Never watched the show, but I've heard it's popular. Here's to
hoping that the silent majority who made it so will no longer be silent and get
the "Duck Patriarch" back on the air. Those of us in the
moral majority need to all start screaming louder than our very vocal
I am a firm supporter of gay rights but placing this man on leave for being
exactly the guy you knew he was and hired him to be seems silly. I disagree with
him but I also disagree with putting him on leave.
You knew this was going to happen sooner or later. Religious folks with a
platform will always use it to condemn their fellow man eventually. They
can't seem to help themselves. How sad.
I hope they leave a&e and go to another network. i'm sure their viewers
will follow them anywhere they go. it's time to stand up to the pc bullies.
libs love tolerance for everyone but themselves.
if I can't watch duck dynasty no more a & e for me
Remember when A&E was touted as the private sector replacement for PBS?
It's sure gone downhill since then.
To the Scientist in Provo, no one is condemning anyone, God will do that. He has
already made it clear what is evil and what is good. You have your choice to
believe or not, just as we do, only problem is; it's always a double
standard on your part when it comes to free speech. You folks just can't
ever get that through your head.
FINISH TO MY FIRST PARAGRAPH: How many of them worry about my feelings
when they call me names because I am Christian, colored or nude, able or
disabled,old or young,smart or ignorant are just plain old wordy. on an off day
they might make me cry and I will admit I tend to laugh at them and their
whining. Oh well, it is what it is "keep quite be thought a fool open my
mouth and prove it". Again Mother was right, well this fool is off to bed
Merry Christmas and God Bless to all, Angel from Abilene Texas
He simply stated his religious belief that homosexual sex is a sin (as stated
clearly in the Bible); he didn't say gays should be treated any differently
under the law. So there are gays who believe that those who call
homosexual sex a sin are themselves sinners. Are the Networks prepared to kick
gays off their shows for for stating such? If not, it's a double standard.
While I disagree with him and appreciate A&E reaffirming their support of
gay rights I do not think it was necessary to take him off the air for stating
his religious beliefs. Compared to the vile lies and comments made about the
lgbt community by others this hardly seems worth all the fuss.
A & E is his employer. They thought that their employee's remarks
reflected poorly upon their company, so they took action. Isn't that the
"free market" that conservatives love to go on about? Corporations are people, my friend.
The gay "activists" are all about demanding "tolerance" and
"diversity" and freedom of expression (both verbal and their actions,
even marriage) from the non-gay community.However, it is disgusting
that the gay community refuses to apply the same standards to their own
activities.As Orwell said, "All animals are equal, but some
animals are more equal."It is about time that people truly stood
up for freedom of expression for ALL Americans! You don't have to agree
with what the Duck guy, Ellen DeGenres, the Pope, or some Atheist, or a rap
singer says, but they have the right to say it. Even if it offends some people,
including me. Anyone is free to disagree with them and argue against them.
People are even free to put their money where their mouths are (hey, no pun
intended there!) and support or boycott businesses. But, the strong-arm tactics
used in this case are positively un-American restrictions on free speech.Honestly, I have never bothered to watch the Duck Dynasty, but will now.
And I will support their sponsors.
Ok, so maybe we that like DD, or like what they stand for, should get on AE and
make our voices heard as loud as the others do. They won't listen, because
everyone is afraid of the minority, whatever one is screaming the loudest at the
moment. But it may make some of us feel better for trying.
They should all say it, get their show canceled, and start their own internet
channel, like Glen Beck. They'd make more money, and say what they wanted.
All he said was that he did not understand the attraction. He also said that he
believed that some things are sin. He should be free to speak. He did not
say anything negative about anyone. I don't understand the attraction
to football but it is not hate speech. I just don't get it. Now soccer
that is totally different. Now if you want to say you think I am crazy because
I love soccer you are free to do so.
Seems like a good opportunity for BYUtv to land a program that would make the
network immediately relevant. Seems like Phil said it like BYU does only a
Guess who is in charge of the entertainment industry.
It is hilarious that nobody had a problem with his comments about adulterers,
idolaters, male prostitutes, drunkards, slanderers, or swindlers. Why
aren't they up in arms?
Freedom of speech only applies to a small group of people in America. The rest
must be shouted down, silenced or punished. Wake up America!
It's interesting how Progressive liberals can lie, make up stories, do
illegal activities and then get praised for this by their peers and then be
completely exonerated for anything they did or said.But then, if a
conservative christian person says or does even the slightest speaking of their
minds or does something they think is harmless, they get roasted, fired or
banished from society. Can people with religious beliefs not speak their minds
anymore? Are we to the point where only fanatic radical progressives are free
to speak whatever they please and then others are forced to take this rhetoric
as the truth. And then they are later held harmless because they made a public
apology and said "oops, I'm sorry" Happens all too often.
Christian conservatives don't have that luxury.The behavior of
public stoning towards good people who made a slight miniscule goof with their
words is getting out of control. History has shown that this flip-flopped turn
of behavior and actions by progressive thinking societies and governments does
not end up very well.
@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.
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. :/
Way to go Phil. Stand up for what you believe in.
Interesting, these guys aren't just actors. They walk the walk.
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.
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!
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.
I note that Phil never once condemned a person, only the sin.
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.
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.
kjb1it 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.
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.
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
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.
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.
Gosh I feel bad for him. Imagine the tyranny of the minority. This is why they
can't have rights!
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.
@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.
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.
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
I an personally calling every advertiser on A&E and informing them of my
boycott. Starting with Sears.I plan on returning some chrstimas gifts I have
purchased there.It is time that free speech is defended. If you don't like
what someone says don't listen to them or in this case watch them. Good for
@SCFan"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."I wasn't aware that he was losing his freedom over
this. I didn't know the PC police were going to haul him to jail. A&E
is a private company and can do what they want with their programming. He has
freedom of speech, and he gets to "suffer" through the consequences of
I congratulate him for sticking up for what he believes and for good values and
morals. Keep up the good work!
