# Everything Else > Arts & Entertainment >  Phil Robertson FIRED from A & E

## sgt. pepper

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

What do you guys think about the reason why Phil was fired...so the ending of Duck Dynasty on A & E? A very, very popular TV program. I think it is sad that he was punished for saying what he believes. *What is happening to our free speech??*

----------


## tomokc

Free speech exists in the progressive world so long as they agree with it. Otherwise you'll be attacked.

----------


## trousers

I thought in the free market businesses were allowed to hire/fire whomever they wanted?

----------


## BBatesokc

As long as the show is making big bucks then I predict he comes back. Free speech is alive and well when others can still make a buck off you. Maybe he'll do the usual 'apology tour.'

Hey he attacked heterosexuals too that are adulterous - funny how nobody cares about that even though it apparently applies to millions of us.

----------


## venture

Free speech isn't the issue. Speaking words that will impact your advertisers, without thinking first on the impacts, is what is at play here. 

Let's look at another scenario. A person is an on camera personality for a TV show that is very conservative in the views expressed and attracts that audience and related advertisers. That person goes out and throws full support behind things like gay marriage, abortion, and other hot button issues. That person's comments will now directly impact how the audience and more importantly the advertisers will look at that show. If this person turns off the audience they'll leave and the value starts falling for the advertisers. Also the advertisers  may have strong convictions and will not want to be associated with a program that has a main cast member spouting views that contradict theirs.

Is it an attack on free speech? Absolutely not. Business is business. The door swings both ways on this issue. The Constitution gives us the right to say (almost) whatever we want and when we want. The Constitution doesn't say everyone must agree/respect it and keep us employed whenever we exercise that right.

----------


## Lord Helmet

> Free speech exists in the progressive world so long as they agree with it. Otherwise you'll be attacked.


He is certainly free to say anything he wants...bigoted or not. A&E has every right to fire him as well. Like it or not he's a spokesperson for the A&E brand, and if what he said doesn't fit with that, they are perfectly within their right to fire him.

----------


## Oh GAWD the Smell!

> *Free speech isn't the issue. Speaking words that will impact your advertisers, without thinking first on the impacts, is what is at play here.* 
> 
> Let's look at another scenario. A person is an on camera personality for a TV show that is very conservative in the views expressed and attracts that audience and related advertisers. That person goes out and throws full support behind things like gay marriage, abortion, and other hot button issues. That person's comments will now directly impact how the audience and more importantly the advertisers will look at that show. If this person turns off the audience they'll leave and the value starts falling for the advertisers. Also the advertisers  may have strong convictions and will not want to be associated with a program that has a main cast member spouting views that contradict theirs.
> 
> Is it an attack on free speech? Absolutely not. Business is business. The door swings both ways on this issue. The Constitution gives us the right to say (almost) whatever we want and when we want. The Constitution doesn't say everyone must agree/respect it and keep us employed whenever we exercise that right.


Exactly. No First Amendment violations to see here. Move along.

He can spew forth his love of all things gay unicorn rainbow farts, but A&E is under no obligation to hold a national megaphone to his mouth to help him out. Their megaphone, their channel.

----------


## Just the facts

I guess the real question is why anyone is outraged.  You can't say God doesn't exist and then get outraged when someone says God doesn't approve of your behavior.  I don't care what Mohammad or Buddha thinks of me, and I care even less what a follower of Mohammad of Buddha thinks that Mohammad of Buddha thinks of me.

----------


## Pete

> He is certainly free to say anything he wants...bigoted or not. A&E has every right to fire him as well. Like it or not he's a spokesperson for the A&E brand, and if what he said doesn't fit with that, they are perfectly within their right to fire him.


Also, it has to be said that nobody would be listening and GQ wouldn't be interviewing him if A&E hadn't put him on a show.

He probably said these types of things before and nobody noticed.

If you want fame and fortune, you'd be be prepared to accept the added scrutiny that comes with it.

It's the same about celebrities that whine about lack of privacy.  You can have all the privacy you want if you want to act in some stage company somewhere.  You want the big bucks and the media limelight, you are also signing up for a lot of other things that come with it.  It's not like this hasn't been the case for the last 50 or 60 years.

