@sharrona --"There are no contradictions between the different
verses of the Bible"Of course there are. I've quoted you
just a couple of them. Pretending them away doesn't actually change the
facts." The last time it happened, God's judgement
destroyed the world."Ummmm, no it didn't.God
didn't destroy the world for the 1000 years that the Greeks encouraged
homosexual relationships.God didn't destroy the world for the
1000 years that the Romans encouraged homosexual relationships.God
didn't destroy the world for the however-many years the ancient Chinese
culture recognized homosexual relationships as perfectly normal.God
didn't destroy the world for the however-many years the Hindu faith was
teaching about their gods who were born from same-sex unions, and placing
explicit depictions of same-sex relationships on their temples.Reality is often quite different from what some book happens to claim.
RE: contrariuser, "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God" ( II
Timothy 3:15-17).There are no contradictions between the different
verses of the Bible because "spiritual things or spiritual truths are
expressed in spiritual words" (I Cor. 2:13). • God is the
ultimate author of all the books and letters in the Bible though it was spoken
and/or written by the Prophets, the Lord Jesus Christ and the Apostles as they
were inspired and moved by the Holy Spirit. (II Peter1:20-21). Mt
24:37-39, Jesus..( For as in the(Noah’s) days that were before the flood
they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day
that Noah entered the ark,Not only did men marry men and women marry women
in the days of Noah, but they wrote marriage contracts for “those
relationships”, just as the world is doing today, same-sex marriage not
exactly reassuring. The last time it happened, God’s judgement destroyed
the world.Ecc 1:9: “…there is no new thing under the
sun.” Per Solomon, Human’s hearts and their corruptions are the
same now as in former times.
@patriot --"Phil Robertson simply quoted that scripture in
Corinthians."That is not all Robertson has had to say about gay
people.Here's an excerpt from a sermon of his:"Women with women. Men with men. They committed indecent acts with one
another, and they received in themselves the due penalty for their perversions.
They're full of murder, envy, strife, hatred. They are insolent, arrogant
God haters. They are heartless. They are faithless. They are senseless. They are
ruthless. They invent ways of doing evil."Now do you think
he's just "quoting scripture"?
The New Testament - the Apostle Paul - includes homosexual relations along with
adultery and fornication as major sins barring one from Celestial Glory. Phil
Robertson simply quoted that scripture in Corinthians. I guess these are indeed
anti-gay and anti-adultery and anti-fornication scriptures and the New Testament
is a blueprint for qualification to a higher degree of glory. Should Christians
be fearful of reading their scriptures in a public forum - fearing to be fired
or jailed? That is the real question. It this the America we fought for in WWII
against Nazi oppression and cold ward Soviet barded wire walls? The right to
speak with out fear. When does the state now sanction only politically correct
speech with out consequences? Wake liberals because the same PC culture that
fired Phil Robertson can also fire you when you speak out against the state.
@sharrona --"Check Romans 1:22-27 and 1 Cor 6:9)."I already know what Paul said.Paul supported slavery. Paul taught that women were inferior to men. Paul taught that it
was better to remain single than to marry. Paul taught -- in direct
contradiction to Jesus -- that people should never get divorced for any
reason.Do you agree with everything Paul taught?
RE: Contrariuser, Check Romans 1:22-27 and 1 Cor 6:9).Paul also
wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. He writes the same way in all his
letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that
are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do
the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.(Peter) To the
unmarried and the widows I say that it is well for them to remain single as I
do. But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is
better to marry than to be aflame with passion." (1 Corinthians 7:8-9
RSV)Or in this case. Mother Teresa loved those who had same-sex
attractions, but she still called them to purity. In fact, it is precisely
because she loved them that she called them to practice chastity. It is a false
form of compassion to lead others to think that they can find fulfillment by
living outside the will of God.
@sharrona --"Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut
down and thrown into the fire. Therefore by their fruits you will know them.
.(Mt 7:19-20)"Go back and reread the sermon excerpt that Ranch
posted.Wait. I'll post it for you again:"Women
with women. Men with men. They committed indecent acts with one another, and
they received in themselves the due penalty for their perversions. They're
full of murder, envy, strife, hatred. They are insolent, arrogant God haters.