No one violated his freedom of speech. He was able to say what he wanted. The
magazine was free to publish that. There was no censorship. That doesn't
mean that his comments don't have consequences.
Did I hear 'Political Correctness'? Don't wanna hear that the
'King has no clothes'.
CHS 85: "Have any of you even seen the show? I can't understand why it
is so popular. I gave up after two episodes. ...it is just mindless
television..."I can't believe such hate speech made it past
the forum moderators. Such obvious anti-redneck bigotry must be squashed right
now. You can't say stuff like that and hope to hold on to your job. Only
haters do not embrace the redneck lifestyle. You are just lucky you didn't
say something like "their beards are ugly". Otherwise, you would have
really crossed the line.
He was asked by a reporter for a men's magazine what he thought was sinful,
and he gave his honest answer. That's too much for the PC police.
UtahBlueDevil - check the facts, he did make the comment "off the
I don't know if I would characterize his comment as "ANTI-Gay".
He just said in his opinion... it's a sin. He didn't say he hates
gays or anything.He's not the only person in the world that
thinks homosexual sex is sin. Many religious people believe that. His only
mistake was... he dared to SAY it... when the liberal-press was listening.---What I'm wondering is... Where's the
TOLERANCE of other opinions? Where's the joy in DIVERSITY of
opinions?Is diversity only acceptable when you want to diverge from
normal sexual behavior? But if you admit a faith-based opinion... it's
not to be tolerated???---Many say, "Well he's
on TV so he's held to a different standard". But how many reality
show people and sit-com people in Hollywood (Charlie Sheen for example) have
documented sex and drug binges... and we were told we need to be tolerant,
they're just different?But have an opinion based in your
faith... and all tolerance goes out the window.----They
pray at the end of every show. Surely this magazine KNEW what his opinion would
be. It was a trap.
This is not a 1st amendment issue, as A&E is not a government body.
However, it is a Title VII issue. Title VII makes it illegal for an employer to
take punitive action against an employee for his/her religious beliefs. Similar
to the case where Ambercrombie fired two women for wearing a headscarf and
claiming it didn't fit with the image of the company, A&E has
"suspended" this man because his religious views do not fit with their
image. The federal EEOC filed that lawsuit on their behalf. Ambercrombie was
forced to settle with these women or be found in violation of Title VII, and the
Fed courts in Louisiana would likewise find this action in violation of Title
VII. Although I am not a proponent of lawsuits, this is one of those times it
is needed to draw a line in the sand.I applaud those supporters of
GLBT's who have already denounced A&E's behavior on these
postings. I am waiting for a few of the regular pro-GLBT rights posters to do
the same...as they have said numerous times that they would.
Whatever happened to tolerance for different beliefs? This is a scary world we
live in where only certain opinions have been deemed acceptable and anything
outside of that is treated with contempt.
There are some serious "free speech" issues at work in our country. The
"nature v nurture" controversy in psychology alludes to the fact that
the causes and effects for homosexuality are still open to valid debate. Youth
see the world altogether differently than adults. Mr. Robertson does not say at
what age he "picked cotton". I lived in Shreveport for about a year in
my early grade school days with my dad in the Air Force. The only thing that I
remember is that my mother had a maid and was very proud of that fact as a poor
Irish woman. The woman was always treated with respect. Society must be very
careful to impugn the motives of children with the evils of society. As Deborah
Kerr "said" in "King and I" (while Marni Nixon sang),
"children must be carefully taught not to hate". The appeal is their
flair for "off the cuff". This doesn't mean that they are right. In
fact, I am offended by some of their words. However, we as a society need to be
very careful. In the 40s, this was used as a pretext for complete control.
From the article, "What's clear is that such hateful anti-gay comments
are unacceptable to fans, viewers, and networks alike," said GLAAD spokesman
Wilson Cruz. Robertson's removal "has sent a strong message that
discrimination is neither a Christian nor an American value."There's no credibility in this GLAAD spokesman as Phil did not, and has
not, discriminated against any specific group. His comments included seven
other groups or categories of sins or sinners, so where is his discrimination?
One thing for certain, Phil has much more relevance and peace than this GLAAD
group will ever hope to have. May Faith, Family, and Firearms live
forever!QUACK! QUACK! QUACK!
Money is the bottom line.Although these Robertsons look and act like a
bunch of hillbillies, they should know better.They just may have cooked
the goose who laid their golden egg,,,'er the duck.
Freedom of speech like every other freedom we enjoy, doesn't mean there are
no consequences or repercussions for exercising that freedom. I have the freedom
to drink as much alcohol as I want, but I'm also liable for the
consequences of my indulgence. I love DD, and admire their family
values. I think A&E is being ridiculous by allowing themselves to be bullied
by GLAAD (never thought I'd say that til now). However, that being said,
A&E does have the right to hold their employees and representatives to a
standard. I certainly can't say whatever I want at my job and expect to
keep it. For every action there is a consequence, even if those actions are
protected by my personal rights and freedoms...just as there is always a choice,
there is always a consequence. My advice to the Robertsons would be
to show A&E that there are consequences for their actions as well. Take your
show to another network, because there are plenty of networks that would love to
have the Robertsons and their DD brand. Consequences can cut both ways.
