• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

'Duck Dynasty' star Phil Robertson suspended for comments on homosexuals

Page 14 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Countless hours of workplace productivity wasted, because you fools can't let this die.

Keep trying to win this pointless debate. :thumbsup:
 
I don't know why this has blown up so much. If you actually read the Bible, it says almost exactly what he said. Basically, he listed off a bunch of sexual sins. He didn't say "if you're gay, you are also screwing sheep." Biblically speaking, all sin is the same - there aren't different levels of it. Gossiping is the same level of sin as greed, sexual transgressions (usually enumerated to include adultery, homosexuality, bestiality, fornication), theft, murder, etc. Catholics believe in some mortal sins, but that's kind of different. Basically, if something is called out as wrong in the Bible, it is a sin. All that this guy is saying is what the Bible says. Any other devout Christian believes the same thing.

There are several issues here:
1. Just because you think something is wrong/against God doesn't mean you don't show them kindness. The guy stated as much in the interview. The old saying is "hate the sin, not the sinner." He (and other devout Christians) know that the Bible says homosexuality is wrong. They are still called to love homosexuals and show them kindness. Stating that something is wrong doesn't equate to hating someone. Christians that are actually following the Bible don't hate gay people - they just disagree with their actions.

2. Freedom of speech couldn't be less involved in this. A&E is a private entity - it's not possible for them to violate your freedom of speech, because you have none when on their show. The guy can say whatever he wants and suffer whatever consequences come due to public disagreement.

3. Religion isn't and shouldn't be the basis for laws in America. We are a diverse nation that has to respect everyone's beliefs and make laws that are based in logic instead of religious belief. I personally think that gay people should be able to get married nationwide, as a gay marriage hurts nobody in the eyes of the non-religious and only hurts the willing participants in the eyes of the religious.
 
joshsquall said:
I don't know why this has blown up so much.
Click to expand...

It's blown up because:

A. People aren't afraid to express their (differing) beliefs.
B. A&E is afraid of backlash so they take drastic measure to put out any/all fires. Ratings = $$$ for them.
C. You can never make everyone happy, someone is always going to be upset.
D. People are idiots.

Freedom of speech goes both ways. He had a right to make statements about what he thought was non-christian. A&E had a right to express what they thought was not-appropriate by "firing" him.

The show circles around a guy (and his family) who made money by making Duck Calls....who gives a flying fuck?
 
While I had no problem with the GQ interview, I do have a problem with this. From http://www.heavy.com/entertainment/2013/12/watch-new-phil-robertson-video-homophobia/ -

A video of Phil Robertson, the now-suspended star of A&E's popular show Duck Dynasty, has been discovered on Youtube containing even more offensive homophobia than in his controversial GQ interview.

The video, which you can watch above, is just one part of a long sermon given by the now-67-year-old Robertson at Berean Bible Church on February 5 and 6, 2010. In the sermon, at about the 1:15 mark in the video, Robertson says that men who have sex with men, and women who have sex with women, will receive the "due penalty for their perversions."

He goes on to say that they are 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."

* * *
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
There are several issues here:
1. Just because you think something is wrong/against God doesn't mean you don't show them kindness. The guy stated as much in the interview. The old saying is "hate the sin, not the sinner." He (and other devout Christians) know that the Bible says homosexuality is wrong. They are still called to love homosexuals and show them kindness. Stating that something is wrong doesn't equate to hating someone. Christians that are actually following the Bible don't hate gay people - they just disagree with their actions.
Click to expand...

Well said. This is such a huge distinction that people always overlook. Real Christians aren't bigots because there's no hatred in the person or even intolerance of the person, it's the act (sin). Which doesn't put us any better than anyone else, as all are sinners and sin to God is essentially all the same. So Christians are just as guilty, the difference is redemption repentance. But biblically, we are to love as Jesus loved, which is everybody. Doesn't mean we have to approve of what they do, but you can separate the two, a person and their actions.
 
skagen5555 said:
Well said. This is such a huge distinction that people always overlook. Real Christians aren't bigots because there's no hatred in the person or even intolerance of the person, it's the act (sin). Which doesn't put us any better than anyone else, as all are sinners and sin to God is essentially all the same. So Christians are just as guilty, the difference is redemption repentance. But biblically, we are to love as Jesus loved, which is everybody. Doesn't mean we have to approve of what they do, but you can separate the two, a person and their actions.
Click to expand...

Don Vito's post above sorta blows that out of the water concerning Phil, at least.
 
nehalem256 said:
So you are okay with firing people for their religious beliefs?😕
Click to expand...

I never said I was. I said earlier in this thread that I didn't have a problem with what he said and didn't feel he should suffer career consequences as a result.

That being said, he was not fired "for his religious beliefs." He was suspended for making comments, on the record and to a reporter, that his employer felt might impair its business interests. That is a matter between him and the network, and I think they acted within their legal rights (albeit in a rather cowardly manner).
 
nehalem256 said:
So you are okay with firing people for their religious beliefs?😕
Click to expand...

