'Duck Dynasty' star makes anti-gay comments; GLAAD slams

[Rudeman]

Then how exactly should I interpret this quote from him?

: “Everything is blurred on what’s right and what’s wrong… Sin becomes fine. Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men.”

The fact that he even tries to make any connection between homosexuality and bestiality is what I think people take offense to. I think he should have passed on the subject and maybe just say that he is against the lifestyle and his religion or even say he doesn't know enough about homosexuals to make a sensible contribution to the topic.

You have completely misinterpreted what he has said. No where does he say that homosexuality lead to bestiality. He was asked what was sinful and listed several examples, one of those examples was sleeping around with women.

Again if you're going to go with what you misinterpreted then you must also think he said bestiality leads to promiscuity with women.

 

[Tywysog Cymru]

This whole incident shows the massive disconnect between A&E and the general public. Nearly all of my friends were against the decision.

 

[Christian Liberty]

Do they have the "right" though? Let's ignore the RPF definition of rights and focus solely on American jurisprudence. If this situation presented in reverse, would the right exist? If this story was not about the Duck Commander and was about some guy named Thomas from Sioux Falls and Thomas posted on FaceBook in support of gay sex and was subsequently fired, would that be okay?

YES. Or at least, it should be. Of course, in the real world there's always a double standard because the world hates Christians.

I agree, in our utopian world, what has happened is A okay, but I'm not sure that, in the real world, it is okay. Furthermore, I'm not all together sure that I'm comfortable with people losing their jobs over political/religious speech in any case.

You may not be comfortable with it. I'm not particularly either, at least in ordinary cases.

But property rights are property rights, and free association is free association. The same logic that you might use to prevent refusal to associate in one instance could be used against you the next.

Progressives and "Conservatives" (More talking about the typical right wing here, not really about libertarian leaning, constitutional paleocons) don't generally care about internally consistent logic, but we should. And you can't really put a "real world" spin on the liberty ideal, because rights are always rights regardless of what America says, or any double standard.

 

[Christian Liberty]

This whole incident shows the massive disconnect between A&E and the general public. Nearly all of my friends were against the decision.

I doubt anyone I know well would support it. But hey, the CRA of 1964 will soon be expanded to include churches that don't perform "gay marriages". Its going to be a mess, I just hope that people realize their hypocricy on that point when it finally hits them in the face.

 

[Tywysog Cymru]

I doubt anyone I know well would support it. But hey, the CRA of 1964 will soon be expanded to include churches that don't perform "gay marriages". Its going to be a mess, I just hope that people realize their hypocricy on that point when it finally hits them in the face.

Who is realizing what hypocrisy?

 

[Christian Liberty]

Who is realizing what hypocrisy?

I have no doubt at some point churches are going to start getting sued for "discrimination" against gays. Many of the people who are rightfully going to be upset like this still support other anti-discrimination laws, and thus are hypocrites.

 

[Brett85]

I have no doubt at some point churches are going to start getting sued for "discrimination" against gays. Many of the people who are rightfully going to be upset like this still support other anti-discrimination laws, and thus are hypocrites.

Yeah, I agree. Like with the situation with the bakery owner who refused to sell a cake to a gay couple, a lot of Christians would probably want the goverment to intervene if the situation were reversed and a gay bakery owner refused to sell a cake to a Christian couple who had gotten married and tried to buy a cake. Of course, we realize that the correct position is that the principle of freedom of association should apply in every situation, regardless of which group is being "discriminated" against.

 

[Tywysog Cymru]

I have no doubt at some point churches are going to start getting sued for "discrimination" against gays. Many of the people who are rightfully going to be upset like this still support other anti-discrimination laws, and thus are hypocrites.

Well I support the freedom to be racist and all that but the issues aren't in any way related. The LGBT movement didn't even exist in 1964, and the movement could have been defeated had people in 1980, 1990, and 2000 realized what would eventually happen. I don't think banning discrimination based on race necessarily leads to banning discrimination based on lifestyle. Not saying either of them is something government should concern itself with, but they are completely separate issues.

 

[Deborah K]

If you believe him, Barrack Obama used the same excuse for not supporting gay marriage so i dont think it was just because of his religion. I think the quote below is what people find offensive because I don't think anyone who ever watched a whole episode of Duck Command thinks he or anyone from the show was pro gay lifestyle.

Saying homosexuality will lead of bestiality is not cool, also how is it that he does not know that for gays, everything is backwards. Their best friends are females and they are attracted to guys. The guy should have passed on that whole line of questions, nothing good can come out of answering it.

I agree with others that he should (we all should) be able to speak freely about our opinions without having to worry about losing our credibility or income over it just because a certain group of people decided to get 'butt hurt' over it (pardon the pun). Paula Dean was brought up in Kathy's thread on FB and she's another example. The militant gay groups, along with those who peddle race division have become society's thought police.

