Phil Robertson and freedom to have an opinion

[werepossum]

It is "racist and bigoted" when one group wishes to deny the other group certain civil rights.

Which is not what this thread is about.

As far as I know Phil never said anything about taking civil rights away from gays. he just disagreed with their lifestyle.

I do not see how disagreeing with a certain lifestyle makes someone a bigot.

Agreed, and well said. I have two thoughts here:
1) A&E has every right to suspend or fire him if they believe his remarks are injurious to their business.
2) A&E is about to discover that A&E needs Duck Dynasty a lot more than Duck Dynasty needs A&E.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

It doesn't surprise me coming from anybody. Bigotry is based on disgust purity and the worship of group normality, all moral values irrelevant to the liberal brain. Folk who show disgust are disgusting to people who don't have that reaction because it looks to them like mental illness, dangerous instability, and reminds them of the conservative love of the Spanish Inquisition. The conservative brain defect can be very dangerous and liberals know it. You have to forgive them if conservatives make liberals sick. People have the same instinctive reaction to snakes and spiders. Bigotry is ugly and caused by belief that ugly things exist.

It's the Religious fundamentalist and fanatics that foster and spread these kind of pathological beliefs. Nobody who is sane wants to be infected with mental illness. Liberals just want to protect us from that. A mother will become quite aggressive protecting her kids. You have to decide where the real issue starts, in the mind of the fanatic who threatens people not similarly infected, or the violent reaction of people to the source of the infection. It's all part and parcel of the same thing, but where does it start? I fault first the bigots who want to infect the world with their bigotry. We won a war against Germany in which maybe 50 million people died to snuff such bigotry out. And now we are infected again by our own home grown bigots who are ready to start it all over again.

And why, because the conservative brain is a brain possessed and run by fear and the reactions that psychosis manufactures in others. In Germany at least, they no longer allow people to belong to the Nazi party. The death of 50 million people can change ones perception of what you can openly believe. The Nazis also weren't very good with gays, I believe.

So, while the fear of homosexuality is quite irrational from the point of view of a growing number of modern people, the fear of the conservative minds unified behind madmen can still be considered a rational one, in my opinion.

In short, there may be some moral high ground for liberal bigotry, but let's deal with the worst bigots first so it doesn't get any worse than it already is.

So using your rationale...shouldn't we make sure racism doesn't get any worse than it already is before dealing with the "worst bigots" (I assume you mean conservative bigots)? What motivates you to effectively give liberals a "pass" on their blatant bigotry?

 

[CLite]

So then if an employee came out as gay publicly you could fire them for doing so right?

A company policy that said you can't publicly state you are gay, Christian, Muslim, etc. would be in violation of federal law.

A company policy that said you can't publicly state that people are going to hell would not be in violation of federal law.

You can't possibly be this stupid?

*edit* Actually, to be technically correct, a company could fire you for things normally protected. For instance the Catholic church could fire a priest that publicly stated he was Muslim. This falls under the clause that if the protected right is an undue burden or impediment to business. However, in general to address your retarded question if being gay is not an impediment to work then such a company policy would violate federal law.

 

[Daverino]

So then if an employee came out as gay publicly you could fire them for doing so right?

No and you're really fucking stupid for even typing that.

 

[nehalem256]

A company policy that said you can't publicly state you are gay, Christian, Muslim, etc. would be in violation of federal law.

A company policy that said you can't publicly state that people are going to hell would not be in violation of federal law.

You can't possibly be this stupid?

So its okay to tell religious people they can't talk about their religion.

its not okay to tell gay people they can' talk about their homosexuality?

My point is this seems to be a pretty basic contradiction as both are supposedly protected classes.

 

[nehalem256]

No and you're really fucking stupid for even typing that.

Why? That is the exact same thing being argued in this case.

He is free to hold is religious views in private. But if they become public knowledge you can fire him.

So a gay person is free to be as gay as they want in private. But if they make it public knowledge then a business should be free to fire him.

 

[Brovane]

Agreed, and well said. I have two thoughts here:
1) A&E has every right to suspend or fire him if they believe his remarks are injurious to their business.
2) A&E is about to discover that A&E needs Duck Dynasty a lot more than Duck Dynasty needs A&E.

I agree with this. I really think that A&E is going to discovery that they need Duck Dynasty a lot more than Duck Dynasty needs A&E.

 

[Daverino]

Why? That is the exact same thing being argued in this case.

It's not the exact same thing. It has been explained to you over and OVER and OVER that they are not even REMOTELY the same thing. The fact that you can neither understand nor accept that can only be explained by one of two reasons:

A. You do understand and accept it and you're just being an asshole
B. You're too stupid to understand a simple explanation.

Either way, I find myself having nothing but contempt for you.