They are heartless. They are faithless. They are senseless. They are ruthless.
They invent ways of doing evil."That's some pretty hateful
fruits, Sharrona. It seems pretty easy to know Robertson's heart from those
RE: Tyler D,, Christians cannot ignore our Lord's commands that instruct
us to make judgments. In John 7:24, Jesus said "Do not judge according to
appearance, but judge with righteous judgment ",Here we are clearly
commanded to judge with righteous judgment. E,g..ye have respect to
him that weareth the gay clothing, and say unto him, Sit thou here in a good
place; and say to the poor, Stand thou there, or sit here under my
footstool(James 2:3).Jesus) Every tree that does not bear good fruit
is cut down and thrown into the fire. Therefore by their fruits you will know
them. .(Mt 7:19-20)
@ - “He said that he believed homosexuality was a sin (Period), then he
went on to name other things that he thought were sins, thus the bestiality
comment came in.”I think tea party people are bad. (note the
Period)I also think Nazis, terrorists, slave traders, child
molesters, and the Hussein family (former dictators of Iraq) are bad.Now I’m not comparing tea party folks to child molesters… just
listing things I think are bad.Head shaking incredulity and sarcasm
off… @Eliyahu – “Or by tolerance, do you mean that
they should be accepting of hatred directed toward them without complaint or
dissent?Great comment!This word “tolerance”
is strangely confusing to many people – used to be only liberals were
confused by it but when conservatives began adopting the “we’re
victims” (e.g., the war of Christmas) strategy too, they became just as
confused.Like somehow it syllogistically follows that tolerance
means we must be tolerant of everything, including intolerance.You
explanation was helpful.
@ Tators:"Gay and Lesbians are constantly asking for tolerance, but
seldom ever offer it to those they are usually addressing... those who perhaps
disagree with them. It's actually quite hypocritical."I'm not sure what you're asking of them. I've yet to hear any
gays make anti-heterosexual comments or remarks, which is what
"tolerance" in that direction would prevent. Or by tolerance, do you
mean that they should be accepting of hatred directed toward them without
complaint or dissent? The gay people I know are quite accepting of straight
people, which is what one would want when asking for "tolerance."
Tolerance doesn't mean that they have to be okay with people attacking
them, treating them as inferiors or evil-doers, and wanting to run them out of
town, or that they should suffer such attacks in silence without replying or
There is a chapter in Larry Millers auto-biography on how the Broke Back
Mountain controversy was handled. Worth reading. (title is Driven) Larry met
with critics and established a dialogue. I don't believe someone just
decides to be homosexual. I am becoming convinced people to some degree are
born that way. I still find same sexrelations abhorrent, however I find nothing
is accomplished by hating people who are different. As President Uchdorf so
eloquently said "don't judge me because I sin differently than
Ranch says, "You don't fire someone for past misdeeds after a contract
is signed; but for continuing behavior..." Go tell that to Paula Dean.As I have said from the very beginning, no one here who is complaining
has actually read what he said. He never compared homosexuality with bestiality.
He didn't compare homosexuality with terrorists.Let me be the
first to break the news to the homosexual crowd --- just because I disagree with
your behavior does not mean I hate you nor does it make me a homophobe, bigot,
or whatever name you want to try to call me.To Christians who
actually read the Bible, homosexuality is a sin. If you do not believe in God,
Jesus or the Bible then move on. Society does not have to accept or
condone the chosen behavior of homosexuality. On this issue, I stand with Christ
and I also stand with Phil. ps, no one has been able to show where
Phil was "anti-gay" in his comments. Ya'll should trying reading
his actual words, not just the headlines.
I find it quite ridiculous when someone quotes the Apostle Paul in the New
Testament and we call that anti-gay. I guess there are also lots of
anti-adulterers , anti-fornicators, anti-Muslim, anti-atheists and so on in the
New Testament. The fact is, Jesus gave commandments and he didn't apologize
in the sermon on the mount or any other platform where he spoke concerning who
he might offend because of his commandments. Commandments in and of themselves
imply a standard that must be met before entrance into heaven is allowed and
those who "choose" to break those commandments will be judged
accordingly by the giver of the commandments. Is that hurtful or offending
somehow? I guess Christianity as a whole is offending because it is anti-sin.