I like Phil, and the show amuses me. I don't view homos the same way he does, nor do I interpret what the Bible states about homosexuality in the same way he does.

On another note: Kathy's issue with this in her FB post was more to the point, and that is, that the sheeple allow this sort of distraction to concern them, while TPTB use these distractions to keep the masses from paying attention to issues that affect our freedoms, sometimes permanently.

 

[jmdrake]

I have no doubt at some point churches are going to start getting sued for "discrimination" against gays. Many of the people who are rightfully going to be upset like this still support other anti-discrimination laws, and thus are hypocrites.

Well, technically churches can still discriminate against blacks if they wish under the first amendment and many (most?) systematically discriminate against women by not ordaining them as clergy. That said, yes it will be interesting. Democrat Donny McClurkin has already received the wrath of the gay lobby. His crime? Responding to another gospel singer that said God made him gay with "God did not call you to that perversion."





Oh...and that was a violation of the 1st amendment as the discrimination perpetrated against Donnie McClurkin and Tim Tebow was done by mayor of D.C.

 

[Saint Vitus]

It amuses me what pisses off the public these days. Nobody gives a shit about the NSA, but if some petty celebrity on some scripted "reality" t.v. show is fired, then everyone goes nuts.

 

[Deborah K]

This whole incident shows the massive disconnect between A&E and the general public. Nearly all of my friends were against the decision.

I submit that it's not a disconnect, it's cowardice.

 

[Christian Liberty]

Well I support the freedom to be racist and all that but the issues aren't in any way related. The LGBT movement didn't even exist in 1964, and the movement could have been defeated had people in 1980, 1990, and 2000 realized what would eventually happen. I don't think banning discrimination based on race necessarily leads to banning discrimination based on lifestyle. Not saying either of them is something government should concern itself with, but they are completely separate issues.

They aren't separate. Both issues have to do with government trampling on the freedom of association and the freedom to property.

"Religion" isn't really an argument either, and I say that as a devout Christian. What counts as a "religion"? Does Uncle Sam get to decide? He shouldn't.

 

[Tywysog Cymru]

They aren't separate. Both issues have to do with government trampling on the freedom of association and the freedom to property.

"Religion" isn't really an argument either, and I say that as a devout Christian. What counts as a "religion"? Does Uncle Sam get to decide? He shouldn't.

I agree with you on property rights. But you have to look at the context of when the CRA of 1964 was passed. There is no comparison between racial injustice and what the homosexuals are fighting against.

 

[Deborah K]

With respect to the A&E article you referred to:

".........As backtracking goes, Robertson’s statement isn’t very contrite and seems to contradict his previous statements. He would “never treat anyone with disrespect,” yet just compared gay people to drunkards and prostitutes and adulterers and thieves and said they were locked out of heaven. Which sounds pretty disrespectful, no?"

This writer is showing a complete lack of understanding about the context of Phil's biblical reference. He wasn't comparing homosexuality to other sinful behavior, he was including it with the other behavior because the Bible does the same thing.

Personally, I don't see homosexuality as a sin, per se. I don't believe homos have a choice in the matter any more than heteros do. Bi-sexuals are the only ones with a choice. And the Bible doesn't say, "...whosoever believeth in me shall have everlasting life....unless you're a homo." So, I think homos who believe in Christ and who do their best to represent Christ's teachings will be saved. But I also believe that anyone, straight or gay, who lives an immoral life without regard to our Father, as described in detail by Phil, will perish. So, because I believe that sex is sacred, and should be an act of love between two consenting adults who are committed to each other for life, I cannot say with certainty that a loving, Christian, committed gay couple will perish.

 

[TaftFan]

I have now started a White House petition: https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/bring-back-phil-robertson/Z0Lx6JQq

 

[Christian Liberty]

What does "Calling for" entail? Advice or force?

 

[Christian Liberty]

I agree with you on property rights. But you have to look at the context of when the CRA of 1964 was passed. There is no comparison between racial injustice and what the homosexuals are fighting against.

I'm not saying they are directly comparable, simply that one thing leads to another.

I'm also talking about private property here, not "public" property, on which discrimination shouldn't be tolerated if it is to exist at all.

 

[Tywysog Cymru]

What does "Calling for" entail? Advice or force?

I think it means advice.

I'm not saying they are directly comparable, simply that one thing leads to another.

I'm also talking about private property here, not "public" property, on which discrimination shouldn't be tolerated if it is to exist at all.

I can see how anti-discrimination laws could lead to inventing new classes of people. I understand your point. But I don't really think the CRA of 1964 really inspired gays at the time.

 

[Christian Liberty]

I can see how anti-discrimination laws could lead to inventing new classes of people. I understand your point. But I don't really think the CRA of 1964 really inspired gays at the time.

I wasn't saying it did. I was saying that once you give up the principle, you lose your logical basis for opposing tyranny.

That law sure is inspiring them now, however.