A&E is intolerant...

Twhorne0729 · Dec 20, 2013

Twhorne0729 said:
For all the people who are saying that "if he would have just been more tactful in what he said, it would have been fine and nothing would have happened." I say bull. Remember the Miss America contestant who was asked her opinion on gay marriage? All she said was that it wasn't for her and she didn't agree with it. And she's STILL trying to recover from the backlash. She was on the Amazing Race a few years ago and she immediately was hated and insulted, and throughout the entire season for what she said.

I need to make a correction about my above statement. The former Miss America (or Miss USA, whatever) who was also a contestant on The Amazing Race was not the one who made the same-sex marriage comment. That was Carrie Prejean. Caite Upton, who WAS on TAR, was the one who made the jumbled and rambling comment about maps in Iraq and such as. So, my point was....well pointless. Sorry all.

QueSeraSera · Dec 20, 2013

A & E is a business . Of course they aren't going to tolerate having one of their employees openly stating opinions that could alienate/offend a significant portion of their viewing audience .

Its not about freedom of speech its about smart business decisions. He's not going to jail for what he said as one article pointed out.

Vanilla Scripture · Dec 20, 2013

Wouldn't proof of reasonableness have been demonstrated by the LBGTQ community by not descending on A&E network and threatening them due to Robertson's comments?

The indefinite suspension is in place. The LBGTQ community, who say Phil Robertson has to fall in line because it is a new world and he's not entitled to state his faith publicly, celebrate a victory.

Reason would be demonstrated by those who demand tolerance, to demonstrate tolerance.

Billnew said:
252 posts I came in late, so I have not read many posts,
Is this not the quote?
- See more at: 'Duck Dynasty' fans react to Robertson's hiatus | www.whio.com

He stated his beliefs, I see no attack on anyone. I see his defiition of sinners and their reward status.
Just because you state a Christian opinion on sin and one group in the list takes offense the network thinks they must respond?
Would adulterer's being upset, spawn a protest? Would anyone care?
How about the greedy?
Stating an opinion on an action or sin is not an attack on all the people.

In fact, he states later, he loves all people. Ie "he hates the sin, but loves the sinner."

The group in question, the ones that have been asking for tolerence for decades are now very intolerant.

The racist silences opposition by proclaiming racism, the GLBT silences opposition by proclaiming homophobia. Isn't the best way to make change, to discuss reasonably the subject? But that would also require meeting on a level playing field and they can't stop playing their trump card in the face of any dialog they aren't controlling.

psalms 91 · Dec 20, 2013

Bottom line is that christans are being muzzled while the LGBT community are allowed to shout their beliefs from the housetops so you tell me how that is freedom of speech. Relligon is not supposed to voice their beliefs but LGBT's can? Yeah right. Even from the pulpit it is called hate speech, sad/

Vanilla Scripture · Dec 20, 2013

Wait till the LGBTQ community start to assault the churches.
Southern Poverty Law Center already calls Christian scriptures hate speech.
One may presume SPLC is managed by homosexuals. The LGBTQ community descended on Chick-Fil-A because the owners held Christian values. Hoping to put them out of business, some cities even witnessed Homosexuals demonstrating passion in the restaurants as a protest. But Chick-Fil-A is still in business.
e-Harmony, a private members only Christian owned dating site for Christians only was assaulted by LGBTQ community. They demanded to be let on the site to seek our dates.
They had not one iota of a chance in winning their threat of lawsuits, which go forth now because they've succeeded in achieving permission for their behavior through the courts and now they use that vehicle as a means of assaulting society, and the owner of eHarmony conceded and let them in. Now he regrets that choice.

It is an easy fix. Ban them! Now! And there isn't a thing they can do about it.

There is indeed a war on Christianity in this country. And its being headed by Homosexuals and those who are men wearing dresses.

Its just the beginning. God help us.
A Sodom sequel would be fitting now Lord.

psalms 91 · Dec 20, 2013

Vanilla Scripture said:
Wait till the LGBTQ community start to assault the churches.
Southern Poverty Law Center already calls Christian scriptures hate speech.
One may presume SPLC is managed by homosexuals. The LGBTQ community descended on Chick-Fil-A because the owners held Christian values. Hoping to put them out of business, some cities even witnessed Homosexuals demonstrating passion in the restaurants as a protest. But Chick-Fil-A is still in business.
e-Harmony, a private members only Christian owned dating site for Christians only was assaulted by LGBTQ community. They demanded to be let on the site to seek our dates.
They had not one iota of a chance in winning their threat of lawsuits, which go forth now because they've succeeded in achieving permission for their behavior through the courts and now they use that vehicle as a means of assaulting society, and the owner of eHarmony conceded and let them in. Now he regrets that choice.