----------


## Oh GAWD the Smell!

> I guess the real question is why anyone is outraged.  You can't say God doesn't exist and then get outraged when someone says God doesn't approve of your behavior.  I don't care what Mohammad or Buddha thinks of me, and I care even less what a follower of Mohammad of Buddha thinks that Mohammad of Buddha thinks of me.


When followers of Mohammad and Buddha spend a great deal of time and effort trying to render your (harmless, and private) behavior illegal, get back to us. Until then...The man with the hypocritical plan can take his lashings.

----------


## kwhey

> 'Duck Dynasty's' Phil Robertson on Indefinite Hiatus Following Anti-Gay Remarks
> 
> What do you guys think about the reason why Phil was fired...so the ending of Duck Dynasty on A & E? A very, very popular TV program. I think it is sad that he was punished for saying what he believes. *What is happening to our free speech??*


Do you agree with him basically saying that black people would happier if Jim Crow laws were still around?

----------


## RadicalModerate

Wow.  This sounds like Paula Deen all over again.

"Does Oklahoma (scratch that) Does A&E really believe in The First Amendment?"

----------


## Just the facts

> When followers of Mohammad and Buddha spend a great deal of time and effort trying to render your (harmless, and private) behavior illegal, get back to us. Until then...The man with the hypocritical plan can take his lashings.


I guess I missed it - did Phil try to make being gay, drunk, or adulterous illegal?  On second thought, being drunk in many situation IS illegal and adulterous spouses can be ordered to pay up come divorce time.

----------


## Dubya61

> When followers of Mohammad and Buddha spend a great deal of time and effort trying to render your (harmless, and private) behavior illegal, get back to us. Until then...The man with the hypocritical plan can take his lashings.


Forgive my ignorance, but what was hypocritical about what he said?

----------


## ultimatesooner

Phil probably doesn't really GAF - if I had enough $$ and land to hunt and fish everday for the rest of my life i wouldn't wanna worry about a TV show either

 - Willie and the daughter in laws are the ones who want all the fame

----------


## Just the facts

> Forgive my ignorance, but what was hypocritical about what he said?


I think it is because they assume Phil had always been a godly man, so back when he was drinking and running around with women other than his wife it makes him a hypocrite.  What they don't know is that he wasn't always a godly man.  He found Jesus and changed his ways.  He should be held up as an example of the power of faith, not an object of ridicule from people who say that don't even in believe in God anyhow.  Maybe deep down, they do believe in God and just have a hard time accepting it.

----------


## Richard at Remax

I don't think anyone hindered or took away his free speech. anyone can say anything you want. however you must be prepared to face the consequences sometimes.

I can call my boss a poophead all I want. Probably gonna get fired...

----------


## Just the facts

> I don't think anyone hindered or took away his free speech. anyone can say anything you want. however you must be prepared to face the consequences sometimes.
> 
> I can call my boss a poophead all I want. Probably gonna get fired...


Why does there have to be any consequences?  Why can't the people who don't like him just ignore him?  Hell, if I lived my life in a constant state of outrage that some seem to, I would never go see a Hollywood movie.

----------


## RadicalModerate

> Why does there have to be any consequences?  Why can't the people who don't like him just ignore him?  Hell, if I lived my life in a constant state of outrage that some seem to, I would never go see a Hollywood movie.


There have to be consequences because, to paraphrase George Orwell: All Opinions are Equal, But Some Opinions Are More Equal Than Others.

Frankly, I wonder how many of The Offended, here, actually watch Duck Dynasty
(ergo, why would A&E care one way or the other?)

----------


## Richard at Remax

> Why does there have to be any consequences?  Why can't the people who don't like him just ignore him?  Hell, if I lived my life in a constant state of outrage that some seem to, I would never go see a Hollywood movie.


Im with you. Ive never seen the show. was speaking more on a personal level

----------


## RadicalModerate

Remember "The Good Old Days" when it was "The Jews" who ran show business?  =)

----------


## Of Sound Mind

> There have to be consequences because, to paraphrase George Orwell: All Opinions are Equal, But Some Opinions Are More Equal Than Others.
> 
> Frankly, I wonder how many of The Offended, here, actually watch Duck Dynasty
> (ergo, why would A&E care one way or the other?)


The ironic thing is that the audience that has helped make this show the highest rated (ever) cable show will be more outraged by A&E's decision and ultimately have more impact on their bottom line than those who were offended by it.

