Comments about ‘Patriarch off 'Duck Dynasty' after gay comments’

Return to article »

Published: Wednesday, Dec. 18 2013 10:00 p.m. MST

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Auckland NZ, 00

@ute alumni. Aren't the PC bullies in this case the corporate owners of the program, money grubbing capitalists? Hardly a group one would suspect of being liberals.

As a progressive i condemn this repressive action against an individual whose beliefs aren't shared by his employers. It's an act of discrimination carried out ignorantly in the name of anti-discrimination.

Orem, UT

It amazes me that the gay community has gotten so much power. Now they want to silence anyone that hints at disagreeing with them. What is ironic is the supposed victims have become the bullies. :/

The Dixie Kid
Saint George, UT

Way to go Phil. Stand up for what you believe in.

Bountiful, UT

Interesting, these guys aren't just actors. They walk the walk.

Midwest City, USA, OK

My primary concern with this is that none of the various people, famous and not-famous, who make equally disparaging or hateful comments about Christians or anyone else who -doesn't- support changing marriage, would ever have any kind of disapproval or suspension.

Draper, UT

Whether you agree with Phil's comments or not, you should all be defending his right to say whatever he wants - especially in an interview with GQ. Otherwise, the day will come when something YOU say will be mocked, ridiculed and then outlawed. Stand up for free speech while it's still free!

Sandy, UT

What do you think would happen to someone who made fun of a religion ( other than Islam) on A & E? Nothing. This is why antidiscrimination statutes are a bad idea. They will be used by those on the left against those they do not like, but will provide no protection for those on the right. Express a religios view the left does not like - you will be punished. Engage in conduct most religiois peopke find objectionable - not only do you get a pass, but you can force the religiois person to violate their own beliefs and be involved. A & E, please suspsend every actor or actress who criticizes Judeo-Christian values. Yah, right.

Taylorsville, UT

I note that Phil never once condemned a person, only the sin.

west jordan , UT

Cant say I am surprised by this. Its that if you an any way disagree with the gays in this country they come after you any way they can. He was exersizing his 1st amendment right to express his views on the matter. Was anyone left without propery? Yes he was for expressing his view, which is what the bill of rights was to protect. So now if you express your views you could find yourself without a job. So much for the bill of right, it is dead, it is just something we give lip service too and tell military men and women that is what they are fighting for. All that blood scrificed an a man will lose his property for stating his own personal beliefs that does not harm anyone.

Gaithersburg, MD

To AZKID: The "moral majority" is neither moral or a majority.

To ute alumni: I always am amazed with the statement: "libs love tolerance for everyone but themselves." I hear it all the time. The big difference is that we are "intolerant," if you will, against those who seek to change laws against us, have us fired from our jobs, and kicked out of our homes. We also are "intolerant" of priests who abuse children, Hitler, and axe murderers. If this clown on A&E were yammering on about Jews, blacks, or the Mormon church, calling them, "sinners, 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," he'd be off the air before someone could change the channel.

The difference in a nutshell is this: I could not care less what you and your religious crowd does. Light incense, dance around a bonfire, do whatever you want. Just do me a favor and leave me out of it, stop dumping millions into campaigns against us, and leave the rest of us alone.

ute alumni
Rakuen, UT

it is apparent that the message most are stating is that they are encouraging ducksters to leave and do their thing elsewhere. unlike libs that want boycotts and legal action. notice that isn't being said. besides being an oregonian, LIB, it is interesting that even ducks turn on their own.

Orem, UT

While there can definitely be "hate speech" against gays, this was not an example of it. If you incite violence against them, call them vile names, or suggest they are sub-human then that crosses the line.

Unfortunately, the GLBT community wants to brand all dissent against the gay lifestyle as "hate speech". If you suggest that homosexual behavior is a sin, don't want to change the marriage laws to suit them, or don't openly embrace their lifestyle as perfectly normal, then you must be a "hater".

Welcome to the new PC police state. Very sad.

Sioux City, IA

So maybe the interviewer should be put on hiatus also for asking these types of personal questions on Phil's beliefs knowing that it would result in this type of response?
And for the record. According to this article he didn't do anything other than answer the questions honestly about his own views.

Somewhere in Time, UT

The man used his first amendment right to free speech to express his moral views. I applaud him for having the courage to stand up for what's right.

No one wants to hear that what they are doing is wrong. It's really uncomfortable. So, they attack the messenger. Their argument is not with Duck Dynasty. It is with God.

Normal Guy
Salt Lake City, UT

GLAAD call this the 'vilest of hate speech'. For saying that homosexuality is a sin and then paraphrasing a scripture? Apparently, they think that they now completely own the conversation surrounding the morality of homosexuality.

Anyone who watches the show knows that Phil is the last person that would ever mistreat anyone, regardless of their race, sexual orientations, religion. GLAAD has picked the wrong fight here.

The rest of the family should refuse to be filmed until Phil is allowed back.

Ernest T. Bass
Bountiful, UT

Gosh I feel bad for him. Imagine the tyranny of the minority. This is why they can't have rights!

clearfield, UT

If there were a proposed constitutional amendment that said that no slur or slander against any minority group will be legal, and only slurs and slanders against the majority would be allowed, I wonder who would approve of it? In this PC dominated country we live in today, I suspect many would.

mid-state, TN

@evansrichdm --

"He was exersizing his 1st amendment right to express his views on the matter. "

Yeah, but he was also acting as a representative of two brands -- the A&E brand, and the Duck Dynasty brand.

I'm leaning towards the First Amendment side on this one, but IMHO it really depends on what sort of contractual agreements he signed with A&E. He may have agreed legally to restrict exactly this sort of political speech, or any speech which could case A&E in a bad light or harm the A&E brand. And if he did that, then A&E was acting within their rights to remove him.

We don't know what agreements he made with them, so we can't say whether this was a justifiable action or not.

CHS 85
Sandy, UT

Have any of you even seen the show? I can't understand why it is so popular. I gave up after two episodes. Regardless of this gentleman's views of homosexuality, it is just mindless television and an hour you'll never get back.

Durham, NC

There is a huge difference between free speech when you are on or off the payroll. Anything said while on tape is subject to the filter of who is paying you. What you say to your friends, neighbors, and the like.... that is completely different.

If he was foolish enough to say something that his employer would not approve.... well... there you go

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments