A&E is intolerant...

[Twhorne0729]

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.

Also, I feel like it is cowardly of A&E to do what they did. They suspended Phil, but kept the rest of them. They are still making money off DD. It stands to reason that the rest of the Robertsons' share similar views. If A&E was so shocked and disgusted with his views, they should have cancelled the show and stopped all sales of merchandise. Instead all they did was push back the backlash and make the GLBTQ community happy for a little while. Until they find the next "Great Satan"

Adding: I want to make clear that while I feel A&E had every right to do what they did, I also feel like it was a coward's way out.

 

[Billnew]

They're not intolerant. They're a business and they don't want to lose any viewers over the rantings of an over-payed hillbilly.

I really don't understand the fascination with this show. But then again, I really don't understand anyone who can shoot a duck for no reason.

Half a million protestors vs millions of supporting viewers, which will A&E choose?

 

[psalms 91]

There is a petition in support of Phil and in the first 9 hours 81,000 people signed it so I think that by the time they get a week in it will have well over a million. Anyone who wants to sign it can find it at I support Phil.com

 

[Cearbhall]

Half a million protestors vs millions of supporting viewers, which will A&E choose?

It depends more on the advertisers than the public. Advertisers have shied away from homophobia scandals in recent years. It could go either way.

 

[psalms 91]

Just like Hobby Lobby could have said "we don't support using birth control, but since we believe in freedom of conscience we're going to let our employees follow theirs". You seemed to have a different view of the role of tolerance in employer-employee relationships in that case, though, and supported the employer imposing their political and social views on their employees' health care choices.

Why the change of heart in this case? What happend to the whole employers can do whatever they want and employees can find a new job if they don't like it?

I agree that they can do as they wish just as those of us that dont agree with it can also not support them at all. Lose enough viewers and it is amazing how those views will change.

 

[Cearbhall]

So the family has now released a statement. It seems they aren't even considering breaking ties with A&E even though the company stated that they proudly support the LGBT community. How strong can their beliefs be?

 

[RDKirk]

So the family has now released a statement. It seems they aren't even considering breaking ties with A&E even though the company stated that they proudly support the LGBT community. How strong can their beliefs be?

Mo' money, mo' money, mo' money.

 

[psalms 91]

So the family has now released a statement. It seems they aren't even considering breaking ties with A&E even though the company stated that they proudly support the LGBT community. How strong can their beliefs be?

Actually they are, they are now in discussions with A&E and a few posts earlier I posted a .com to sign a petition in support of them.

 

[Cearbhall]

Actually they are, they are now in discussions with A&E

Because of the suspension. They haven't expressed that they are disappointed by the company's beliefs or that they wish to find another network.

 

[hollyda]

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.

Not seeing the comparison, unless you're implying opinions should be free of counter-opinions and reactions. People can dislike what you say. She has the right to her opinion, and people have the right to react. But obviously what she said wasn't incendiary enough to keep her from getting a TV deal.

Had Phil stuck to anything as tactful, do you think the people who disagree with him here would have disagreed with him less? The fact that he said he disagrees with homosexuality is not the point. The point is A&E is a company and they feel that what Phil said could negatively impact their image. They made a business decision. Regardless of where the interview was given, Phil (when in public) is a representative of DD and A&E by extension.

When I worked at a local bank, I was told anything I said in the public forum (whether I was at a mall where bank customers saw me, on Facebook, or anything where I could be exposed to our customers), I was representing the bank, and anything I said could result in disciplinary action if the bank felt I wasn't representing the image they wanted. The bank had the right to do this. Why doesn't a company? Because it's TV?

I work for a marketing company now, and I can tell you, even on a local level, the contracts you sign with vendors are rigid and complex. I can't imagine a larger network producing a television show would be any less complex. You don't have to support A&E's decision, but if we're expected to support Phil's right to say what he said (which I do, btw, and I haven't heard anyone say otherwise), you should also support A&E's right to act in the way they feel is best for their business, even if you don't agree.

Adding: I want to make clear that while I feel A&E had every right to do what they did, I also feel like it was a coward's way out.

Aaaaand I just saw this edit. LOL.

 

[psalms 91]

Because of the suspension. They haven't expressed that they are frustrated with the company's beliefs or that they wish to find another network.

They stated that they were disappointed with the decision because they felt Phil was expressing his beliefs which were biblical based and that they could not see being able to continue to do the show without Phil. Sounds pretty clear to me but then again I am not on the other side of this issue

 

[Cearbhall]

They stated that they were disappointed with the decision because they felt Phil was expressing his beliefs which were biblical based and that they could not see being able to continue to do the show without Phil. Sounds pretty clear to me but then again I am not on the other side of this issue

They're upset with the way that the network handled the disagreement, not the fact that the network disagrees and openly supports the LGBT community.

 

[Billnew]

252 posts I came in late, so I have not read many posts,
Is this not the quote?

Asked his definition of sinful behavior by GQ, Robertson replied, "Start with homosexual behavior and just go from there."Then he continued, "Don't be deceived. Neither the adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlers — they won't inherit the kingdom of God. Don't deceive yourself. It's not right."

