Jump in the Crossfire by using #Crossfire
on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram.
Tonight on Crossfire, guests Penny Young Nance & LZ Granderson spar over A&E's decision to suspend Duck Dynasty's Phil Robertson over comments he made about race and homosexuality.
Do you agree with A&E's decision or is Robertson expressing freedom of speech? Comment below.
WATCH: Is bigotry justified by the bible?
Posted by CNN's Christina Manduley
Filed under: Debates • Entertainment • LZ Granderson • Newt Gingrich • Penny Young Nance • Van Jones
Author, documentary filmmaker, historian, Speaker of the House (1995-1999), and 2012 Republican presidential candidate
Fmr. Obama Deputy Campaign Mgr. and W.H. Sr. Adviser, founder of Precision Strategies, fmr. Sr. Adviser to Maj. Leader Reid and Sen. Kennedy
Conservative columnist for New York Daily News, contributing editor at Townhall Magazine, commentator and author
Former Special Adviser for Green Jobs under President Obama, co-founder of Rebuild the Dream, author and attorney
Melissa Harris-Perry mocking Romney's adopted grandson on MSNBC: Bigotry or Beliefs?
Phil Robertson's advocating 20 year old men marrying 15 and 16 year old girls is also most disturbing. Basically he thinks men should marry a girl before she has gotten an education, reached a maturity on deciding what they want. The fact that most mature 20 year olds today would have little in common with a 15 year old, let alone the relationship being illegal in all states is irrellivant. The idea that a woman is only good for plucking ducks, cooking and raising chldren is insulting to the intelligence of women.
I can only be thankful that my daughters and my grandaughters live in America where we have laws against this type of abuse. I currently live in Afghanistan where child brides are traded like cattle. Uneducated, in a society with little opertunity for women, many are abused, live lives of hopelessness and give birth very early and often. This is not something we want for women in America. Women should have education, opertunity and the right to choose.
Mr. Robertson advocates marrying a girl before she can decide for herself. Understandably, people who gain a resonable education do demand that they be treated well. They question religious dogma and don't want to be in a subserviant role. I am married to a very intelligent, independent minded, professional woman. I would have it no other way. She is my partner not my property. Claiming old fashion religion, justifies abuse of women, slavery, and a miriad of other abuses that do not fit in my view of what religious means. Control is not religion it is control.
Your viewpoint has nothing to do with basic morality: it has to do with what your specific cultural values are.
Just keep in mind that simply because one culture believes in child brides and arranged marriages that there is anything morally wrong with that approach to life. It is just different.
First off gays are just as vocal about their opinions as anyone else. Second, it is are right to voice our opinions. Finally, the bible aside being gay has been medically proven to be unhealthy due the the very nature of the physical aspects of the relationship. The human body wasn't designed for it and it causes internal damage and increases he rate of disease transfer. The only truly healthy relationship is a straight, exclusive relationship.
Well... lesbianism is actually more healthy then straight sex. Any kind of insertion can cause tearing and tissue damage.
And another point... not all of the "bad gay sex" is actually done by gay couples. Some straight couples enjoy that form of sex as well. If health is your big argument, shouldn't the actual activity (anal penetration) be what you are arguing against rather then the simple attraction to someone of the same sex?
Actually that has been objected to in some cultures regardless of who it is. Some cultures will actually impose anti-sodomy laws on heterosexuals as well. (Though anti-sodomy laws were rarely used against heterosexuals in this country which is sad and is highly suggestive that the purpose of said laws was to discriminate against homosexuals)..
Despite that I think that the majority objections of many an anti-gay person, be they religious, conservative, liberal, etc. has a whole lot more to do with personal insecurity and emotional discomfort and a whole lot less to do with science, health, or anything remotely empirical in nature. The religious ones have a bit more validity but those cannot be imposed upon others which is what I think many people want ot do.
Though there are some arguments from the child bearing perspective that I think are valid even though I disagree with them and feel that gay marriage and anti-discrimination laws for the gay community should be allowed.
I would actually have a whole lot more respect for an anti-gay person if they said something to the effect of, "I can't think of any valid reason to be anti-gay that has not been shown to be questionable scientifically. I just don't feel comfortable around people who engage in that kind of behavior and as a part of society I have a right to express that discomfort." That would at least acknowledge that some feelings are not rational or are based upon empirical evidence.
Unfortunately many people want to feel like there is some rational basis for their views as it would give them grounds to impose their views on others from a legal standpoint. Accepting freedom of speech and that you can say whatever you want (within limits) but that you can't use force to impose your views on others is part of being American. I will stand up for that, even for Mr Duck Dynasty who I think is dreadfully ignorant despite his education (which I find highly questionable), but freedom of speech does not mean freedom from people reacting to what you say.
Second, it is are right to voice our opinions.
I can see your level of intelligence at work.
Mr. Duck Dynasty made his opinion known and was not carted away by the speech police. Good job Phil.
I don't agree with "Mr. Duck Dynasty" but find his voice valuable in the arena of ideas and values that represent this country.
Goes to show some individual freedoms are still live in the USA, however maybe on life support if the political self interest of the chattering urban liberal elite continue to assail the pre-eminence of the individual in lieu of their persecution of those who champion or practice true verbal and written wit and wisdom without P.C. redaction.
Perot said it back in 1992 "Jobs getting sucked out of the country" – Many people saw it back then, but unfortunately too many people bought into the spin of "BS" that we were being sold. Seems that both parties were always able to distract and polarize voters with insignificant peripheral issues like gay marriage and abortion, which got most voters so caught up in the BS that they lost sight of the bigger picture.
It should be Jobs – Jobs – Jobs! – NOT GAY – GAY – GAY – 24 / 7
The ONLY REAL FIX for Our Country is to Raise Revenue by Bringing Back Jobs to Tax-Paying US Citizens.
Logically, if you legalized everyone, wouldn't that make them all tax-payers and accomplish the same thing for a much smaller expense? Then the individual mandate rules would apply as well.
Just saying.... we could always use Reagan's solution to illegal immigration. Make 'em all legal.
Walmart and big box stores are greatly responsible as well as laws that allow offshoring of profits. Even our current franchise craze takes money out of communities and sends it to the corporate headquarters. McDonalds and other franchises sell all products to their franchisees. No food, cleaning supplies or paper goods are purchased locally.