It is an easy fix. Ban them! Now! And there isn't a thing they can do about it.

There is indeed a war on Christianity in this country. And its being headed by Homosexuals and those who are men wearing dresses.

Its just the beginning. God help us.
A Sodom sequel would be fitting now Lord.

Absolutely and it is high time that Christans stand up and yell as loud and louder than all the forces coming against it. I for one am tired of having this stuff crammed down my throat. If you want to support it then there are already churchs that support it without trying to silence those that actually stand for the bible and its teachings

hollyda · Dec 20, 2013

psalms 91 said:
Relligon is not supposed to voice their beliefs but LGBT's can?

No one is saying that. And if they are, they're wrong...but they're entitled to say it. This is how free speech works. People say things you disagree with. People say things you don't like. But what you're doing here is what they're doing -- speaking out against something they disagree with.

Like when the Chick-fil-A thing happened. People had a right to protest, just as others had a right to continue going there. It works both ways.

RDKirk · Dec 20, 2013

FreeSpirit74 said:
And then there is this:

'Duck Dynasty' star Phil Robertson on growing up in the South: 'I never saw the mistreatment of any black person' - NY Daily News

So... what the hell is his point? That because *he* didn't see racism happening or hear blacks complaining about it (which I highly doubt), therefore it never happened??

I was back there then myself.

No, he probably didn't hear any black people complaining within his earshot.

You have to understand: For a black person in the South back then, having a white person around you was like being on a camping trip and having a bear wander into your camp.

You don't do or say anything that might upset the bear, because the bear will kill you with impunity.

That was exactly the situation black people had to deal with when around any white person in the South in those days, very literally. He could have raised his hoe and killed a black man in the field and there would not have been so much as an arrest.

psalms 91 · Dec 20, 2013

hollyda said:
No one is saying that. And if they are, they're wrong...but they're entitled to say it. This is how free speech works. People say things you disagree with. People say things you don't like. But what you're doing here is what they're doing -- speaking out against something they disagree with.

Like when the Chick-fil-A thing happened. People had a right to protest, just as others had a right to continue going there. It works both ways.

Then why is it labeled hate speech to say that it is sin? Why do they come into churchs and denoms and demand their way? Why is it that Christ is taken out of so much in this country? These are all valid questions and it is clear that there is a war on Christans and the churchs and it is time we fight instead of just being sheep led to the slaughter

QueSeraSera · Dec 20, 2013

The indefinite suspension is in place. The LBGTQ community, who say Phil Robertson has to fall in line because it is a new world and he's not entitled to state his faith publicly, celebrate a victory.

But he is entitled to state his faith publicly . Just as I'm entitled not to employ someone who's publicly stated faith alienates/offends my customers. I'm not obligated to employ him.

No one is stopping him from continuing on stating his faith publicly as much as he wants.

cow451 · Dec 20, 2013

RDKirk said:
I was back there then myself.

No, he probably didn't hear any black people complaining within his earshot.

You have to understand: For a black person in the South back then, having a white person around you was like being on a camping trip and having a bear wander into your camp.

You don't do or say anything that might upset the bear, because the bear will kill you with impunity.

That was exactly the situation black people had to deal with when around any white person in the South in those days, very literally. He could have raised his hoe and killed a black man in the field and there would not have been so much as an arrest.

Exactly. He was born in 1946. He probably attended segregated schools. Yes he was poor. I am not quite as old, but I was Poor White Trash as well. I can confidently say that being "Poor white trash" was quite better than being poor and Black.

hollyda · Dec 20, 2013

psalms 91 said:
Then why is it labeled hate speech to say that it is sin?

You're saying it's a sin. That's your right.

They're saying it's hate speech. That's their right.

That's how it works.

Why do they come into churchs and denoms and demand their way?

Who is doing this?

QueSeraSera · Dec 20, 2013

Relligon is not supposed to voice their beliefs but LGBT's can?

