Humans are the only race that will live in an unstable environment, live in in
long enough, until they really believe it's stable. Kinda funny all the
rhetoric about a 'black kettle'. It's black, so what. But a lot
of people spend a lot of time trying to convince themselves that it's not
I will believe Sarah Palin's sincerity when she sits down in front of the
cameras with Martin Bashir to discuss the first amendment. I will believe Glenn
Beck's sincerity when he also offers Dan Savage a column on his website or
a show on his network. I will believe Mike Huckabee's sincerity when he
poses for a Christmas photo with Barack Obama, tours Temple Square with the
National Jewish Democratic Council, and offers to buy Chick-fil-a sandwiched for
anyone who has contributed money to the HRC this past year.They are
not outraged about free speech here, they saw an opportunity to snag a little
bit of attention for their own purposes. It's a political ploy for each one
of them, and don't buy into their false outrage.
@ SS --"Again, making claims without so much as an
example."Google these: "nondisclosure agreement",
"gag clause", "promise of silence", "morals clause"From one article on this controversy:"TheWrap spoke to
multiple legal experts who said that, if Robertson's contract contained a
morals clause, as if often the case with on-air talent, than the reality TV star
has little in the way of legal recourse. Often, such morals clauses note that,
if talents speaks or acts in a way that insults or denigrates people, the
producer reserves the right to suspend or terminate that talent. And typically,
defining such language or actions is left to the discretion of the studio;
basically, "if we say it is so, it is." Tough to mount a legal argument
against that.""Entertainment attorney Neville Johnson also
noted that talent agreements generally tend to favor the networks. “If you
see these talent agreements, they basically say they can do everything except
torture you,” Johnson said."""He has no First
Amendment [complaint] against A&E," Eugene Volokh, a professor at UCLA
School of Law told TheWrap. "
Again, making claims without so much as an example. I am almost certain that his
contract with A&E doesn't explicitly mention that he cannot express his
personal beliefs on his free time. The fact is he does it all of the time on the
show, so what is the difference? People are just hoping that's what it is
so they can feel validated. Really, it doesn't matter because neither you
or I really know what's in his contract, so why are people guessing
that's what "it must be."
@ SS --"I'm pretty sure no one would ever sign a contract
that stated they could not express their beliefs even if someone directly asks
them to."Actually, people sign that type of contract all the
First off, you can bet if this were a member of the LGBT community who had
expressed their beliefs in a separate venue, and then suspended from their job,
the whole nation would be up in arms and Obama probably would have said
something about it by now.Second, many of you are making some pretty
big claims and assumptions about Robertson's contract with A&E, writing
things like, "He must have broke some part of his contract with A&E for
them to suspend him." You have no idea what the contract states, you are
grasping at straws and anything else to make yourselves feel better. I'm
pretty sure no one would ever sign a contract that stated they could not express
their beliefs even if someone directly asks them to.
Technically this is not really a free speech issue. A&E is a private entity,
and as such it can fire an employee for making statements it disagrees with. The
one issue is are they violating Robertson's religious freedom, because they
have to respect the religious rights of employees.
@uwishtooExcept there was NOTHING hateful in it.Just an
expression of his religious faith and convictions.
Re @ Tators; Take the time to read all the words in my post and you'll note
that no where did I say "our country" I said in the old south. A simple
Google search on the religious and church support for slavery by conservative
Christians in the old or pre-civil war south will show that support for slavery
from southern pulpits and newspaper editorials was almost uniform.From Wikipedia "Baptist preachers accommodated themselves to the
leadership of southern society. Rather than challenge the gentry on slavery . .
. they began to interpret the bible as supporting the practice of slavery."
Although they did council paternalistic practices "they preached to slaves
to accept their places and obey their masters." and "Many Baptist
preachers in the South argued in favor of preserving the right of ministers to
be slaveholders".Just because you don't like what history
says doesn't mean you can change it.
I think it is a negative reflection, on Society, when people that have chosen to
drop out of main stream society, like the "Ducks," are held up a good
example, but putting that aside, when you take money, or anything else of value,
from an individual, company or Government, you give up a part of your rights, or
in effect sell a part of your Soul.
"By your friends so shall they know you."What a sad
statement. Had Christ followed this admonishment, he would have stayed away
from all the socially undesirables of the day - and been very much like the
Pharisees. Fortunately, he showed another example. Not sure where I got this
bleeding heart liberal notion that we should view everyone as our brothers and
sisters - regardless - but I think I am going to stick with it… and not
let who my friends are determine who I am.
By your friends so shall they know you.