Local products made in America, local businesses (not Franchises) buying local products for resale, curculate the most money in the local community.
Phill Robertsons beliefs or opinions don't mean squat. Don't watch the show the show if you're offended by his arrogance.
That's actually the point.
People have the right to not watch the show (or not spend money at businesses that sponsor the show). And because of that, the network has the right to take action against him to prevent that from happening.
There is nothing wrong with him saying whatever he wants. And there's nothing wrong with the network taking disciplinary action to protect their ad revenue.
The Bible says that homosexual behavior in having sex with people of the same sex is an abomination. Jesus never speaks about it because He took it for granted since homosexual behavior was universally condemned in Judaism. Jesus only spoke about things that people had gotten wrong. There was no need to talk about what they got right. However, this does not mean that Jesus didn't love gay people. He just didn't approve of their sexual behavior. All homosexuals should be treated with respect for their human dignity and never abused, bullied or attacked. It is the sin of their behavior that is the problem, along with their lack of repentance. I, and others, condemn the sin, but not the sinner. Some gay people will say that I am a homophobe. That word means a fear of man. And if gay people use it to mean a fear of homosexuals, they are mistaken. People like me are not afraid of homosexuals. We just disapprove of their sinful behavior. And they have every right to disapprove of our sinful behavior, assuming they really understand what truly sinful behavior is. Also, I will say that any clergy or church that approves of gay marriage is an abomination because they are going against God. And when gay people say that Jesus would approve of their homosexual behavior they are creating God to fit their own desires rather than understanding that He is the creator and not them. Such gay people refuse to accept and obey God as He is, but want to make Him into someone who agrees with what they want. They put their wants above what God says is right and wrong.
Fantastic and lucid reply. Kudos!
We'll put. That is my sentiment exactly!
Seriously CNN. All I did was compliment his statement and it requires moderation?
I feel similarly about those who push strong religious beliefs. I wish they would become better, more accepting people but I don't believe they should be treated poorly.
I just believe they are wrong.
The difference is I tend not to believe in restrictions to their beliefs. I don't for example believe they should not be allowed to marry because I don't agree with their beliefs. Even though I think they are incorrect about quite a bit, I am fine with them doing whatever they like with their lives as long as it doesn't cause me any direct problem. I don't want them punching me (or others) for example... but I don't really care who they share their lives with... even if I disapprove of them.
I simply request the same lack of interest on their part in what goes on in my life.
BishopBeaman, you have no idea whether Jesus approved or disapproved of their behavior or not. No amount of strong assertion or emotional insistence will prove it objectively. You can make a guess based upon your interpretation but you don't know for sure and never will unless you invent a time machine and go back and ask him. For all we know he could have approved of their behavior, or disapproved, or would have been indifferent. You are welcome to your opinion about what he believed. I do appreciate you pointing out that Jesus would have loved them as I agree he would love all people (at least I believe that he does)..
Answer me this though, if they are so against God, why did God create them that way? Maybe you don't believe that God created them that way despite evidence ot the contrary, but if you are so confident that evidence to the contrary does not add up, can you give me some indication that you have actually read some biological studies about it? I mean I agree that we have free will and we all have challenges that we will have to face in life which is part of working against sin. Keep in mind though that the Bible was written long there was a strong understanding of biology and there has been evidence that suggests that Homosexuality is a part of nature, if not genetically determined then very possibly influenced by environment and hormones. There are plenty of other animals that engage in it (though that is not much of an argument, animals also throw feces at each other which we are civilized enough not to do), but nonetheless the drive to do so seems like it is a part of who we are as members of the animal Kingdom even if we have an intellect that gives us more rationale than other animals.
If you personally feel that it is against God that is fine, as it is with many others. Don't try to present that as objective evidence and try to add a little to your credibility by actually reading some studies about the biology of Homosexuality. I will give you a start, Dr. Dean Hamer.
Oh and FYI, there are Priests who study biology and chemistry and physics who learn about things like this and they were not afraid of discovering things that may be in contrast to what they were taught religiously, heck the Big Bang Theory was developed by a Priest who was also a phsyicist. There is nothing about open minded Xtianity that says you can't learn from the information behind the arguments other people are making even if it disagrees with your personal beliefs or comes into contrast with something in the Bible. Learning about it doesn't mean that you agree with it, althoguh it is a little hard to learn about something if you are not open minded enogh to at least consider it to be a possibility.(Even Pope Francis has said "Who am I to Judge?").
I agree with your comment about BishopBeaman the Bible Thumper...The close-minded wacko conservatives are destroying Christianity.
How dare you? Jesus did not say ONE thing about homosexuality because he DIDN'T CARE! You are putting words in his mouth and making assumptions. If he cared and if it was an issue that was important, like feeding the poor Jesus would have said something. He did not. Jesus didn't give a sh#t about homosexuality. You are a bigot for assuming otherwise and come from a long line of people who pick and choose what they find convenient in the Bible to justify bigotry. You are evil.
The guy has the freedom to say whatever he wants.
His employer also has the right to suspend him from work or cancel the show if they feel his speech will hurt their advertising revenue.
People confuse "freedom of speech" with "freedom from consequences". You have the right to open your mouth and say whatever stupid things you feel like saying. But you are not free from the consequences of those words. I could open my mount and insult the ethnicity of the owner of the company I work for. I have that right. But in South Carolina (with very few laws protecting workers), they can fire me whenever they want without reason. I'd have to somehow prove it was retaliation for a protected class (being of a certain age, race, gender, whatever) for it to be illegal. Saying stupid stuff isn't covered by that.
Feel free to say whatever you want. But that doesn't mean your employer can't fire you.
I believe this would fit the case of a protected class: Phil was merely expressing orthodox Christian beliefs. Phil has been fired for being a Christian and expressing his Christian beliefs.
He should sue A&E.
Oddly enough, while you can't be fired for being of a certain religion or practicing it, you can be fired for religious statements.
Employers have to make "reasonable accomodation"... things like not making you work on holy days. But there have already been cases of people fired due to statements of belief while in the workplace and in other media (even social media).