"Start with homosexual behavior and......," such as bestiality, he
said."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..... It's not right.""I myself am a product of
the '60s" who indulged in sex and drugs until hitting bottom and
accepting Jesus.., he said in a statement..... , Robertson said he "would
never treat anyone with disrespect" because they are different."Let's see:He equated homosexuality with: greed, drunkenness,
slandering, swindlersHe condemned "male prostitution" I guess
female prostitution would be O.K.In the '60's" while
"he" was indulging what was his opinion about these matters?He
became a "self proclaimed Christian" and now he has the power to
judge.Yet! he makes the false disclaimer that he would never disrespect
anyone because they are different. Is this guy for real or he is
still "indulging" ?I agree with all the comments here
defending his right to express his opinion. I also defend the right of A&E
to take any action they feel is appropriate. If the action is illegal Phil can
This story is a great example of what's wrong with our country. We speak
of "freedoms" but anytime someone expresses their opinion they are
'punished' for it.I believe the great philosopher Voltaire
said, "I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the
death your right to say it".If people disagree with his view,
then don't support his show. I don't believe in smoking, so how do I
respond... I choose not to buy cigarettes. I think its bad to drink, so how do
I respond... I choose not to drink. I realize the use of certain
types of language and/or phrases are offensive. However, if a person expresses
an opinion, without being crude or vulgar, that opinion should be respected
regardless of whether or not you agree. This is why our government
is disfunctional... there's no civility when it comes to ideas or thoughts.
@ A Scientist"You knew this was going to happen sooner or later.
Religious folks with a platform will always use it to condemn their fellow man
eventually. They can't seem to help themselves. How sad"Same can be said about atheists and other nonreligious folks. They also have a
platform that will be used to condemn their fellow man. They can't seem to
help themselves either. How sad!
Robertson, quoted in article: "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." [emphasis added]Is it an accidental oversight or an
intentional omission of female prostitutes? Perhaps in his mind female
prostitution is OK. That would be convenient.While I disagree with
what he said on so many different levels, his remarks don't strike me as
rising to the firing level. I'm much more troubled by his comments on
race. So he never noticed blacks being treated unfairly? Perhaps he
wasn't looking. No blacks confided in him, a white man, complaining that
they were being mistreated by white men? Not the least bit surprising.
I love Duck Dynasty. I have several T-Shirts and will continue to wear them
proudly. Phil actually quoted a scripture in Corinthians in the New Testament as
part of his comments regarding homosexual sex so this isn't something he
just made up. I am proud of Phil for stating his views and his faith without
trying to be PC. It is interesting that scum buckets like Bill Maher can belch
out all sorts of vulgar hate speech toward Christians with ZERO repercussions in
the media ...just another disgusting double standard that is a sad reminder of
where 21st cent society is today. Also it is interesting that gays are all for
free speech and freedom of expression even the violent brutality toward those
that disagree with their lifestyle as well as defacing of LDS temples during
prop 8 in California (remember that?). When someone else expresses non-violent
opinion against them the knee jerk reaction is to FIRE the person and
sensor/silence him. Ugly ugly double standard and bald faced hypocrisy.DD will find a new home on another network and I will NOT tune into A AND E
I've never watched the show. I'm now a devoted fan...on whichever
network will carry them. This clearly shows the bias the media has towards
certain behaviors and against Christianity.
I don't think he will care. I am surprised the family will continue. I
think they shouldn't tape anymore.
Cougsndawgs, I agree with most of what you wrote except Phil was not
on the job, or at his job when he made those comments. I do understand though,
that his fame and public comments are what's different about his job and
"employer" than yours or mine. We could say much worse things and our
employers would likely never hear about it. In his case he is being singled out
and punished for his beliefs which will come back to haunt A&E. They will
end up the losers in this controversy. A&E is reminding me of the Dixie
Chicks. Heard a hit from them in the past few years?
So if I disagree with watching Glee because of the things they are doing does
that mean the network will remove the people I don't mean doing what their
doing? OR do I turn to a different channel and watch something else. People who
watch Duck Dynesty know these people have talked about no premarital sex ect. So
they know they are religious etc. Reality TV is just that. You are filming
people as they are. . . so why remove someone, just don't watch.
The left can spew Christian, Conservative hate speech all day long - on TV,
RADIO, MOVIES AND MAGAZINES. No problem and no repercussions. When someone on
the right offers their opinion they get censored - silenced - FIRED. As a
student of history you have to back to the 1930 and 1940's in Nazi Germany
or anytime during the ugly reign of cold war Soviet Union when the general
public FEARED to express any point of view except that which was approved by the
Socialist state. The United States is fast becoming what it once fought against.
Let freedom ring?? As long as no one on the left hears it.
The way the gay community shouts their views you would think, and I did at one
time, that they represent 20% of the population. In fact they only represent a
little less than 2% of the population. So why is everyone so afraid to say
someting that might offend them. And why is A&E letting the minority
controll the majority.
@DN Sub 2 It really is disgusting, ironical and hypocritical is that the
religious right continues to use GOD as an excuse to display their bigotry and
hatred of their fellow man. The "religious right" continues to pitch and
moan when anybody that doesn't fit their self defined vision of perfection
wants to enjoy the same rights they have. They love to blame the
"liberals" for all the ills of society yet cannot come up with any
I'm gay and I don't find Phil Robertson's remarks to be
offensive. I disagree with A&E's decision to suspend Phil from the
show. He has every right to say what he believes. I disagree with him and his
statements show ignorance about what it means to be homosexual, but we are each
entitled to our own beliefs. He is not advocating for laws to be passed that
would violate the rights of gay people or promoting violence.
Hamfischer and Fred Vader,Who said this is a first amendment issue?I haven't read all the comments, but I've read a lot. And I
haven't seen anybody saying his first amendment rights are being violated.