----------


## Just the facts

> The ironic thing is that the audience that has helped make this show the highest rated (ever) cable show will be more outraged by A&E's decision and ultimately have more impact on their bottom line than those who were offended by it.


We call that, "shooting yourself in the foot".

----------


## RadicalModerate

> We call that, "shooting yourself in the foot".


A more "modern" M.C. Escherian version might be: "Putting their heads up their asses and jumping."
(ironically, the sound made when that happens sounds a lot like a duck call)

Here's what's playing around the Robertson Company Headquarters, 'ceptin' fer substitutin' "Patriarch" for "Man" and "Family" for "Woman":

----------


## jerrywall

> Do you agree with him basically saying that black people would happier if Jim Crow laws were still around?


That's a rather loose and creative interpretation of his words.

----------


## OKVision4U

> He is certainly free to say anything he wants...bigoted or not. A&E has every right to fire him as well. Like it or not he's a spokesperson for the A&E brand, and if what he said doesn't fit with that, they are perfectly within their right to fire him.


...not so fast my friend.  Phil leads the family in prayer, praying to the God he spoke of in the bible.  A&E is OK with that "speech" and they approve of it by allowing it Over, and over each episode? This is their way of (acceptance).  If they (A&E) had fired him the first time he "prayed" then they would be in a better position in the release of Phil for his Christian statements.

The advertising groups that "don't belive / don't carry the same view" can opt out of its obligation.  That is the Free Market you are speaking of.  Employee rights are a completely different set of laws.  Civil liberties apply to an individual, not a corporation.

----------


## jerrywall

I doubt any of the existing advertisers had much of a problem with his opinions.  Nor did A&E. They've known about them all along. This was merely political pressure from groups that weren't even part of his audience.  And you know what, I expect the DD folks to not give a single damn.  They've made it clear that the show is a bonus revenue, and they're happy to walk away from it whenever.

----------


## AP

> Why does there have to be any consequences?  Why can't the people who don't like him just ignore him?  Hell, if I lived my life in a constant state of outrage that some seem to, I would never go see a Hollywood movie.


Because his employer, A&E, didn't like what he said and suspended him. End of story. They have every right to do that. Just like Don Imus was suspended when he called Rutger's womens basketball team nappy-headed hoes.

----------


## RadicalModerate

Shouldn't all of this really be over on the Non-Issue du Jour thread?  =)

----------


## OKVision4U

> Because his employer, A&E, didn't like what he said and suspended him. End of story. They have every right to do that. Just like Don Imus was suspended when he called Rutger's womens basketball team nappy-headed hoes.


No,  He quoted the Bible.

----------


## Just the facts

> ...not so fast my friend.  Phil leads the family in prayer, praying to the God he spoke of in the bible.  A&E is OK with that "speech" and they approve of it by allowing it Over, and over each episode? This is their way of (acceptance).  If they (A&E) had fired him the first time he "prayed" then they would be in a better position in the release of Phil for his Christian statements.
> 
> The advertising groups that "don't belive / don't carry the same view" can opt out of its obligation.  That is the Free Market you are speaking of.  Employee rights are a completely different set of laws.  Civil liberties apply to an individual, not a corporation.


They didn't just film him praying at supper by accident - it was A&E's idea to end each episode that way.

----------


## jerrywall

> No,  He quoted the Bible.


Wow.  I need a new edition.  Which chapter states the following?

"And Jesus said 'It seems like, to me, a ******—as a man—would be more desirable than a man’s anus.'"

I'd read that version.

----------


## AP

> No,  He quoted the Bible.


He definitely didn't quote anything. He paraphrased. He also grouped homosexuals, drunks, and terrorists together saying, "We let God sort 'em out later, you see what I'm saying?" If you don't see the issue comparing homosexuals and terrorists, then I can't help you.

----------


## jerrywall

> He definitely didn't quote anything. He paraphrased. He also grouped homosexuals, drunks, and terrorists together saying, "We let God sort 'em out later, you see what I'm saying?" If you don't see the issue comparing homosexuals and terrorists, then I can't help you.


I don't see it as he was comparing them, as much as he was just listing sins.  Unless you think he was also equating drunks with terrorists too.  It's also fair to include the first part of that quote...




> “We never, ever judge someone on who’s going to heaven, hell. That’s the Almighty’s job. We just love ‘em, give ‘em the good news about Jesus"

----------


## FritterGirl

"It is time to restore the American precept that each individual is accountable for his actions." ~ Ronald Reagan

----------


## MustangGT

> Free speech exists in the progressive world so long as they agree with it. Otherwise you'll be attacked.