You can hold whatever religion you want and not be fired for it. You can have accomodations to make prayers or observe holy days. But statements of your belief (even if they are based on your religion) through the various media are NOT protected. And they are particulary likely to do so if they are against another group.
For example... let's say my religion holds that catholics are going to hell and a I work at a business that happens to be owned by a catholic. I can't be fired for holding that belief. I can't be fired for not being willing to work on sundays (my holy day). I can't be fired for taking a moment before lunch to make a quiet prayer.
But I actually can be fired if I go on the local news or post on my facebook account that I believe all catholics are going to hell. The employer can claim my statements are creating an unwelcoming work environment for other employees or that they are afraid my views being put out in the media may drive away catholic customers.
Your workplace protections pretty much disappear once you start making statements that antagonize others. Your religion (or age or sex or any other protected class) doesn't give you the freedom to make the workplace unwelcoming to others or require your employer to allow you to make statements that will damage their business.
Agreed and well put. I love the hypocrisy of the majority the commentators. They all scream he has the right to live his life as he wishes and then lambast A&E telling them how they should live their lives. Typical of the right wing conservatives.
Freedom of speech is freedom from consequence otherwise it is not freedom. I can say what I want in North Korea but will probably be shot for it. That is not freedom.
It's freedom from conseqence from THE GOVERNMENT... yes. It's not freedom from how others in our society view or treat you (including your employers).
Our government will not imprison you for making horrible statements about other people. But your boss can fire you, your friends can stop talking to you, your wife can divorce you and others can talk about how horrible they think you are.
There are consequences for anything you say. A employer can decide not to hire you if you give a bad answer to an interview question for example. Do you truly believe you should be hired regardless because your bad answer was protected by the freedom of speech?
You cannot be imprisoned or assaulted because of what you say. But if you make a fool of yourself with your words then you will suffer consequences because of that. And you should.
GAY – GAY – GAY – Enough with all the GAY crap already.
We can all say what we want when we want as long as we all agree .
Sometimes I feel like I'm in the twilight zone . Do ... Do... do, do .
Or the Outer Limits .
It becomes bigotry when you do not like what I say and believe in and you have more money than I do.
Else, it is ok.
One cannot touch sgafags, lesbians, swejews or sreeuqueers nowadays!
Heres the thing. For all on here who don't believe the Bible and think that christians are whacko, why are you on here posting. Why do you care if someone in your mind that is a backwoods redneck spouts off about homosexuality. If Phil Robertson is not relevant in your mind the why do you care son much to be on here blasting. Have you nothing better to do than bash christianity? If you are disgusted with DD and Phil Robertson and family then turn the channel and don't read anything about him. Sometimes I think people just like to bash because they are sad people with their own shortcomings. Phil was simply answering a question that he was asked. He hates the sin but loves the sinner.
Phil is being fired for being a Christian and expressing orthodox Christian beliefs: I believe his civil rights have been violated.
I am just going to comment on his "racist" remarks. I am white, about Phil's age, and from central Louisiana so I can kind of relate to him. I don't think the comments were intended as racist, but do reflect what I believe to be common misconceptions of many of my fellow rednecks:
"I never, with my eyes, saw the mistreatment of any black person," No overt mistreatment was rare, mostly because blacks understood what was and wasn't acceptable and rarely broke the Jim Crow rules. But looking back now I can see not letting them go to school with us, eat with us, etc was pretty poor treatment.
"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!..." No they would not have dared say anything negative about us, but if I had to guess it they were thinking plenty.
"Pre-entitlement, pre-welfare, you say: Were they happy? They were godly; they were happy; no one was singing the blues." This one is harder, I believe Civil Rights have come a long ways, but it does seem to me Phil has a point here, it sure seems to me that many of the black folks you see on TV and hear about are less happy today, not sure why that is. Of the black folks I know they are just normal people, many are happy, some are not. It does seem to me that many black families have fragmented, more families without active fathers, more kids being raised by grandmothers or people other than their mothers. I don't know why that is, but I'm sure its not because of more equal and civilized treatment. The welfare state, maybe so.
All in all I think Phil is typical of many rednecks of his age, not racist and not much in touch with racial social issues, but then why do we expect him to be? He's a good entertainer, I like his show and will be happy to see him back.
With information being so readily available via the internet these days you don't have to stay ignorant. You can take a moment or two (a few minutes) out of your day to look things up rather than just being a sheltered "redneck" as you put it.
That's how one gets knowledgable on these things, you satiate your curiosity and looks things up. You would be amazed how knowledgable you can become on the black community and what happened to them over many years. Just watching TV and saying what they felt filters their feelings through your interpretation. Live among them, talk to them, interact with them. You don't have to stay ignorant of modern racial social issues today.
Asking "Bigotry or Beliefs" is like asking "German Shepherd or Dog." One is a type of the other – ALL bigotry is belief, but not all belief is bigotry. This question at hand is simple, but the media outlets are trying to make it complicated in an attempt to help A&E save a multimillion dollar property from ruin. In America, everyone is entitled to their beliefs, bigoted though they may be. Everyone is also entitled to the negative financial consequences of their (bigoted) beliefs and stupid decisions. A&E has certainly realized what can happen when you play with fire. I do hope that they have insurance – just not with any of the insurance companies I own stock in.
Bigotry is the hateful persecution of another. Belief is the individual opinion of a person.
I'm black and his comment was in no way racist. I heard no racial words or slurs whatsoever. As far as the black civil rights groups are concerned they just want a reason to be in the spot light. Saying that he worked side by side with blacks doesn't make this man a racist. As for his comments on sin get over it big deal. What a majority of Americans fail to realize about the south is that Whites and Blacks actually got along just as much as some feared or hated 1 another. Every white person isn't a racist and every black person isn't a thug or whatever.
I agree with you!
We need more grownups in the room. Thank you, ccopeland
Let me ask you this. Would it be OK for the Romans to say that Christians didn't complain when the Romans slaughtered Christians? Do you think that the Romans would allow Christians to complain?
