 |
|
| Browse | Ask | Answer | Search | Join/Login |
|
|
||||
|
What has he done to discriminate except to express his religious beliefs ? Sorry ,it aint no secret that Christians think the homosexual act a sin.
But, do you think if a guy falls in love with another guy, it's the same as falling in love with his dog?? Or, that if we allow homosexual marriage, it MEANS that we're gonna allow man on dog NEXT??? Although it remains UNSAID, the obvious conclusion to your religious principles, IS discrimination... I just went right to the HEART of the issue, like I DO. You can PRETEND that's NOT what you want to do, but you don't fool me. Nobody wants to STOP this guy from speaking.. But freedom of speech does not mean freedom from the consequences of your free speech. The law cannot prosecute you for saying what you think, but people are perfectly free to dislike and shun you if you say despicable things. They also have the right to FIRE you. I understand the family is pushing back. The REAL controversy here, is whether the network has a conscience, or a board of directors. In any case, the show has lost its luster.. It's NEVER gonna be the top show again. I dunno WHY it was in the first place. excon |
||||
|
||||
 Originally Posted by excon
Although it remains UNSAID, the obvious conclusion to your religious principles, IS discrimination... I just went right to the HEART of the issue, like I DO. You can PRETEND that's NOT what you want to do, but you don't fool me.
Nobody wants to STOP this guy from speaking.. But freedom of speech does not mean freedom from the consequences of your free speech. The law cannot prosecute you for saying what you think, but people are perfectly free to dislike and shun you if you say despicable things.
They also have the right to FIRE you. I understand the family is pushing back. The REAL controversy here, is whether the network has a conscience, or a board of directors.
In any case, the show has lost its luster.. It's NEVER gonna be the top show again. I dunno WHY it was in the first place.
|
||||
|
||||
|
Hello again, Steve:
Bullsh*t.
Who the HELL are you trying to kid??? While we're at it, you SAY that you wouldn't make contraceptives ILLEGAL if you get that majority, but you and I BOTH know different... Let's talk about abortion too. As MUCH as you SAY that you wouldn't make abortion illegal again, you're NOT fooling me. If you get that majority, that's EXACTLY what you'll do. EVERYBODY knows that. YOU know that. TAL knows that. Tom knows that. NK and smoothy know that. Our Aussie friends know that. I dunno WHY you just don't SAY those things. Oh, YES I do.. It's because it would be RIDICULED just like this red neck was ridiculed. excon |
||||
|
||||
|
He also said, in the same interview,
'Duck Dynasty' Star Phil Robertson Claims Black People Were 'Happy' Pre-Civil Rights
The 67-year-old journeyed from substance abuse to devotion to God to small-screen celebrity, all in the backwoods of Louisiana. According to Robertson, growing up in those Louisiana backwoods in the pre-civil rights era was not bad for black people.
“I never, with my eyes, saw the mistreatment of any black person," Robertson is quoted in GQ. "Not once. Where we lived was all farmers. The blacks worked for the farmers. 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. I never heard one of them, one black person, say, 'I tell you what: These doggone white people'—not a word!... Pre-entitlement, pre-welfare, you say: Were they happy? They were godly; they were happy; no one was singing the blues.”
The Human Rights Campaign and the NAACP wrote a joint letter to the president of A&E, expressing deep concern over Robertson's remarks:
We want to be clear why Phil Robertson's remarks are not just dangerous but also inaccurate. Mr. Robertson claims that, from what he saw, African Americans were happier under Jim Crow. What he didn't see were lynching and beatings of black men and women for attempting to vote or simply walking down the street. And his offensive claims about gay people fly in the face of science. In fact, it's important to note that every single leading medical organization in the country has said that there is absolutely nothing wrong with being [lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender] -- it's not a choice, and to suggest otherwise is dangerous. |
||||
|
||||
|
Originally Posted by talaniman
But of course all the right cares about is his right to insult sinners. But the ones he insulted had no right to express their views,
Another example of rock throwers who can't believe people throw rocks back, and hiding behind their rights while claiming to be a victim of the rights of others.
Look, I don’t always practice what I preach. In fact, I’m quick to make rash judgments. Often I regret them. And I don’t believe in a kum-ba-yah world in which all differences between people can be resolved by talking it through. But I don’t want to live in a world in which only the bland or those who validate the prejudices of the cultural elite (against country people, against conservative Evangelicals, against Southerners, etc.) have a place in the public square.
The problem is that those in cultural power love to talk loud and long about diversity, but what they really want is everyone to march in lock-step agreement, or else. |
||||
|
||||
|
He also said this in the interview.
We never, ever judge someone on who's going to heaven, hell. That's the Almighty's job,” .... “We just love 'em, give 'em the good news about Jesus—whether they're homosexuals, drunks, terrorists. We let God sort 'em out later, you see what I'm saying? |
||||
|
||||
|
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
It's come to this, Obama's OFA is once again invading our holidays with Obamacare, featuring ... Pajamaboy.
 Naturally, intense mockery ensues. I miss the days when grownups ran the country. Not be outdone, some gay group has their own Obamacare marketing plan... I have no words. I'm sure Phil Robertson doesn't either. 
|
||||
|
||||
|
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
|
||||
|
||||
|
He hasn't been suppressed at all just criticized. Let not forget the new season of Duck Dynasty has been shot and paid for and scheduled, so his suspension is for the following season and a lot can happen until then. A&E has a right to separate themselves from Phil's views, and deal with their employees but the free publicity won't hurt, and gives the right a lot of red meat to holler about their rights and Christian again. Nowhere has the right acknowledged the rights of everybody else to criticize his comments, while they play victims yet again.
And Sarah can wear her duck dynasty outfit, in front of a fireplace and camera. |
||||
|
||||
|
Don't kid yourself, the entire artificial exercise was meant to silence him or beat him into submission. And enough of the straw man, most on the right have acknowledged the the Artificial & Elitist network's right to can him and your right to criticize Phil, so argue honestly. What is outrageous is the expectation of being able to be as vile and foul as you want toward Christians with impunity while demanding we shut up and genuflect to the PC gods. Too damn bad we fight back at the hypocrisy.
|
||||
|
||||
|
It's a false battle you guys wage as the criticism has been toward one person and what he said, and started with push back by the ones that felt insulted, gays, and blacks. It's the right wing who made this molehill into a mountain, and rally behind his backward thinking. Like he, or you guys represent ALL Christians.
His detractors have been other Christians. The last reply button only works half the time. |
||||
Not your question?
Ask your question
View similar questions
| Question Tools | Search this Question |
Add your answer here.
View more questions Search
|
