« | »

Duck Dynasty Star Suspended For Gay Remarks

From the Hollywood Reporter:

‘Duck Dynasty’s’ Phil Robertson on Indefinite Hiatus Following Anti-Gay Remarks

By Lesley Goldberg | December 18, 2013

A&E has placed Duck Dynasty patriarch Phil Robertson on indefinite hiatus following anti-gay remarks he made in a recent profile in GQ.

"We are extremely disappointed to have read Phil Robertson’s comments in GQ, which are based on his own personal beliefs and are not reflected in the series Duck Dynasty," A&E said in a statement. "His personal views in no way reflect those of A+E Networks, who have always been strong supporters and champions of the LGBT community. The network has placed Phil under hiatus from filming indefinitely."

So in this day and age you can be fired for expressing your personal beliefs? Still, why give an interview with a liberal magazine if you are a conservative? Their whole mission is to make you look bad and get you into trouble. Look at the record.

The news comes after Robertson compared homosexuality to bestiality in an interview with the magazine.

So some guy on a cable reality show compares homosexuality to bestiality and all hell breaks loose. Meanwhile Obama’s new top advisor John Podesta compares Republicans to the Jonestown Cult, and nobody even blinks.

During a discussion about repentance and God, Robertson is asked what he finds sinful. "Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there," he says. "Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men."

He goes on to paraphrase Corinthians: "Don’t be deceived. Neither the adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlers — they won’t inherit the kingdom of God. Don’t deceive yourself. It’s not right."

GLAAD on Wednesday condemned his remarks as "some of the vilest and most extreme statements uttered against LGBT people in a mainstream publication" and said "his quote was littered with outdated stereotypes and blatant misinformation."

"Phil and his family claim to be Christian, but Phil’s lies about an entire community fly in the face of what true Christians believe," GLAAD spokesperson Wilson Cruz said…

Quoting the Bible ‘flies in the face’ of what Christians believe?

GLAAD responded to A&E’s suspension, commending the network for its swift decision. "What’s clear is that such hateful anti-gay comments are unacceptable to fans, viewers, and networks alike," GLAAD’s Cruz said late Wednesday. "By taking quick action and removing Robertson from future filming, A&E has sent a strong message that discrimination is neither a Christian nor an American value." …

Exactly whom is being discriminated against here, except Mr. Robertson?

Robertson released his own statement in response to the flap early Wednesday: "I myself am a product of the ’60s; I centered my life around sex, drugs and rock and roll until I hit rock bottom and accepted Jesus as my Savior. My mission today is to go forth and tell people about why I follow Christ and also what the Bible teaches, and part of that teaching is that women and men are meant to be together. However, I would never treat anyone with disrespect just because they are different from me. We are all created by the Almighty and like Him, I love all of humanity. We would all be better off if we loved God and loved each other."

Too bad he didn’t think to launch into a tirade against ‘unfettered capitalism.’ He might have been able to salvage his career.

The Human Rights Campaign also slammed Robertson for his statements.

"Phil Robertson’s remarks are not consistent with the values of our faith communities or the scientific findings of leading medical organizations," president Chad Griffin said in a statement. "We know that being gay is not a choice someone makes, and that to suggest otherwise can be incredibly harmful.

What an odd way to put things.

We also know that Americans of faith follow the Golden Rule — treating others with the respect and dignity you’d wish to be treated with. As a role model on a show that attracts millions of viewers, Phil Robertson has a responsibility to set a positive example for young Americans — not shame and ridicule them because of who they are. The A+E Network should take immediate action to condemn Phil Robertson’s remarks and make clear they don’t support his views."

Apparently, the Human Rights Commission doesn’t believe that Mr. Robertson has the human right to express his personal beliefs.

This article was posted by Steve Gilbert on Thursday, December 19th, 2013. Comments are currently closed.

10 Responses to “Duck Dynasty Star Suspended For Gay Remarks”

  1. heykev

    It’s amazing how normal, regular American’s are incensed by A&E canning him for personal remarks he made. Here’s the best thing I’ve read on this so far.

    http://www.albertmohler.com/20.....ntroversy/

  2. Petronius

    So long, Phil. It was real nice knowing you.