Exactly.  If you do not promote the "company" line you are ostracized.  Bring him back Ass&Ears Network!!!

----------


## FritterGirl

> Exactly.  If you do not promote the "company" line you are ostracized.  Bring him back Ass&Ears Network!!!


So under that same precept, MSNBC should bring back Martin Bashir for his comments against Sarah Palin? Or, Alec Baldwin for his anti-LGBT comments? Just wondering.

----------


## Lord Helmet

You know what's really sad? Our news media is covering this like its a worthy front page story. With all that's going on in this country not to mention the world, we have wall to wall coverage of some bigot being fired. This is a non-story. The media should be ashamed of itself.

----------


## onthestrip

> ...not so fast my friend.  Phil leads the family in prayer, praying to the God he spoke of in the bible.  A&E is OK with that "speech" and they approve of it by allowing it Over, and over each episode? This is their way of (acceptance).  If they (A&E) had fired him the first time he "prayed" then they would be in a better position in the release of Phil for his Christian statements.
> 
> The advertising groups that "don't belive / don't carry the same view" can opt out of its obligation.  That is the Free Market you are speaking of.  Employee rights are a completely different set of laws.  Civil liberties apply to an individual, not a corporation.


First, good job on the worlds worst comparison in the first paragraph. Zero sense.

Second, yes, advertisers can opt out if they dont like it and thats probably what was being threatened. A&E can then appease the advertisers, discipline the problem, and protect the bottom line. Employers are allowed to do that. Period.

----------


## Dubya61

> First, good job on the worlds worst comparison in the first paragraph. Zero sense.
> 
> Second, yes, advertisers can opt out if they dont like it and thats probably what was being threatened. A&E can then appease the advertisers, discipline the problem, and protect the bottom line. *Employers are allowed to do that.* Period.


Businesses are encouraged to do that.

----------


## adaniel

> Do you agree with him basically saying that black people would happier if Jim Crow laws were still around?


FWIW I was more bothered by this. Cause ya know, blacks were just so happy back in those days, before they all got on welfare like they are now, of course. 

In a weird way, I feel bad for him as it is obvious A&E never provided them with a publicist. This is not the first time Phil has made some pretty charged comments. In his mind, he has probably said much worse at home and thought he was "toning it down" for GQ. 

If you are going to feed from the trough of fame and stardom, you gotta be willing to accept the good and bad with it. IMO this is probably the beginning of the end of Duck Dynasty.

----------


## venture

This thread is just another example of how irrational people are becoming. Attacking the company when it exercises its right to suspend an employee...but then line up for miles for chicken on an "appreciation day" when a company starts to defend itself from a one of the same minority groups. 

In most states, everyone is an at-will employee. Are we now arguing that companies don't have the right to hire/fire at-will employees when they see fit? I'm pretty sure the contract language for this guy has an out clause for A&E and their legal team has been through it several times.

----------


## Just the facts

> IMO this is probably the beginning of the end of Duck Dynasty.


Are you kidding?  This just bought them at least 2 more years.

----------


## jerrywall

> This thread is just another example of how irrational people are becoming. Attacking the company when it exercises its right to suspend an employee...but then line up for miles for chicken on an "appreciation day" when a company starts to defend itself from a one of the same minority groups. 
> 
> In most states, everyone is an at-will employee. Are we now arguing that companies don't have the right to hire/fire at-will employees when they see fit? I'm pretty sure the contract language for this guy has an out clause for A&E and their legal team has been through it several times.


I don't know that anyone in this thread has argued that A&E doesn't have the right (except for maybe the original post) to fire Phil.  Now whether they were right or smart to do so in a business sense is something else entirely.

----------


## Just the facts

> I don't know that anyone in this thread has argued that A&E doesn't have the right (except for maybe the original post) to fire Phil.  Now whether they were right or smart to do so in a business sense is something else entirely.


This is where A&E messed up.  They should have simply said, "Phil Roberts is a participant on a reality TV show.  Phil Robertson is not A&E.", and left it at that.

