob]

Nobody says the guy can't have an opinion.

This is complete garbage.

When voicing an opinion pisses off hoards of gay rights groups who lobby to have you removed/fired, your freedom has been removed.

You're free to keep putting lipstick on that pig.....

 

[hal2kilo]

It's obvious you've never watched the show as it's quite hilarious.

If you're a addled brained red neck.

How does he say it?

Happy, happy, happy.

Don't let the long hair and beards fool you.

 

[JManInPhoenix]

Meh, who fucking cares. Is anyone really that surprised? TV is such a cluster fuck now anyways, I can't believe people even waste time watching this crap.

This

 

[WTSherman]

It's not that A&E doesn't have the right to part ways with the guy when they don't agree with his comments, of course they do. They can do business with whoever they want. Just like if I had my own network with a show about gays and one of them said religious people are bigots and hateful, I would have a right to let them go to. But it wouldn't work that way.

The problem is that people whose ideologies have their basis in reality and reason wouldn't have such intolerant, knee-jerk reactions to differing opinions like liberal A&E did in this case.

I think this Duck Dynasty guy has a right for his opinions to be considered valid. I think his views are shared by more people than these insulated liberals realize. This shows who is really intolerant.

I would caution against stifling thought this way by branding it as hate, do this long enough and you could start to see the face of real hatred.

 

[Texashiker]

Duck dynasty is popular because the viewers have a lot of the same views. That is what sells the show. This why they did not fire him.

People want entertainment the whole family can watch.

Given the choice between duck dynasty and miley cyrus, which one do we think parents with young children would want to watch? Even with no kids at home my wife and I would still pick duck dynasty over miley cyrus.

When someone says something the vast majority of people would agree with, the person is kicked off TV.

Hollywood is eroding our morals and values one generation at a time.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

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.

 

[nehalem256]

It's not that A&E doesn't have the right to part ways with the guy when they don't agree with his comments, of course they do. They can do business with whoever they want. Just like if I had my own network with a show about gays and one of them said religious people are bigots and hateful, I would have a right to let them go to. But it wouldn't work that way.

Unless they discriminate against a protected class.

Could A&E fire someone for getting gay married if this became publicly known?

 

[Texashiker]

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.

Title of the thread is "freedom to have an opinion", which is different than protected freedom of speech.

This is about having an opinion and being punished for that opinion.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

Title of the thread is "freedom to have an opinion", which is different than protected freedom of speech.

This is about having an opinion and being punished for that opinion.

No this is about voicing your opinion in a very public way and thinking you'd be immune in every aspect from a result of that expression. That's not reality.

 

[ch33zw1z]

Derogatory is a matter of opinion.

Correct

Phil Robertson committed a public action, that was part of him being part of a protected class, that pissed off a gay rights organization.

oh well.

If a gay reality star committed a public action, that was part of him being part of a protected class(ie got same-sex married), and that pissed off a defense of married organization how is that any different?

the difference is they're not being interviewed by a major magazine.

Religious individuals can't only hide behind they're religion while they spew their hate (which isn't even biblical) until it catches up with them. In this case it did. Does he care? hell no.

 

[Texashiker]

No this is about voicing your opinion in a very public way and thinking you'd be immune in every aspect from a result of that expression. That's not reality.

Should gays be punished for voicing their opinion in public?

Maybe all gays who take part in a gay rights parade should be fired from their job?

 

[Retro Rob]

Correct



oh well.



the difference is they're not being interviewed by a major magazine.

Religious individuals can't only hide behind they're religion while they spew their hate (which isn't even biblical) until it catches up with them. In this case it did. Does he care? hell no.

Give me an example of what you think he said is equal to hate, please.

 

[ElMonoDelMar]

 

[fskimospy]

You have a jacked up way of looking at stuff, but the more I think about it, the more this makes sense.

Do we have a case of the "rights to not being offended" of the few, trumping the "rights to offend" of the many?

This is super simple.

A&E is not required to employ people who make public anti-gay statements. That's is 100% their choice, and they (for obvious reasons) don't want to be associated with that kind of vile behavior. This is why he was suspended, not for his religion. There's no right to not being offended, nor is there a right to offend.

Making public homophobic statements is not a fundamental, necessary part of being a Christian. Therefore, he's not being fired because of his religion. In order to make that case you need to show that homophobia is an inseparable part of his religion, which to me seems to be a much more damaging idea than just firing some stupid bigot.

 

[Harrod]

If they don't like his comments they would pull all the episodes and take his show off the air. They are not telling the truth. Duck dynasty is popular because the viewers have a lot of the same views. That is what sells the show. This why they did not fire him.

If you don't want to hear a person's view that claims to read the Bible and has good family values then don't ask him questions about gays. These liberal idiots purposely ask people questions like this because they want to cause trouble. So Celebrities need to recognize that the question is a trap and dance around the subject and divert it to something else.

If people are allowed to say all kinds of evil things about Christians, then the reverse should be allowed also. However, Liberals only like freedom of speech when they are winning the argument.

This, really I don't understand why you would interview someone then ask a question and get pissed off by the response, what did they expect him to do? This almost seems like a kind of entrapment just to set an example.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

If you're a addled brained red neck.

How does he say it?

Happy, happy, happy.

Yawn, nothing to add other than a personal attack.

 

[Texashiker]

A&E is not required to employ people who make public anti-gay statements. .

And if someone was fired for making a gay rights statement?

 

[nehalem256]

the difference is they're not being interviewed by a major magazine.

Why does the exact nature of their public action matter. The point is that he committed a public action that caused someone to complain to A&E.

If a gay man committed a public action, such as getting gay married, that someone then complained about to A&E should A&E have the same right to fire the gay person.

Religious individuals can't only hide behind they're religion while they spew their hate (which isn't even biblical) until it catches up with them. In this case it did. Does he care? hell no.

Religion is a protected class. Businesses cannot discriminate on the basis of protected class.

 

[ch33zw1z]

lol, so true.

 

[hal2kilo]

Lol

 

[nehalem256]

This is super simple.

A&E is not required to employ people who make public anti-gay statements. That's is 100% their choice, and they (for obvious reasons) don't want to be associated with that kind of vile behavior. This is why he was suspended, not for his religion. There's no right to not being offended, nor is there a right to offend.

Wrong. He was fired because a gay rights group complained.

Making public homophobic statements is not a fundamental, necessary part of being a Christian. Therefore, he's not being fired because of his religion. In order to make that case you need to show that homophobia is an inseparable part of his religion, which to me seems to be a much more damaging idea than just firing some stupid bigot.

Being same-sex married is not a fundamental, necessary part of being gay. Therefore by your logic it would be fine to fire a gay guy who got same-sex married.

 

[brycejones]

This is complete garbage.

When voicing an opinion pisses off hoards of gay rights groups who lobby to have you removed/fired, your freedom has been removed.

You're free to keep putting lipstick on that pig.....

Bullshit your post is complete and utter bullshit. But keep shoveling away and feeling oppressed.

 

[ch33zw1z]

Why does the exact nature of their public action matter. The point is that he committed a public action that caused someone to complain to A&E.

If a gay man committed a public action, such as getting gay married, that someone then complained about to A&E should A&E have the same right to fire the gay person.

he's not fired. and if a gay person on a show were to start in on their personal beliefs and those reflected poorly on A&E, I would suspect the same thing would occur

Religion is a protected class. Businesses cannot discriminate on the basis of protected class.

he's not suspended for his religious beliefs. he's suspended for his big mouth.

If his suspension was solely based on his beliefs, they wouldn't have made the show to begin with..