- 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.

 

[hollyda]

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.

That is hardly the full quote. Also, he made some strong pro-Jim Crow statements.

Regardless, he had every right to say it, just as A&E had every right to act in the way they thought was best for their company.

 

[FreeSpirit74]

And then there is this:

The "Duck Dynasty" star, who was suspended by A&E indefinitely after comments he made in a GQ magazine interview comparing lesbian and gay relationships to bestiality, also remarked on the racism or lack thereof in the South

"I never, with my eyes, saw the mistreatment of any black person," the 67-year-old reality star said in the mag's January issue about pre-Civil-Rights South. "Not once."

"Where we lived was all farmers. The blacks worked for the farmers," he explained. "I hoed cotton with them. I'm with the blacks, because we're white trash. We're going across the field … They're singing and happy."


In his recollection, the racism that reportedly occurred between the end of slavery in 1865 and the start of the Civil Rights Movement in the late 1940s just didn't appear to be in existence in the area where he grew up.
"I never heard one of them, one black person, say, 'I tell you what: These doggone white people' -- not a word!" he said. "Pre-entitlement, pre-welfare, you say: Were they happy? They were godly; they were happy; no one was singing the blues."

'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??

 

[Autumnleaf]

This situation is about sinners showing how tolerant they are by tolerating nonsinners who criticize them. The tail is wagging the dog. All will be forgiven and it will appear the sinners take the high moral ground.

 

[Billnew]

That is hardly the full quote. Also, he made some strong pro-Jim Crow statements.

Regardless, he had every right to say it, just as A&E had every right to act in the way they thought was best for their company.

Lets see, his Jim Crow quotes,
"I worked with blacks in the fields, they were happy, etc."

The "racist" statement concerning Jim Crow could have been worded better, but I fully understand his meaning.
AA were better during the JIm Crow period, not as US citizens but as a united strong family people. They had strong family, strong religious beliefs, they united against the hardships. When the man put them down they supported each other. They had the common voice we shall overcome, they had hope. Most fought against true racism.
Now, the family structure is destroyed, single mothers are the norm, fathers in the picture are rare. Black men are most commonly killed by black men. Drugs are rampant, poverty reigns supreme and most don't feel they can overcome it, they have little hope. Now many hide behind racism as an excuse not to excel, or even try.
Of course, it isn't a black man saying this so it is concidered racist even though most know it is true.

 

[psalms 91]

Lets see, his Jim Crow quotes,
"I worked with blacks in the fields, they were happy, etc."

The "racist" statement concerning Jim Crow could have been worded better, but I fully understand his meaning.
AA were better during the JIm Crow period, not as US citizens but as a united strong family people. They had strong family, strong religious beliefs, they united against the hardships. When the man put them down they supported each other. They had the common voice we shall overcome, they had hope. Most fought against true racism.
Now, the family structure is destroyed, single mothers are the norm, fathers in the picture are rare. Black men are most commonly killed by black men. Drugs are rampant, poverty reigns supreme and most don't feel they can overcome it, they have little hope. Now many hide behind racism as an excuse not to excel, or even try.
Of course, it isn't a black man saying this so it is concidered racist even though most know it is true.

Of course it is true but that doesnt seem to count but viewers tuning out not only the show but the network will speak volumes

 

[hollyda]

Lets see, his Jim Crow quotes,
"I worked with blacks in the fields, they were happy, etc."

The "racist" statement concerning Jim Crow could have been worded better, but I fully understand his meaning.
AA were better during the JIm Crow period, not as US citizens but as a united strong family people. They had strong family, strong religious beliefs, they united against the hardships. When the man put them down they supported each other. They had the common voice we shall overcome, they had hope. Most fought against true racism.
Now, the family structure is destroyed, single mothers are the norm, fathers in the picture are rare. Black men are most commonly killed by black men. Drugs are rampant, poverty reigns supreme and most don't feel they can overcome it, they have little hope. Now many hide behind racism as an excuse not to excel, or even try.
Of course, it isn't a black man saying this so it is concidered racist even though most know it is true.

As I said, he had the right to say it, the right to hold this belief.

And A&E had the right to do what they saw was right for the company.

 

[Billnew]

This situation is about sinners showing how tolerant they are by tolerating nonsinners who criticize them. The tail is wagging the dog. All will be forgiven and it will appear the sinners take the high moral ground.

Christians aren't without sin, they are forgiven. The man in question, I am sure knows he is a sinner.
All who fall short are sinners, those that ask for forgivness and seek to do better will be forgiven.
Pointing out what sin is, does not accuse anyone of that sin. The protestors labeled themselves by taking offense.

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 black compalining about it (which I highly doubt), therefore it never happened??

Thanks for the quote. (I only found parts of it.)
My response on this subject:
If a person says something ignorant, it is simply illuminating his ignorance unless it deals with race then it is extremely racist and everyone should lynch the person.

He didn't see racism, but he did see people with good foundations, see my last post on this.