The fact that he said none of the black people he worked with complained. It in no way shape form or fashion makes him a racist. H e can state that because he was there nobody today can dispute his claim unless you've actually worked beside him. So don't bring the Romans and christian crap into this debate it wont work. Did he say hey all blacks should be slaves again? Did he say i think blacks are only good for sharecropping? No need to answer right? He is old enough to have worked beside blacks in the south on a farm at a mill etc etc. Yea even after sharecropping and Jim crow people had to earn a living so mixed races worked on agriculture. Read a book reconsider what you said and the overall so called outrage of black groups. Can you say they honestly have a right to be seriously. We have more grave concerns in the black community to fix and be outraged over than this it's utter child play compared to the real issues at hand.
I can bring up anything that I want. I have the same freedom of expression that you and Phil Robertson have. I never said that Robertson is a racist. To say that a person is a racist is generally not productive. Usually white people don't consciously hate people. Some of them just have less regard for people who don't look or act like them. You can say the same thing for some black people too.
Many white people assume that other people always bring up the race card. This is not true. You can be non-racist and still wrong. Phil Robertson is wrong for assuming that when black people didn't complain to his face they were happy with their lot in life. No, they were not. Just like the Christians in the Roman Empire, black people in the Old South knew that complaining to white people about racism would not do them any good. You are black. You should know that talking about racism to your fellow conservatives, unless it is about reverse discrimination against white people, would be useless.
Everyone, absolutely everyone, stereotypes and profiles everything all the time and most people are racist to some degree but are not intellectually honest enough to admit it or intelligent enough to realize it.
By racism I don't mean necessarily dislike or hate, but having the opinion that there are racially and culturally based stereotypes that are valid. I happen to believe that Jews are more intelligent than average and that American Blacks are less intelligent on average and I think the evidence supports this. There are very high percentage of Jews in the professions and a very low percentage of Blacks compared to their relative population density. Deny it all you want, but some genetics and cultures are superior and there is absolutely nothing morally wrong with having such an opinion.
Truth is truth and truth is supported by evidence and it is wrong to suppress truth simply because you don’t like it.
You can say what you want, you are right. It does not mean that you are right.
The author is an idiot. Of course they didn't complain, they had things their ancestors did not, housing, food, steady job, sense of worth. They were a comodity, and had a value. It would be as dumb to mistreat them as to go out and break your tractor. As a child I never heard any of the older blacks complain at all about slavery. Stop being liberals and trying to get credits for something you were not even involved with. If you don't like America then all you liberals and democrats need to go start your own country. Maybe Canada where is can freeze these irrational herky jerky bleeding heart ideas. There is nothing to disagree with here, if you do, don't post it, just deal with your issues as a liberal and get your self a shrink and republican card
You know what really funny, democrats where the pro-slavery party. Republicans where the ones who stood against it.
Are you fucking serious. Of course you are. They had value? You're fucking serious too. My God you're an incredible fucking idiot
why doesn't granderson talk about what muslims do to gays???? Beheaded gays???? and the left says what???? WONDER WHY???
Which hateful religous bigot liberal will be the next to apologize?
First Crãcker Barrel, now NBC. A local NBC affiliate in Wisconsin released a statement apologizing for one of their anchors criticizing Duck Dynasty star Phil Robertson for his comments about hømøsexuality being a sin. Anchor Christine Bellport made disparaging remarks about Robertson on-air by declaring that "when you look at the guy, I'm not surprised with the comments he made." She also admitted that she was making the remarks without ever watching an episode of Duck Dynasty because she " not going to waste my time on that."
Religous Bigotryw went out with slavery. Why do some people insistbon cintinuing the intolerate action of religous bigotry against Christians?
Did the Obamacare cheerleader Debbie Wassermann Shultz sign up for Obamacare yet? Why not?
How about Michelle Obama and her two brats? Why not?
How about Chris Tingle and the crew over at MSNBC?
Nancy Pelosi? Harry Reid?
Obama and his family have signed up for Obamacare, as has Harry Reid (John Boehner has as well).
The president didn't have to... he's a member of the military (being the head of the military) and is covered by their health plan. But he signed his family up anyway. Reid and Boehner had to due to the legislation. If the Democrats win back the house. Pelosi will have to sign up.
muslims behead gays-why doesn't obama address this issue???? interesting how obama promotes gay rights and muslim rights but not Christian rights???? wonder why???? why did obama bow down to a muslim prince??? spend so much time on gay rights? find out about obama's friend donna when they were teens and you will find answers.
Why did Bush bow and then dance with a Saudi prince? Bowing is diplomatic protocol. Dancing isn't. So what is your point on this post? Try to keep up with the argument of the day.
Some muslim extremists believe in beheading homosexuals.
The president of Zimbabwe, Robert Mugabe supported beheading homosexuals as well.
Of course, he's a Roman Catholic.
Phil Robertson is entitled to his own beliefs re: homosexuality and racial bias and etc. Unfortunately he should have kept his beliefs to himself during the interview.
What everyone posting here feels is all irrelevant. Phil Robertson was being interviewed as an employee of A&E and Duck Dynasty Show. Robertson has legal tightly worded mutually agreed to & signed employee contract with A&E, which contains morality clauses. Unfortunately he broke his legal work employment contract agreement with A&E by statement he made during interview, which was legally connected to his work with A&E. Sadly, as an employee who decided to break his legal contract agreement, now he suffers the legal consequences. Robertson is intelligent man with a Masters degree, so he knew exactly what he was doing. Sorry, all adults are legally responsible for statements or committed acts they undertake especially if they connect back to their employment..
Ha, and we may very well just be the gullible victims of his little spectacle too. And A&E could be part of this as well. If not, then this is just the way employer deal with certain controversial issues. As a college educated medical professional, I know I would have been fired if I said any of those things while working, or at a medical conference,etc. which could connect ack to my medical employment work. I also know my husband and son who are CEO's of their own corporations have employee contracts, and their employees would have been suspended/or fired if/when controversial comments legally connect back to their work This happens all the time, and yes, such actions are very legal. Time for everyone to realize corporate employers usually do have work employee contract agreements and work guideline protocols that employees must abide by to avoid legal liability. Controversial free speech is fine, but is many times restricted when statement can be connected to their employment. Employers must/should legally take care not to upset anyone.