Someone is going to be offended when someone tells them their choice is wrong.
The real question here is do we have to now parse scripture to make sure it
doesn't offend someone or can we still feel free to quote from the bible
without fearing a pink slip in the mail from the word police?
I have heard and read the comments and would have no problem if the DN had of
used the language in this article, but likewise respect their choice not too.
Prefacing this response to the article and the DN I will also write that I would
feel the same way about Phil Robertson. His choice of language is suspect, but
what to you expect from somebody who has gained celebrity status for standing up
for what he believes in and being.... uh oh - I have no politically correct
words here to describe Phil Robertson's character without offending his
ancestors, neighbors, family and the like. It should be stated I heard or read
nothing in the interview that I have not heard in a Sociology and Biology class
in high school or college.Well, being of above 50, born
rural-american, white and somewhat backward I have just got to say - Show em
what us rednecks are made of Bill and take the show to another network!!!!
@cougarsare1;Google: "Phil Robertson Homophobic Past Resurfaces In
2010 Sermon"It's a video of him saying exactly what was
quoted. You can read right along with him preaching.You don't
fire someone for past misdeeds after a contract is signed; but for continuing
@RanchYou say: "Comparing homosexuals to those who are into
"bestiality" is certainly anti-gay."When did he compare
homosexuals to bestiality? He never did. You are listening to the media and
not reading it for yourself. No where in his comments did he make this
comparison. You are suppose to stop at periods. If not, everything can be
taken out of context. He said that he believed homosexuality was a sin
(Period), then he went on to name other things that he thought were sins, thus
the bestiality comment came in.Got to read first before declaring
understanding, it is important.
Ranch -A) Please cite a source, otherwise it is a made-up quote.B) Why didn't A&E fire Phil prior to this weeks' comments if
these others were made previously?
@Tekakaromatagi – “The Bible condemns a lot of things that
Christians believe are immoral.”I’m struggling to
understand your point here – mine was, are you (or any religious person)
following ALL of these prescriptions or do you pick & choose based on other
non-religious criteria (like personal prejudice or disgust)?And yes,
if your “Good Book” says, for example, black people are cursed by
God and thus inferior (either morally or in some larger sense), then yes, you
are a bigot? Hiding your bigotry behind religion does not change that fact.Re: GLAAD – being made to feel inferior and 2nd class has a funny
way of bringing out the worst in people – not an excuse, just an
explanation. @bandersen – “Comparing single blend
fabrics to destroying God's construct of family and eternal progression is
hardly coherent.”I completely agree!I’ve
been trying to comprehend the incoherence and moral relativism of the Bible for
years and still can’t. Best I can tell “obey God” is about the
only consistent commandment offered. But that doesn’t stop
believers from beating us over the head with their Bronze Age book…
"Women with women. Men with men. They committed indecent acts with one
another, and they received in themselves the due penalty for their perversions.
They're full of murder, envy, strife, hatred. They are insolent, arrogant
God haters. They are heartless. They are faithless. They are senseless. They are
ruthless. They invent ways of doing evil."-- Phil R."But in 2013 it is still perfectly OK for people to publicly state that
queer people are disordered, corrupt, evil beings. And if you call someone a
homophobe for being a homophobe, suddenly you're the bigot....Because while I love homophobes like Westboro for making my job easy, our real
work is uncovering the wicked truth hiding beneath those who claim they love us
while they bludgeon us with their Bibles."-- Noah Michelson
@pepinoI do have a school age child and while teachers do use some
of the words Phil used they do not use them in the same vile context sorry. As
fro California again they do not utilize crude words and context to describe gay
marriage or homosexuality and they do not teach anything I do not already teach
@Charles S;Please google the article:"Dear Phil
Robertson, You Can't Group Homosexuality With Terrorism and Bestiality and
Then Use the Bible as Your Defense"by Michaelangelo SignorileHe explains it much better than I could and he has more than 200 words
to explain it in.
@Charles S;Comparing homosexuals to those who are into
"bestiality" is certainly anti-gay.Everyone should go take a
look at Bagley's cartoon over at the Tribune. It's priceless!
Contrariuser - Did A&E fire Phil for using the names of body parts? Or did
they fire him (indefinitely suspend) because he declared that homosexual acts is
sexual sin?Furthermore - Did Phil declare himself perfect and
sinless? As a born-again Christian preacher, I dare say he recognizes himself as
a sinner like the rest of us.He was asked what he considered
immoral. He said it. Declaring certain behavior or acts as immoral is
"negative speech," apparently.
Tyler: Comparing single blend fabrics to destroying God's construct of
family and eternal progression is hardly coherent. Common sense has been thrown
out the door regarding biological truth, so any "myopoic obsession"
criticism of Christianity regarding gay marriage is unfounded.
@Tators --"I'm quite certain the article did not mention
the Dixie Chicks at all... not once. "It also didn't
mention:the Tea Party (one vote and Redshirt)Martin Bashir
(Redshirt)medical supply manufacturers (oragami)sex ed in schools
(pepino)Miley Cyrus (David)Dennis Rodman (Shaun)or many
other things.So what??These are discussion threads.
Discussion happens."On the other hand, this article is about a
person's moral beliefs"You think the Dixie Chicks
weren't expressing moral beliefs when they spoke out against Bush's
policies?? Seriously??As Reverend Nate Pyle said: "By no means
am I advocating that you don’t say what you believe. But don’t get
graphic with body parts and innuendos and slurs to make your point. Those have
consequences."Speech has consequences. Don't be surprised
when negative speech has negative consequences.
I hope all the people on the less religious left remember this discussion when
some leftist in Hollywood says or does something a large group doesn't
like, and their life, career and reputation gets destroyed to pander to this
group.When this happens to someone you agree with and the
religious-right or his employer destroys him... I want you to remember how you
said "it's all fair and fine, it's not like they are throwing him
in solitary for his comment".---I agree it's
not a first amendment issue, but so many who defend A&E ending his show...
are the same people who expressed OUTRAGE when Larry Miller wouldn't show
Broke Back Mountain in his theater (it's his business, and completely a
decision he has the right to make). But do you remember all the first
amendment complaints from the gay community then?? I think what
happened was OK in BOTH situations (it's A&E and Miller's right to
decide). But be consistent. You can't complain about the Broke Back
decision, and then have no censorship concerns when A&E does the same thing.
I challenge anyone, including the writer of this article AND the headline
writer, to show any comment of Phil's that was "anti-gay". The correct terminology is homosexual behavior. Please
actually READ what he said and then come prove his comments fit the headline of
@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.
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.
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?
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.
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?
@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.
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 #22) 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.
@ 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.
NT,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.
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
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.
@ 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.
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.
Contrariuser,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 simplySupport of the
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.
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.
@ 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
@Shaun"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.
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,
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.
Actually, all I want is to be able to go to work each day and not have to worry
about what derogatory comments are going to be said about me during the day. I
would like to not have to be so protective of my private life that nobody at
work really knows much about me other than what I do while on the clock. I would
like to be able to go running in the neighborhood park without being assaulted
because my v-neck T-shirt looks too gay. I would like to go through an entire
week without being reminded that so many of my neighbors are uncomfortable with
who I am. I don't want to take control of this country, but I
want to finally be allowed to take control of my own life.
Really, Contrairius, we have had enough of gay "victimhood".
Hasn't the Matthew Shepherd sham shown you that much of the perceived
discrimination is made up? How about the lesbian waitress who made up the story
of the couple who stiffed her on a tip because she was gay? Progressives are
putting on a full court press to further gay causes with a lap dog media doing
most of the heavy lifting. Phil Robertson, however inarticulate, was only
giving his opinion on homosexuality. He doesn't appear to hate gays, he
just thinks homosexual activity, along with extramarital heterosexuality is a
sin. Is it hateful to express an opinion contrary to your narrative now?
And the continued notion that "pro-gay" comments are the opposite of
"anti-gay" comments. They are not. "Pro-gay" comments are the
opposite of "pro-straight" comments. "I have the right to
marry" is the same as "I have the right to marry." The problem with
the "anti-gay" crowd is they never stop at "my marriage is
great." They always have to add "and yours isn't." And,
finally, that anything involved with Duck Dynasty is national news.
There are several things bothering me about people's responses to this
incident.First, and most troubling, is how many people don't
understand the nature of our right to free speech. The government did not knock
down his door and throw him in solitary for his comments; his employer chose to
terminate him. We each have the right to say whatever we want; there are
consequences, however.Second, I have heard conservatives rant that
employers have the right to run their companies however they want. Teachers
unions are bad; schools should be able to fire any teacher they want at any time
for any reason. Employers have the right to tell employees they can't wear
a hajib or use the break room for daily prayers.
I still don't think his comments were "anti-gay". I don't
think he is "anti-gay". I don't think he dislikes any gay person.
It was just his religious beliefs, and his opinion. Is anything short of full
acceptance of gay marriage and gay sexual behavior as "normal"...
"Anti-Gay"?I think you would be able to find a few people
who think gay sexual behavior is not "normal". Is that
"anti-gay"?For me gay sexual behavior is not natural. Does
that make me "anti-gay"?---On the drive home a
lady from Utah called in and identified herself as gay and Mormon. And she
expressed that she didn't see his comments as hateful or anti-gay. They
were just HIS opinion and HIS thoughts on the subject. She didn't agree
with him, but that's OK. He has the right to his own opinion.She also said she didn't experience persecution here in Utah or in her
church, and that she has remained completely active in her church and feels
nothing but love and support from her religious friends and neighbors. That
kinda surprised me, but in a good way.
@DN Subscriber 2 --"No man should be forced to reject their
religious beliefs or suppress them when asked direct questions. "The question was "what do you find sinful?". There are MANY ways to
answer that question without attacking people."This incident is
part of the left's chronic demands for "Tolerance for me, but not for
thee!""Two words: Dixie Chicks.@Tators --"The article and Chris B's comment was all about homosexuality
and people's right to express their opinion of it."The
article is about freedom of speech, tolerance, and consequences for speaking
one's mind.The Dixie Chicks case is a perfect example of those
issues."No one working for a public company ever gets in trouble
for pro-homosexualality comments. But people often do for voicing their opinion
when it's opposing to it... "Bigotry does tend to have
consequences. No surprise there.Robertson is under contract to
A&E. They have every right to enforce their contract.Conservatives believe in employers' rights -- right?
I remember when the Bulls were playing the Jazz and Dennis Rodman made comments
about Mormons. It got him a fine of 50k from the NBA. Many people in this
community were up in arms and outraged that he made those comments but nobody
was defending his right to free speech.
@Meadow Lark Mark"Whatever happened to free speech?"The 1st amendment is about gov't intrusion on free speech. A company
The LBGT movement didn't suspend him. A&E did. Write and express your
opinion to them.Free speech isn't violated.
Meadow Lark Mark said:"I do agree with Chris above that if our views
agree with an opposing group then everything is ok, but if we express a view
that disagrees with what someone else thinks then we are a bigot or worse.
Whatever happened to free speech?"You are completely free to say
racist and bigoted things, that's your free speech.However, you
are responsible for what you say. Taking responsibility, where have
I heard that?Being "free speech" doesn't change what is
@ Contrariusiests:As has happened so often in the past, you are
off-subject again. The article and Chris B's comment was all about
homosexuality and people's right to express their opinion of it. Obviously,
it's a controversial moral-based subject.Yet your reply to
Chris B's comments was all politically based. The Dixie Chicks and people
disagreeing with the U.S. President have nothing to do with homosexuality or a
person's right to express his opinion about it. BYW: That's what this
article and all the other comments are about. Perhaps you should re-read and try
again.We do live in a double standard world. No one working for a
public company ever gets in trouble for pro-homosexualality comments. But people
often do for voicing their opinion when it's opposing to it... even if they
are simply being honest and sincere, which this guy was being. Gay
and Lesbians are constantly asking for tolerance, but seldom ever offer it to
those they are usually addressing... those who perhaps disagree with them.
It's actually quite hypocritical.Chris B and JNA are exactly
correct in this regard.
No man should be forced to reject their religious beliefs or suppress them when
asked direct questions. This incident is part of the left's
chronic demands for "Tolerance for me, but not for thee!"This also reflects the left's long standing war on religion, indeed all
religions, except Islam, of whom they are very protective even though Islam
condemns much of what the left adores. Remember, A&E previously objected to
the Robertson's prayers at the end of the show.By focusing on
this particular incident A&E clearly wants to exert more control over
content of the show. Hey, it's their network- they can sir what they want,
or not. Clearly the Robertson's lifestyle with hunting, guns, family and
religion all conflict with A&E's left-leaning beliefs. If they lose
their biggest show, they appease their base. If they get the Ducksters to dump
their religion, family, gun and hunting values, they score even bigger
points.Robertsons are free to work or not for A&E (subject to
contract limitations) and I hope they leave A&E and take their show
elsewhere. I'm with Phil, and now despise A&E.
Robertson also shares an interesting rationale for voting for Mitt Romney over
President Obama, saying he favored the candidate because he was from Salt Lake
City, a safer city than Chicago. Awe another informed conservative.TeaPublican said: A&E does not have the right to fire him for his
religious beliefs that come right from the Bible!Your right, because
he is protected by anti-discrimination laws which conservatives find unnecessary
except when it comes to defending religion. The part your missing is he's
under contract, they do own him, as long as he's taking their money. Of
course as is daily pointed out by our conservative posters "he could just
get another job, no body is forcing him to work for A & E.
Give em enough rope...Phil continued..."Where we lived was all
farmers. The blacks worked for the farmers. I hoed cotton with them. I'm
with the blacks, because we're white trash," he said.
"They're singing and happy. I never heard one of them, one black
person, say, I tell you what: These doggone white people;not a word!...
Pre-entitlement, pre-welfare, you say: Were they happy? They were godly; they
were happy; no one was singing the blues.
1. A&E took action on this before there was any "firestorm" about
his comments. This is their right as a corporation -- to look out for what they
see as their own interests, and is a value cherished by conservatives. He can
always get a job as a Fox commentator. 2. I'm much more
disturbed by his notions about blacks in the pre-civil rights era than I am
about his opinions on homosexuality. Does he honestly believe that blacks who
worked in the cotton fields in the south were so happy with their lot that they
spent their days singing as they worked, and that they were never treated badly
by whites? I think his memory has been befuddled by too many watchings of his
bootleg copy (it's never been officially released) of Song of the South.
Miley Cyrus acts out on stage and there is no censorship, no corporate backlash.
Instead, her artistic style is celebrated.I see an inconsistency
and hypocrisy here.A&E would not fire Robertson for his comments
if A&E did not fear consumer backlash. I doubt most Americans give his
comments a 2nd thought and are ready to move on. But the gay community, as a
small minority, possesses inordinate amount of power to destroy lives.If A&E kept Robertson on the show, I would venture to bet that the shows
popularity would be unchanged, and perhaps even grow.
Boycott A and E and any sponsors that pull their ads. Gays Are 4% of the
population!but a huge percentage of Hollywood. We need to make ourselves heard
and drive the narrative. The Gay agenda is leeching into too many important
First I think there is a lot of hurtful words said on both sides of the fence.
It is interesting though that this man expressed his opinion and gets condemned
for it. I do agree with Chris above that if our views agree with an opposing
group then everything is ok, but if we express a view that disagrees with what
someone else thinks then we are a bigot or worse. Whatever happened to free
@sammyg --"In defense of Phil Robertson... he was baited by the
media."Oh please.The question was "What, in your
mind, is sinful?". There are MANY ways to answer that question without
attacking people.Oh, and amongst other wild accusations, he even
blamed Shintoism for Pearl Harbor. Ummm. Really??@JNA --"Number 1, the gay and lesbian community has nothing against them, they
are the most protected group on the planet. "Gay people are
still EIGHT TIMES more likely to be the victims of violent crimes than straight
people.In some countries, you can still be PUT TO DEATH just for
being gay.And you think that gays are "the most protected group
on the planet"?? Seriously??Welcome to reality.
This is all a test for all of us to see if we will defend God’s will and
HIS standards! It’s all in our hands! This IS America and Phil has the
right to say what he wants to say! A&E does not have the right to fire
him for his religious beliefs that come right from the Bible! You should be
able in OUR America to say whatever you want without consequences …..after
all this IS America! He has every right to make whatever comments he wants to
make and his employer does NOT have the right to fire or suspend him for
comments they THINK are detrimental to their company! I am so happy that our
Republican leaders have come out in support of Phil and of God! Hang on
America! We Republicans ARE taking back OUR America in 2014 and 2016! And we
will take back our free speech too! “P n P” in 2016! Perry n
Palin! Yes, it IS going to happen!
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.
(cont.) Does this insinuate hatred towards the group or individual? No. I have
made friends with several people of the LGBT community and find them to be
wonderful people, and not all of them spitefully spit out words of offense, most
especially when there is no offense to be taken. He was asked a specific
question about his opinion and offered his opinion. I certainly do not whine and
banter about the distasteful shows I see that are not in agreement with my
standards, but simply choose not to watch them.
It is a disgrace to see that in the United States, the place I feel blessed and
fortunate to be a citizen of cannot uphold true Constitutional rights of free
speech. Surely the broadcasting/media group has the prerogative to contract the
individuals they choose and undoubtedly Mr. Robertson's comments were
tactless and perhaps misconstrued to be hateful. "Sinful" is an explicit
denotation of what is considered "immoral" by the individual or source
by which the word is expressed. A well-versed Christian understands clearly that
all mankind is considered to be God's children, but certain behaviors and
lifestyles like homosexuality are considered sinful. Does this incriminate or
threaten a group or person when the word is used? No.
mcbillay:He did not equate homosexuals with animals. Just because he
listed homosexual behavior and bestiality in the same sentence when giving a
list of things he thought were wrong, does not mean he equates the two. It is
deceitful to suggest that.If I were asked to list things I thought
were wrong and I included both telling lies and abusing children in that list it
doesn't mean I equate liars with child molesters.
Number 1, the gay and lesbian community has nothing against them, they are the
most protected group on the planet. Number 2. They are the least open minded
individuals you will ever meet. If they want your opinion they will give it to
you. They can say and do whatever they want however they will never allow the
same from anyone else. Believe me folks, the gay and lesbians do not want equal
protection, they want total control of this country. Do not be fooled
@Chris B --"Liberals are tolerant only of those who think as
they do"I have two words for you: Dixie Chicks. They
were trashed by conservative TV commentators, boycotted, dumped by their
sponsors, AND got death threats. One radio station even suspended its DJs
because the DJs played Dixie Chicks songs.Even Merle Haggard said,
"I don't even know the Dixie Chicks, but I find it an insult for all
the men and women who fought and died in past wars when almost the majority of
America jumped down their throats for voicing an opinion. It was like a verbal
witch-hunt and lynching."And all that just for daring to
disagree with the President. And you think *liberals* are bad? Ha.
The outrage is not because he got very graphic. It is because he expressed his
view that homosexuality is a sin. Notice the lack of outrage at him comments
about idolatry, prostitution and other forms of sin. A&E has evry right to
not use him. However, what are the chances they would have done anything is he
said Mormons or Catholics are going to burn, or if he made fun of polygamists?
The fundament fact is that most religions condemn homosexuality and
most people believe it is unnatural. A&E can take their stand, but they
will have to deal with the consequnces of their action as well.
In defense of Phil Robertson... he was baited by the media. And
what could this Louisiana born, backwaters and backwoods raised born-again
Christian man say? He said what was on his mind and in his heart. Nevermind his
red-neck vocabulary that elitists and snobby media types love to exhibit as
Southern Christian values stupidity.The gist of this story is that
today's media is the liberal agenda's lapdog. Once again if it's
Christian values, it's open season. A&E should have told
the GLAAD group to put a sock in it and grow a thicker skin. What Phil said was
simply... reality TV... and isn't the media selling a lot of that these
days? Or is it something else?