----------


## RadicalModerate

The only obvious outcome of all this is that GQ Magazine is going straight to Hel.
(much like Gourmet and Reader's Digest)
(and National Geographic is on the way to Limbo, pending further review)

(please be advised that none of any of the above postings have anything to do with insider trading involving Lifetime as the safety net(work) of choice.  be sure that you are well advised. please.  the executives at Lifetime have nothing to do with this.)

----------


## OKCisOK4me

I think everyone just needs to get off Phil's back... :Smiley053:

----------


## RadicalModerate

> This is where A&E messed up.  They should have simply said, "Phil Roberts is a participant on a reality TV show.  Phil Robertson is not A&E.", and left it at that.


Damn straight: A&E should have grown a pair . . . of Ovaries. (fer cryin' out loud =) 
(geez . . .)
(louise)

edited to add: WTF?

----------


## Garin

They should leave A&E and go to the Blaze network where they would be appreciated.

----------


## kevinpate

I suspect that, if anything, Papa Phil is just happy, happy, happy if his obligations to the show are dialed down, or even cancelled.
More time to hunt, fish, hug Miss Kay, and the boys can go do what the boys do.

Some folk think Papa Phil be crazy.  I think they don't realize they are only half right.  Papa Phil be crazy ... like a fox.

----------


## MadMonk

Well, they say any publicity is good publicity.

I don't view this incident any differently than the good 'ole Dixie Chick's publicity debacle a few years back.  If your job is to entertain the public, you are beholden to the whims of public opinion.  I don't know if A&E got lots of calls calling from viewers for that hillbilly's head (doubtful) or if they were getting calls from their advertisers (more likely), but it makes no difference.  You can say anything you want, but you have to deal with the consequences of doing so.

----------


## RadicalModerate

> I suspect that, if anything, Papa Phil is just happy, happy, happy if his obligations to the show are dialed down, or even cancelled.
> More time to hunt, fish, hug Miss Kay, and the boys can go do what the boys do.
> 
> Some folk think Papa Phil be crazy.  I think they don't realize they are only half right.  Papa Phil be crazy ... like a fox.


OH!  So now you are dragging B'rer Rabbit before The Bench (of public opinion and jurors and peers and soforth).
(you know that I'm sorta kidding here, right? =)

----------


## Roger S

Note to self: Self, when A&E comes to you wanting to put you on BBQ Dynasty. Tell them up front that you are an equal opportunity offender of the easily offended.

----------


## RadicalModerate

^Too cool fer school/shule/skool, amigo. amen?

----------


## RadicalModerate

Edited to Add: Nearly WillRogerian in its simple Perfection.

----------


## Stew

I have never watched duck dynasty or do I know who this guy is or even what he said or why I should give a fiddler's fart about it but obviously by my facebook news feed I'm missing out on a high quality outrage fix. And like most folks these days I'm an outrage junkie soothed only by how upset I can get about things that have absolutely no impact on my life whatsoever.

----------


## RadicalModerate

^Amen to dat.  One suggestion: Research the difference between fiddler's farts and unicorn farts prior to mail-ordering a duck call from A&E (a wholly-owned subsidiary of DuckDynasty, Inc.) in order to be able to catch the right one.  If you so choose to do.

----------


## OKCisOK4me

> I have never watched duck dynasty or do I know who this guy is or even what he said or why I should give a fiddler's fart about it but obviously by my facebook news feed I'm missing out on a high quality outrage fix. And like most folks these days I'm an outrage junkie soothed only by how upset I can get about things that have absolutely no impact on my life whatsoever.


Sorry about your dog.  He was a helluva guy.

----------


## RadicalModerate

> Sorry about your dog.  He was a helluva guy.


I'm sort of curious as to whether Bro. Phil is familiar with these verses of an old, old song.
I used to know them by heart . . . still do, in a way . . .

1Blessed is the man that walketh 
not in the counsel of the ungodly,
nor standeth in the way of sinners,
nor sitteth in the seat of the scornful.

2But his delight is in the law of the LORD;
and in his law doth he meditate day and night.

3And he shall be like a tree
planted by the rivers of water,
that bringeth forth his fruit in his season;
his leaf also shall not wither;
and whatsoever he doeth shall prosper.

4The ungodly are not so:
but are like the chaff
which the wind driveth away.

5Therefore the ungodly
shall not stand in the judgment,
nor sinners in the congregation of the righteous.

6 For the LORD knoweth the way of the righteous: 
but the way of the ungodly shall perish.

(I'd bet A&E ain't never even heard the song, even once)

----------


## OKCisOK4me

^^^^Sincerely, confused^^^^

----------


## Midtowner

So skimming the thread, apparently some of y'all think there's a Constitutional right to have a show on A&E?

----------


## Pete

> I have never watched duck dynasty or do I know who this guy is or even what he said or why I should give a fiddler's fart about it but obviously by my facebook news feed I'm missing out on a high quality outrage fix. And like most folks these days I'm an outrage junkie soothed only by how upset I can get about things that have absolutely no impact on my life whatsoever.


Well observed.

It's like many can't get through the day without a good dose of self-righteousness indignation.


A funny aspect of this was when the gay waitress supposedly got stiffed on a tip due to her sexuality...  Then it turned out to be a hoax.

I saw several people post about wanting to take back the emotion they had exerted on her behalf.  As if it had been true, that energy would have been well spent.

----------


## jerrywall

> So skimming the thread, apparently some of y'all think there's a Constitutional right to have a show on A&E?


Which posts said that?

----------


## OKVision4U

> He definitely didn't quote anything. He paraphrased. He also grouped homosexuals, drunks, and terrorists together saying, "We let God sort 'em out later, you see what I'm saying?" If you don't see the issue comparing homosexuals and terrorists, then I can't help you.


He was referring to sin.  The sin of man.  Any man.  All men.  ...all groups of men.  "for All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" Rom. 3:23.  Now, you may or may not be a Christian, but that "grouping of ALL men together" is what Phil was referring to.

----------


## Urbanized

Anyone who is shocked at what he said has never watched the show. And if you've watched the show, you'll know that there won't be an apology tour.

----------


## trousers

It's actually pretty clever marketing by A&E to suspend/fire/whatever this guy.
--dude says stupid crap = newstory!
--A&E fires dude = newstory!
--A&E rehires dude = newstory! 
or
--A&E creates spinoff for rest of family = newstory!
No matter what happens both his family and A&E will end up making money off of this.

----------


## OKCisOK4me

> He was referring to sin.  The sin of man.  Any man.  All men.  ...all groups of men.  "for All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" Rom. 3:23.  Now, you may or may not be a Christian, but that "grouping of ALL men together" is what Phil was referring to.


I notice there's no mention of lesbians.  Since he was only speaking of men in his interview, maybe he likes seeing two ******s together...which would be an oxymoron.

----------


## OKVision4U

> I notice there's no mention of lesbians.  Since he was only speaking of men in his interview, maybe he likes seeing two ******s together...which would be an oxymoron.


...the ALL HAVE SINNED and fall short of the glory of God, it includes the ladies groups as well.  ...the key word in that Bible verse is ALL.

----------


## OU Adonis

Mainly my issue is how the liberals say they are tolerant but only is as far as if you agree with them.

If Hobby Lobby had a spokesman or TV show star and they came out to be gay or in an interview and promoted the gay lifestyle and then Hobby Lobby fired them, would liberals be OK with it?

----------


## venture

> Mainly my issue is how the liberals say they are tolerant but only is as far as if you agree with them.
> 
> If Hobby Lobby had a spokesman or TV show star and they came out to be gay or in an interview and promoted the gay lifestyle and then Hobby Lobby fired them, would liberals be OK with it?


Well you need to pick a situation. Are they actively promoting the lifestyle and values that contradict the beliefs of the company/family or are they inadvertently promoting the lifestyle by coming out of the closet?  Two TOTALLY different situations.

The first is going to be violation of company policy and that is the companies right since all employment is at-will. The second part you are going into outright discrimination which thankfully most companies and locals have laws against firing the person just for being gay.

----------


## OKCisOK4me

> ...the ALL HAVE SINNED and fall short of the glory of God, it includes the ladies groups as well.  ...the key word in that Bible verse is ALL.


We're all sinners and all fall short of your God's glory if that's what you mean and since Ol' Phil is so quick to place judgement--a thought held exclusively by that of God only--then he'll be treading boiling water in hell too.  What's on your hand basket?

----------


## bchris02

This isn't really a free speech issue. Phil has the right to stand up for his beliefs and A&E has the right to cut off the hand that feeds them because of it.  I am not a Duck Dynasty fan, never have been, but support the First Amendment all the way as well as the free market.  It really won't be long before another network picks up the show as popular as it is.