All of this much debated hoopla is actually quite stupid. Think we have lots more important issues to discuss than this. I have my own personal beliefs too, but my opinions are irrelevant, so won't even address. Nor are the opinions of anyone blogging here today. Robertson broke his agreed to & signed legal employment contract agreement, and as such legally he must, as an adult, accept responsibility & the consequences of doing such. That is just way US legal & judicial systems are governed through the passed applicable law codes. US law governs signed employment agreement contracts.
"Robertson has legal tightly worded mutually agreed to & signed employee contract with A&E, which contains morality clauses. Unfortunately he broke his legal work employment contract agreement with A&E by statement he made during interview, which was legally connected to his work with A&E. Sadly, as an employee who decided to break his legal contract agreement, now he suffers the legal consequences. Robertson is intelligent man with a Masters degree, so he knew exactly what he was doing. Sorry, all adults are legally responsible for statements or committed acts they undertake especially if they connect back to their employment.."
I appreciate your comments, Sharon. He knew what he was doing, and now he gets to be the persecuted 'Christian' and play that part to the hilt.
But, I'm curious what A&E will do regarding the latest of Mr. Robertson's comments that have surfaced. A few years ago, he spoke publically advocating that adult men marry underage children. While I'm pretty sure that statutory rape and pedophilia are not A&E's values, the comments were made before Robertson was under contract with A&E. Can an employer still go after him for something he said before he was employed by them? Did they even do a cursory background check on him?
Robertson can say what he wants to say, but other people have the same right. Blacks and gays have the right to push back against what he said. A & E has the right to suspend him for expressing views that it does not agree with. Freedom of speech goes both ways. It is not a one-way street. The people Robertson attacked or offended (Blacks, gays, A & E) have the right to respond to what he said.
the toughest part of communication is not projecting ones own feelings into the statements another makes. If all people were honest they would understand that racism was not expressed nor was hatred toward any group. How many of us have witnessed the atrocities committed to our black brothers first hand? If asked our first hand experiences with our black brothers, how many could say that we did? I could not even though I lived during that time. Does that mean I am racist? If I told my personal experience and it was different is that proof of racism? We live during a time when we look for any excuse to be angry at others and we project our own emotions and experiences on to others. Jim Crow is inserted here by those who wish not to be honest. The man who simply told of his personal experience talked of things no one else knows or understands so where does this hatred of his experience come from. Oddly, I think the accusers have more to answer for their behavior than this man for answering a question (whatever it was) perhaps honestly.
Racism works both ways: I was the target of extreme violence and bullying from blacks when I was in grade school and high school and I never did anything to provoke such abuse. I assume that they were taking out their general anger toward whites toward me because I was an easy target: I did not know how to fight and there wasn't anyone who would protect me from their abuse I was hurt badly enough by their abuse that I required medical attention a few times. Once they were throwing rocks at me and shattered my glasses and the fragments of glass cut my eye. My own response to the bullying was to train in multiple styles of martial arts so I could protect myself. I can understand how someone could become fed up and frightened enough to retaliate in a major way.
You need to understand that the people Robertson criticized have a point of view. Robertson has a point of view, but so do the people Robertson was criticizing. You talked about racism, so you thought I implied that Robertson was a racist, and he should not be allowed to make his statement. Read closely what I wrote– I said nothing of the kind. I just said that the other side can talk too.
White people generally get upset when they thought people are raising the race card. It is an attack on their character. White people are sensitive to what people said about them, just like black and gay people. I want you to see that you perceived that I was raising the race card, even though I was just saying that other people can talk too. You get upset. Well, black and gay people constantly have to listen to what white people/Christians say about them. Don't you think they have a right to be upset about attacks on their character?
OK, we know contracts are binding. Let's push on with some other sound bites. Although there was profound slavery in the civil society that saw the writing of NT biblical letters, they do not justify slavery so much as report it and reflect it as current in that society. Paul not only advocated freedom for slaves, but also wrote one whole book dedicated to saving a slave (Onesimus) from a vengeful owner. In that day and era, few would even think that far, much less be identified with slaves. In that day and era, Christianity was the only refuge for slaves in a hostile world. Their congregations had many. Check history. The big deal about Robertson was not so much his position or view, but the manner in which it was said. For biblical views to be said in judgment rather than love is a great breech of biblical ethics, e.g. speak the truth in love. I feel that most people could accept someone's views if they are presented in a loving, humble, and sincere manner. That would be a biblical position.
Amazing how many people are really ignorant concerning Employment Laws. People talk in the sound bites they hear instead of putting 10 minutes into searching for facts. Why? Because they don't want to know the truth. They can't handle it. They prefer to remain ignorant. This is an open and shut case. If the Fox fans want Phil to have his own show, I am sure they can buy the rights from A&E.
Regardless of what anyone thinks or feels, they are under contract to A & E, they likely have some sort of "morality clause" that gives the network the right to fire a cast member if something like this happens. It has nothing to do with free speech.
Being fired from your job for expressing a very common religous belief held by just about half the country, during an interview where you're asked about said belief specifically is discrimination. We have laws to protect us from such behaviour. What if he had said he DID support homosexuality? Thats an equally protected belief but do you think they would have fired him for THAT opinion? NO, they would not, simply because his beliefs differed from the networks, so they let him go. Getting fired for holding one opinion vs. keeping your job for holding another is absolutely discrimination and yes its protected under free speech.
Contract or not, if the speech is protected the contract should be void. You could have a contract saying that the studio cannot hire any african americans for a certain film or show, but it would be discriminatory and you could fight it in a court of law
Millionaires passing themselves off as rednecks while making fools of real rednecks. "Reality Shows" are not real–they are scripted.
P.S. Make sure to get a made in Communist China Willie or Uncle Si as a stocking stuffer today, suckers.
Here's the thing. I don't believe the Bible is true. I don't believe homosexuality is a sin. So, stop harassing me and telling me that gay people are sinners. Shut up. Keep your views to yourself and I'll keep mine to me.
Guess he could have said no comment when asked the questions, but why should he have to? His answers don't discriminate against anyone, they don't stop anyone from doing anything, and they are within his right to make. A&E believes they are protecting their brand with their actions. The only thing that can be said is that A&E is discriminating against stupid, ,which is a little concerning, cause there is a lot of stupid going on in the world.