Everybody knows it's not a first amendment issue when your
employer or the public reacts to something you say.He could make his
comments again today... there's nobody stopping him. If there was... there
would be a first amendment issue. But nobody's saying that. So drop the
strawman. I think they're just saying be more tolerant of someone that
has/expresses an opinion you don't share.Nobody's saying
his first amendment rights were violated. That's just absurd.
I am very grateful that there are a few people left in America who will go
against the tide and stand up for what they believe, even when it goes against
the current tide of popular opinion. In our current climate, it takes a great
deal more courage to stand up for biblical.values than it does to say it's
ok to be gay. Phil had to know there would be consequences for what he said, and
yet he did it anyway. I applaud you,Phil, for your courage. I believe God will
bless you for your stand and I hope Duck Dynasty thrives as a result of this!
Just so all the supporters are aware, he was not simply stating his religious
beliefs. He said something the Deseret News will not even allow me to post which
is both degrading of women and gay people. Take a look at the whole quote. it is
terribly offensive in many ways.On an unrelated note, it appears
that South Sudan is headed toward yet another civil conflict, meanwhile hundreds
of millions more throughout the world do not have the basic necessities of life.
So why do we make a big deal about a reality TV star's already-known
And freedom of speech takes another hit from the intolerant left.
Probably 80% of the Bible and Koran believers who actually read the books
don't have a problem with what he said, although they may squirm at hearing
it said aloud. Apostle Paul certainly would have no problem and neither would
Moses. Gay supporters do tend to be equally definitive in their
declarations and demand you accept their orthodoxy or they'll scream at
you. The question really isn't whether or not you believe one
way or the other, but whether you can hold the beliefs and still be kind and
compassionate to others. I don't find many people on either
side of the argument who can mentally walk and chew gum on this issue.
Anybody remember Paula Deen?And....what network is running her program
@patriot --"The left can spew Christian, Conservative hate
speech all day long - on TV, RADIO, MOVIES AND MAGAZINES. No problem and no
repercussions."Baloney. For one obvious example, just look at
the Dixie Chicks controversy that Whoa Nellie mentioned. They dared to criticize
Bush publicly--and the group got completely trashed for it.Again --
in the Duck Dynasty case, IMHO it depends on the restrictions he may or may not
have signed in his contract. A&E has every right to protect its image, and
if there was language in the contract stating that this guy would refrain making
from controversial comments or do anything to damage A&E's image, then
they have every right to silence him.@Rueben D --"
In fact they only represent a little less than 2% of the population."Actually, LGBT people make up roughly 5% of the population.More than 50% of the US population supports same-sex marriage.Meanwhile, LDS church members make up less than 2% of the US population.Do you really want to start basing your arguments on population size??
@patriot:"As a student of history you have to back to the 1930
and 1940's in Nazi Germany or anytime during the ugly reign of cold war
Soviet Union when the general public FEARED to express any point of view except
that which was approved by the Socialist state."I agree. A
couple of years back I called this neo-McCarthyism. It is becoming worse.History does not repeat itself, it rhymes. Which means we should be as
equally scared of the Gay Right as we would be of anyone with a Swzstiak armband
and a 1930's uniform.
Can anybody comment on why only people on the Right need to be tolerant, and
only people on the right need to embrace diversity of opinions (even opinions
they don't agree with)?It seems the media only insists people
with religious right-leaning opinions need to be to be reprimanded, and told to
be tolerant, and insist they be glad for diversity of opinions (even opinions
they don't agree with).Could the nonreligious left not use a
little of this same advice?Don't people on the Left need to be
tolerant of opinions they don't agree with? And embrace diversity of
This is just another instance where supporters of gay and lesbian lifestyles
exhibit a lack of tolerance for the constitution of the United States. This is
not America any longer. It is being coerced into accepting the standards of
Sodom and Gomorrah. Shame on the A & E Network for this type of model.
Contrarius is right. Whatever is written in the contract for the Robertsons in
terms of how they represent A&E is what is in question. There are usually
clauses in those contracts that support canceling the show or releasing someone
under the contract for what the broadcasting company may deem as inflammatory or
defamation-type comments that reflect poorly on the network. I can almost assure
you there are clauses written for the Robertsons by their agent as well stating
they can leave the network for issues they deem as inequitable or the presence
of a "hostile" work environment, etc. Both sides are going to have these
escape clauses, and if I were the Robertsons I would exercise that escape clause
as of now. A&E probably owns the rights to the Duck Dynasty brand, but the
Robertsons could simply change the brand name and move to another
network...it's not like everyone doesn't know who they are. In the
name of being able to state your religious beliefs without them being construed
as "vile" and hostile, I would leave A&E and send a message that
religious minded people aren't going to be bullied either.
The problem here is not what A & E did. I agree A & E has every right
to suspend or fire him for making his statement. But those who do not want to
employ transgender people should have the same right. What is so annoying is
the hypocracy. Today the Des News is also running an article about the effort
to enact statewide anti-discrimination laws to give additional protections to
gays and transgender people. So if I (an overweight male) show up to work in a
halter top and a miniskirt, my employer cannot fire me. However, if I express
my religious or moral beliefs he can? The extent to which the gay
advocacy groups have control of the media is amazing. It was immediately
branded hate speech even thous he was merely stating his beliefs and he
specifically said he would not treat anyone in a negative way. Any opinion
other than that sanctioned by GLAAD or similar organizations must be stopped.
Free speech is a 1st Amendment right - as long as you are supporting the
left's agenda.I hope the legislature wakes up.