----------


## adaniel

> We're all sinners and all fall short of your God's glory if that's what you mean and since Ol' Phil is so quick to place judgement--a thought held exclusively by that of God only--then he'll be treading boiling water in hell too.  What's on your hand basket?


I'm fairly certain Phil beat his wife within an inch of her life back in the day...maybe he should be a bit more careful on who he casts judgement on.

----------


## RadicalModerate

> ^^^^Sincerely, confused^^^^


And that indicates honesty in thought and posting.  =)

----------


## RadicalModerate

> I'm fairly certain Phil beat his wife within an inch of her life back in the day...maybe he should be a bit more careful on who he casts judgement on.


Apparently A&E isn't real good about vetting their celebrities?

----------


## RadicalModerate

> I'm fairly certain Phil beat his wife within an inch of her life back in the day...maybe he should be a bit more careful on who he casts judgement on.


Apparently A&E isn't real good about vetting their Celebrities?
Gee . . . And to think of all the tee-shirts and whatnots that will now not be made in China to fulfill a tiny niche of The American Dream . . .
did someone mention a unicorn farting in a rainforest at some point in here? =)

----------


## Stan Silliman

Maybe the ducks have a little bit of quack in this melee. If you're going metaphysical and otherworldly in this debate, perhaps there's such a thing as duck karma. Maybe it was time for Phil Robertson to pay his "bill."

I could see it as a great karmic set-up. If you were a duck in a past life and you wanted to get even with a guy who created a product which simulated mating calls to send horny ducks to their early demise, which magazine would you write for? Naturally GQ, only in Ducktown it's known as Gander Quacks. It used to be Greenhead Quacks, but they were bought out. This works, if you were a former duck returned as a snarky sports writer, Drew Magary, (anagrammed as Web Gray Ram) writing for Deadspin, Kissing Suzy Kolber and Gawker then sometimes stringing for GQ.

It works because in your past life you were hunted for sport. They gawked at you in flight. When you went out for a spin, the duck hunters tried to give you a woody by setting out some woodies. In the end your spin around the lake turned into a "Deadspin." It's time to get even. Of course, being a past duck you're a friend of Drake, a black-Jew, and if you can get your target, Mr. Robertson, to also say something demeaning about Blacks and Jews, all the more ammunition to shoot down your target. The duck shooting down the hunter.

----------


## RadicalModerate

> Maybe the ducks have a little bit of quack in this melee. If you're going metaphysical and otherworldly in this debate, perhaps there's such a thing as duck karma. Maybe it was time for Phil Robertson to pay his "bill."
> 
> I could see it as a great karmic set-up. If you were a duck in a past life and you wanted to get even with a guy who created a product which simulated mating calls to send horny ducks to their early demise, which magazine would you write for? Naturally GQ, only in Ducktown it's known as Gander Quacks. It used to be Greenhead Quacks, but they were bought out. This works, if you were a former duck returned as a snarky sports writer, Drew Magary, (anagrammed as Web Gray Ram) writing for Deadspin, Kissing Suzy Kolber and Gawker then sometimes stringing for GQ.
> 
> It works because in your past life you were hunted for sport. They gawked at you in flight. When you went out for a spin, the duck hunters tried to give you a woody by setting out some woodies. In the end your spin around the lake turned into a "Deadspin." It's time to get even. Of course, being a past duck you're a friend of Drake, a black-Jew, and if you can get your target, Mr. Robertson, to also say something demeaning about Blacks and Jews, all the more ammunition to shoot down your target. The duck shooting down the hunter.


Wasn't it the late John Lennon who--on the tail end of Celebrity--observed: "Instant Karma Gonna Getchu?"
I'm thinkin' A&E is in fo' a big slap on IT's Be-hind.
Not that any of this matters to me.  the entire "Duck Dynasty" Reality TV thing is more boring to me than . . . 
honey boo boo?  =)

Jest Kiddin' o' course.

----------


## Dustin

Can someone who watches this show explain what is so appealing about it?

----------


## ljbab728

> You know what's really sad? Our news media is covering this like its a worthy front page story. With all that's going on in this country not to mention the world, we have wall to wall coverage of some bigot being fired. This is a non-story. The media should be ashamed of itself.


And this topic has generated 79 posts so far today.  How does that compare to the other topics you are interested in and what does that say about our posters?  Should they all be ashamed of themselves?

