'Duck Dynasty's' Phil Robertson suspended for comments about gays

LoAmmi said:

Freedom of speech means you cannot be criminally charged for speaking. It does not mean you are free from civil repercussions for what you say and has never in the history of the nation meant that.

Click to expand...

Did you read my post at all before responding? Go back and reread it, before trivializing it. As this comment was also made by me in the post you responded to.

LoAmmi said:

I do not know what flaw in thinking has lead people to this notion that free speech means consequence free speech.

Click to expand...

This doesn't make much sense to me. There are consequences as we both claimed. Now A&E, the gay action groups, and the media are enduring theirs as well, since A&E will loose viewership, while some other cable network will gain viewership as the show will most probably move. The gay action groups will be seen by more and more people as bigoted groups, that need to get thicker skin. And the media will loose even more credibility, if they have any left to loose.

My point being is this. The media has lost its way, and has become nothing more than the smut mags, like Enquirer.

Erose said:

Did you read my post at all before responding? Go back and reread it, before trivializing it. As this comment was also made by me in the post you responded to.

Click to expand...

Yes, you claimed that it has "in effect" been taken away. This is incorrect. You have the freedom of speech. You are using it as we type this on this very forum. However, you do not have the right to consequence free speech and you never had. As you move more into the public eye, you have to be even more careful because more people will have knowledge about what you say.

MikeK said:

I do. Chik-fil-a made more money than usual, it was wonderful. A very few people protested against them and their protests were a dismal failure. You're choosing to ignore, for some reason, the fact that the instance I proposed was merely a man stating an opinion and the one you mentioned was a case of the owner of a company actively spending the money he made through his restaraunts to keep same sex marriage illegal. If you're in favor of legalizing same-sex marriage, boycotting such a company seems quite reasonable. Life Decisions International publishes a boycott list twice annually of people or businesses that support Planned Parenthood.

Life Decisions International - Corporate Funding (BOYCOTT)

A few years becak, we had a thread on here with people promissing to boycott American Girl dolls. Around the same time, a Pepsi boycott was requested due to their relationship with Senomyx because Senomex was using HEK-293 cells in their scientific evaluations of food proiducts. Calls for boycotts by special interest groups are neither new nor noteworthy.

Click to expand...

It should also be pointed out that the Chick-fil-a debacle was a big deal in the press, and a lot of politicians on the left verbally attacked chick-fil-a, for their president's comments and their charity donations. So I would call that an outrage.

The reason why Chuck-fil-a made money off the deal is that it backfired on the homophobe-phobes, as this current debacle is doing as well.

LoAmmi said:

Yes, you claimed that it has "in effect" been taken away. This is incorrect. You have the freedom of speech. You are using it as we type this on this very forum. However, you do not have the right to consequence free speech and you never had. As you move more into the public eye, you have to be even more careful because more people will have knowledge about what you say.

Click to expand...

Why? Everyone has an opinion. You hear it and move on. How does this one man's opinion on the sinfulness of homosexuality personally effect anyone. Some of this thread have used terms such as swamp-dweller, red-neck, back-woods, etc., which I personally am one of those good folks that would fall under being a redneck and backwoods, and I love the swamp, yet do you see me crying about redneck-phobes? No you take it for what it is, and move on.

Erose said:

It isn't about what A&E does or does not. It is the reaction that occurred by people who claim that they are not bigoted and as such have the right to determine what is and is not bigotry. A&E caved to the machine, just like so many other organizations do.

The fact of the matter is that in the laws of this country, we do have protection of free speech. But due to the media and some action groups, that right has in effect been taken away. Media determines what is and is not acceptable speech, and when you as a citizen step out of their contructed boundaries, well expect all hell to fall on your head.

The fact is, people are just getting tired of the hypocrisy of the true moral authority of this country, the media.

Click to expand...

The right to free speech you mention has always had limitations and those limitations have been in existence forever, you just don't like to acknowledge those limitations.

This guy signed a contract with an employer and that employer is reliant on the public and therefore, their image is of paramount importance. They determined their image was tarnished with what their employee stated and they acted.

What if a priest was to make negative statements about God to the public, how do you think the church would respond with this priest?

