A&E is intolerant...

[Cearbhall]

Tolerance doesn't just mean you tolerate comments and beliefs that you agree with.

Yes, it does. They're a private company and they only want to be represented in a certain way, like every company. Should they be tolerant of Nazi beliefs? Honor killings?

Yes, they're intolerant. They could stand up and say "these views don't represent our views, as our actions have shown, but since we believe in the right to free speech we stand by Phil Robertson's right to give his opinion"

I would have WAY more respect for a network that did that.

That's literally what they said:

“We are extremely disappointed to have read Phil Robertson’s comments in GQ, which are based on his own personal beliefs and are not reflected in the series Duck Dynasty,” A&E said in a statement. “His personal views in no way reflect those of A+E Networks, who have always been strong supporters and champions of the LGBT community.

And then they suspended his job because that's their right. Choosing to suspend his employment does not conflict with his freedom of speech in any way. They're a private company and he signed their contract.

 

[durangodawood]

More like welcome to the Borg. "Your comments and opinions do not conform to the Will of the Collective. Renounce your dissident thought processes and prepare for immediate assimilation. Resistance is futile."

They are a BUSINESS, motivated by business considerations. Youre overcooking this.

 

[Cearbhall]

More like welcome to the Borg. "Your comments and opinions do not conform to the Will of the Collective. Renounce your dissident thought processes and prepare for immediate assimilation. Resistance is futile."

That's capitalism for ya. The man with the money makes the rules.

 

[hollyda]

Why do people assume freedom of speech = I can say whatever I want without consequence? This freedom is misunderstood to the point of absurdity, and often by people who claim to be the more patriotic.

Robertson exercised his free speech. A&E exercised their right as a company. Many larger corporations monitor employees' behavior on social media platforms, and if an employee says something on his/her own time that the company thinks could negatively reflect upon them, goes against company policy, and so on, they enforce disciplinary actions up to and including termination. Why should A&E be any different?

It amazes me how many people are for the rights of a business until the business takes disciplinary actions against someone you personally agree with.

 

[KitKatMatt]

Our PC culture has turned the idea of God's Word into a matter to be shunned when espoused.

Because of what I've personally been through involving "God's Word", I'm afraid I can't rouse any sympathy at this point on the matter.

But I want to point out that I wasn't referring to this person's religious involvement. I was more making a jab at the fact that I find all of these types of shows idiotic and lacking in any real value. And personally, I'd enjoy the idea of these shows getting kicked off the air in favor of something more educational (which seems to be in real decline).

 

[Cearbhall]

Our PC culture has turned the idea of God's Word into a matter to be shunned when espoused.

So? Would you rather the government tell the company that they have to put certain people on their shows?

 

[Willie T]

So far, Preacher'sWife2004 seems to be talking the most sense of any of us here.

 

[cow451]

1. The guy is free to have his views and speak them.
2. Viewers that dislike his views and the expression thereof are free to express such.
3. Groups and individuals are free to express their displeasure to the network and sponsors.
4. Sponsors are free to buy or not buy ad time on the show for any reason.
5. A & E is free to keep or cancel or make demands upon the company that produces DD.
6. Said company is free to comply with said demands or to decline.
7. Said company and A&E are free terminate their relationship.
8. If said contract is ended, the production company is free to shop the show around to other networks.
9. Potential networks are free to contract with the producers of DD.

Freedom reigns. Free Speech does not mean speech without consequence.

Any questions?

 

[jmorin28]

If it's so offensive of his answer to their question. Where is the offense for asking the question? Was he supposed to lie? Phil Robinson made NO SPEECH! He was asked question! He never voluntarily placed his views on television. Where is the outcry against a&e for being so offensive to ask the question?

 

[hollyda]

Where is the outcry against a&e for being so offensive to ask the question?

A&E didn't ask the question. It was provided voluntarily in an interview with GQ magazine.

Furthermore, he made the choice to expand upon his views from beyond "I don't agree with same sex marriage/think gay is sinful" to compare it to bestiality and make comments about vaginas and anuses. Unless you can show me where GQ asked, "Which do you think is sexier, and why?"

 

[AirPo]

Why do people assume freedom of speech = I can say whatever I want without consequence? This freedom is misunderstood to the point of absurdity, and often by people who claim to be the more patriotic.

Robertson exercised his free speech. A&E exercised their right as a company. Many larger corporations monitor employees' behavior on social media platforms, and if an employee says something on his/her own time that the company thinks could negatively reflect upon them, goes against company policy, and so on, they enforce disciplinary actions up to and including termination. Why should A&E be any different?