Glad to see that some rational people are seeing this for what it is. It is NOT
a "freedom of speech" issue. No one is telling him that he cannot be
allowed to spew his untrue statements, the network is merely making it clear
they won't stand for such hate speech by one of their "stars"
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.
re:KaladinIf 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.
@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.
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
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.
Anybody want to answer my question above?
"This sentence is intact," I said, without tact.
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
@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.
@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.
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: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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
@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
@ 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.
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.
@ 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.
"The Creator told us that marriage is between a man and a woman."That, or between a man and multiple women."Foolish
people think that they can change the Creator's plan."See
comment above"No one can give anyone the "right" to
change eternal law. No one can excuse anyone from the consequences of eternal
law."What eternal law do you keep referring to? The eternal law
that says a marriage is between one man and one woman? Surely, living in Utah,
you know that "someone" changed those rules (at least for a while) and
lots of folks followed right along.
re:JoCo Uteoh please enough already!! Do you have a New Testament
and have you read the words of the Apostle Paul especially in the book of
Corinthians? Paul states clearly that homosexual sex is a sin. Is there some
part of that you don't understand?? Phil Robertson didn't just make up
this statement he made to GQ magazine...he was QUOTING the Apostle Paul for
heaven sake. Enough with the nonsense about Christians trying to spread hate
speech - this is simply false and you know it. If you don't believe in the
bible or Christianity that is one thing and that is your choice but we do have
such a thing as religious liberty in this county which implies you don't
have to FEAR for your job if you quote scripture. That religious liberty had mud
thrown all over it this week by the secular left crowd in America who have
tolerance for ONLY those that agree with them and their ideals....everyone else
gets censored and fired!! Reminds me of the old USSR.
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, not the
Government and "Free Speech". Back to school Sarah, Glen and others.
What exactly did Phil say that was so awful? He condemned homosexuality in the
same sentence he did adultery, promiscuity, etc. Query me this: If a homosexual
tv personality said in an interview he found the thought of having relations
with a woman to be abhorrent and that religious folk are all awful, and that
person was kicked off of a popular show you love, would you still defend the
network? Come on, be honest.
@Smitty, I'll bite too. "So how does defending a belief that
encourages hatred of gays a good thing?"Why is it that so many
of the LGBT supporters automatically assume that just because a person
doesn't agree with their ways or views, that he/she automatically hates
them? Sorry, but I have no hatred towards the SSM/LGBT community, even though
I do not agree with their beliefs or views. And I will defend my beliefs until
the day I die. No hatred coming from me!Yet, it seems that as soon
as they find out that someone does not agree with their agenda or support their
views, the LGBT/SSM supporters go out of their way to punish that person. Mr.
Robertson is a great example, and there are countless other examples of this
occurring. It appears to me that it is the SSM/LGBT supports that are
One Hundred percent support of Phil and his beliefs. Tired of right wing
Godless family destruction agenda being shoved down our throats for the pleasing
of a few. Tolerance is the greatest SIN of our time. Tolerance means
anything goes!!!The Holy bible is GODS WORD, there are no Gray areas, it
is simply Black & White!
In the old pre-civil war south speaking for the "Creator" in support of
slavery was standard fare in churches, state legislatures and in newspapers.
Conservative Christians have a remarkable ability to attribute God and his will
to just about any belief or attitude they hold. The old south argued that
slavery was natural, that slaves couldn't take care of them selves, that
all nations had slaves and that eve Jesus supported slavery.Take a
short trip on history on Google and you'll find that conservative
Christians used the bible to; support slavery, fight women's and minority
rights, support segregation.Hiding bigotry behind the bible has
been, and it looks like it still is, a very common crutch for people who need to
feel superior and feel they are the ones who should judge people.
Love Duck Dynasty more than ever. Just bought a new DD T-shirt today!! It's
about time somebody stood up and stated the truth about the "kings new
Linus, is that why he compared them to terrorists?
There is no reason for homosexual activity. Our Creator gave us bodies that
function as the Creator intended. He gave us rules for the use of our bodies. He
told us to "multiply and replenish" the earth. In Leviticus He told us
that man lying with man is an abomination. His purposes include aiding us to
become beings equal to himself.Mr. Robertson didn't mince
words. Anyone can research a book on anatomy and discover for himself that our
Creator had a purpose in making us different."Sin" is not
subjective. It is objective. In other words, if we have been told that an
activity is wrong (a sin) we are held responsible if we engage in that activity.