This isn't a free speech issue. If you believe it be one, go tell your
boss exactly what you think of him and see what happens.That being
said, the man simply stated his belief. I believe (and this is only my opinion)
that where he crossed the line was were he equated homosexuals to terrorists; or
rather spoke of God condemning them in the same way. That is when A&E took
So if I understand correctly: Robertson expressed his views that homosexuality
is a sin as well as his love for all of God's children, essentially, that
he loves the sinner, not the sin. He did not take any action to discriminate
against homosexuals or even suggest that such actions should be taken. A&E
erroneously declares themselves to be the sole Christian authority, essentially
declaring that not only is homosexuality not a sin, but that Robertson's
comments are, (his views are not very Christlike). Robertson's viewpoint
(no action) is discrimination, but A&E's actions are not. Why? Because
it is the popular viewpoint. I don't understand the justification of
re:ContrariusI know as a liberal you listen to and watch MSNBC - Ed
Shultz??? I have never heard such down right vulgar, hateful, slanderous speech
toward Conservatives and Christians in my life and this has been going on for 5
years now. Repercussions? Ed is still there last time I checked. Not even a slap
on the wrist. Hollywood is full of daily trash talking against Christians and
conservatives and all you hear is silence. Get my point?? The Dixie Chicks
didn't get their record label pulled did they? Nope. People just decided
not to listen to them anymore which is their right. Yes a corporation has the
right to do whatever it wants but my point is corporations do NOTHING against
Christian bashing but they sure start firing and threatening sponsors etc...
every time someone expresses their opinion against homosexual sex. See the
double standard?? It is sickening and it is obvious but it is all part the far
left agenda - sensor and silence anyone with a different opinion.
re:LiveLongAndProsperI applaud your courage to speak your mind and
the fair minded manner that you expressed your opinion. Too bad those in the
national media and others in the gay community don't do the same.
Good for him. Good for the governors who commented as well. Free speech is a
dying ideal. His remarks were not hateful. They were factual!
It seems that personal opinion is verboten in TV land if it is considered not
politically correct. At least the good old DN allows expression of
countervailing thought... sometimes... more or less. In this case the victim of
the hard core and militant pro homosexual agenda movement told the truth.
Unnatural sex seems stupid to him as it does to most folks. You can think it but
you can't say it. I think we ought to boycott A&E until they get off
their high horse.
I don't care what gay or straight people do. It is none of my business. The
guy that made the remarks about gay people has a right to say what he wants but
I'm sure his contract with A & E has certain clauses in his contract
that do not allow him to do certain things. As far as Christians
getting bashed or hated on. I think that is laughable. Mitt Romneys religion was
only a problem for Christians.
Another example of suppressing freedom of speech in this country. Think what you
want about his comments, but it's unconstitutional to throw someone off the
air for an opinion. Talk about word police.
@RBB --"So if I (an overweight male) show up to work in a halter
top and a miniskirt.... "Baloney. Dress codes have nothing to do
with transgender rights." It was immediately branded hate speech
even thous he was merely stating his beliefs "What if a TV star
compared Christians to terrorists?Question: What, in your mind, is
sinful? "Start with Christian behavior and just morph out from there.
Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and
those men,” “Don’t be deceived. Neither the adulterers, the
idolaters, the Christian preachers, the Bishops, the greedy, the drunkards, the
slanderers, the swindlers—they won’t inherit the kingdom of God.
Don’t deceive yourself. It’s not right.” "We just love
’em, give ’em the good news about Mohammed—whether
they’re Christians, drunks, terrorists. We let God sort ’em out
later, you see what I’m saying?”Now how would you
feel?Oh, and amongst other wild accusations, he even blamed
Shintoism for Pearl Harbor. Ummm. Really??@patriot --"I know as a liberal you listen to and watch MSNBC - Ed Shultz???"Guess again. I don't even have cable. ;-)
RE: Contrarius,More than 50% of the US population supports same-sex marriage.Perhaps but God is a majority: (1 Cor 6:9 NET )Do you not know that the
unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! The
sexually immoral, idolaters, adulterers, passive homosexual partners, practicing
Re: "Just look at the Dixie Chicks controversy. They dared to criticize Bush
publicly--and the group got completely trashed for it".Bad
comparison. For one... The chicks were trashed by their fans (not
outsiders). Their fans turned against them when they exposed their venomous
views about America and the President. Fans have a right to throw out their CDs
when their idol's views offend them. But DD fans are not offended by
this.A&E does have the right to suspend DD. But it's a
totally different situation. A better comparison would be IF DD's fans
turned on them and quit watching when they heard their views on gay marriage.
DD fans do not expect him to support gay marriage.Dixie Chicks
turned on their base (country music fans) and paid the price. DD made a
mistake, but he was trapped by this magazine. They KNEW he would have to say
what he said or go against their fans and everything they stand for. They pray
as a family at the end of each show... did they think DD was going to actually
come out in SUPPORT of gay marriage? The question was a trap.
Isn't this a show about real people, so let them be who they are or do a
different show. It seems hypocritical of A&E. Cancel the show and lose lots
of money or let them be who they are.
1st I would like to congratulate all of you who have come to the defense of this
gentleman Phil.Let's see what are you defending:- I put
gays at the beginning of a"morphing " process that lead to
bestiality,greed, drunkards, slanderers and swindlers.- He talks against
"male prostitution", I guess female prostitution is O.K.- He talks
about how in the 60"s he indulged in sex and drugs._ He accepted Jesus
as his Savior. Until then it was O.K. for him to indulge in sex and drugs. But
now he knows the truth and he becomes a judge.Is this guy for real?
He dares to say he doesn't disrespect anyone because he/she is
different.I guess insulting LGBT people is not a form of disrespect. Has Phil the right to express his opinion. Obviously!!! 100% in
agreementHas A&E the right to make a business decision based on
what they considered is good for their profit and image as a network? Of course
they do.Has the LGBT community the right to complain? of course and
we do.Has Phil the right to fight A&E's decision? Of
He would make the best tea party Presidential candidate.
