This could all be about1) a business making a business decision
based on profit.2) a decision based on an anti religious bias irrespective
of financial impact.What indication is there that this is not all
about #1 above?
"The Benham brothers are not expressing extreme anything, they are merely
practicing rational Christianity."I'm sorry, but there is
nothing "rational" about bigotry. If you don't like something,
don't do it; but to work to deny equality, to prevent others from enjoying
the same legal benefits you enjoy, is not very "Christian" at all.
this is nothing more than the Nazi like PC culture in America attempting to
sensor and silence any thought or action that doesn't align itself with
its atheistic - polluted - evil ideology. We live in a time when
good is evil and evil is good. Murdering children is considered good and
respecting the sacred nature of life is considred evil. What separates us from
the Nazi party of the 1930's and 1940's? What an evil and godless
society America has turned into. It makes you ashamed to admit you
are an American anymore.
Ranch hand you advocate and place your moral decision in a religion which if you
do believe you have seriously not studied. the term love the sinner not the sin
has nothing to do with bigotry. Christ did love sinners but his injunction was
still go thy way and sin no more. Just because punishment for divine law is not
automatic and personal choice is allowed doesn't make something morally and
by nature wrong acceptable (which even evolutionists if they believe there own
dogma must accept it violates the laws of natural selection and continuation of
the species through genetic transmital.) Don't cherry pick parts you like
and disregard what you don't like.Jow Blow although I agree with your
statement you would then have to by your own moral logic defend the rights of
religious business owners who oppose your views or be dubbed hypocritical (by
the way one of you previous posts about religious small business owners refusing
to do work or business for gays you took the exact opposite stance and said they
didn't have that right because they were in the public sector).
Ranchhand,Opposing gay "marriage" is very Christian. It
would be un-Christian to support or even condone it. So if you're
espousing Christian values, which your comment suggests you are, you
couldn't be more wrong that opposing gay "marriage" is not
Christian. In fact, Christianity demands it - love the sinner, hate the sin.
Just more from the "tolerance" crowd.If you disagree with
them, they now think you shouldn't have a job?New low for these
“The Benham brothers are not expressing extreme anything, they are merely
practicing rational Christianity.”Homosexuality is mentioned
exactly twice in the NT, both times by the misogynist Paul and never by Jesus.
It is mentioned only five times in the OT, and in most cases it is conflated
with being inhospitable or pagan worship practices.But to hear some
Christians today you would think it was #1 or 2 on the Ten Commandments.As others have said if you don’t believe in gay marriage,
don’t have one. But enough already with the poor me victim nonsense
because your Bronze Age prejudices no longer get to dictate society’s
morals.You want to impress people with your “rational
Christianity?” Try loving your neighbor (enemies included), feeding the
poor, caring for the sick, being meek, being merciful, being a peacemaker, not
being angry, turning the other cheek, praying in private, not storing up
treasures, not judging or worrying… all the stuff Jesus said was
Chastity, which is sexual relations only with an opposite sex spouse to whom one
is legally and lawfully wedded, is a Christian commandment and value that dates
back to the beginning of time. Adam and Eve were to commanded to cling to each
other an no one else. Gender is essential to humanity, and erasing it through
SSM, etc is to the detriment of society and future generations. Just look at
Europe today.Tyler D - I know many Christins who do all of the
things you list in your last paragraph, and are also opposed to SSM. Opposing
SSM has nothing to do with hate or bigotry - it is a defense of religious
rights. There are plenty of bigots on the other side who seem to be allowed
their special brand of hate.The Left has no monopoly on moral
certitude. They have become what they abhored in the "Moral Majority"
of the 80s - self-righteous zealots bent on silencing any opinion they disagree
with. I know, because I used to be very liberal then. Now I cannot support
those opinions or the Democratic party because of the hypocrisy and bigotry so
pervasive in it....
