Quantcast

Comments about ‘Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin and others defend 'Duck Dynasty's' Phil Robertson’

Return to article »

Published: Friday, Dec. 20 2013 9:50 a.m. MST

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Tators
Hyrum, UT

@ Shaun:

If getting fired for expressing one's opinion isn't censoring his speech, I'd like to know what is.

@ ebur:

Fortunately, freedom of religion is a law in this country. It's part of the first ammendment. Look it up. The freedom to have and express religious beliefs is covered by law.

Even people ignorant of the laws of our land, such as yourself, are perfectly free to express their opinions... such as thru comments to this article. But that doesn't make those comments correct. By all means, continue to go for it. But please do a bit of research beforehand.

UtahBlueDevil
Durham, NC

Not often do I agree with Glenn Beck or Sarah Palin - but in this case - I have no issues agreeing with them. Someone asking me what my religious beliefs are about this, or that, and me stating I don't approve of a certain behavior, is in no way saying people can't live that behavior.

I have many friends that are gay. They know I am LDS. They know the beliefs of my faith. I also have friends who drink, who gamble, who shop on sundays, who cheat on their taxes. I even have a couple of friends that have cheated on their wives. Each and everyone of them knows I don't approve that behavior. Saying so doesn't mean I don't love each and every one of these people.

No profession of perfection on my side either. I don't always live up to what I believe. That is part of being human.

A&E shutting this man down because he stated his beliefs - through a separate media outlet - is short sighted. If they suspend every faithful believer, be they Christian, Muslim, Jew or whatever, they wouldn't have many employees left.

Tators
Hyrum, UT

@ JoCo Ute:

A bit more research will allow you to find out that very few churches in our country advocated slavery under biblical teachings in the pre-civil war era. In fact, the majority advocated just the opposite... hence, one of the basis for the civil war.

FYI: Abraham Lincoln was a conservative Christian. And it was he and other conservative Christians who led the fight to abolish slavery... contrary to what you are advocating. And in case you didn't get to that point in your history research... they (the Union, led by conservative Christians) prevailed. Hopefully, they will in this case as well.

Picking and choosing thru small parts of history in order to rationalize and justify your opinion (and a weak one at that) is pretty lame. And right now, it seems that you could use a good crutch.

Shaun
Sandy, UT

@Tators. The duck dynasty guy can say whatever he wants but his employer doesn't have to keep him employed. His job is not constitutionally guaranteed or a right.

So basically he is free to say what ever he wants today or tomorrow or whatever but A & E is has no obligation to keep him employed.

J Thompson
SPRINGVILLE, UT

Cowards are ashamed of truth if that truth requres them to take a stand. They hide in fear that they might lose their job or that their "friends" might think less of them if they take a stand against evil.

Satan counts on that. He counts on cowards who would quake before him, cowards who are afraid to stand with the Creator who gave us the rule by which we should live.

A long time ago, when I was a new missionary, a very wise Mission President saw that I was afraid to offend the devil. He asked me whose side I was on. He reminded me that the Savior would never forget those who stood for righteousness and that the devil would never remember those who stood for evil. He reminded me that eternal consequences would follow my choice.

Right now we have to make a choice. Right now we have to decide if we're afraid to offend the devil. Being involved in homosexual activity has nothing to do with the Savior no matter how timid those who are afraid to stand with goodness may be.

It looks like many people have chosen to not offend the devil.

RedWings
CLEARFIELD, UT

For the first time, I find myself in agreement with Beck and Palin.

Phil Robertson did not attack any individual with his comments. He stated a long-held and still heeld Christian belief. That the LGBT would try to demand that religious people change our beliefs to accomodate their immoral lifestyle is ridiculous.

This and Miley Cyrus' antics highlight just where we are going as a country. We have begun to call evil good and good evil.

2 bits
Cottonwood Heights, UT

If GQ wanted a REAL scandal... they should have interviewed Uncle Sy on this topic... he would have given them the comments they were looking for and then some.

I think it's kinda funny. They cancelled DD because he said what he thinks... but that's what the show is all about... some hick people with no sophisticated filters saying and doing silly stuff.

---

I don't watch it regularly, but I have stumbled onto it a time or two and found it very funny and I'm not surprised at all that they don't understand the gay perspective.

---

Knowing the DD viewer demographic... I really don't think a lot of DD viewers were going to rebel and stop watching over Robertson's comments. The whole gay community could boycott DD and I think they would probably lose maybe 2-3 viewers.

Maybe they were worried about losing viewership for American Hoggers, or Rodeo Girls, or Sister Wives... I don't know. But they were pretty quick to respond to the gay outrage. Maybe they have a show about the gay lifestyle coming out soon. I don't know.

John Harrison
Sandy, UT

Tators,

He wasn't fired. He is currently suspended.

He wasn't censored. If he had been censored we wouldn't know what he said. His words were published, that is the opposite of censorship.

His first amendment rights concerning speech and religion have not been infringed. Had he been arrested then we could complain about that.

Like you say, making a comment doesn't make a comment correct.