He was not fired for his religious beliefs. He was fired for his publicizing his religious beliefs. Are you claiming that A&E had no clue of his religious beliefs prior to this incident, after following him around with a camera for years?

Do you think if after every time someone asked to supersize their meal a McDonald's employee responded: "You are a gluttonous sinner who will spend eternity in hell" that they wouldn't be fired?
 
actuarial said:
He was not fired for his religious beliefs. He was fired for his publicizing his religious beliefs. Are you claiming that A&E had no clue of his religious beliefs prior to this incident, after following him around with a camera for years?
Click to expand...

So then by that logic if someone came out publicly as gay you could fire them for being publicly gay.

They should have just stayed in the closet.

actuarial said:
Do you think if after every time someone asked to supersize their meal a McDonald's employee responded: "You are a gluttonous sinner who will spend eternity in hell" that they wouldn't be fired?
Click to expand...

Workplaces can set reasonable workplace rules. Do you really not see the difference between proselytizing at work and giving a sermon at church?
 
Don Vito Corleone said:
I never said I was. I said earlier in this thread that I didn't have a problem with what he said and didn't feel he should suffer career consequences as a result.

That being said, he was not fired "for his religious beliefs." He was suspended for making comments, on the record and to a reporter, that his employer felt might impair its business interests. That is a matter between him and the network, and I think they acted within their legal rights (albeit in a rather cowardly manner).
Click to expand...

So if one of my employees came out publicly as gay and I felt this impaired my business interests I could legally fire them?
 
nehalem256 said:
So if one of my employees came out publicly as gay and I felt this impaired my business interests I could legally fire them?
Click to expand...

No. Sexuality is a protected class, based on the interpretation of a SC decision this summer. You can fire them if they make public comments that could be detrimental to your business, but you can't fire them just for being gay.
 
nehalem256 said:
So if one of my employees came out publicly as gay and I felt this impaired my business interests I could legally fire them?
Click to expand...

if you were the webmaster for godhatesfags.com and your gay employee did an interview about how great gay people are, you'd have a case.
 
joshsquall said:
No. Sexuality is a protected class, based on the interpretation of a SC decision this summer. You can fire them if they make public comments that could be detrimental to your business, but you can't fire them just for being gay.
Click to expand...
Have we reached the point where everyone is a "protected class" except white males yet?
 
corwin said:
Have we reached the point where everyone is a "protected class" except white males yet?
Click to expand...

white males are a protected class, as far as I'm aware, since you can't be fired specifically because of your gender or race.

I actually don't think sexuality is a protected class, though, at least not federally, so you could still be fired for being straight.
 
Let me ask everyone defending Robertson w/the Freedom of Speech bray......

When the Dixie Chicks made their comments about the Iraq War, did you defend them with "Freedom of Speech" or did you just say "Shut UP!" and "Boycott their records!" ?

I do remember that most of y'all said shut up bitche$, just like Fox News did. So, why the hypocrisy? Is it because Robertson represents something you believe in and the Chicks didn't?
 
Dumac said:
You are misunderstanding what I said. Most conceptions of marriage originate from religious texts. By that, I mean that marriage as a concept was born mostly out of religion. References to marriage are first found in religion. The core tenants of marriage are first found in religion.
Click to expand...
You're missing a lot of knowledge about religion. Marriage as an institution has been found in numerous tribes that don't even have mono-theist religion. It's pretty clear that marriage predates organized religion by a milleniums at least.
 
It's kind of funny that this turned into a thread about gays when the shit he said about black people was 1000x more offensive. The gay stuff is just him spouting bible nonsense, the racist shit is hate spilled from an empty soul who has no respect for his fellow man.

People like this aren't what made america great, no matter how much as they try to convince everyone of this. They are the shit stain on the bottom of Americas shoe that the fat ugly troglodytes that waddle around our country romanticize because if those pieces of shit can become rich and famous then maybe they can too.
 
BudAshes said:
It's kind of funny that this turned into a thread about gays when the shit he said about black people was 1000x more offensive. The gay stuff is just him spouting bible nonsense, the racist shit is hate spilled from an empty soul who has no respect for his fellow man.

People like this aren't what made america great, no matter how much as they try to convince everyone of this. They are the shit stain on the bottom of Americas shoe that the fat ugly troglodytes that waddle around our country romanticize because if those pieces of shit can become rich and famous then maybe they can too.
Click to expand...

This. So much this. People villified Paula Deen for admitting to using a racial slur. She lived in the south pre-civil rights and anyone is surprised she used that word? It doesn't make it any better, but at least she is honest about her use.

His words about blacks in the pre civil rights south is just plain ignorant. He says it never was a problem back then. Riiiiiiight
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top