It amazes me how many people are for the rights of a business until the business takes disciplinary actions against someone you personally agree with.

This !

 

[RDKirk]

While I never cared for the show this is evidence that freedom of speech is going away. Some say its not. But they obviously are part of the mainstream so they don't see it. Freedom of speech is beginning to mean "You have the freedom to say anything you want.... just as long as its what the mainstream says it should be. If not then your freedom will not be allowed.

No, you're wrong.

Freedom of speech never, ever meant you had guaranteed access to someone else's soapbox.

You want freedom of speech, stand on your own soapbox; if you're standing on someone else's soapbox, he gets to limit what you say.

 

[Marius27]

While I never cared for the show this is evidence that freedom of speech is going away.

See above. You dont have Freedom of Speech in the private sector. The 1st Amendment applies to the government, not a private company. Not sure why some of you find that so hard to grasp.

 

[freezerman2000]

Walmart hasn't turned their backs on DD..Their merchandise is flying off the shelves!

 

[Belk]

'Duck Dynasty' star suspended for anti-gay comments | Inside TV | EW.com

Tolerance: you're doing it wrong.

Tolerance doesn't just mean you tolerate comments and beliefs that you agree with.

I hope Duck Dynasty leaves A&E for better ground.

Is A&E known as a bastion of tolerance or something? Were you not the one who pointed out how you could not go into a gay bookstore because it would be seen as "condoning the gay lifestyle" and that would be an issue since you are the wife of the preacher? Is this somehow different?

 

[Marius27]

A&E is a crime/dram network with a flair for airing specials about adulterers murdering their spouses, etc. Exactly what reputation do they have to uphold?

I guess that's subjective. They apparently found his comments not in line with their image.

And what was so obnoxious about what Phil said? Or ignorant for that matter? Or is it just because you disagree with him that he's obnoxious?

The fact that he automatically goes for one specific sex act like most raging anti-gays, and that he pushes the slippery slope fallacy by saying it's going to lead to bestiality, promiscuity, etc.

I guess you don't realize how those type of comments can hurt LGBT people.

Errr...it's not the ones who object to homosexuality who is "obsessed" with it.

Yes, actually it is. In most anti-gay discussions, the homophobes immediately start discussing anal sex, when it's 1) Not an exclusive practice of gays, in fact heterosexuals do it more than gays and 2) Being gay involves a lot more than a sex act.

The reason it "devolves" is because of how people view sin. To most Christians, sin is sin and it doesn't matter which one it is. And, because the same argument can be made for those types of people. They were born that way, etc.

Nonsense. These same people attacking gays constantly are usually fat, watch tons of pornography, have been divorced and remarried multiple times, have committed adultery, are rich etc. They're all hypocrites. Anti-gays single out one supposed sin that is Biblically not even a strong argument and Jesus himself never said a word about it, because it's an easy scapegoat that most people don't have to deal with or understand. It's far easier to attack a sin you know you will never commit, while ignoring all your own personal sins. That's the only reason this issue is brought up so much.

 

[bhsmte]

I'm sure this guy has it plainly written in his contract, he can't say anything to disparage the network in anyway. The network has to protect it's reputation and that is exactly what they have done.

 

[Marius27]

It's interesting that part of the guff he's taking is BECAUSE he was talking about it context with other sinful stuff.

And even if "these folks" ever did talk about other sins, it would never get press time because NO ONE WOULD CARE.

Of course no one would care, because Christians commit all those other sins in record numbers. Only 5-10% of the population presumably commits the gay sin, which leaves the other 90% with free reign to condemn them for something they will NEVER understand.

 

[bhsmte]

'Duck Dynasty' star suspended for anti-gay comments | Inside TV | EW.com

Tolerance: you're doing it wrong.

Tolerance doesn't just mean you tolerate comments and beliefs that you agree with.

I hope Duck Dynasty leaves A&E for better ground.

What do you think would happen to an average employee at the average company making these same remarks?

 

[ThisBrotherOfHis]

See above. You dont have Freedom of Speech in the private sector. The 1st Amendment applies to the government, not a private company. Not sure why some of you find that so hard to grasp.

This is probably the most disturbing comment on the thread, but the fact you make the part of that statement I emboldened is truly scary. The fact that you believe we have to willingly give up our morals, sociopolitical views and essentially who we are simply because we accept a job is indicative of how we've willingly given up our freedoms to an increasingly bigger government that we apparently think can control our lives, and now our hearts and minds as well. The trend of employers controlling what employees say borders on thought control, and it must be reversed. Accepting it as fact is no way to do that.