A&E is intolerant...

[Dusky Mouse]

'Duck Dynasty' star suspended for anti-gay comments | Inside TV | EW.com

Tolerance: you're doing it wrong.

Tolerance doesn't just mean you tolerate comments and beliefs that you agree with.

I hope Duck Dynasty leaves A&E for better ground.

They're intolerant and they're also cowards.
Afraid of the gay agenda that will somehow threaten the network in any number of ways.

Too bad A&E isn't tolerant of religious freedom.
I'd hope another network picks up Duck Dynasty itself so that the stars of that show can go somewhere where sodomites do not hold sway over honor, integrity, and a fair contract.

When a homosexual spokesman for the gay hate group GLAAD says that Phil Robertson has to "fall in line" because it's a new world, thereby saying Christianity is no longer relevant nor are those faithful to it entitled to their faith without assault by the gay hate group GLAAD and it's conspirators, A&E should be offended by that. And stand behind the Christian that has every right to speak freely of his faith and share his personal opinion.

 

[DiligentlySeekingGod]

They're intolerant and they're also cowards.
Afraid of the gay agenda that will somehow threaten the network in any number of ways.

Too bad A&E isn't tolerant of religious freedom.
I'd hope another network picks up Duck Dynasty itself so that the stars of that show can go somewhere where sodomites do not hold sway over honor, integrity, and a fair contract.

When a homosexual spokesman for the gay hate group GLAAD says that Phil Robertson has to "fall in line" because it's a new world, thereby saying Christianity is no longer relevant nor are those faithful to it entitled to their faith without assault by the gay hate group GLAAD and it's conspirators, A&E should be offended by that. And stand behind the Christian that has every right to speak freely of his faith and share his personal opinion.

AMEN!!!

Fall in line with the world?! I'm pretty sure Phil Robertson won't "fall in line" with the world (Neither will I).

 

[DiligentlySeekingGod]

In Less Than 24 Hours, “Support Phil Robertson” and “Boycott A&E” Facebook Pages Pass 500,000 Likes Each

For example:

We Love Duck Dynasty & Their Stand For Jesus

Boycott A&E and Support Phil Robertson

 

[GoldenBoy89]

So, you would not have a problem with a business that fired a gay activist for speaking his mind, right?
Or is that somehow TOTALLY DIFFERENT, because Christians don't have sympathetic sit-com characters to act as PR-agents?

If said gay activist is saying things that compare a large group of people (lets say, Christians) to people who have sex with animals and is being deliberately crass and offensive in his statements (talking about vaginas and anuses), then I would say, no I have no problem with a deliberately offensive gay activist being suspended from his tv show. (As that is the case here, Phil hasn't been "fired")





Next.

 

[DiligentlySeekingGod]

 

[AceHero]

'Duck Dynasty' star suspended for anti-gay comments | Inside TV | EW.com

Tolerance: you're doing it wrong.

Tolerance doesn't just mean you tolerate comments and beliefs that you agree with.

I hope Duck Dynasty leaves A&E for better ground.

His comments were obnoxious and ignorant. A&E has an image to uphold. His remarks don't fit that image. Welcome to Capitalism.

Not that I've had much respect for A&E since arts and entertainment were supplanted with "reality," but good on them.

Sure it's an obsession. This dude right here was the one that brought it up. With all of the complexities of relationships homosexual or not it is the homosexual ones that seem to invoke sex acts in the minds of those that object to those relationships. If this duck dynasty guy sees a man and woman holding hands I doubt the first image in his mind is the two of them getting it on. Two guys holding hands.......butt sex.

Conservative Christians seem to be under the impression that gay people's lives start and end with sex.

I'd take these folks seriously if they had any outward concern over sham marriages and divorce rates. There's something about this one particular sin that gets a heck of a lot of focus. I'd call that an obsession.

Homophobiaphilia, perhaps? Obsession with the dislike of homosexuality?

And there's a reason the Pope is being revered right now and not a shaggy redneck.

 

[Darkhorse]

If said gay activist is saying things that compare a large group of people (lets say, Christians) to people who have sex with animals and is being deliberately crass and offensive in his statements (talking about vaginas and anuses),

Since when are "vagina" and "anus" offensive terms?

What terms do the liberal sex-ed classes use for these parts?

 

[wintermile]

Apparently not! What hypocrites. Phil Robertson didn't write the good Book, he just quoted it. And now I will quote what he quoted.

“Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God.” (1 Corinthians 6:9-10)

AND I will add this...

"Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; Who put darkness for light, and light for darkness; Who put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!" (Isaiah 5:20)

I'm not ashamed to quote Scripture or to testify, in public, of not only the love of God, but also of His righteousness, holiness, and justice. I'm not afraid or ashamed to talk about God's wrath against all sin on the Day of Judgment or that people who die without their sins being forgiven in Christ will go to hell. I have talked about these things before and I will continue to do so with my last dying breath. I fully commend and stand by Phil Robertson for his bold witness for Christ. I'm thankful to God that Phil has such a strong faith that enabled him to stand up and tell the rock solid biblical truth about homosexuality being a sin. It is a sin. As a Christian myself, I do not, under any circumstances, condone or support the homosexual lifestyle. I will not and I cannot because I am a follower of the Lord Jesus Christ AND I wholeheartedly believe the Scriptures to be the infallible and inerrant words of God Almighty. In other words, I would be an outright liar to call myself and proclaim myself to be a true, genuine Christian if I supported and condoned homosexuality (or any other kind of sinful action and/or behaviors). I will not compromise my faith or my Christian beliefs to appease other people, no matter who they are. And I certainly will not sacrifice my faith and my Christian beliefs on the altars of political correctness and tolerance. And with said, I reiterate that I stand with Phil Robertson, I fully support him, and I strongly commend him for his strong Christian beliefs and his boldness to speak them. Before I close, here is a powerful message I wanted to share with you. It was posted on the Stop Playing Church Facebook page.

Oppression is not a strong Christian belief.

Yeshua does not condone PR's personal version of Scripture-POV, nor does Yeshua condone PR's fantasies about how all people can be affected by Jim Crow Laws.

Since I am in disagreement with you, I will practice (Christian) Carl Teichrib's encouragement when in disagreement with others: Do not Offend, Be Kind, Be Gentle, and Be Strong.


If A & E broadcasts DD, they can one up it with airtime devoted to Who Wants To Take Phil Robertson To The Mike. Phil had his moment. Let the feedback be viewed.

 

[katherine2001]

I know a lot of people who pick and choose from the Scriptures who are Conservatives, especially those who are against helping the poor. In the Parable of the Last Judgment in the last part of Matthew 25, Christ very clearly says that those who do not help the hungry, thirsty, the stranger, those who are sick or in prison, etc. will not be in the Kingdom. End of story. I know a lot of Christians who won't touch that passage because it goes against what they believe.

 

[DiligentlySeekingGod]

I know a lot of people who pick and choose from the Scriptures who are Conservatives, especially those who are against helping the poor. In the Parable of the Last Judgment in the last part of Matthew 25, Christ very clearly says that those who do not help the hungry, thirsty, the stranger, those who are sick or in prison, etc. will not be in the Kingdom. End of story. I know a lot of Christians who won't touch that passage because it goes against what they believe.

If I may ask, what does that Scriptural passage or that particular issue have to do with this discussion?

 

[DiligentlySeekingGod]

'Duck Dynasty' star suspended for anti-gay comments | Inside TV | EW.com

Tolerance: you're doing it wrong.

Tolerance doesn't just mean you tolerate comments and beliefs that you agree with.

I hope Duck Dynasty leaves A&E for better ground.

I thought that what the Robertson family had to say on what happened to their Godly patriarch should be added to this discussion.

The Robertson Family Official Statement

 

[katherine2001]

If we are going to accuse others of being hypocritical, it is rather ironic that people are saying that A & E doesn't have a right to suspend one of its employees (and the network does pay for Duck Dynasty) if the employee does something they don't like. I thought corporations and businesses were supposed to be free to do what they wanted. There were a lot of people here who thought businesses should be allowed to refuse to do things for homosexuals without government interference, correct? Now all of a sudden, when you don't like a business making that decision for a person you agree with, they shouldn't be allowed to do that. Hypocrisy anyone? Also, where were all of you when Martin Bashir made his comments about Sarah Palin? Doesn't the right to say what he wants apply to him as well as PR? Or do only people who agree with you have the right to free speech?

 

[AceHero]

If said gay activist is saying things that compare a large group of people (lets say, Christians) to people who have sex with animals and is being deliberately crass and offensive in his statements (talking about vaginas and anuses),

Since when are "vagina" and "anus" offensive terms?

What terms do the liberal sex-ed classes use for these parts?

Did he have to be so explicit? He could have simply said he didn't believe homosexuality was moral.

I think it goes to show that anti-gay conservatives are unbelievably obsessed with what gay people do in the bedroom.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

Since when are "vagina" and "anus" offensive terms?

What terms do the liberal sex-ed classes use for these parts?

Terms conservative sex-ed classes would probably avoid altogether

But seriously, vagina and anus are not offensive words in and of themselves just like any word in existence. We're talking context here. But somehow, I think you knew that already unless you haven't actually read Phil's statements.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

If we are going to accuse others of being hypocritical, it is rather ironic that people are saying that A & E doesn't have a right to suspend one of its employees (and the network does pay for Duck Dynasty) if the employee does something they don't like. I thought corporations and businesses were supposed to be free to do what they wanted. There were a lot of people here who thought businesses should be allowed to refuse to do things for homosexuals without government interference, correct? Now all of a sudden, when you don't like a business making that decision for a person you agree with, they shouldn't be allowed to do that. Hypocrisy anyone? Also, where were all of you when Martin Bashir made his comments about Sarah Palin? Doesn't the right to say what he wants apply to him as well as PR? Or do only people who agree with you have the right to free speech?