Erose said:

Any Christian who is either afraid or unwilling to teach sin and its consequences as Christ told us to do. There are way too many Christians who are lying or remaining silent to these men and women, who are suffering from this form of temptation.

Click to expand...

I don't know of any Christians who doesn't teach against sin out of fear. I know some who don't because they don't believe that overt speech is the best way to change hearts and minds and prefer to set a good example and to only use words to preach the Gospel when they have to.

You also hear too many Christians claiming that God doesn't have the power to break the chain of sin when it comes to homosexuality.

Click to expand...

I have never heard any Christian make that claim. I think just about every Christian thinks that God can make homosexual inclinations or cancer or whatever else go away. God can do anything. Sometimes God doesn't do what we'd like Him to. I've made strong, faithful appeals to God which He didn't answer in the affirmative. Sometimes that happens.

There are others who want to claim that these men and women are locked into their sin and cannot control themselves.

Click to expand...

Yes, and among those "others" are all practicing Catholics. Read what your Catechism says about sin. There are in fact people who commit onjectively sinful acts who cannot help it and are not culpable for them. There are people that choose their sins, and there are people who cannot help but sin. Neither you nor I are equipped to tell them apart.

All the Christians who have sadly placed this form of temptation on a pedestal, these are the ones who are encouraging these men and women to remain unrepentant.

Click to expand...

If anyone has placed this sin on a pedastal, it is Christians who rail against homosexuality with greater frequency and volume than they do against other sexual mortal sins like so-called "re-marriage" and masturbation. Homesexual contact is absolutely grave matter, every time.

Erose said:

Why? Everyone has an opinion. You hear it and move on. How does this one man's opinion on the sinfulness of homosexuality personally effect anyone. Some of this thread have used terms such as swamp-dweller, red-neck, back-woods, etc., which I personally am one of those good folks that would fall under being a redneck and backwoods, and I love the swamp, yet do you see me crying about redneck-phobes? No you take it for what it is, and move on.

Click to expand...

So we should never speak out against things other people say that we disagree with? When someone says something, we just need to listen and then move on?

I don't like the names he's being called as that isn't addressing his comments but addressing the man.

hsilgne said:

That's not how I or any of the Christians I hang with feel. My sins are no less than their sins... or anyone's sins.

Click to expand...

That's not how it comes across.

But what is really disheartening... is watching people encourage other people to remain unrepentant. I, for one, will not stand by, can not stand by and watch these people get pushed towards the cliff without trying to reach them before it's too late.

Click to expand...

Might I recommend doing it in a way that expresses genuine concern for the person as a person rather than as something to be corrected?

Sent from my iPhone using CF

Erose said:

You have to understand that this type of response you are responding to is a classic indicator of a homophobe-phobia, so rational discussion may not be possible.

Click to expand...

So you're qualified to make diagnoses via web fora?

Truth can be delivered in a way that destroys, you understand?

I have specific issues with the way the Church deals with gay folk. They're very specific

First, homosexuality is not like alcoholism in any way. While many gay folk have addiction issues, not all of us do. To start each Courage meeting with the Twelve Steps of Alcoholics Anonymous is a slap in the face and it's contradictory self-talk:

"We admitted that we were powerless over homosexuality and our lives had become unmanageable"

Second, we're told to not name it and it won't affect you so much. Didn't we just name it in step one?

Hello. Cognitive dissonance, anyone?

But, let's be honest. It's easier to look down upon others and so make ourselves superior to them. Carry on!

Sent from my iPhone using CF

I haven't read this whole thread. I signed a petition to reinstate. So what if he was coarse, he spoke what he believes and frankly, I agree with him. This article I agree with as well. He is entitled to speak however he wants. And if anyone doesn't like it, turn the channel. A & E is so wrong.

A&E goes duck hunting, shoots self in foot | Fox News

MikeK said:

You're absolutely right; I should have spoken with more charity about the man who publicly considered the male anus and its relative charms. My statement that he is a swamp dwelling red neck bigot was unnecessary and redundant.

I absolutely should! I am certain that I'm an awful Christian, and that my only hope for salvation is in the mercy of Christ.

Click to expand...

Recognition is the first step. Good for you. I hope you are being sincere and not just making an admission to garner sympathy for your unwarranted attack on the man.