Sure. HE was in his right to say what he said and there were consequences. Fine. And A&E was in their right to do what they did. No one is stupid here...except the general public for believing a wealth business man with a master's degree is actually a red neck duck call maker. All that's happened is the show is more popular than ever.
how about we allow everyone to speak their mind, and we, as individuals, toughen up and not let strangers we don't even know bother us when their opinions differ than ours...
We do have a right to self expression, if you don't like Duck Dynasty then why are you so uptight about it.
Get a life!
Then stop telling me being gay is ok and forcing down our children's throats at school. Goes both ways!
let mr. duck say what he wants,let a&e do what they want and by next week nobody will even give a dam.I for one will be watching Gilligans Island,and who will get pissed about that?
well, I foresee the eventual "editing" of older television shows, movies, ect to reflect the "current" state of us media. Since there were no homosexuals on Gilligan's Island, this means the producers were without a doubt "homophoic" so wouldn't the "rational" next step be to computer animate gay characters into the re-runs? THen we could watch the episode where Gilligan and the professor get caugh red handed by the Skipper, who is in turn left with an overwhelming sense of abandonment since he and Gilligan had previous relations...which is what REALLY caused them to get standed in the first place! Skipper should have been watching the seas instead of banging Gilligans knees!hahahaha
actually in the scene from "it's a wonderful life" when George and the angle go into the bar, the bartender belows out that they don't want any "Pixies" in there bar : that will have to be edited out
Hey, this Duck guy didn't just go off on some religious tangent. He responded to a direct question asked of him. He gave his honest feelings and no one should chastise him for what he feels in his own heart. He isn't out and about starting trouble, inciting violence, leading crazy talk shows or trying to corrupt our kids with evils. If you don't like the answer he gave to a direct question, too flippin bad for you. GQ really had no reason to ask a question about sin anyway. They did to start trouble. Why would they even ask a question about sin knowing he is a southern Christian? Because they knew that he would give a southern christian answer. Plain and simple. Maybe GQ should just cut the crap and stop asking questions that are religious in nature.
Exactly!! What did they really expect him to say after that question from the interviewer?? "No, i'm sorry my personal religious opinion on this matter will offend someone in this country so in order to keep my job at A&E I'm legally required to keep my religious opinions to myself??? If A&E would just come out and SAY THAT, because thats what they've done essentially, then everyone would see the true side of this story and it would sound as ridiculous as it really is.
It seems as if the GOP believes his rights have been violated... the question is will they just throw a hissy fit or will the actually craft legislation that protects workers from companies who fire them simply over their beliefs? I expect more hissy fits and VERY LITTLE help from the GOP to actually give workers real protection against retaliation from their employers.
The opinion he expressed in an INTERVIEW, aside from the actual show, is an opinion held by the large majority of Christians in this country, as in NOT taboo. He was asked a direct question about his PERSONAL beliefs, and he was let go for just that reason. Being let go for expressing personal (popular) religious beliefs. Is that not discrimination? What if he had said he supported homosexuality? Thats a personal opinion or belief. WOuld he have been let go for SUPPORTING homosexuality? Of course not, because thats the belief of the network. So this is completely biased and discrimination. But thats fine because A&E will lose out for being "politically correct", and some other network will now have the most popular show in history. Fine with me!
1. Thinks they themselves are rich.
2. Makes less than $100,000 per year.
3. Has less than $200,000 net worth.
4. Primary residence is on wheels or blocks.
5. Probably retired and depending on SS and Medicare or will be the person most likely to need SS and Medicare.
6. Benefits directly from the ACA, but really, really, hates Obamacare.
8. Thinks they are religious but they should read the book, "How NOT To Be A Republican" (a.k.a. The Bible).
9. Actually thinks republicans represent THEM!!
Profile of the Typical Democrat Voter
1. Drinks the Obama Kool Aid & believes everything the WH says.
2. Uses name calling as a legitimate debate tactic.
3. Promotes tolerance, unless you don't agree with them, then they resort to #2 and tell you how stupid you are for not believing as they do.
4. Blame Republicans & Bush for everything, even though they've had 6 YEARS to change it for the better.
5. Intolerant of the values or culture of anyone who believes in God.
6. Believe the Government should control all aspects of an individual's life – you'll just hurt yourself with freedom.
7. Thinks guns will shoot you on their own.
Straw man much?
Nice straw man
Straw man much?
December 26, 2013 at 7:39 pm |
Are you a dolt full time or just part time?
Don't forget they spell check everyone once they start loosing a debate.
You can usually get pretty close to guessing the intelligence of someone based on the depth of "generalizing" and "stereotyping" they use to describe others. You, must have an incredibly low iq.
1. I'm not rich
2. Make more the 100K/yr
3. Net worth > 200K
4. Own single family house
6. If I had to use ACA, my premiums would have a sharp increase; terrible law that is bad for the country as a whole
7. Everyone is racist
8. I've read the Good Book and I am a God fearing man, but I do not practice or go to church often
9. My views align with 90 % of the conservative republican platform
In my case, you fail.
"Freedom of speech" is a political right, that is the government can not restrict your speech. The whole point of having freedom of speech is so that the those with stupid ideas are able to express them and the that every everyone else is free to tell them what an idiot they are and avoid them.
Also just because someone hold a firmly held belief, that doesn't make it right. Many Nazi's firmly believed that the Jew were subhuman and that the final solution was right, many people believed that slavery was justified by the bible, and many believe that the Koran justifies the slaughter of infidels. Just because someone firmly believes something doesn't affect the validity of their position.
there is nothing religious about this scruffy old guys beliefs. UGH is my response. The world has changed and will continue to change. Apparently his beliefs does not include the knowledge of DNA. It's ludicrous to allow him a platform as large as a TV show.
By the definition of the gay community and their PC supporters we true Christians ARE bigots
I stand with my brother Phil, the Holy scriptures, and proudly say "Homosexuality is deviant, sinful, perverse and according to the scriptures equivalent to bestiality"
Your first comment is true, the bible is a bigoted document that promotes it own followers as superior to non-followers. The US is based on the concept that all men are created equal, a direct affront to the assumptions of the bible.