    I suppose Miss Kay will be the next to go.

    Then Jase. Then the rest.

    Anyway I believe this puts Phil in pretty good company, inasmuch as nearly all of our folk heroes have been subject to banishment, historical revisionism, humiliation, and ridicule.

    I see they’re also planning to remove Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson from the US Army War College. That’ll teach ‘em.

    http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013.....-generals/

    Ever notice that we’re not allowed to have any real heroes anymore? Only make-believe super-heroes?

    Liberals will never be satisfied until they have obliterated our race, heritage, and culture, and removed all joy and hope from the world.

    Until all of us (except the elites themselves, of course) are slaving on work gangs in gulags or standing in line in for our daily ration of Obama-gruel.

    • heykev

      Petronius – good points

      BHO seems to be both gutting the military so that only like-minded officers (like ie uber-liberal) remain. While at the same time continue to stack the bench with fellow socialists.

      Nothing this man does is good for USA

    • Petronius

      Yes, heykev. Everybody remembers the sacking of Gen. Stanley McChrystal, but he was only one of many.

      It’s a moving train, but at last count some 140 general and flag officers have been purged from the US armed forces for holding impure thoughts. Only the ideologically pure are allowed to hold high rank in the Emperor Nerobama’s military.

      It has probably been the biggest purge of any country’s officer class since Stalin’s purge of the Red Army before WW2. Yet it has gone almost unmentioned by the American media.

  3. captstubby

    the first lesson new Socialist dictators are taught is their greatest threat to power was not the ballot, but Military Coup.
    those wacky guys in Spain thought they solved this problem.
    (last Spanish Civil War post, promise).
    fingers crossed.
    C.S.

    “The Republican committee that took over the government of Spain on April 14, 1931, was a largely self-appointed group of leaders of several small parties that had been formed within the past two or three years. The prime minister of the new regime, Alcalá Zamora, …representative institutions in Spain were rebuilt largely with new and inexperienced elements.
    due to the doctrinaire policies and political incompetence of the dominant members of the governing coalition–the Republican left (1) and the Socialists. Their aim was not merely reform or establishment of a new democratic consensus, but rather paying off old scores and building a sectarian leftist regime. The coalition had four goals: a) reform and reduction of the army; b) separation of church and state and sharp restriction of Catholic rights as well as privileges; c) reform of the unitary structure of the Spanish state to permit Catalan regional autonomy; and d) broad social and economic reforms, though the latter remained vague in the planning of all groups save the Socialists.
    The reform of the army was carried on by the new defense minister, Manual Azaña,
    He was determined to break the autonomy of the Spanish army, and set about accomplishing this by a series of army reforms stretching over a year. The officer corps was cut 50 percent by allowing all who desired to retire at full pay. The size of the army was reduced, some sections reorganized, and several kinds of privileges and special promotions abolished. Moreover, Azaña, whose public manner was frequently biting and sarcastic, rarely wasted an opportunity to impress upon army officers that the military were completely at the disposal of the government and would never again be in a position to protect their institutional prerogatives or exercise political initiative. Azaña’s reforms amounted to something less than a total restructuring of the army, but they shook up the Spanish military, and the arbitrary, insulting manner of the defense minister aroused the permanent hostility of many officers. The army reforms, together with Azaña’s vigorous prosecution of anticlerical legislation, raised him to the premiership in October 1931.
    A major aim of the Popular Front was to completely eliminate conservative influence from Spanish government.
    The revolutionary parties had control of the streets and insisted on a constantly accelerating program of radical changes.
    Azaña was replaced as prime minister by a close associate, Casares Quiroga, who completely lacked the balance, tact, and insight for governing a country undergoing a process of civic dissolution.
    Elements of the Spanish army officer corps had begun to conspire as early as 1933, but a serious military revolt against the government did not start to develop until May 1936. It took root only among a minority of military activists, most of them of junior and middle rank. It proved very difficult to develop a firmly committed conspiracy, however, for the Azaña government had given nearly all the senior command positions to officers of liberal or moderate principles, and most rank-and-file officers were reluctant to take a stand, being aware of the failure of most military interventions in politics and dubious of the success of a revolt against the leftist government and the mass revolutionary movements.
    Last minute support was won, however, by the wave of reaction that followed the climax of political terrorism. On July 12, leftist police officers and Communist militia, enraged by the killing of a leftist officer by Falangists, dragged from his home and murdered a leader of the parliamentary opposition, José Calvo Sotelo, head of a small protofascist movement (Bloque Nacional) and former finance minister under Primo de Rivera. It was a political murder without precedent in the history of west European parliamentary regimes and symbolized the breakdown of the Republican constitutional system.
    It became the signal for the start of the Spanish Civil War.
    and right next door;
    On June 30th 1934
    Adolf Hitler moved against the SA and its leader, Ernst Röhm, because he saw the independence of the SA as a direct threat to his newly gained political power. Hitler also wanted to conciliate leaders of the Reichswehr, the official German military who feared and despised the SA—in particular Röhm’s ambition to absorb the Reichswehr into the SA under Röhm’s leadership.
    ,
    The Nazis called a three-day wave of raids, arrests and deaths the ‘Rohm-putsch’