Who is saying they can't ?

psalms 91 · Dec 20, 2013

QueSeraSera said:
But he is entitled to state his faith publicly . Just as I'm entitled not to employ someone who's publicly stated faith alienates/offends my customers. I'm not obligated to employ him.

No one is stopping him from continuing on stating his faith publicly as much as he wants.

Really? You mean someone who goes against my faith I do not have to hire? An openly gay person I do not have to hire? And when is it right to force a wedding cake maker to have to concoct a cake for a gay couple even though it goes against what they believe? No, this is no two way street and I say it really is time to take our freedom back. When Christans are forced into these situations as these people were and then to have Phil suspended smacks of a double standard

psalms 91 · Dec 20, 2013

hollyda said:
You're saying it's a sin. That's your right.

They're saying it's hate speech. That's their right.

That's how it works.

Who is doing this?

Gays have forced the issue in quite a few denoms and it is well known that churchs face this very problem. Let me be clear here, I consider it sin but I will love the person but I do not tolorate the sin. I welcome them to church as long as they understand that

Cearbhall · Dec 20, 2013

psalms 91 said:
Really? You mean someone who goes against my faith I do not have to hire? An openly gay person I do not have to hire? And when is it right to force a wedding cake maker to have to concoct a cake for a gay couple even though it goes against what they believe? No, this is no two way street and I say it really is time to take our freedom back. When Christans are forced into these situations as these people were and then to have Phil suspended smacks of a double standard

No, it doesn't. Do you not understand the difference between discriminatory hiring/serving practices and an entertainment industry contract that includes a morals clause?

Your comparison to the wedding cake situation is way off. You're comparing gay customers to anti-gay employees.

hollyda · Dec 20, 2013

psalms 91 said:
Gays have forced the issue in quite a few denoms and it is well known that churchs face this very problem. Let me be clear here, I consider it sin but I will love the person but I do not tolorate the sin. I welcome them to church as long as they understand that

I'm not going to pursue this beyond this statement, because it's a digression...but as an outsider looking in, this just doesn't make sense to me.

I understand homosexuality is considered a sin by many congregations. But I've never understood why it is worse than, say, all the other sins that people commit, and no one has satisfactorily explained it. It seems to be the one, above all, that "will not be tolerated." Even if there is a biblical basis for viewing homosexuality as a sin, I don't believe it says anywhere that it's the worst of the worst. And according to most Christians, there is no such thing as a sinless person, unless you're referring to Jesus.

But again...that's a different topic, and I don't believe we're allowed to discuss it anyway.

psalms 91 · Dec 20, 2013

Cearbhall said:
No, it doesn't. Do you not understand the difference between discriminatory hiring practices and an entertainment industry contract that includes a morals clause?

Hmmm, an employee who is let go because of belief. A gay person who has to be hired because of his belief. Seems like a double standard to me

Cearbhall · Dec 20, 2013

psalms 91 said:
Hmmm, an employee who is let go because of belief. A gay person who has to be hired because of his belief. Seems like a double standard to me

Then you should take some business courses.

psalms 91 · Dec 20, 2013

hollyda said:
I'm not going to pursue this beyond this statement, because it's a digression...but as an outsider looking in, this just doesn't make sense to me.

I understand homosexuality is considered a sin by many congregations. But I've never understood why it is worse than, say, all the other sins that people commit, and no one has satisfactorily explained it. It seems to be the one, above all, that "will not be tolerated." Even if there is a biblical basis for viewing homosexuality as a sin, I don't believe it says anywhere that it's the worst of the worst. And according to most Christians, there is no such thing as a sinless person, unless you're referring to Jesus.

But again...that's a different topic, and I don't believe we're allowed to discuss it anyway.

All sin is the same, no difference to God, but of course to man it is different. I will agree that we all sin but the difference seems to me to be that I dont try to force my sin on qanyone nor do many others, the LGBT community seems bent on doing that and maybe that is why there is so much uproar about it

A&E is intolerant...

Twhorne0729

Guest

Training Wheels

Well-Known Member

Legend

Well-Known Member

Legend

To read makes our speaking English good

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner

Legend

Training Wheels

Standing with Ukraine.

To read makes our speaking English good

Training Wheels

Legend

Legend

Well-Known Member

To read makes our speaking English good

Legend

Well-Known Member

Legend

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency