Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin and others defend 'Duck Dynasty's' Phil Robertson

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Aloha Saint George Saint George, Utah
    Dec. 23, 2013 2:57 p.m.

    Humans are the only race that will live in an unstable environment, live in in long enough, until they really believe it's stable. Kinda funny all the rhetoric about a 'black kettle'. It's black, so what. But a lot of people spend a lot of time trying to convince themselves that it's not black.

  • Really??? Kearns, UT
    Dec. 22, 2013 10:10 a.m.

    I will believe Sarah Palin's sincerity when she sits down in front of the cameras with Martin Bashir to discuss the first amendment. I will believe Glenn Beck's sincerity when he also offers Dan Savage a column on his website or a show on his network. I will believe Mike Huckabee's sincerity when he poses for a Christmas photo with Barack Obama, tours Temple Square with the National Jewish Democratic Council, and offers to buy Chick-fil-a sandwiched for anyone who has contributed money to the HRC this past year.

    They are not outraged about free speech here, they saw an opportunity to snag a little bit of attention for their own purposes. It's a political ploy for each one of them, and don't buy into their false outrage.

  • Contrariuserer mid-state, TN
    Dec. 22, 2013 6:10 a.m.

    @ SS --

    "Again, making claims without so much as an example."

    Google these: "nondisclosure agreement", "gag clause", "promise of silence", "morals clause"

    From one article on this controversy:

    "TheWrap spoke to multiple legal experts who said that, if Robertson's contract contained a morals clause, as if often the case with on-air talent, than the reality TV star has little in the way of legal recourse. Often, such morals clauses note that, if talents speaks or acts in a way that insults or denigrates people, the producer reserves the right to suspend or terminate that talent. And typically, defining such language or actions is left to the discretion of the studio; basically, "if we say it is so, it is." Tough to mount a legal argument against that."

    "Entertainment attorney Neville Johnson also noted that talent agreements generally tend to favor the networks. “If you see these talent agreements, they basically say they can do everything except torture you,” Johnson said."

    ""He has no First Amendment [complaint] against A&E," Eugene Volokh, a professor at UCLA School of Law told TheWrap. "

  • SS MiddleofNowhere, Utah
    Dec. 22, 2013 1:03 a.m.

    Again, making claims without so much as an example. I am almost certain that his contract with A&E doesn't explicitly mention that he cannot express his personal beliefs on his free time. The fact is he does it all of the time on the show, so what is the difference? People are just hoping that's what it is so they can feel validated. Really, it doesn't matter because neither you or I really know what's in his contract, so why are people guessing that's what "it must be."

  • Contrariuserer mid-state, TN
    Dec. 21, 2013 9:48 p.m.

    @ SS --

    "I'm pretty sure no one would ever sign a contract that stated they could not express their beliefs even if someone directly asks them to."

    Actually, people sign that type of contract all the time.

  • SS MiddleofNowhere, Utah
    Dec. 21, 2013 9:21 p.m.

    First off, you can bet if this were a member of the LGBT community who had expressed their beliefs in a separate venue, and then suspended from their job, the whole nation would be up in arms and Obama probably would have said something about it by now.

    Second, many of you are making some pretty big claims and assumptions about Robertson's contract with A&E, writing things like, "He must have broke some part of his contract with A&E for them to suspend him." You have no idea what the contract states, you are grasping at straws and anything else to make yourselves feel better. I'm pretty sure no one would ever sign a contract that stated they could not express their beliefs even if someone directly asks them to.

  • John Pack Lambert of Michigan Ypsilanti, MI
    Dec. 21, 2013 4:03 p.m.

    Technically this is not really a free speech issue. A&E is a private entity, and as such it can fire an employee for making statements it disagrees with. The one issue is are they violating Robertson's religious freedom, because they have to respect the religious rights of employees.

  • the truth Holladay, UT
    Dec. 20, 2013 7:11 p.m.


    Except there was NOTHING hateful in it.

    Just an expression of his religious faith and convictions.

  • JoCo Ute Grants Pass, OR
    Dec. 20, 2013 6:43 p.m.

    Re @ Tators; Take the time to read all the words in my post and you'll note that no where did I say "our country" I said in the old south. A simple Google search on the religious and church support for slavery by conservative Christians in the old or pre-civil war south will show that support for slavery from southern pulpits and newspaper editorials was almost uniform.

    From Wikipedia "Baptist preachers accommodated themselves to the leadership of southern society. Rather than challenge the gentry on slavery . . . they began to interpret the bible as supporting the practice of slavery." Although they did council paternalistic practices "they preached to slaves to accept their places and obey their masters." and "Many Baptist preachers in the South argued in favor of preserving the right of ministers to be slaveholders".

    Just because you don't like what history says doesn't mean you can change it.

  • donquixote84721 Cedar City, UT
    Dec. 20, 2013 6:03 p.m.

    I think it is a negative reflection, on Society, when people that have chosen to drop out of main stream society, like the "Ducks," are held up a good example, but putting that aside, when you take money, or anything else of value, from an individual, company or Government, you give up a part of your rights, or in effect sell a part of your Soul.

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    Dec. 20, 2013 5:46 p.m.

    "By your friends so shall they know you."

    What a sad statement. Had Christ followed this admonishment, he would have stayed away from all the socially undesirables of the day - and been very much like the Pharisees. Fortunately, he showed another example. Not sure where I got this bleeding heart liberal notion that we should view everyone as our brothers and sisters - regardless - but I think I am going to stick with it… and not let who my friends are determine who I am.

  • Archie1954 Vancouver, BC
    Dec. 20, 2013 4:48 p.m.

    By your friends so shall they know you.

  • uwishtoo MESA, AZ
    Dec. 20, 2013 4:38 p.m.

    Glad to see that some rational people are seeing this for what it is. It is NOT a "freedom of speech" issue. No one is telling him that he cannot be allowed to spew his untrue statements, the network is merely making it clear they won't stand for such hate speech by one of their "stars" (cough cough)

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    Dec. 20, 2013 3:40 p.m.


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

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

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

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

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

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

  • patriot Cedar Hills, UT
    Dec. 20, 2013 3:04 p.m.


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

  • AzPete Mesa, AZ
    Dec. 20, 2013 2:57 p.m.

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

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

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

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

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

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    Dec. 20, 2013 2:35 p.m.

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

  • AFVet Lindon, UT
    Dec. 20, 2013 2:30 p.m.

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

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

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

  • Kaladin Greeley, CO
    Dec. 20, 2013 2:27 p.m.

    Anybody want to answer my question above?

  • C.J. Greeley, CO
    Dec. 20, 2013 2:25 p.m.

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

  • mcdugall Murray, UT
    Dec. 20, 2013 2:25 p.m.

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

  • Schnee Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 20, 2013 2:24 p.m.

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

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

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

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

  • Shaun Sandy, UT
    Dec. 20, 2013 2:18 p.m.

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

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

  • HappyHeathen Puyallu, Wa.
    Dec. 20, 2013 2:19 p.m.

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

  • Tators Hyrum, UT
    Dec. 20, 2013 1:38 p.m.

    @ Shaun:

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

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

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

  • John Harrison Sandy, UT
    Dec. 20, 2013 1:35 p.m.


    He wasn't fired. He is currently suspended.

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

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

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

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Dec. 20, 2013 1:21 p.m.

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

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


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


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

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

    Dec. 20, 2013 1:20 p.m.

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

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

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

  • J Thompson SPRINGVILLE, UT
    Dec. 20, 2013 1:00 p.m.

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

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

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

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

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

  • Shaun Sandy, UT
    Dec. 20, 2013 12:55 p.m.

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

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

  • Tators Hyrum, UT
    Dec. 20, 2013 12:51 p.m.

    @ JoCo Ute:

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

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

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

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    Dec. 20, 2013 12:47 p.m.

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

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

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

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

  • Tators Hyrum, UT
    Dec. 20, 2013 12:37 p.m.

    @ Shaun:

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

    @ ebur:

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

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

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    Dec. 20, 2013 12:35 p.m.

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

    That, or between a man and multiple women.

    "Foolish people think that they can change the Creator's plan."

    See comment above

    "No one can give anyone the "right" to change eternal law. No one can excuse anyone from the consequences of eternal law."

    What eternal law do you keep referring to? The eternal law that says a marriage is between one man and one woman? Surely, living in Utah, you know that "someone" changed those rules (at least for a while) and lots of folks followed right along.

  • patriot Cedar Hills, UT
    Dec. 20, 2013 12:35 p.m.

    re:JoCo Ute

    oh please enough already!! Do you have a New Testament and have you read the words of the Apostle Paul especially in the book of Corinthians? Paul states clearly that homosexual sex is a sin. Is there some part of that you don't understand?? Phil Robertson didn't just make up this statement he made to GQ magazine...he was QUOTING the Apostle Paul for heaven sake. Enough with the nonsense about Christians trying to spread hate speech - this is simply false and you know it. If you don't believe in the bible or Christianity that is one thing and that is your choice but we do have such a thing as religious liberty in this county which implies you don't have to FEAR for your job if you quote scripture. That religious liberty had mud thrown all over it this week by the secular left crowd in America who have tolerance for ONLY those that agree with them and their ideals....everyone else gets censored and fired!! Reminds me of the old USSR.