patriotWhere are you getting the idea that killing children is
considered good? If you are talking about abortion, I am quite sure most people
don't think it is 'good' even if they support another
person's right to choose to do it.RedWingsOne
fundamental flaw with your argument is that even if sexual relations outside of
marriage is a sin and immoral, it is still legal. You seem to think that because
homosexuality is a sin, that it should also be illegal. Do you not understand
that you cannot put your religious views onto other people? What about smoking
and drinking? If they are considered sin (which they are by the dominant Utah
religion) then why are they still legal? Answer: agency. One person may think
one thing is a sin, it doesn't mean that another person doesn't have
the right to choose. You are allowed to do as you see fit, and so others should
be allowed to do the same. There has been much bloodshed over the
course of history in the name of god, and religion. Again, bloodshed, and murder
of those who don't agree with the majority. That is scary.
Yes, HGTV has added gays and lesbians to all their shows (who represent roughly
4% of the U.S. population), but HGTV has drawn the line at letting someone have
a personal opinion about their Christian faith (which represents about 80% of
the population). Our country is wacko.
@Christopher B"If you disagree with them, they now think you
shouldn't have a job?New low for these "tolerant"
liberals"Didn't One Million Moms force Ellen DeGeneres to
lose her job simply because they disagree with her? Can I say new low for One
Million Moms? If One Million Moms can demand JC Penny to fire Ellen
DeGeneres, I don't see why people cannot demand HGTV to pull off Benham
brothers' show. they are simply practicing their free speech, just like One
Million Moms practiced their free speech and asked JC Penny to fire Ellen
DeGeneres. Why Benham brothers' show is cancelled but Ellen is
still the spokesperson of JC Penny? Because nowadays, anti-gay is no longer OK,
it is considered as discrimination, even among many Christians, especially among
young Christians. Anti-gay is also considered bad for business. That is
why HGTV dropped the show. That is why so many business leaders lobbied AZ
Republican governor to veto the anti-gay bill. That’s why One Million Moms
could not oust Ellen. Of course, the fact that One Million Moms actually only
have about 40,000 members also doesn't help.
Religion is no longer owed deference or a free pass in the market of ideas.
Discrimination against gay people is wrong, and 'god says so' is no
longer a sufficient argument to the contrary. The free pass for religion is
slowly expiring. Yes, I'm liberal. Don't call me tolerant.
If you run your mouth in a way that may bring harm to your employer, say HGTV,
then they will let you go regardless of what you say. There is no right to
preach about the sins of others from your employers pulpit. There are other
employers, maybe one of the conservative Christian networks, that will love you
for expressing what people like these brothers say. That's capitalism and
freedom in action.Quit worrying about the sins of others and take
care of your own and you won't have a thing to worry about.
RE: RanchHand, Haven’t you read the Scriptures?” Jesus replied.
“They record that from the beginning ‘God made them male and
female.’” And he said, “‘This explains why a man leaves
his father and mother and is joined to his wife, and the two are united into
one. Since they are no longer two but one, let no one split apart what God has
joined together.”(Mt 19:4-6)RE: Tyler D, you would think it
was #1 or 2 on the Ten Commandments. Honor your Father and
Mother”[not significant other],which is the 'First commandment with a
promise." God distinguishes father and mother from all other persons on
earth, chooses them and sets them next to Himself, occupying the highest place
in our lives next to God. (Ephesians 6:2,3)
So if the host of a new show came out as openly and outspoken homosexual, could
his/her show rightfully be dropped because of it?Yeah, I didn't
think so, oh ye intolerant left.
And I have the right not to watch HGTV! This is nothing but caving to pressure,
In church last Sunday - we had an Apostle speak. I had many members crawling
past me to get in and out of the aisle over a three plus hour period and not one
said "Excuse me please". Everyone was dressed perfectly and yet we are
worried about why this show was removed from HGTV? I think we have
some more basic problems to fix before we worry about why this show was
canceled. (Gratitude, humility charity or lack thereof to begin with).