Mark my words - DD and A&E know exactly what they are doing. Its a PR stunt
plain and simple.
Just because something is clearly(or not so) stated in the bible does not make
@sharrona --"God is a majority"And this country
is STILL not a theocracy."(1 Cor 6:9 NET )"Yup,
Paul again. Paul also supported slavery, thought women were inferior
to men, taught that it was better to remain single than to marry, and said that
nobody should ever get divorced -- even though Jesus himself said divorce should
be allowed in cases of infidelity.Do you agree with *everything*
Paul said?@2bits --"The chicks were trashed by their
fans (not outsiders)."Ha. They were trashed by conservative TV
commentators, boycotted, dumped by their sponsors, AND got death threats. One
radio station even suspended its DJs because the DJs played Dixie Chicks
songs.Even Merle Haggard said, "I don't even know the Dixie
Chicks, but I find it an insult for all the men and women who fought and died in
past wars when almost the majority of America jumped down their throats for
voicing an opinion. It was like a verbal witch-hunt and lynching."And all that just for daring to disagree with the President. "The question was a trap."The question was "What, in
your mind, is sinful?". There are MANY ways to answer that question without
Welcome to America 2013: the land where everyone has rights. That is.....except
the moral conservatives who founded and prospered about 99% of this country.Oh, America, how I weep for you.....
why does anything these people say even matter to anyone?
Go Duck Dynasty Network!!!
@ KJB1 - Eugene, OR - "A & E is his employer. They thought that their
employee's remarks reflected poorly upon their company, so they took
action. Isn't that the "free market" that conservatives love to go
on about?"Yep, it's a free market, all right.But, I'd bet you $100 that if it was a company run by a heterosexual CEO
that fired a homosexual for saying something in support of homosexuality,
you'd be beating a path to your nearest courthouse screaming
"Lawsuit!", wouldn't you?
I curious to see what these DD people decide to do. The gay movement has a lot
of clout and right now are running over anyone that public disagrees with their
agenda.Many people don't have enough resources to fight back.
DD has deep pockets- I 'm anxious to see if DD will fight back and bring
these people to their knees. Go DD!!!! There's reason they have a
following- the number ONE show currently on TV.
It is amazing how the homosexual community wants everybody to have more
tolerance/respect towards their way of life. But when people who don’t
believe their way of life speak out about it because of their beliefs and their
way of life they are the ones that don’t get respect for their beliefs. If
you ask me the homosexual community has no tolerance/respect for anybody else.
If you don’t believe in their way of life than you are against them.
Burn the flag or walk on it, but always be politically correct about other
Unfortunately, this just illustrates more of the gay agenda, to prevent anyone
from expresssing any belief or opinion that is negative towards gays and
Bi's. This man didnt express his views as part of the show so
it is very disturbing that the cable channel would punish him for his view or
belief. This is why additinal legal protections are needed for
people to have freedom to express themselves in this way. I would
think that this man could sue the cable company for religious descrimination.
Will then next simply not hire christians so as to not run the risk of someone
expressing a non politically correct statement?
No one mentions what religious denomination these Louisiana TV stars belong.Isn't there a son who is a minister? Is he also on the show discussing
his convictions? May they all be happy ever after with all of their gold
in Hillbilly Heaven.
This won't end well for A and E.Phil Robertson for President!!
Homosexuality is a sin. There, I said it.
Yet another example of hypocrisy from the left. Phil Robertson's comments
were in no way discriminatory. He spoke his beliefs. That is the essence of
free speech. To attack him is to attack all speech that a certain group does
not agree with.The LGBT have said for years that a same sex marriage
does not hurt anyone else. So how does a Christian man stating his beliefs hurt
them? What is sad is that this clear double standard is ignored and even
fostered by the media.
It's funny how the same commentators that mention the "PC police"
were probably up in arms over the "bigots" on the Utah football team
with their "baptismal" video which should not have been a big deal in
the first place. I guess if you make one small joke about religion and
especially the LDS religion in Utah, you are automatically labeled a bigot. If
you make a statement about how you would refuse service to someone if they are
gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender, you are labeled a hero. I am referring
to the wedding photos business that denied service to a lesbian couple. I guess
sensitivity only matters when it comes to religious beliefs but not anything
In same interview he also said that black people were happier living in the pre
civil rights Jim Crow south. I guess defending his homophobic comments is easier
then defending his racist comments. I can never understand why conservatives
pick the most ignorant people to idolize.
People have the right to say what they want, in accordance with the first
amendment.Companies have the right to fire people for what they say
and do.People have a right to picket and boycott.That is the
free market system.I can certainly understand those who disagree
with the outcome, and are free to write/picket/boycott A&E.It
happens all the time. Martin Bashir was run out for his comments about Sarah
Palin.Is this different?Recourse? Boycott the Duck men
show until they allow him back. That is the way our system is
designed to work.
I am really happy for New Mexico!!!!! When you guys are going to do the same?
I hope soon !!! I can't wait to marry my boyfriend for the eternity
and take pics around the Temple's garden. I know you, Mormon/Uthans,
will stop discriminating very soon. You are very nice and polite. Perhaps some
oldies should die first, but the change and the revelation is coming!!!!Merry Christmas to everybody!!!!!
@RedWings --"Yet another example of hypocrisy from the
left."Two words: Dixie Chicks.
@Ted: "Can people with religious beliefs not speak their minds
anymore?"No, they can't and they shouldn't. They have been
speaking their minds out for more than 2000 years, and look where are we now?
Still fighting for people's rights.......
Not accepting intolerance is NOT intolerance.
