Comments about ‘Anti-gay comments by 'Duck Dynasty' patriarch fires up his religious, political defenders’

Return to article »

Published: Thursday, Dec. 19 2013 5:00 p.m. MST

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Las Vegas, NV

1) He was being interviewed by GQ - not the Ensign.
2) If you watch the show, you would see that Phil regularly says things very plainly and often coarsely. It is who he is, apparently.
3) He said nothing attacking gays and lesbians. He stated homosexual acts were sin. Then he listed a number of other sexually related sins. Any offense taken to that is a personal matter.
4) He shared his personal opinion and preference to sexual activity - again coarsely, although perhaps still a little tame for GQ magazine.
5) A&E has a right to do what they did. Likely even contractually. And the Robertsons have the right to look elsewhere for a home for their show.
6) What is getting out of hand in this country is the economic bullying of people with religious morals.
7) Dixie Chicks? A poor comparison. What they said was offensive to a lot more people than just "conservatives," which is why they suffered like they did. You will find "liberals" with morals who agree with Phil, as well.

Orem, UT

How about we reverse the circumstances? Say there's an employee working for a conservative boss. He/she posts something on facebook in favor of gay marriage and calls anyone who thinks otherwise a "bigot." Should his/her employer be able to suspend or fire him/her?

Would we still be saying that person has a right to free speech but not to avoid consequences?

BTW, if one's personal life, actions, and words can be grounds for dismissal or suspension from employers, would this open up the possibility of firing someone who enters a gay marriage? I don't think that's right. What I do outside of work should not be judged by my employer (with a few exceptions, obviously).

SomewhereIn, UT


"This Duck Dynasty guy is under contract with A & E. I am sure his contract has clauses stating what he can and can not do. A & E has every right to suspend this guy if they feel he has violated his contract."

Please post whatever it is that makes you so certain of these things. I have a pretty good understanding of contract law and would like to verify your assertions.

Hyrum, UT

@ Happy Valley Heretic:

Just like other liberal commenters, you are mixing subjects... again. This article has nothing to do with racism... yet you're trying to bring it in. Not agreeing with homosexuality is not being racist.

Also, why do you think it's bigoted to take a moral stand against homosexuality? It isn't. It's not bigotry to disagree with someone else's actions. It's called "expressing your opinion"... something that apparently you (and many other liberals) don't seem to like others to do... if they don't share your same ideology.

It's that same old "You must accept my viewpoint, even if I refuse to accept yours" argument that the LGBT community has been advocating for years.

@ Shaun:

It's almost homorous that you have to go back almost 20 years to find an exception about the argument going the other way. That simply indicates how one-sided the lack of tolerance is. It might be nice if you could try keeping the conversation in modern day context.

Bob A. Bohey
Marlborough, MA

1)This duck has exercised his freedom of speech as guaranteed in the constitution. What the constitution does not guarantee is freedom from repercussions when exercising said right.

2) Cloaking ones bigotry and hate behind religious beliefs does not change the fact that it is still bigotry and hate.

Tyler D
Meridian, ID

And why do Christians pick out the couple of obscure Bible passages to vilify people different from you when (as just two of many examples) I assume they are not wearing only single blend fabrics or stoning your children for talking back?

When religious people can provide a logical explanation for their myopic obsession with homosexuals while simultaneously ignoring many other prescriptions found in the Bible, then we may begin to respect their bigotry masquerading as religious devotion.

Centerville, UT


Please clarify your position. Do you support corporate & employer rights to run their business as they see fit? In this case A&E is firing a man for saying something that they do not agree with, or perhaps because they fear a backlash. Does this mean you also support corporate/employer rights to not be forced to offer birth control, contraceptive & abortion insurance coverage to their employees as is currently mandated under Obamacare, but has a very real chance of being struck down by the Supreme Court? And you support employers who oppose a $15 minimum wage?

Please clarify your support of employers. Or is it simply
Support of the left agenda?

Pasedena, CA

To "origami" conservatives didn't really care about Adam Smith of Vante's comments. His point of view was not what got him fired. It was how he treated the Chick-Fil-A worker. See "Exec Bullies Chick-fil-A Worker, Then Promptly Gets Fired For It" at Business Insider.

Hyrum, UT

@ GZE:

Just like several other liberal commenters on this post, you like to stray off-subject. But since you have, let me clarify the conservative stance you seem to think you know so much about.

First of all, conservatives do NOT want to be able to fire school teachers for any reason. Only for NOT doing their jobs well. Whenever anyone doesn't do their jobs well, and it can be verified, their employer should have the right to let them go.

If you have children, you definitely would not want them taught by a teacher not doing his/her job properly. When teachers don't teach, children don't learn.

As to the conservative's beef with unions... it's the unions that force us to keep teachers who aren't teaching... who are not doing their jobs. That's one of the primary reasons the United States keeps falling further behind the rest of the civilized world in academics. A few decades ago, we were 1st in the world. The latest ranking has us at 26th. Sad.

Phil's dismissal had nothing to do with his job performance. His opinion was something A&E asked for.