Needing_Grace said:

That's not how it comes across.

Might I recommend doing it in a way that expresses genuine concern for the person as a person rather than as something to be corrected?

Click to expand...

Which one of my posts did I come across where I didn't express genuine concern for people who struggle with same sex attraction?

Ex-homosexuals condemn attack on 'Duck Dynasty'
PFOX-ExGays: Ex-Gays Condemn Hypocritical Attacks on Duck Dynasty TV Star

Family defends Robertson
The Robertson Family Official Statement | Duck Commander

I'm waiting for McDonald's to fire an employee for views on the minimum wage that are offensive to their profit margin.

Liberals will freak out, conservatives will support McDonald's and then it will be all over and your employer will own your speech.

This is, like it or not where this is going. The only people who will be able to talk are people who don't need to have a job or who own/control the businesses themselves.

Liberals play right into the hands of the corporations and they don't even know it, cause they are too busy being mad about a guy expressing views contrary to their own.

hsilgne said:

Recognition is the first step. Good for you. I hope you are being sincere and not just making an admission to garner sympathy for your unwarranted attack on the man.

Click to expand...

I have no idea how an admission of error might "garner sympathy".

I didn't attack any person. I spoke ill of a man when I did not have to. It was warranted, but it was not necessary and not productive and I should be more charitable to people - even famous people, like actors and politicians. I mean to play the ball, not the man. I don't want to come off the way that...uh, the way that some people do.

Luther073082 said:

Liberals will freak out, conservatives will support McDonald's and then it will be all over and your employer will own your speech.

Click to expand...

Please point me to the exact moment in time, in this country, where if you made public statements your employer disagreed with you could not be fired.

Robertson was suspended. They were careful not to use the word fire.

BTW, the women of the family were on the 700 Club last night. They are becoming regulars.

Michie said:

Robertson was suspended. They were careful not to use the word fire.

Click to expand...

My post could be amended to say "disciplined". It's the same idea.

I'm hoping someone can point out that time to me so I can research it and understand what we lost when our right to run our mouth off in public could never, ever have an effect on our employment status.

First...

MikeK said:

You're absolutely right; I should have spoken with more charity about the man...

Click to expand...

Then...

MikeK said:

I didn't attack any person.

Click to expand...

Then back to...

MikeK said:

It was warranted,

Click to expand...

Woops, back to...

MikeK said:

but it was not necessary and not productive and I should be more charitable to people...

Click to expand...

Now wait for it...

MikeK said:

That's quite sincere.

Click to expand...

Umm... ya

MikeK said:

You don't have to believe me...

Click to expand...

Well... thanks. What a nice gesture.

Now... Pardon my Louisiana accent while I sign off...

Y’all take care now... ya’ hear?

LoAmmi said:

My post could be amended to say "disciplined". It's the same idea.

I'm hoping someone can point out that time to me so I can research it and understand what we lost when our right to run our mouth off in public could never, ever have an effect on our employment status.

Click to expand...

I think running your mouth off for it's own sake in public or in the workplace & sitting down for a requested interview are two very different things.

Asking someone for an interview about themselves & their personal views on their faith & world outlook, completely different.

Either they want a truthful sincere interview or they don't. They obviously didn't.

If you are going to ask an interview better put your big boy/girl undies on & brace yourself. Not everyone is going to give you what you want to hear.

A&E got what they paid for. A&E is the one's that should be gone after. They hired them. They let the cat out of the bag. If people cannot toughen up & let people be who they are & have personal opinions in a requested interview then they need to withdraw themselves from anything that may upset them across the board.

I mean, Bob Newhart cannot even attend a Church function without GLAAD asking him to withdraw. Because...the RCC believes marriage is between one man & one woman. It's the faith he practices! Disagreement cannot be allowed.

This has gone so over the top I do not understand how people cannot see the ridiculousness of this. Let the man alone & let people practice their faith, have they're wrong opinions if you see it that way & live your life. We have atrocities all over the world & yet we are worried about policing people's opinions & lives. Seriously, I feel like I'm in the Twilight Zone sometimes. Priorities are so skewed nobody knows which way is up. So I'll repeat, stupid.

Tolerance does not exist. Not really. The proof is out there in front of our faces.