    – evidence of Hitler’s ruthless determination to cling to power, using violence to remove any perceived threat, even if it meant killing his closest friends.
    as an operation to cleanse the party became known as the ‘Night of the Long Knives’

    [various sources.]

  4. canary

    This is retaliation because Robertson exposed A&E’s fraudulent and malicious persecution of Jesus Christ and viciously maligned the cast of Duck Dynasty for in reality speaking the name of Jesus Christ

    A&E slandered the cast of Duck Dynasty by intentionally misleading their audience with “bleeps” in a deceptive manner to make the cast appear to be using profanity and cuss words, when the cast did not use fowl language or profanity.

    Further, A&E persecuted Jesus Christ and the Duck Dynasty’s cast use of of the name of Jesus in ending their prayers. No doubt, A&E felt they would lose audiences if the religion of Christianity was practiced by the cast, instead making them look as ignorant as possible.

    A&E wanted a larger audience and any hint of Christianity on Duck Dynasty could lose the viewers.

    Someone should ask Obama why he was against same sex marriage for most his life and allow his reasons of listening to children who changed his mind.

    And still Hollywood makes fun of gay people all the time. Stand up comedians, television shows casting the gay characters as airheads. Gay people are a joke in entertainment, because they are different and strange compared to normal people, but GLADD is just happy to have as many gay characters in television shows as possible to appear it’s reality and everyone deals with such gay characters in their daily life, when it’s not that way, except for in show business. Whether it’s a straight person playing a gay, a gay playing a straight person, or anyone playing a feminine male limping his hand.

    The entertainment business may smear Jesus Christ, but they do a better job of making gay people hilarious and brainless.

    • The Redneck

      FOUL language….

      I don’t normally grammar-nazi a post, but “fowl language” in reference to Duck Dynasty… Uh-uh. Just can’t let that slide.

      The family was asked to do more cursing and arguing, because A&E wanted to show the world a dysfunctional Christian family–a family that sings psalms on Sunday, beats their wives on Monday, holds orgies on Tuesday, and gets wasted on six kinds of drugs on Wednesday, just like the Left tries to tell us all Christian families are. People were ~supposed~ to laugh at and hate the Robertsons, and A&E still doesn’t understand that Christian faith and values are what drew 14 million viewers to their show; and when they spit on Duck Dynasty, they’re spitting on mainstream America.

      Nonetheless, I expect them to continue. Breaking the Robertsons is going to a high priority for the Left.

  5. The Redneck

    This is a big step for the homosexual lobby, precisely ~because~ he didn’t actually say anything offensive. If some guy was out there screaming about killing sodomites or something and he got shut down it wouldn’t be news, but when someone can recite common sense and obvious fact straight from the Bible, and get viciously slandered with his business shut down for it, that’s a definite show of muscle… muscle that can be used against YOU, so if you’re thinking of any of that Bible-quoting you’d better think again.

    When you know they can ruin you with a few choice words, even the most timid stand in defense of what’s right will become a major act of courage–and I daresay our last couple elections demonstrate the American people don’t have much courage left.