 

[TechBoyJK]

Actually I don't want him suspended. Better thing for A&E to do and make reality more real. Sit Mr. Duck down and make him watch 2-3 hours of things done to blacks in the south pre-civil rights. Ask him the question again, were blacks better off before civil rights laws??

Juxtapose his response next to Bobby Jindal, Ted Cruz, Sarah Palin, et al.

That would make sense if his statements were racist.

They're only racist to the people looking to get offended. Anybody else looking at it objectively understand what he was trying to say.

 

[nehalem256]

It's not the exact same thing. It has been explained to you over and OVER and OVER that they are not even REMOTELY the same thing. The fact that you can neither understand nor accept that can only be explained by one of two reasons:

A. You do understand and accept it and you're just being an asshole
B. You're too stupid to understand a simple explanation.

Either way, I find myself having nothing but contempt for you.

No it was never explained except to say "THATS THE WAY IT IS. THE COURTS SAID SO."

That is an explanation on why. Its a statement that liberals, and judges, are massive hypocrites and we should have zero faith in our court system.

 

[CLite]

So its okay to tell religious people they can't talk about their religion.

its not okay to tell gay people they can' talk about their homosexuality?

My point is this seems to be a pretty basic contradiction as both are supposedly protected classes.

There is no basic contradiction.

A gay person *publicly* saying a bunch of people are going to hell - fired.
A Christian *publicly* saying a bunch of people are going to hell - fired.

A Christian saying he's Christian - not fired
A gay person saying he's gay - not fired.

Please continue.

 

[nehalem256]

There is no basic contradiction.

A gay person *publicly* saying a bunch of people are going to hell - fired.
A Christian *publicly* saying a bunch of people are going to hell - fired.

A Christian saying he's Christian - not fired
A gay person saying he's gay - not fired.

Please continue.

All the guy did, effectively, was to say he was a Christian. And give more depth over what his religion specifically says. He wasn't an ass about it.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Why are you people wasting your time with nehalem? He never listens to anything anyone says and always copies the exact same argument that's been refuted by a dozen people. He's either incapable of reading and comprehending, in which case he isn't worth your time, or he's trolling, in which case he isn't worth your time. He's literally never changed his mind on a single position he's argued here. You have a better chance of discovering cold fusion using nothing but Mentos and Diet Coke than convincing him of a single point, regardless of how it's framed. Just ignore him and move on to people who are interested in a discussion, not shouting their opinion through a bullhorn and ignoring everything else.

 

[Daverino]

No it was never explained except to say "THATS THE WAY IT IS. THE COURTS SAID SO."

One more time:

1. Making a public statement which your employer finds deleterious to their business model can lead to you being punished if you are an at will employee.

2. You cannot be discriminated at work based on your race, ethnicity, religion, gender, handicapped status and, in some states, sexual orientation.

If a gay man is interviewed by a local newspaper and talks about the best gay bars in the neighborhood, it is unlikely that his employer would find that deleterious to his or her business.

If the gay may is starring in gay porn and advertising that with internal emails to everyone at his business, he will not be protected by his sexual orientation.

If a straight teacher talks about the joys her marriage brings to her life on TV, it is unlikely that her employer would find that deleterious to his ore her business.

If a straight teacher takes nude selfies on her iPhone and they then get distributed to her class, she will not be protected by her gender.

If a black man is photographed at an NAACP rally, it is unlikely that his employer would find that deleterious to his or her business.

If a black man makes a YouTube video about how he wants to kill all the white people in his neighborhood, he will not be protected by his race.

So one more time: A gay person existing in public is NOT the same thing as doing an interview for a magazine and stating that all gay people are going to burn in hellfire.

Get it?
Probably not.

 

[CLite]

All the guy did, effectively, was to say he was a Christian. And give more depth over what his religion specifically says. He wasn't an ass about it.

You're protected from being fired for following a religion, you are not protected if you make disparaging remarks about <insert any group>. It does not matter if you believe your religion is founded upon such disparaging remarks.

 

[nehalem256]

One more time:

1. Making a public statement which your employer finds deleterious to their business model can lead to you being punished if you are an at will employee.

So as I said coming out PUBLICLY as gay would seem to be a public statement. So if a business owner finds that to be deleterious to his business he would be free to fire them.

Glad we are in agreement.

2. You cannot be discriminated at work based on your race, ethnicity, religion, gender, handicapped status and, in some states, sexual orientation.

Yep, once again we are in agreement.

If a gay man is interviewed by a local newspaper and talks about the best gay bars in the neighborhood, it is unlikely that his employer would find that deleterious to his or her business.

If the gay may is starring in gay porn and advertising that with internal emails to everyone at his business, he will not be protected by his sexual orientation.

If a straight teacher talks about the joys her marriage brings to her life on TV, it is unlikely that her employer would find that deleterious to his ore her business.

If a straight teacher takes nude selfies on her iPhone and they then get distributed to her class, she will not be protected by her gender.