  • TA1 Alexandria, VA
    Dec. 20, 2013 12:34 p.m.

    Clearly the celebrities and politicians who are complaining about "Free Speech" need to go back and understand the issue of "Free Speech" here. It is contract law between the Robertson family and A&E and it appear that it was the Robertson family that may have violated the contract, not the Government and "Free Speech". Back to school Sarah, Glen and others.

  • Kaladin Greeley, CO
    Dec. 20, 2013 12:31 p.m.

    What exactly did Phil say that was so awful? He condemned homosexuality in the same sentence he did adultery, promiscuity, etc. Query me this: If a homosexual tv personality said in an interview he found the thought of having relations with a woman to be abhorrent and that religious folk are all awful, and that person was kicked off of a popular show you love, would you still defend the network? Come on, be honest.

    Dec. 20, 2013 12:22 p.m.

    @Smitty, I'll bite too. "So how does defending a belief that encourages hatred of gays a good thing?"

    Why is it that so many of the LGBT supporters automatically assume that just because a person doesn't agree with their ways or views, that he/she automatically hates them? Sorry, but I have no hatred towards the SSM/LGBT community, even though I do not agree with their beliefs or views. And I will defend my beliefs until the day I die. No hatred coming from me!

    Yet, it seems that as soon as they find out that someone does not agree with their agenda or support their views, the LGBT/SSM supporters go out of their way to punish that person. Mr. Robertson is a great example, and there are countless other examples of this occurring. It appears to me that it is the SSM/LGBT supports that are encouraging hatred.

  • Hector123 Casper, WY
    Dec. 20, 2013 12:17 p.m.

    One Hundred percent support of Phil and his beliefs.
    Tired of right wing Godless family destruction agenda being shoved down our throats for the pleasing of a few.
    Tolerance is the greatest SIN of our time.
    Tolerance means anything goes!!!
    The Holy bible is GODS WORD, there are no Gray areas, it is simply Black & White!

  • JoCo Ute Grants Pass, OR
    Dec. 20, 2013 12:16 p.m.

    In the old pre-civil war south speaking for the "Creator" in support of slavery was standard fare in churches, state legislatures and in newspapers. Conservative Christians have a remarkable ability to attribute God and his will to just about any belief or attitude they hold. The old south argued that slavery was natural, that slaves couldn't take care of them selves, that all nations had slaves and that eve Jesus supported slavery.

    Take a short trip on history on Google and you'll find that conservative Christians used the bible to; support slavery, fight women's and minority rights, support segregation.

    Hiding bigotry behind the bible has been, and it looks like it still is, a very common crutch for people who need to feel superior and feel they are the ones who should judge people.

  • Hector123 Casper, WY
    Dec. 20, 2013 12:13 p.m.

    One Hundred percent support of Phil and his beliefs.
    Tired of right wing Godless family destruction agenda being shoved down our throats for the pleasing of a few.
    Tolerance is the greatest SIN of our time.
    Tolerance means anything goes!!!
    The Holy bible is GODS WORD, there are no Gray areas, it is simply Black & White!

  • patriot Cedar Hills, UT
    Dec. 20, 2013 12:11 p.m.

    Love Duck Dynasty more than ever. Just bought a new DD T-shirt today!! It's about time somebody stood up and stated the truth about the "kings new clothes".

    Dec. 20, 2013 12:07 p.m.

    Linus, is that why he compared them to terrorists?

  • J Thompson SPRINGVILLE, UT
    Dec. 20, 2013 12:04 p.m.

    There is no reason for homosexual activity. Our Creator gave us bodies that function as the Creator intended. He gave us rules for the use of our bodies. He told us to "multiply and replenish" the earth. In Leviticus He told us that man lying with man is an abomination. His purposes include aiding us to become beings equal to himself.

    Mr. Robertson didn't mince words. Anyone can research a book on anatomy and discover for himself that our Creator had a purpose in making us different.

    "Sin" is not subjective. It is objective. In other words, if we have been told that an activity is wrong (a sin) we are held responsible if we engage in that activity. We have been told by our creator that homosexual activity is wrong. Some people think that they have the right to debate with our Creator when they can't even create dirt without His help.

    If people want to watch TV to get moral instruction, they might find that TV has nothing to offer.

  • patriot Cedar Hills, UT
    Dec. 20, 2013 12:04 p.m.

    Homosexuals need to understand that no one (including the Robertson family) is trying to do harm to them. There is no call to ban homosexuals or exclude them in the workforce or discriminate against them ...nothing!!! Phil Robertson simply quoted the Apostle Paul from the New Testament and Paul makes it clear that homosexual sex is a sin. That is NOT Phil Robertson making that judgement - that is the 2000 year old New Testament and any reconciliation that a person has must take place between himself and God regarding sin. If you choose to not believe in sin that is your call but the facts remain that there are absolute truths that don't change based on yours or mine opinion. Truth exists in spite of opinion. Sin destroys and that is why Jesus gave us commandments so we can avoid sin and or repent from them. The commandments of God free us - bring us peace - happiness and allow us to progress while sin destroys and stops our progression.