It seems to me that a man sticking his penis in a cesspool (his lovers anus) is pretty unsanitary....It seems really bad to me Bible or not. Sexual promiscuity or recreational sex results in children who are not loved and nurtured by two people who are ready to be parents and ultimately results in deterioration of our society.
STDs and AIDs are gods judgment on the sexually immoral: abuse the gift of sex and there are consequences.
Robertson and his family will be fine after the dust settles. So many people have become fed up with the reactionary PC crowd going after anyone who dares disagree with them, that being targeted by them is more likely to yield a positive benefit. I am a firm believer in civil rights including equal marriage rights for same sex couples, but I was begging the LGBT community to boycott my business after their Chick-fil-a protests. Chances are the Duck Dynasty clan will come out of this with a new contract with someone else, and a huge bump in sales. The PC crowd has overspent it's political capital, and now the backlash has made their boycotts one of the best ways to promote your business.
Reducing a gay human being to their private parts and where the put them is offensive. We are human beings. If you call me a deviant without ever having met me, hell yes I'm going to be offended by that.
Reducing a gay human being to their private parts and where the put them is offensive. We are human beings. If you call me a deviant without ever having met me, *of course* I'm going to be offended by that.
Robertson said nothing about homosexuals. He spoke about homosexual acts. Is there not a distinction? You seem to have said so in your own post.
I was deeply offended by the guy who said the Bible is used to suppress minorities. I think CNN should ban him from TV.
Jill – I'm deeply offending that you would refuse to recognize that someone has different religious beliefs from you and resort to classifying their rejection as suppression. Serioiusly, how much power do you think Robertson has that he can suppress the gay community? How much power do you think the Christian community has? They only thing they can do is reject the gay lifestyle. And based on their religious beliefs, they should and the government is prohibited from interfering with their beliefs.
I think both A&E and the LGBT community made a BIG mistake. I support Phil Robertson's right to express his religious beliefs and I thought the United States was a place of tolerance and understanding.
How to you reconcile the tolerence of bigotry?
Why do you call faith-based religious beliefs bigotry? We protect religious belief in this country, both in the Constitution and in federal (and even state) law. No one ought to be required to be silent about his beliefs, and no one should be required to accept another's beliefs, religious, moral or otherwise if those beliefs (including Biblical beliefs and the belief that homosexuality is normal) do not square with one's own.
It seems the cultured, elite, rich, latte drinking crowd has struck again. Anyone who does not think, believe, reason as they do are the enemy. They cannot accept the fact that there are people like Mr. Richardson in this day and age. These liberals are truly the ones who are narrow minded and do not hesitate to erronously and falsely label people as ones we should despise and avoid. I hope and pray that his show is not cancelled. Mr, Robertson does not need to apologize for his comments.
This issue is not about Free Speech . . . it's about the ramifications of free speech. Robertson is untitled to his opinions and I will support his right. I will also support the rights of A&E to suspend him for his remarks if they feel what he says will damage and/or cause harm to them. Free Speech works both ways.
Ever see the promo ad at the beginning of shows where they say " The views expressed on this show are not necessarily the views of this station or broadcaster" What is wrong with that?
Good Post. BUT A&E knew his beliefs before they hired him. Acting upset now is stupid.
Sure, A&E has the right to suspend him, and his fans have the right to boycott A&E.
Hey, they should leave A&E and they will be picked immediately by some other network or cable show. Then A&E looses the lucrative show.
Bigotry based on bible verse. Slavery based on ancient customs. Hatred based on economic advantage. Yes, it's all there for the duckie dynasty to exploit to their advantage in the old testament.
Here's how it goes in the bible belt:
You have a product you want to sell. You go to a church and preach bigotry as expressed in the bible. Then, you get someone to complain about the bigotry, preferably a black man. Then you cry "persecution because of my religious beliefs." Then the bible belters rally to you by buying million upon millions of dollars worth of your product, however useless it may be.
BAM!!! You become a millionaire, move to St Barts in the Carribian Sea and enjoy the mulatto chicks on the religious money. Not a bad way to make a living. Come back to Louisiana, marry a trophy wife with dye blond fluff hair and a need for casino bar piano singers.
What about Tolerance?
Mr. Robinson used this for publicity. This guy has a college eduction, this is planned. Not like Louisiana is progressive state either for gay rights or minority rights.
The bible can be used to excuse anything from adultry, to murder to slavery.
Robertson didn't ask himself the questions in this interview. He responded to the questions that were asked. It seems the interviewer elicited the responses he was looking for so that they could be used against Robertson.
Media had to jump on this as they've used PC to generate income. These guys are successful for being outspoken, coming off as "rednecks," pushing the concept of white-chest-pounding-male . We know their shtick will never be mainstream, but their marketing is genius. Is anyone truly shocked by these comments?
Almost daily I hear or read views that don't align with mine, but the right to say those things, to believe differently from others, is a vital part of our American heritage. GQ played a part, possibly by encouraging him to be outrageous – drawing out all they could. Controversy sells, and now media is helping by way of loud noise and manufactured outrage.. Robertson has the right to believe as he chooses, as do all of us. We have the right to accept or ignore, and I see no reason for hysteria or even his removal. Yeah, he made comments about gays, but he also trashed cheaters, promiscuity, sinners in general, and.... women. Seems to me he's pretty balanced in his dislikes....there's a lot of them.
First, there is no such thing as homosexuality there is only homosexual behavior defined as the abnormal desire for sexual relationships between persons of the same-sex as opposed to the natural and normal desire of heterosexual relationships which (God or nature depending on your belief system) exclusively has the natural and normal capacity for procreation.
Second, his views are shaped by his religious beliefs. I personally know atheist who despise homosexual behavior. Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all categorize it as a behavior against God. With that said, I want to be clear here, YOU CANNOT ROB A PERSON OF THEIR RELIGIOUS CONVICTIONS. IT IS THE FIRST RIGHT. The atheists is free to reject religion. The Jew, Christian, and Muslim are free to accept religion and practice their faith accordingly, and no one has a right to say, "You must accept that I enjoy another mans manhood in my mouth and/or rectum." No, I do not have to accept in the sense that I have to agree, I disagree. You are free to live how you want, you are not free to tell me that I or anyone has to forsake my atheism or religion for your behavior.
