Quantcast
Faith

HGTV drops brothers amid controversy over Christian views

Comments

Return To Article
  • scwoz gambier, oh
    May 27, 2014 6:19 a.m.

    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.

  • Tekakaromatagi Dammam, Saudi Arabia
    May 25, 2014 9:58 a.m.

    @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 that.

  • Roundtrip Thomasville, GA
    May 24, 2014 7:38 a.m.

    I will no longer watch HGTV.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    May 21, 2014 12:32 p.m.

    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 history.

  • The Wraith Kaysville, UT
    May 21, 2014 10:13 a.m.

    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.

  • USU-Logan Logan, UT
    May 21, 2014 9:53 a.m.

    @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.

  • Cougsndawgs West Point , UT
    May 21, 2014 9:17 a.m.

    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.

  • Tiago Seattle, WA
    May 21, 2014 9:12 a.m.

    @Shugoro
    The 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.

  • Brahmabull sandy, ut
    May 21, 2014 9:05 a.m.

    Shugoro

    There 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.

  • Shugoro Driggs, ID
    May 21, 2014 8:47 a.m.

    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 behavior.

  • ordinaryfolks seattle, WA
    May 21, 2014 8:02 a.m.

    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?

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    May 21, 2014 7:20 a.m.

    "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.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    May 21, 2014 7:11 a.m.

    @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.

  • Tiago Seattle, WA
    May 21, 2014 7:10 a.m.

    @Badgerbadger
    It 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 audience?

  • Furry1993 Ogden, UT
    May 21, 2014 6:18 a.m.

    @Badgerbadger 10:33 p.m. May 20, 2014

    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.

    -------------------

    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.

  • TA1 Alexandria, VA
    May 21, 2014 5:49 a.m.

    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).

  • high school fan Huntington, UT
    May 21, 2014 2:16 a.m.

    And I have the right not to watch HGTV! This is nothing but caving to pressure, intolerance lives.

  • Badgerbadger Murray, UT
    May 20, 2014 10:33 p.m.

    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.

  • sharrona layton, UT
    May 20, 2014 10:10 p.m.

    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)

  • Demiurge San Diego, CA
    May 20, 2014 9:08 p.m.

    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.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    May 20, 2014 7:47 p.m.

    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.

  • USU-Logan Logan, UT
    May 20, 2014 7:45 p.m.

    @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.

  • sleej Springville, UT
    May 20, 2014 4:55 p.m.

    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.

  • Brahmabull sandy, ut
    May 20, 2014 3:26 p.m.

    patriot

    Where 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.

    RedWings

    One 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.

  • RedWings CLEARFIELD, UT
    May 20, 2014 3:07 p.m.

    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....

  • Tyler D Meridian, ID
    May 20, 2014 12:26 p.m.

    “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 important.

  • Christopher B Ogden, UT
    May 20, 2014 12:17 p.m.

    Just more from the "tolerance" crowd.

    If you disagree with them, they now think you shouldn't have a job?

    New low for these "tolerant" liberals

  • Christopher B Ogden, UT
    May 20, 2014 12:17 p.m.

    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.

  • liberty or ...? Ogden, UT
    May 20, 2014 12:04 p.m.

    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).

  • patriot Cedar Hills, UT
    May 20, 2014 11:52 a.m.

    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.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    May 20, 2014 7:15 a.m.

    "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.

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    May 20, 2014 4:45 a.m.

    This could all be about

    1) 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?