If a black man is photographed at an NAACP rally, it is unlikely that his employer would find that deleterious to his or her business.

If a black man makes a YouTube video about how he wants to kill all the white people in his neighborhood, he will not be protected by his race.

So one more time: A gay person existing in public is NOT the same thing as doing an interview for a magazine and stating that all gay people are going to burn in hellfire.

Get it?
Probably not.

I highlighted the relevant words for you. Would a business fire a guy for simply coming out publicly as gay? Seems unlikely I agree. But I wasn't talking about likeliness, but legality.

But then again I would have though that a guy simply saying that homosexuality is a sin and that butt-sex is icky would also be unlikely to get him fired.

 

[nehalem256]

You're protected from being fired for following a religion, you are not protected if you make disparaging remarks about <insert any group>. It does not matter if you believe your religion is founded upon such disparaging remarks.

What disparaging remarks did he make?

He talked about who would make it into the afterlife of his religion, and who would be left out(including gays). Disparaging remarks not found.

He said he found butt-sex icky. Again disparaging remarks not found. Although legally if he was fired for say that I would agree he gets no religious protection for it. But what kind of society do we have where a refusal to celebrate homosexual sex is "disparaging".

 

[jhbball]

IKR. Why don't you argue for the rednecks? At least then we would get intelligent arguments to debate against. This is just plain sad....

LOL. You must be new. If you think ANY meaningful debate happens on these forums, you're kidding yourself.

 

[Moonbeam]

So using your rationale...shouldn't we make sure racism doesn't get any worse than it already is before dealing with the "worst bigots" (I assume you mean conservative bigots)? What motivates you to effectively give liberals a "pass" on their blatant bigotry?

I thought I explained myself. No pass but not the primary source of the problem. You can't get rid of the worst bigots. That's the way of the one ring. We have to try to find a way to keep them from driving us all insane.

Bigots create more bigots as well as bigoted anti-bigots. Bigots are irrationally afraid, anti-bigot bigots have rational reasons for their fears. If we can cure the irrational the anti-bigots will automatically disappear. The question is are we destined to cycle again and again ever repeating our past?

Bigots thrive where there is safety in numbers. They don't enjoy at all being the target of bigotry themselves. If evil is not resisted it will win. If evil is fought the fighter risks becoming infected himself. Do you see a third way? I try to offer you what I think is information about out condition and our condition is not good because we do not what to know our condition if it is other than good. Would you like to tell you that everything is OK. I don't think it is but what I can do is say that I think it can be. I believe you are a believer in a teaching that's really the same thing, death and resurrection through faith, the idea that every bigot can be reborn, that the kingdom is and has always been here all around us, disguised by the delusion of Satin that the world is an evil place. It is the belief in evil that creates it out of thin air. If your ego can pass through the eye of a needle you will see it. I am not important. Where I can pass or can't is not relevant for you. You are what matters. Only you. In you there is love that blazes like a sun. You are wonderful.

 

[Daverino]

He talked about who would make it into the afterlife of his religion, and who would be left out(including gays). Disparaging remarks not found.

Not disparaging to you because apparently you're neither gay nor Christian.

 

[boomerang]

 

[Daverino]

He talked about who would make it into the afterlife of his religion, and who would be left out(including gays). Disparaging remarks not found.

If you were either gay or Christian you could find those remarks disparaging. You don't, but as a Christian, I certainly do. I find his comments deeply offensive on religious grounds.

 

[Moonbeam]

LOL. You must be new. If you think ANY meaningful debate happens on these forums, you're kidding yourself.

Tell me you wouldn't like to spend the night on the swamp hunting alligators, OK taking pictures of them, or drinking moonshine with a back slapping bunch of rubes. How about corn bread or grits. How about listening to stories you've never heard, with people full of fun, or whom you could count on if you were down. If you want to focus on the evil, welcome to that brain defect. I prefer to see what is good and there is so much of it I won't have time for anything else. If I reject the hillbilly or the redneck I reject a part of myself. If I pretend I am different, I partake of what is worst in them. We are all the same and we are all wonderful, those of us who can feel for our own kind. We just need to grow our understanding of who we are.

 

[schmuckley]

You're protected from being fired for following a religion, you are not protected if you make disparaging remarks about <insert any group>. It does not matter if you believe your religion is founded upon such disparaging remarks.

So..the truth is disparaging...
It is the religion the USA was founded upon.
A & E just shot themselves in the foot on this one.
Why allow less than 3.5% of the population to dictate what the rest can say/do?

Oh but wait..What about the 1st amendment?

This "hatespeech" stuff is only a way to control what people can/cannot say/do. i.e.:Anything that's the truth.

It seems people can hate all they want on God and religion;but say something about homosexuality being wrong and all of a sudden you're a racist bigot.

I know at least 5 black preachers that would beg to differ.

 

[fskimospy]

That has to be one of the dumbest comparisons I've ever seen.