There are still horrible people out there. A person's attraction have
absolutely no negative affects on Phil or any of the bigoted people commenting
This is a double standard. He did not use a slur or anything just stated his
opinion. Now the gays can say anything they want about straights and it is fine.
It is just his opinion folks.
A Guy With A Brain 12:58 p.m.You'd owe me $100. If a gay
person said something as crass and obnoxious as Phil Robertson did while on
company time then yes, I wouldn't be surprised of offended if that person
were fired.Most of the posters here need to realize that when a
celebrity grants an interview or goes on a talk show, it's not just to be
famous and hang out. They're almost always there to promote a project and
(inevitably) the studio or network that released it. It's a work
obligation. Robertson was talking to a journalist in order to plug Duck
Dynasty, therefore he was on the clock. If I spoke that way while I was at my
job, I'm guessing that my boss wouldn't be too happy with me. If he
was speaking privately to a friend and it was somehow overheard, then that may
be different, but A & E was justified in doing what they did. As I said
before, they're his employer.We may free speech, but
doesn't mean it doesn't have consequences.
It's nice to know that Freedom of Speech is alive and well in America.
@KJB1So are you saying the religious and the conservative are no
longer free to publically speak their views?Is that what the
progressive left means by tolerance and diversity?It seems like a
pretty narrow tent on the left.The right has never demanded a person
be fired or silenced for their views, sounds like more tolerance and diversity
there.The right has a truly bigger tent in fact and practice.
@the truth "The right has never demanded a person be fired or silenced
for their views, sounds like more tolerance and diversity there."really so then "one million moms" and other conservative groups did
not contact JcPenny and threaten to boycott them for have Ellen DeGeneers in
there commercials and call for her removal less the a year ago? Here is the
problem when you use easily refuted lies people kind of stop tanking you serious
and that is what has hurt those that oppose gay marriage more then anything the
media or liberals could ever do.
Just curious...would those who are posting in favor of A&E's actions
feel the same about "employer rights" if they go into work tomorrow and
find that they have been terminated for their posts in favor of A&E on this
article? Didn't think so.Similarly, are those who support GLBT
rights now content if Utah continues to not pass non-discrimination laws so that
GLBTs may be fired by their employers just for being GLBT? After all, employers
can fire you for any reason right? Didn't think so.
@fred vader"Just curious...would those who are posting in favor
of A&E's actions feel the same about "employer rights" if they
go into work tomorrow and find that they have been terminated for their posts in
favor of A&E on this article? Didn't think so.""would it be reasonable to think that the anonymous comments made on their
private time would reflect poorly on their employer? I understand what you are
saying but the comparison really does not hold as he should have reasonably
understood that his interview was directly tied to his work and would therefore
reflect on his employer.
What a pathetic display of offended individuals!Every time the LGBT
community fights for our rights we have been accused of "shoving our
sexuality in you throats".We have grown up hearing that our
nature is unnatural, that our love in ungodly, that our relationships are an
aberration and a threat to humanity. Now we only ask is to obtain
the same rights you have. We have been censored by our churches and even our
families.You cry foul when you are accused of bigotry. Yet, when
this gentleman Phil makes homosexuality a synonym of bestiality, greed and other
epithets you come out once again defending your right to offend, insult and
remain ignorant of a variant of life that you discriminate because you
don't understand it and cannot accept it.The wheels of history
keep on turning and you are choosing to remain behind. New Mexico just passed
SSM. Other states and countries will follow. We don't need your personal
approval. We will fight until the law of the land gives us and all other
oppressed group the rights that you enjoy and yet you deny to us.
When was the last time a network canned anyone for making a statement
categorizing supporters of traditional marriage as homophobic, bigoted
neanderthals? Or are "disparaging" statements a naughty
thing to be punished only when they fall on the wrong end of the political
Some of you are misinterpreting freedom of speech. The first Amendment protects
from government infringement of speech. This wasn't the gov't, it was
a company deciding that there was an issue.
DN refused my comment quoting what he ACTUALLY said, which was pretty much not
only vile and disgustingly stated, but lacked any semblance of truth.Other sources show his complete diatribe of a few years ago, suggesting that
the Gays performed the most vile acts, leading to incest, bestiality, and the
ruin of innocent people's moralsStill other sources quote him
as saying that Southern Black People were happy before the Civil Rights Movement
caused everyone so much trouble.I am very disappointed by comments
like these:TedSaint George, UT...The behavior of public
stoning towards good people who made a slight miniscule goof with their words is
getting out of control...Kathy.Iowa, IowaAll he said was that
he did not understand the attraction. He also said that he believed that some
things are sin. He should be free to speak. He did not say anything negative
about anyone.He DID say awful, terrible things
@Californian#1@94131 --"When was the last time a network canned
anyone for making a statement categorizing supporters of traditional marriage as
homophobic, bigoted neanderthals? "When was the last time you
heard a TV star calling "supporters of traditional marriage" homophobic,
bigoted neanderthals?Name one. I bet you can't.
Contrarius: "Two words: Dixie Chicks."Sorry - big
difference. The Dixie Chicks were boycotted by individuals, radio stations,
etc. They were not dropped from their label, etc. Personally, I totally
disagreed with how they were treated. I even bought their last disc when it
came out...The difference is that, when it comes to the LGBT, there
is government and court sanctioned hypocrisy. Business owners are being
attacked because they do not want to serve potential gay customers. It is not
like a gay person cannot get those products elsewhere - they refuse to and use
the courts as their personal bully to shut down those who try to follow
Christian values and doctrine.