    • canary

      The Redneck. Yes, some very lame cowardly comments being made by conservatives. Karl Rove made the lamest comment when he said Duck Dynasty’s star should never have made such a “vile” comment without telling which part was vile. There was nothing vile said.

      I think Robertson’s comment questioning why some men enjoy anal sex with another man was not vile because he even used a medical term for the body part.

      I don’t think there is one heterosexual person that has not wondered or grimaced when trying to understand the homosexual’s abnormal desire. It is not of the norm.

      And I do hope Robertson’s statement is spread and talked about, because it’s important for gays to also be tolerant and understand why people who are not gay do not understand and that they have a very good reason.

      I think they should have a Duck Dynasty special show, where homosexuals answer Phil Robertson’s question. I would excuse any profanity, words, or names they used to describe
      their desire.

      All of a sudden celebrities and society are acting like sex should not be mentioned in public or entertainment when it comes to an act they are proud of committing.

      And aside the 1st amendment which has the most freedom in the entertainment business, I would am a bit annoyed at so many conservatives starting all their commentaries out,

      ex. I personally think Robertson shouldn’t have said “it”, but what about our 1st amendment.
      or First I’d like to say I would never have said what Robert said, but he did nothing wrong.
      or I don’t agree with what Robertson said, but he should be shown tolerance.

      I think what he said may save some straight or bi-sexually confused individual from experimenting, or feeling bullied or pressured by gays to try it, or try a gay relationship.

      I hope our youth go around the schools repeating and asking the same question.
      The Bible can be left out and not even play a part in a discussion or talk show.

  6. captstubby

    maybe there’s a harassment case here.
    warning!
    this post contains Graphic Legal speak!
    any further editing of this text would weaken its reliability.
    sorry,
    but its to back up its validity.
    not that somehow The Fact Checkers will “prove “this a pinocchio.
    this article was a nightmare to research and read through, ( and probably still is in this form.)
    so to the best of my ability,it has been greatly condensed.

    Eugene Volokh, What Speech Does “Hostile Work Environment” Harassment Law Restrict?, 85 Geo. L.J. 627 (1997).

    Workplace harassment law is a speech restriction of remarkable breadth. It goes far beyond slurs, hardcore pornography, repeated vulgar sexual propositions, and the like, and can suppress, among other things,
    political statements,
    religious proselytizing, {convert or attempt to convert (someone) from one religion, belief, or opinion to another]

    legitimate art (such as prints of Francisco de Goya paintings),
    sexually themed (perhaps not even misogynistic) jokes,
    and other kinds of speech that are generally seen as being entirely constitutionally protected.

    the legal definition of “harassment.” Speech can be punished as workplace harassment if it’s
    “severe or pervasive” enough to
    create a “hostile or abusive work environment”
    based on race, religion, sex, national origin, age, disability (including obesity), military membership or veteran status, or, in some jurisdictions, sexual orientation, marital status, transsexualism or cross-dressing, political affiliation, criminal record, prior psychiatric treatment, occupation, citizenship status, personal appearance, “matriculation,” tobacco use outside work,
    Appalachian origin, receipt of public assistance, or dishonorable discharge from the military
    for the plaintiff and for a reasonable person.
    Note what the definition does not require. It does not require that the speech consist of obscenity or fighting words or threats or other constitutionally unprotected statements. It does not require that the speech be profanity or pornography, which some have considered “low value.” Under the definition, it is eminently possible for political, religious, or social commentary, or “legitimate” art, to be punished
    The definition also does not require that the speech take place in the workplace; even speech outside the workplace can be considered if it creates a hostile environment at work.
    See Intlekofer v. Turnage, 973 F.2d 773, 775 (9th Cir. 1992) (relying in part on a coworker “telephoning [Intlekofer] at her home” to support a hostile environment claim);
    Bersie v. Zycad Corp., 399 N.W.2d 141, 143, 146 (Minn. Ct. App. 1987) (relying in part on a coworker “calling [Bersie] at home” to conclude that plaintiff had made a prima facie showing of harassment, expressly applying Vinson); cf.
    Bartlett v. United States, 835 F. Supp. 1246, 1262 (E.D. Wash. 1993) (finding that two instances of sexually suggestive conduct, including “[p]laintiff receiv[ing] a sexually explicit card at her home from a coworker,” did not rise to the level of sexual harassment, but not even hinting that the card was somehow categorically disqualified because it was received outside the workplace);
    Myer-Dupuis v. Thomson Newspapers, No. 2:95-CV-133 (W.D. Mich. May 9, 1996), reported in Mich. Law. Wkly., May 27, 1996, at 12A. These cases are eminently consistent with the harassment definition given by the Supreme Court: It’s quite plausible that speech by coworkers outside the workplace may create a hostile environment within the workplace.