  • ebur Charlotte, NC
    Dec. 20, 2013 11:57 a.m.

    Thank you Shaun, I totally agree with you.
    The rest of the comments are biased by religious believes.....that fortunately are not valid under the law of the country.

  • Linus Bountiful, UT
    Dec. 20, 2013 11:33 a.m.

    Mr. Smitty,
    Didn't you get from Mr. Robertson's comments that he has no hatred for homosexuals? Christians don't hate sinners. Those who follow Christ remember that Jesus told the woman who was caught in the act of adultery that he didn't condemn her, but advised her to go and sin no more. We who are Christians do not hate those who cannot control their inclinations. We feel sorry for them. We recognize their trial. We encourage them to stand strong against temptation. We all have temptations of one kind or another. Life is not easy, but it gets harder when we allow ourselves to float along on the current of least resistance, which ends in misery. There are rewards for those who "overcome." Revelations 3:21

  • Tumbleweed Centerville, UT
    Dec. 20, 2013 11:27 a.m.

    The Duck Commanders should end up OWNING A&E for firing Phil on the basis of RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION. Busses can fire people for certain things, but not on the basis of discrimination. Had a gay been fired for being gay, the gay thought police would have had an aneurysm. The street runs both ways. I can't wait for A&E to become DD!

  • Shaun Sandy, UT
    Dec. 20, 2013 11:16 a.m.

    No one censored this duck dynasty guys speech. He is free to believe or say what he wants, but his employer does not have to give him a platform to express beliefs through his celebrity status through the network.

    If you do not like A & E's response to suspend their employee then do not watch the network.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    Dec. 20, 2013 11:06 a.m.

    When 2% of this population can tell the other 98% what they must believe, then America is no longer America. We were built upon the fact that our Creator gave us our rights and that to remain a free nation, we must respect the Creator. We must set aside all appetites and passions that diverge from the Creator's plan.

    The Creator told us that marriage is between a man and a woman. Foolish people think that they can change the Creator's plan. Foolish people think that if they silence one person that the words of that one person will disappear. They are mistaken. Eternal truth is eternal. Just because 2% of the population wish that our Creator were wrong does not make our Creator wrong. It just makes those 2% wrong.

    No one can give anyone the "right" to change eternal law. No one can excuse anyone from the consequences of eternal law. A&E can show any amount of bigotry against God and goodness, but A&E cannot change eternal law nor can A&E absolve itself from the consequences of promoting immoral behavior.

  • Brave Sir Robin San Diego, CA
    Dec. 20, 2013 10:56 a.m.

    OK Mr. Smitty, I'll bite.

    "So how does defending a belief that encourages hatred of gays a good thing?" Because, whether or not you like it, hate speech is protected by the 1st amendment. The Supreme Court has already said so. People standing up for the 1st amendment - even if they don't agree with what is being said - is a good thing.

    "It seems that people think any belief is relevant as long as you call it a religious one." Likewise, it seems that some people think any belief is relevant as long as you call it anti-religious one.

    "Religious believers should get rid of the backward idea that homosexuality is a moral issue." OK, let's forget the moral issue and instead let's call it a biological issue. Explain that one to me. Since we are just high-functioning animals, how does homosexuality contribute to our biological purpose - the ultimate purpose of all life, according to biologists - to propagate our species?

  • Mr. Smitty Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 20, 2013 10:38 a.m.

    So how does defending a belief that encourages hatred of gays a good thing? It's as awful as defending a religious belief that blacks are interior and shouldn't marry white people.

    It seems that people think any belief is relevant as long as you call it a religious one. Religious beliefs only change when more and more people become enlightened and eventually reject or ignore scripture they used to believe. Who still believes that people should be killed for working on the sabbath? Who still believes that a father should kills his daughter for having premarital sex? There are all kinds of awful passages in the Bible most believers either ignore or try to justify as being legit in the past.

    Religious believers should get rid of the backward idea that homosexuality is a moral issue

  • Trouble Vancouver, WA
    Dec. 20, 2013 10:30 a.m.

    Phil Robertson's comments regarding homosexuality are pointed toward behavior, not identity. Chad Griffin's admonition, quoted in the article, that Mr. Robertson should "not shame and ridicule them because of who they are" is misguided. Robertson's comment despaired poor behavior and highlighted the fact good people can sometime make poor choices in how they act.