@RedWings --"Sorry - big difference."Nope.In addition to the media attacks and boycotts -- which, btw, we also
often hear conservatives rail against (remember Orson Scott Card?) -- they were
also dumped by their sponsors. Also, concert venues and/or radio stations
refused to sell tickets or advertise their concerts.And all because
they dared to criticize President Bush."Business owners are
being attacked because they do not want to serve potential gay
customers."Businesses must comply with ALL the laws of the
jurisdictions under which they operate. It's a very simple principle -- no
hypocrisy involved."It is not like a gay person cannot get those
products elsewhere"And those black college kids at the lunch
counter in Walgreens could have gone to eat somewhere else, too. Do you think
they should have?
Contrarius said:"When was the last time you heard a TV star calling
"supporters of traditional marriage" homophobic, bigoted neanderthals?
Name one. I bet you can't."How about Lisa Bloom, former CNN
legal analyst, and current NBC Today legal analyst (and daughter of Gloria
Allred), who once said of Prop 8 supporters: "Now, only lunatic-fringe
bigots would support those laws."Does she count? So,
I don't know where we, as a country, are going to end up regarding
religious freedom and all that.But I have tried to be a Christian
for my entire life, and I cannot find anywhere in scripture or the teachings of
those I hold as prophets where it says it is God's will that I:- refuse service to those who believe differently than I believe-
insist that all my employees believe and live the exact same "values"
that I live- deny human dignity and respect to those who love
differently than I do- mingle my religious beliefs and the influence
of my Church with politics to ensure that my religious beliefs become
enforceable law of the land at the expense of other's religious (or
nonreligious) beliefs- focus on and obsess with one, particularly
"icky sin" (rather than all the other sins) and treat those who engage
in it as sub-human or second-class citizens by denying them fair housing, fair
employment, equal service from legal businesses, and equality before the law in
every way, shape and form.Why don't "values" business
owners refuse service and employment to ALL sinners?
Contrarius said:"When was the last time you heard a TV star calling
"supporters of traditional marriage" homophobic, bigoted neanderthals?
Name one. I bet you can't."What about Tom Hanks, who called
Mormons "un-American" for supporting Prop 8? He used to be a star on TV
in a role where he dressed as a lady, if I remember correctly. Does he count?
So there's two...Need I go on?
Contrarius: "When was the last time you heard a TV star calling
"supporters of traditional marriage" homophobic, bigoted
neanderthals?"How about Rosie O'Donnell?
@Fred Vader --"How about Lisa Bloom, former CNN legal
analyst"Operative term: FORMER.The question was
"When was the last time a network canned anyone for making a
statement...".You can't can 'em if they don't
make the statement at the time they are working for you."What
about Tom Hanks"Again -- FORMER TV star.You
can't can 'em if they don't make the statement at the time they
are working for you.Keep trying.
Nice attempt to spin...apparently you didn't read what you wrote, or what I
wrote...Lisa Bloom is "former CNN", but CURRENT "NBC
Today"....i.e. she still works on TV...And I quoted you
directly. Your question was not "when last canned" but "when last
heard them say"I gave you two examples of TV stars who made the
comments, and you said you bet not even 1 could be found. You lose. Just accept
@Fred --"Nice attempt to spin...apparently you didn't read
what you wrote, or what I wrote..."Guess again. Lisa made that
comment three years BEFORE NBC hired her.Again, ya can't fire
somebody for something they said when they weren't even working for ya.Keep trying."And I quoted you directly."And I was responding to the question "When was the last time a network
canned anyone for making a statement...".Context is everything,
Contrarius....typical, you are losing your own bet so you have to change the
rules after I already won. Fine. How is this for "current"....this was
just stated by CNN's Piers Morgan..,"Just as the 2nd Amendment
shouldn't protect assault rifle devotees, so the 1st Amendment
shouldn't protect vile bigots.""Current" TV
star....and "current" statement.Vader 3....Contrarius 0
@Fred Vaderer --"...so you have to change the rules after I
already won."Nope. The context was there before you ever entered
the conversation."....this was just stated by CNN's Piers
Morgan..,"That's a good one. Even more
directly, Morgan said in a tweet: "Phil Robertson is not a 'victim of
political correctness'. He's a victim of his own repulsively racist,
homophobic bigotry."(btw -- Personally, I don't think
Robertson is a racist. If I recall correctly, one of his sons has biracial
adopted kids.)This one is a good example for furthering the
discussion.Now -- can you guess why Piers is not likely to get fired
or suspended?Let's see....possibly because it's his job to
state his various opinions and viewpoints?Did anyone expect Rush
Limbaugh to get fired when he called a Georgetown University law student a slut
and a prostitute? Nope. Giving opinions -- even obnoxious ones -- is part of his
job.Both Morgan and Limbaugh are employed by news/opinion/current
affairs organizations specifically for their outspoken opinions on current
topics.In contrast, Robertson is employed by a non-news
entertainment network because he's funny.See the difference?
@KalindraI have never heard of that boycott, and you have not given
any and all of the facts and details and the context to draw analogies or
conclusions.How can the left ever be taken seriously when they are
constantly hiding the details and making up there own stories?
I applaud A&E for not allowing anti-gay and racial comments on Duck Dynasty
and putting Phil Robertson on indefinite suspension. I have enjoyed programs on
A&E for years and I respect and support their decision.
Folks, it's the Entertainment Business -- full of phonys and bad guys.The Duck Dynasty guys posed for family photos looking like Tommy Bahama
ads, before they came up with the fake hillbilly act. Phil has a Masters Degree
in Education.We have NO way of knowing whether they are Christians,
or whether Phil just picked up on an act that would sell well, and went
overboard with offensive comments he may not even believe in himself.Believing in these folks as real Christians and the same as you is like
believing that Desi Arnaz and Lucille Ball lived in a little apartment in New