@Badgerbadger 10:33 p.m. May 20, 2014So if the host of a new show
came out as openly and outspoken homosexual, could his/her show rightfully be
dropped because of it?Yeah, I didn't think so, oh ye intolerant
left.-------------------Did your hypothetical host take
actions that would directly impact the civil rights and well-being of the
station's viewers? Did the viewers withdraw support from the show or
station as a result? Were there not enough supportive viewers added to the
station's viewing public as a result of the host being on the show? If the
host supported and campaigned for causes that threatened the well-being of the
station's viewers and, as a result, threatened the station's bottom
line then yes, s/he could be fired.
@BadgerbadgerIt is telling that you can't see the difference between
someone who is openly gay and someone who is openly opposed to rights for gay
people.A person coming out as gay does not make them against anyone. It
should not be controversial (and to most people now it is not).A Christian
living his or her religion is also accepted and celebrated in America and no one
is being fired for being Christian or talking about their faith.A better
comparison would be if a host of a show came out as stridently anti-Christian,
openly opposed to rights for Christian people, in favor of laws prohibiting
Christians to marry each other, and was often found protesting in front of
Christian churches. Can you see how a network might not want someone to
represent their network if that person is actively opposed to equal rights for
Christians, gays, blacks, the disabled, or any other group that is part of their
@liberty or;I probably know more about your religion than you do.
"Love the sinner hate the sin"... "Judge not lest ye be judged by
that same measure". Yes, it is bigotry when you refuse to others the
benefits you enjoy; even if you base it on your "religious" beliefs.
@ChrisB;No, I think Christ would disagree with you on
that.@sleej;There is a vast difference between
"having a personal opinion" and using that "opinion" to the
detriment of others. Working to deny rights to women or LGBT isn't just
an "opinion".@sharrona;I've read the
"scriptures". In the beginning there was an amoeba. It evolved.@Badgerbadger;A so-called "Christian" network would
drop them, yes. Oh ye intolerant right.
"It makes you ashamed to admit you are an American anymore."I guess you and Michelle Obama do have something in common after all....I saw these guys on a local TV interview a little while back when this
all came down, and interestingly enough they didn't hold any ill will
toward HGTV. They spoke about their beliefs and kept the conversation in
positive terms - as you would think true Christians should.It is a
shame that tolerance only seems to flow one way right now. These guys are not
anti-gay, they count many gays as their friends. But they also hold true to
their beliefs. You can love someone, and yet still not agree with everything
they do. Unfortunately, that distinction is seldom made.
Many conservative religionists are all too happy that Hobby Lobby Inc is
challenging the Affordable Health Care Act and the requirement that certain
forms of birth control be covered for their employees. They do this so under
the guise of their religious beliefs. (Also, the people labor under the
uninformed opinion - not based on fact - that one or the other of these methods
of birth control constitute abortion.) I don't agree with them, but they
are free to pursue their legal options.HGTV fired a couple of dudes
for being outspoken about what is now an unpopular belief, namely opposition to
same sex marriage. HGTV could assert a right of conscience belief if they
chose, but do not appear to be doing so. And the dudes could sue if they had a
case. (Probably don't) That the conservative religionists
don't see that the parallels, and their own hypocrisy in this matter is
astounding. If Hobby Lobby has the right to make decisions for their employees
based on their conscience, why does HGTV?