Saint George, UT

How does one regret defending the truth? How does one keep his/her self-respect being ashamed of defending God's word? This whole brouhaha is ludicrous. If the Gays want more respect, calling for someone to be fired for expressing his opinion and defending God's word is not the way to do it. The followers of God present a sizable majority. Best be careful about trashing them. They can bite.

Tyler D
Meridian, ID

What seems to be lost in all this – and it’s definitely not a 1st amendment issue since the government is not involved – is why this guy felt the need to go off on gay people in the first place. The whole thing just strikes me as ignorant stupidity.

This would be no different than if a liberal celebrity did an interview railing against church goers and duck hunters – making it even worse by following it up with some lame PR produced apology claiming “I would never disrespect anyone”… except when I give magazine interviews, I guess.

We are all free to be the biggest insensitive jerks we like, and the businesses that employ us are free to keep us around or not as they see fit.

And the hypocrisy of “freedom loving patriots” like Sarah Palin deserves tremendous mockery given their worldview on the (almost) divine rights of businesses and corporations.



Many employers have their employees sign statements that behavior off the job that will negatively impact the reputation of the employer is grounds for discipline up to and including termination. I signed one.

Hyrum, UT

@ Contrariuser:

I'm quite certain the article did not mention the Dixie Chicks at all... not once.
You are attemtping to mix apples and oranges with your argument. The Dixie Chicks incident was about patriotism, or the lack thereof. Even then, they weren't fired from their job. Their concerts kept happening.

On the other hand, this article is about a person's moral beliefs... and his right to express them... especially when requested. Patriotism and personal moral beliefs are separate topics.

One other distiction... no one asked for the Dixie chicks political views. People paid to hear them sing and entertain... not disavow their country with an ongoing anti-USA tirade while in a foreign country.
On the other hand, A&E specifically requested an interview with Phil from Duck Dynasty and then proceeded to ask for his opinion about what he felt sin is. He simply gave his honest and unbridled opinion... something usually expected on reality shows, which is what A&E is all about.

Apples and oranges.

Saratoga Springs, UT

Freedom of Speech, He was baited, blah, blah, blah. True? Maybe, doesn't matter. What does matter.

1) He said nothing offensive about the gay community. Before you are argue, see #2

2) Stop at the periods, pause at commas. He was asked what he thought sin was. He answered and attacked nobody, he gave his opinion. Is it any different than asking a gay person what is not a sin. They then answer that homosexuality is not sin. Is this an attack on the straight community. And then when that answer is concluded with a period, and they then begin to speak of bestiality, does that associate the two. Of course not.

3) The gay community found a piece they could attack to make it their own platform. The guy is entitled to his opinion as we all are. All this hulabaloo is all about gaining more media attention, it has nothing to do with the comments.

4) As for people saying they are under contract with A&E and he can't say certain things, then I guess it is not the reality show they advertise it to be.

5) The gay community beat down one man and a family for personal gain.

Sandy, UT

@NT. So do you think A & E would just let these guys say what ever they want? They are all under contract. The contract is designed to protect the network. If the duck dynasty guy feels the network is not honoring the contract he has a right to sue them for breach of contract.

Will he sue the network? No. Why? Because he knows he will lose.

Henry Drummond
San Jose, CA

A few years ago a BYU professor was fired for voicing his opposition to Proposition 8. How is that any different from what A&E has done?

west valley, UT

So this guy doesn't drink? If he does that puts him in the same category as a homosexual based off the quote from the bible he provided.

Eagle Mountain, UT

Anyone who uses the Gospel(the "Good News of Jesus Christ") to try and find a way to treat another Son or Daughter of God as less then such has totally missed the point of the Gospel.

Save for one Man, each of us have our vices, our faults, our shortcomings. Who are we to judge someone else simply because theirs happen to be different from ours? How are we going to convince them that Jesus is a God of Love if we don't show that in our actions, words and deeds?

Didn't someone somewhere (I am really having a hard time remembering who though) say something along the lines of not worrying about the mote in someone's eye while you have a beam in yours?

Mr. Smitty
Salt Lake City, UT

Chris posted the following: "Can you imagine if owners of a tv channel fired someone for saying something pro-gay?Liberals are tolerant only of those who think as they do"

This is about hatred. The comments the man made were hateful, and no rationalizing or trying to make look pretty by dressing up in religion changes that. More people used to use religious justifications regarding their hatred of black people and inter-racial marriage, and now it's no longer tolerated by most religious people. Now things are changing with respect to treating gay people as immoral and inferior, and more and more people are becoming more enlightened about seeing such attitudes as irrational and wrong.

Dammam, Saudi Arabia

@Tyler D:
"When religious people can provide a logical explanation for their myopic obsession with homosexuals while simultaneously ignoring many other prescriptions found in the Bible, then we may begin to respect their bigotry masquerading as religious devotion."

The Bible condemns a lot of things that Christians believe are immoral. Oppressing strangers for example. I don't wear single blend fabrics, but I think oppressing strangers is a sin. Am I a bigot against "stranger oppresors"?

GLAAD's comments about Robinson were a lot more hateful than Robinson's comments. The correction is more offensive than the original offense. GLAAD gave an award to Dan Savage a couple of years ago and he has used epithets against Christians. GLAAD is living a double standard.

to comment

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