    Carlson v. Dalton, Appeal No. 01930284, 1994 WL 735488 (E.E.O.C. Apr. 26, 1994), the Commission mentioned that “[i]t is unlikely that a one time offering of a public prayer would violate Title VII unless its content denigrated other religious beliefs or attendance was mandatory.” Id. at *6 n.3. The pregnant negative is that even a one-time prayer may violate Title VII if its content denigrates other religious beliefs, and that all prayers may violate Title VII if they are more frequent. Cf. id. at *6 n.8 (“As indicated at footnote 3, nothing in this decision is intended to suggest that a one-time offer of a prayer at a work meeting would rise to the level of hostile environment harassment.”).
    Cf. Joel Turner, Board OKs Policy on Harassment, Roanoke Times & World News, Sept. 11, 1996, at C3 (discussing an educational harassment policy that defined religious harassment as including “students . . . criticiz[ing] or belittl[ing] other students’ forms of religious worship”); (“Deliberate desecration of religious articles . . . might be found to be harassment”).
    Hilsman v. Runyon, Appeal Nos. 01945686, 01950499, 1995 WL 217486, at *3 (E.E.O.C. Mar. 31, 1995). The employer was a public agency, and the prayers might have violated the Establishment Clause, but the decision was in no way based on this. Nothing in the decision suggests that the result would have been any different had the employer been a private entity; certainly Title VII harassment law operates the same way for private and public employers.

    The full quote is:
    It is one thing [and a lawful thing] to express one’s own beliefs; another to disparage the religion or beliefs of others. In a diverse workforce, this is a critical distinction and is the heart of non-discrimination law. . . . Thus, a Christian employee would have recourse under Title VII if a “secular humanist” employer engaged in a pattern of ridiculing the employee’s religious beliefs.
    Note; here is a example if a EMPLOYER makes a religious theme in the workplace:
    Captstubby.

    Religious Speech: If some complainants make these claims, some fact-finders may well agree. A state court has in fact found that it was religious harassment for an employer to put religious articles in its employee newsletter and Christian-themed verses on its paychecks. The EEOC likewise found that a claim that an employer “permitted the daily broadcast of prayers over the public address system” over the span of a year was “sufficient to allege the existence of a hostile working environment predicated on religious discrimination.” A recent article by two employment lawyers gives “repeated, unwanted `preaching´ episodes [by a fundamentalist Christian employee] that offend coworkers and adversely affect their working conditions” as a “bright-line example” of actionable harassment; an employer in such a situation would be “well advised to take swift remedial action.”
    Dean J. Schaner & Melissa M. Erlemeier, When Faith and Work Collide: Defining Standards for Religious Harassment in the Workplace, Employee Rel. L.J., June 1, 1995, at 26.

    The Inevitable Need to Suppress Isolated Statements
    “We see, then, that the “severe or pervasive” requirement is too vague to provide much protection for speech, and even the policy proposed by one of harassment law’s leading defenders essentially eliminates this requirement. This, though, isn’t some slight drafting flaw that can be corrected with a bit of tinkering: Harassment law by its nature restricts individual statements, even when they’re clearly not severe or pervasive enough to generate a hostile environment.”
    “Recall that a hostile environment can be created by many different employees, each making only one or a few offensive statements. Individually, the statements might not be “severe or pervasive” enough to create liability,”
    (various sources.)


« Front Page | To Top
« | »