KalindraI find your comment to be a little contradictory.. That is if you
have children??The Words Mr Robertson used to describe human anatomy are
also used in schools to teach children.Maybe you're not aware of this
because your children are not of age or maybe you dont have children????Either way, in my effort to mittigate your anger and outrage at the comments
he made on human anatomy but were not posted on KSL, I hope you can piece and
reconciliation now that you're aware that his words are thaugt to children
in schools.BTW, if you go the CA school system and learn what they teach
kids in schools about homosexuality, you truely should be outraged.
I simply can't believe people think that these comments were called for.
A&E stood up for homosexuals, and I applaud them for doing so. In a world
where so much hate against them is spewed, it is a relief to see that. The state of New Mexico also stood up for homosexuals by legalizing gay
marriage. I commend them for their courage in doing so. And this
coming from a state that claims to have an accepting, compassionate, and loving
culture towards gays. This is a stand people here will regret one day.
Whenever someone voices a truth about some type of behavior, act, or choice, the
guilty are easily offended and generally rant and rave in objection. Those who
embrace truth don't act that way.
Kalindra:I read this article and I read the comments Phil made in
the interview with GQ. He was stating his opinion in a magazine totally
unrelated to Duck Dynasty or A&E. Please tell me/us you have never made
comments to others DN would not print. GQ magazine is not
"G" rated. Phil made no threats of violence or even
suggested violence or hate but he made no bones about his feelings of sinful
practices. If anyone voices any thing about their feelings regarding
homosexuality being a sin, it is immediately classed as Anti-gay. The militance
and vile bitterness that is hurled by the GLBGT groups is far worse than 99% of
stated opinions. (Ok 98%)The historical records of the Bible and
Book of Mormon as well as many other religious texts tell of the prophets being
stoned and murdered by those who indulge in perverse practices when called to
repent. Sodom and Gomorra were destroyed not so much for the perversions being
practiced as it was the violence against those who dared to speak out against
such things. The pattern is becoming very eerily the same today.
Let me Para phrase; All we need for evil to triumph is for good people to do
nothing or say nothing.
The gay rights movement have become bullies and all they want to do is attack
and silence anyone who disagrees with them. I hope they won't be allowed
to do this any more.
Another example of how misinformed we are about freedom of speech laws. The
man's religious and morality opinions have not been censored; they have
been published and are available for anyone who wishes to read them.
A&E--the network that has made him somewhat of a celebrity--has free speech
rights as well. What is broadcast on their network expresses their views.
Because they disagree with what he has to say, they have every right to decide
that he will not be a part of the show for a while. It's the network's
image they are interested in preserving--not his.The same rights go
for every media outlet. The Deseret News, FOX News, NBC, KSL, The Salt Lake
Tribune, CNN, The Huffington Post, and others all have different missions and
choose to present their own views to the world. You won't find the same
opinions from each, and that's their right to choose what will be published
A couple of years ago, an Arizona-based medical supplies manufacturer, Vante,
dismissed CFO Adam Smith for berating a Tucson Chick-fil-A employee for working
at what he considered a homophobic company. I don't recall any conservative
outrage over this "violation" of Mr. Smith's free-speech rights.
Why? Well, as any intelligent pol knows, the only constitutional right to free
speech occurs between the government and the people. Speech is only protected
against the action of the state to unreasonably limit the speech. If the state
is not involved in limiting the speech then there is no constitutional right to
I have never seen "Duck Dynasty," but unless Phil has been living under
a rock, he had to know when he said what he said that it was going to start a
firestorm. People who do watch the show have told me that the family has set an
example of living their religious beliefs. You can catch more flies with honey
than vinegar. I agree with Pastor Pyle, as quoted above.
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
carried not cared
there is a reason the DN will not print the rest of phials comment it is to vile
and descriptive to print in an LDS owned paper. If he would have simply stopped
at what the DN was willing to print I would have no problem defending him but as
is often the case he cared it to far into the very distasteful and vile. I thought this warning by Paastor Pyle was quite sage "Granted,
Christians who believe that homosexuality is a sin and choose to voice that
belief in such graphic and unhelpful language will probably bear the brunt of
such consequences more than others," Pyle wrote. "Just know that as you
prepare to speak. By no means am I advocating that you don’t say what you
believe. But don’t get graphic with body parts and innuendos and slurs to
make your point. Those have consequences."