Finally, the conversation of sex is and should be a private one. I don't know and don't want to know who you are having sex with. If you like the same sex, why do I need to know that? We all should be able to do our jobs without knowledge of sexual orientation, period. If you wash cars, deliver the mail, are on t.v., play pro sports, why does it matter your sexual orientation matter. Every business would be more successful with that policy, WE DON'T CARE ABOUT THAT, WE CARE ABOUT CAN YOU DO THE JOB HIRED YOU TO DO?
Speaking for myself, if it is ever a national vote on the choice of right of religious freedom v. homosexual behavior I'm choosing religious freedom 100% because it affects every dimension of my life, homosexual behavior does not. It makes me better, homosexual behavior does not.
my 2 cents.
Dear Mr. "Barack Washington" you are oblivious to your ignorance of nature and white privilege. Your name says it all.
His religious beliefs and his freedom of speech needs to be left out of whether Phil Robertson has a job or not. He was asked questions and he gave honest answers. If the media or anyone doesn't want to hear a persons answer, then maybe some questions shouldn't be asked on public television.
Duck Dynasty is the most clean, humorous, fun family show on television. Everyone is being themselves and not portraying anyone else just to make profits. The entire family should be proud of how well they have done and how successful the show has become and will always be. I don't feel Phil or his family have anything to worry about because any televisions station will be happy to take them on today. They don't need A & E. What they did to him was wrong!
Just because the gay community is seeking public acceptance does not mean that religious views should be outlawed. Especially in America, the fundamental concept is remedy for all when ever possible.Unfortunely,we live in a all or nothing society.Take Christmas for example, the compromise was to add a bunch of worldly symbolism to a very religious celebration. There is no way today this type of fundamental American COMPROMISE is possible.As a nation,we have become extremely self righteous .We are not gods and just because we have different views on lifestyle or religion does not mean hate. As in this case the message was just the opposite. Because he loves you ,he was willing to risk all to reach out his "LOVE".
No one is outlawing what Robertson says. He's entitled to his opinion. However, what someone says does have ramifications. If A&E feels what Robertson says would damage them financially or socially then they have the right to suspend him. After all . . . isn't this what America is all about. FREEDOM!
That is really not what is happening here. A&E knows Mr Robertson's views. They are being pressured by a special interest group that wants to be accepted into society with special privileges and rights.
It's obvious that democrats have no tolerance for peoples opinions.
I'm a democrat and I have tolerance for his opinion. I'm also gay...and that doesn't change my stance. This man can say what he wants when he wants. That being said, however, A&E is not under any legal obligation to provide him (or anyone) with a platform to express opinions the company disagrees with. He hasn't been arrested or detained or been forced into silence...he's free to say whatever wants to fall out of his mouth...but no company is required to keep him employed. Try standing up at your office and throwing a few "choice" words around. You are free to say what you want...but your company isn't forced to keep you if you don't match their conduct standards.
What they did is fire him for expressing his religious views.
Phil was basically paraphrasing scripture from the Bible. I am a Christian, like Phil, and any true Christian believes what the Bible says about homosexuality: It is unnatural and it is sin.
No problem with what you say or what Robertson says. However, don't you think A&E has the right . . .the FREEDOM to decide that what Robertson said would jeopardize their company, their profits, and their reputation?
Your lack of understanding of the origin of the Bible, the time span in which it was written, the language in which it was written, the difference between literal and figurative descriptors, the known misinterpretation of passages due to the nuances of the Aramaic and Hebrew languages in the Old Testament and Greek in the New Testament is astounding. You give support to the stereotype the Bible thumpers carry. If you want to follow the spirit of Jesus, look no farther than Pope Francis.
Pope Francis the same opinion as I do: Homosexuality is sin.
So your responsibility to think for yourself ends once you open your little black book?
That lound sucking sound is religion siphoning out the minds of followers. No wonder they are referred to as mindless followers.
Christians do and say whatever evil thing they want, as long as Scripture is added as justification. Such is the premise behind Christian hate, which makes no sense since Christ is defined by His unyielding Love.
Freedom of Speech is not Freedom of Hate.
It depends on how you define hate:
Telling someone that God disapproves of their lifestyle and that it will have heavenly consequences does not amount to hate. If you hate someone you will not warn them of impending doom. If someone calls for the burning of homosexuals here on earth, that is a different story.
But, if you have something against someone's beliefs, the correct response is to say you do not share them and agree to disagree.
This isn't about disagreeing with someone's beliefs. A&E is a business . . .and if someone they employee causes them to lose business they have the right to fire him. That's their right to Free Speech!
That's a nice opinion but not one to share with an employer who is gay. Phil shared and is fired. By By and back to the trailer park for you.
Phil was already rich and the show is so popular that another network or cable network will pick them up right away!
Its not usually people casually and calmly telling gay people they dont agree with them though. Society hasn't been that polite. Its yelling and screaming names, being assaulted, beat up, fired and disowned and even killed. If the whole relgious argument against homosexuality was civilized and non violent I could understand it being more tolerated and accepted. But the people denouncing it are usually doing so in a violent way. And that, is what makes it hate. Big difference if its calm words, or angry fists and screaming thats sending the message
How can what someone else believes possibly be of any concern to someone who does not believe that way? If you disagree with Robertson's religious faith, fine. Must you force him to denounce his faith to make yourself feel better? Say what you will, but he has a right to believe (and in fact, he no real choice to believe otherwise) as his conscience tells him.
Freedom of speech and religion does not equal freedom of employment. Phil called his employers evil and bestial because of their sexual orientation and fired for it, rightfully so. A&E network, as the owners of the DD program, its creative process and likeness, and the majority of the retail side of the business, know, Phil and family have better things to think about. All the man toys and trophy wives will have to go back to the creditors. It's back to living is wrecked trailers for them all.
They are greedy cowards just like most folks. A&E will lose out and someone other lucky network will pick up the show.
Cry your eyes out A&E for all that revenue you will be missing!
Bubba, calling someone "evil" is a reflection of YOUR beliefs. You are entitled to them, but not to deprive another of his beliefs.
The Ku Klux Klan are Christians too.