Tators
Hyrum, UT

@ Shaun:

Actually, there are laws in this country protecting people from wrongful employment termination. And discrimination is one of those wrongful termination causes. In fact, a prime cause.
To be fired for expressing your religious convictions in a separate venue outside of your employment is definitely being discriminated against.
Consequently, A&E does have an obigation to keep him employeed... if that is the only basis for their dismissal of Phil Robertson.

Phil actually has a great basis for bringing a lawsuit against A&E for wrongful termination, as what may well happen if the Robertson doesn't end up taking their now-even-more popular show to another network channel instead.

Either way, it will be A&E's loss.

HappyHeathen
Puyallu, Wa.

Just checked. Roberson’s first amendment rights are still in tact. No government agency made an effort to silence him. A&E’s first amendment rights are also in tact. They still have the right to associate with who they feel like. It’s a win win……

Shaun
Sandy, UT

@tators. I am sure A & E has first rights to the show and they will not release those to another network. Also I am sure you know these guys all signed a contract. I am sure the contract prohibits the cast from doing certain things. He probably violated a clause in his contract and this is why A & E suspended him.

However if this guy feels that A & E violated their contract then he can sue them but I doubt he will win.

Schnee
Salt Lake City, UT

@Brave Sir Robin
"Because, whether or not you like it, hate speech is protected by the 1st amendment."

From gov't intrusion, not corporate intrusion. I would not recommend saying something bigoted towards ones' boss, for instance. Actually a good example would be this forum we're commenting in. Whatever the DN moderators censor is not a violation of the 1st Amendment.

@Mike Richards
"The Creator told us that marriage is between a man and a woman."

That would be an unconstitutional basis for banning same-sex marriage. Basically the equivalent of instituting a piece of Sharia Law.

mcdugall
Murray, UT

After reading numerous comments on this threat it is very clear the majority of the individuals who have posted comments do not understand the issue. Mr. Robertson spoke his mind, which he is legally allowed to exercise. His employer A & E and Mr. Robertson have an employment contract, of which none of us know the content of that agreement, but it is safe to say that their is clause in the contract that allows A & E to place Mr. Robertson on indefinite leave for breaking any of the terms in the contact. A & E is not censuring Mr. Robertson's speech, they are simply protecting their company and their brand. A & E is a corporation who's goal is to generate profits for their owners and that will do whatever is takes to maintain profitability. Mr. Robertson's publicized beliefs created an environment which would jeopardize the profitability of the organization and A & E took swift action to prevent the possible loss of income. This is not a free speech issue whatsoever, it is simply a breach of contact issue between an employee and employer.

C.J.
Greeley, CO

"This sentence is intact," I said, without tact.

Kaladin
Greeley, CO

Anybody want to answer my question above?

AFVet
Lindon, UT

Phil crossed the line with his comments persecuting others lifestyle, race and religion and when he gets called out on it they try to make him the victim and the one being persecuted.

Besides his offensive comment denigrating homosexuals he made an insidious statement about blacks being happier in the Jim Crow era. He also compared other denominations to Nazis.

Phil must be doing something right. I just read that Westboro is on his side too.

Hutterite
American Fork, UT

You know, just like every other 'reality' show there's something about this lot that seems a bit to contrived to be called reality. In my mind it's somewhat scripted and fake. There's no way this bunch of good 'ol boys doesn't swear; the producers must have a pretty tight agreement with them about what they may or may not say. In that vein, dude was not denied his free speech, and since it's a fabricated, contrived environment, there really isn't much for the likes of beck or palin to be atwist about.

AzPete
Mesa, AZ

@Shaun - "He is free to believe or say what he wants, but his employer does not have to give him a platform to express beliefs through his celebrity status through the network."

Does A&E own GQ? What A&E platform did Phil use? His comments were totally outside of A&E and had no connection to the show.

@TA1 - "Clearly the celebrities and politicians who are complaining about "Free Speech" need to go back and understand the issue of "Free Speech" here. It is contract law between the Robertson family and A&E and it appear that it was the Robertson family that may have violated the contract."

TA1 and Shaun need to get together and compare their sources. Is Phil and employee of A&E or does the Robertson family have a contract? I suspect the latter, however, I don't have a copy of the contract as TA1 seems to have.

A&E wants a "reality" show, but when someone is "real" in a way they don't agree with, they quickly get their knickers in a twist.

patriot
Cedar Hills, UT

re:Kaladin

If a homosexual person makes disparaging comments about non-gays or Christians on a popular TV show....??? It happens every day and nothing happens. It's called a double standard or perhaps a better word is hypocrisy and it is the foundation of liberalism.

Mike Richards
South Jordan, Utah

Schnee,

The 1st Amendment states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

What constitutes an establishment of religion. Did God himself establish religion? Would anyone dare tell us that God has not established religion and that He and His Son have not established An Institution of religion?

Is God divided? Would he have given the founding fathers thoughts about protecting religion if God did not want religion to be protected from government? I don't think so.

When God told us that marriage is between men and woman, that was not a "suggestion". That was a commandment that pertains to us just as much as it pertained to Adam and Eve.

You can argue that your viewpoint proves that God did not establish religion, but then you would be arguing against all of earth's history. You could claim that God gave no commandments, but again all of earth's religions would refute you.

God gave us rules to help us achieve joy and happiness. One of those rules is that men marry women and women marry men. Unhappiness follows those who disobey that simple rule.

to comment

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