OK Brahmabull... "One person may think one thing is a sin, it doesn't
mean that another person doesn't have the right to choose. You are allowed
to do as you see fit, and so others should be allowed to do the same" So what about bestiality, incest, drugs, late term abortion (any
abortion for that matter), murder, rape ...Without a strict moral
code, who gets to decide? Without religion, where do we draw the line? Either we
are divinely purposed, or we have simply evolved and can rationalize any
ShugoroThere are basic human rights, and there are the other things
you mention that goes into a completely different sphere. "So
what about bestiality, incest, drugs, late term abortion (any abortion for that
matter), murder, rape"clearly murder and rape are not basic
human rights, they affect a second party. Same with abortion. That is why they
are widely illegal. Drugs are illegal as well. Incest is illegal. Bestiality is
illegal. You are right, where do we draw the line. I agree that it
needs to be thought out carefully. But you can't equate bestiality with
sexual relations with another human. They are not the same. We all know that an
animal cannot consent to that. 2 adult humans can consent. I think that is where
the line is drawn regarding that. As far as drugs - Don't ask me, I
don't have all of the answers. I would say that prescription drugs are
becoming as problematic as the bad drugs out there. It is a slippery slope. I
don't think religion determines a person's morals though. It can
influence them, but there are plenty of people with morals, and no religion.
@ShugoroThe difference between the things you mention and gay marriage is
harm, consent and coercion. There is a public interest in laws that protect
people from harm and coercion and prevent people from being acted on without
consent.Two consenting adults in a loving relationship (gay or straight)
involves no harm or coercion. The government has no legitimate interest in
prohibiting, discouraging, or preventing gay people from forming long lasting
pairings. On the contrary, there is a strong interest in encouraging commitment
and stability in these relationships just like in straight people.
This isn't about tolerance or intolerance it's about business. HGTV
has the right to remove hosts or people that it perceives hurts their business
by their actions or the things they say. Perfectly legal for HGTV to do so...and
for A&E in regards to Phil Robertson. In the end when it comes to TV shows
it's all about ratings and what the viewing public demands. A&E had to
face the consequences and fallout of trying to drop Phil
Robertson...consequence: he's back on Duck Dynasty because viewers demanded
it. Same goes for HGTV...if they are forced by the public and viewers to
reinstate this show then that's business. That's all any of this
is...business. Just like the NBA had a right to dismiss Donald Sterling, HGTV
and any other media outlet has the right to dismiss someone they feel hurts
their branding and viewership. Lets not make this something it's
not...it's not about free speech and it's not about hate and
intolerance. It's about business.
@UtahBlueDevil"These guys are not anti-gay, they count many gays as
their friends."And In the 60s, there were people say they are
not racists, they count many blacks as their friends, just don’t think
black and white should get married.
Chris B., patriot and these others are right.When something happens
that bothers advocates of gay rights they shouldn't protest, they need to
be tolerant of things they find offensive and not say a word. Don't they
know that the first amendment only applies to conservative christians? It
couldn't be more plain "Congress shall make no law... abridging the
freedom of speech but only where conservative christians are concerned".
Organizing boycotts, protests, and other such activities should only be done by
conservatives against the Girl Scouts, Starbucks, Ben & Jerry's and
other liberal companies. People advocating for gay rights simply
shouldn't speak out in the public square. They really just need to learn to
keep quite and hide in a dark corner.
UtahBlueDevil says:"You can love someone, and yet still not
agree with everything they do. Unfortunately, that distinction is seldom
made."The distinction you failed to make is that "not
agreeing with everything they do" is quite a separate issue from actively
working to prevent them doing "everything they do".@Shugoro;Religion isn't the end-all, be-all you seem to think
it is. In fact, religion has frequently been the agent of evil throughout
I will no longer watch HGTV.
@Ranch:"I'm sorry, but there is nothing "rational" about
bigotry. If you don't like something, don't do it; but to work to deny
equality, to prevent others from enjoying the same legal benefits you enjoy, is
not very "Christian" at all."I am not sure if you fully
understand. The Benham brothers (as well as myself and many other people) do
not believe that that it is self-evident that there is a God-given inalienable
right for two people of the same gender to have their relationship recognized in
the same way that an opposite gender relationship is recognised.Once
you understand that then you will see that it is perfectly acceptable for them
to promote their opinions just like it is acceptable for you to promote yours.
We don't all believe the same way that you do and there is nothing with
I stopped watching this channel years ago when it's true purpose was
obvious. So it isn't a problem for these two brothers it is an opportunity
to find a decent place for their show.