^ This ^

Did he have to be so explicit? He could have simply said he didn't believe homosexuality was moral.

I think it goes to show that anti-gay conservatives are unbelievably obsessed with what gay people do in the bedroom.

Aaaaand ^ this ^

 

[Joykins]

This is probably the most disturbing comment on the thread, but the fact you make the part of that statement I emboldened is truly scary. The fact that you believe we have to willingly give up our morals, sociopolitical views and essentially who we are simply because we accept a job is indicative of how we've willingly given up our freedoms to an increasingly bigger government that we apparently think can control our lives, and now our hearts and minds as well. The trend of employers controlling what employees say borders on thought control, and it must be reversed. Accepting it as fact is no way to do that.

My employer does not typically regulate my non-work speech, but they have a policy about our behavior on social media. So I've been trained in the policy, which means I've been warned, especially if I put them on facebook as my employer (which I haven't, btw), that I need to conduct myself online in a way that does not reflect badly on the company.

Which I'm fine with. If it ever comes to my job vs. spouting nonsense about gays and anal sex or waxing nostalgic about how happy the "blacks" all were working in the fields before desegregation and "welfare", I'll gladly refrain from spouting that sort of racist and homophobic nonsense.

On the other hand, I do think it is quite disingenuous of A&E to offer a redneck reality show and rake in the $$$ and then start acting shocked! shocked! when rednecks start talking like rednecks do when they're off the leash. For the all publicity is good publicity crowd--I don't think this Duck Dynasty guy is really going to hurt much for this. His core audience probably isn't offended because they share his attitudes.

 

[Joykins]

Six more didn't really take a stand one way or the other, and political views were all over the map.

Now, this is an extremely non-scientific analysis, simply due to the fact that a lot of people don't have their ages, religions, or political tastes posted on their bios, but the general trend seems to be that older folks who are Christians think Phil is right, whilst younger folks who are not Christians think A&E is right. Interesting

FWIW I am older and Christian and I think Phil has every right to express his opinions and A&E has every right to do whatever they want in reaction. I'm not rooting for one or the other because I don't really care how it pans out, but the discussion is interesting. I think what he would have said was probably entirely predictable without knowing anything of the show other than I have read in a few articles in the past days. Which might reflect poorly on stereotypes of rural Southerners in general, I suppose, but there it is.

 

[Joykins]

Probably because he's a guy and he was giving an interview to a guys' magazine...

Or it's because lesbians are the approved gays, while gay men are not.

ISTM when these sorts of discussions occur, lesbians are not so much "approved" as invisible.

Kind of like they are in the Bible.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

Exactly. So why would Phil have to go on and on about homosexuality if all sins carry the same weight? He could have just talked about his personal beliefs on the subject but instead he chose to vilify and disparage homosexuals specifically. Whether he realized it or not, he was personally attacking the gay community.

I get asked this question a lot and it seems to me that it's because that group in particular wants acceptance. I don't know that I've ever seen an adultery pride parade, for example.

He didn't villify or disparage them. He spoke to his beliefs, and went on to say that he loves and respects everyone and lets God do the judging. I find it odd that the statement following his statement about homosexuality is not included in the snippets that the media is putting out there.

I take that back. I don't find it odd.

He'll probably end up with his own show on Fox News. By the way, how come all of you weren't complaining that Martin Bashir lost his show on MSNBC because of his comments on Sarah Palin? Shouldn't he have a right to say whatever he wants without getting fired?

I didn't know he was fired. What he said was stupid and all, but ultimately it wasn't hate speech. I would guess that he was fired more for the results of what he said than what he actually said.

 

[Dusky Mouse]

In Less Than 24 Hours, “Support Phil Robertson” and “Boycott A&E” Facebook Pages Pass 500,000 Likes Each

For example:

We Love Duck Dynasty & Their Stand For Jesus

Boycott A&E and Support Phil Robertson

From the Facebook link:

Great links. You should share those in the other Phil Robertson threads that are here. This way it drums more support in the event someone doesn't read this one.

Christians have for too long allowed the gay agenda to intimidate networks, businesses, into censoring Christians thoughts and speech concerning the Bible, Sodomy, and one's personal faith based opinion of that.
Phil Robertson humbled himself and spoke of his sinful past in the GQ interview.And he shared his Christian opinion on a great number of other sins besides Homosexuality.
Isn't it interesting though that A&E doesn't feel threatened by the adulterers who threaten them? Or the pedophiles, or the Beastophiles? Just the gays.

eHarmony, a private Christians only dating site was threatened by gays who demanded to be allowed as members. Now the owner regrets his decision to permit gays to intimidate him and allow them entry.

Christians outnumber homosexuals in this country and in the world at large.
Its time we stand for the values God instills and refuse the threat of a group that whines about being bullied, and yet is more than ready to bully.
That scream for tolerance and yet have no tolerance for the religious.

God damned the unrepentant homosexual. And they hate Christians for reminding them of that.