We have been told by our creator that homosexual activity is wrong. Some people
think that they have the right to debate with our Creator when they can't
even create dirt without His help.If people want to watch TV to get
moral instruction, they might find that TV has nothing to offer.
Homosexuals need to understand that no one (including the Robertson family) is
trying to do harm to them. There is no call to ban homosexuals or exclude them
in the workforce or discriminate against them ...nothing!!! Phil Robertson
simply quoted the Apostle Paul from the New Testament and Paul makes it clear
that homosexual sex is a sin. That is NOT Phil Robertson making that judgement -
that is the 2000 year old New Testament and any reconciliation that a person has
must take place between himself and God regarding sin. If you choose to not
believe in sin that is your call but the facts remain that there are absolute
truths that don't change based on yours or mine opinion. Truth exists in
spite of opinion. Sin destroys and that is why Jesus gave us commandments so we
can avoid sin and or repent from them. The commandments of God free us - bring
us peace - happiness and allow us to progress while sin destroys and stops our
@ShaunThank you Shaun, I totally agree with you. The rest of the
comments are biased by religious believes.....that fortunately are not valid
under the law of the country.
Mr. Smitty, Didn't you get from Mr. Robertson's comments
that he has no hatred for homosexuals? Christians don't hate sinners.
Those who follow Christ remember that Jesus told the woman who was caught in the
act of adultery that he didn't condemn her, but advised her to go and sin
no more. We who are Christians do not hate those who cannot control their
inclinations. We feel sorry for them. We recognize their trial. We encourage
them to stand strong against temptation. We all have temptations of one kind or
another. Life is not easy, but it gets harder when we allow ourselves to float
along on the current of least resistance, which ends in misery. There are
rewards for those who "overcome." Revelations 3:21
The Duck Commanders should end up OWNING A&E for firing Phil on the basis of
RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION. Busses can fire people for certain things, but not on
the basis of discrimination. Had a gay been fired for being gay, the gay
thought police would have had an aneurysm. The street runs both ways. I
can't wait for A&E to become DD!
No one censored this duck dynasty guys speech. 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.If you do
not like A & E's response to suspend their employee then do not watch
When 2% of this population can tell the other 98% what they must believe, then
America is no longer America. We were built upon the fact that our Creator gave
us our rights and that to remain a free nation, we must respect the Creator. We
must set aside all appetites and passions that diverge from the Creator's
plan.The Creator told us that marriage is between a man and a woman.
Foolish people think that they can change the Creator's plan. Foolish
people think that if they silence one person that the words of that one person
will disappear. They are mistaken. Eternal truth is eternal. Just because 2%
of the population wish that our Creator were wrong does not make our Creator
wrong. It just makes those 2% wrong. No one can give anyone the
"right" to change eternal law. No one can excuse anyone from the
consequences of eternal law. A&E can show any amount of bigotry against God
and goodness, but A&E cannot change eternal law nor can A&E absolve
itself from the consequences of promoting immoral behavior.
OK Mr. Smitty, I'll bite."So how does defending a belief
that encourages hatred of gays a good thing?" Because, whether or not you
like it, hate speech is protected by the 1st amendment. The Supreme Court has
already said so. People standing up for the 1st amendment - even if they
don't agree with what is being said - is a good thing."It
seems that people think any belief is relevant as long as you call it a
religious one." Likewise, it seems that some people think any belief is
relevant as long as you call it anti-religious one."Religious
believers should get rid of the backward idea that homosexuality is a moral
issue." OK, let's forget the moral issue and instead let's call it
a biological issue. Explain that one to me. Since we are just high-functioning
animals, how does homosexuality contribute to our biological purpose - the
ultimate purpose of all life, according to biologists - to propagate our
So how does defending a belief that encourages hatred of gays a good thing?
It's as awful as defending a religious belief that blacks are interior and
shouldn't marry white people. It seems that people think any
belief is relevant as long as you call it a religious one. Religious beliefs
only change when more and more people become enlightened and eventually reject
or ignore scripture they used to believe. Who still believes that people should
be killed for working on the sabbath? Who still believes that a father should
kills his daughter for having premarital sex? There are all kinds of awful
passages in the Bible most believers either ignore or try to justify as being
legit in the past. Religious believers should get rid of the
backward idea that homosexuality is a moral issue
Phil Robertson's comments regarding homosexuality are pointed toward
behavior, not identity. Chad Griffin's admonition, quoted in the article,
that Mr. Robertson should "not shame and ridicule them because of who they
are" is misguided. Robertson's comment despaired poor behavior and
highlighted the fact good people can sometime make poor choices in how they act.