----------


## jerrywall

> Can someone who watches this show explain what is so appealing about it?


I watched it at first, and it was funny.  Especially when they road a row boat on a conveyor belt.  Then I never watched again.  So I don't know.

----------


## Just the facts

> I'm fairly certain Phil beat his wife within an inch of her life back in the day...maybe he should be a bit more careful on who he casts judgement on.


Who did Phil cast judgment on?

Here is the rest of the quote so many of you are worked up over.




> We never, ever judge someone on whos going to heaven, hell. Thats the Almightys job. We just love em, give em the good news about Jesuswhether theyre homosexuals, drunks, terrorists. We let God sort em out later, you see what Im saying?
> 
> 
> Read more: Duck Dynasty's Phil Robertson Makes Anti-Gay Statements | TIME.com Duck Dynasty's Phil Robertson Makes Anti-Gay Statements | TIME.com

----------


## RadicalModerate

> Can someone who watches this show explain what is so appealing about it?


[
If that wasn't a possibly offensive rhetorical question then the answer is ["Quack"]

----------


## RadicalModerate

> And this topic has generated 79 posts so far today.  How does that compare to the other topics you are interested in and what does that say about our posters?  Should they all be ashamed of themselves?


Damn Straight. Fer Shure.

----------


## OU Adonis

> Well you need to pick a situation. Are they actively promoting the lifestyle and values that contradict the beliefs of the company/family or are they inadvertently promoting the lifestyle by coming out of the closet?  Two TOTALLY different situations.
> 
> The first is going to be violation of company policy and that is the companies right since all employment is at-will. The second part you are going into outright discrimination which thankfully most companies and locals have laws against firing the person just for being gay.


In Oklahoma, Sexuality is not a protected class and Hobby Lobby employees are not federal employees so they could fire based on sexuality. 

But that wasn't the point I was trying to make.

----------


## RadicalModerate

From back in the day when Celebrities were more carefully vetted:

(quack)
in order to restore perspective
(quack)

and just after he was let out on bail  . . .



[Quack] GQ

----------


## onthestrip

For those that are upset with A&E, why weren't you up in arms when MSNBC dropped Alec Baldwin after his use of a gay slur?

----------


## Oh GAWD the Smell!

> For those that are upset with A&E, why weren't you up in arms when MSNBC dropped Alec Baldwin after his use of a gay slur?


Had a friend put it like this: 

"So when the Boy Scouts of America, Chick-Fil-A, Fox News and other businesses take measures, as a business, that support anti-gay policy, it's not Freedom of Speech, it's "The Free Market's right to operate their business how they see fit." But when A&E takes measures, as a business, to drop a personality from its programming for taking a stance that goes against their corporate beliefs, suddenly the First Amendment has been shredded. "

----------


## RadicalModerate

> For those that are upset with A&E, why weren't you up in arms when MSNBC dropped Alec Baldwin after his use of a gay slur?


Good Question. What's The Answer?

----------


## ou48A



----------


## OKVision4U

> Had a friend put it like this: 
> 
> "So when the Boy Scouts of America, Chick-Fil-A, Fox News and other businesses take measures, as a business, that support anti-gay policy, it's not Freedom of Speech, it's "The Free Market's right to operate their business how they see fit." But when A&E takes measures, as a business, to drop a personality from its programming for taking a stance that goes against their corporate beliefs, suddenly the First Amendment has been shredded. "


...and all those rules apply to the "Workplace".  Where did this event happen?  ...in a seperate location  / off-hours.  Now, I'm sure his contract may have a few clauses that preclude him from certain actions, but those are specific.  This is about his "belief", not his opinion.

----------


## Garin

This issue is about the government handing out special rights to preferential groups.

----------


## Just the facts

> For those that are upset with A&E, why weren't you up in arms when MSNBC dropped Alec Baldwin after his use of a gay slur?


I guess the difference is Baldwin was making the comments in a hurtful and demeaning way as part of an insult.  Phil Robertson said we need to love the sinner and share the word of God with them and that to him sex between men didn't seem logical.

On a side note, MSNBC was trying to get rid of Baldwin almost from day one and his choice words gave them the out they were looking for.  Of course, I would have fired back when he said this...

MSNBC fires Baldwin over anti-gay slurs | Page Six




> When Baldwin was told he couldnt have his way, he allegedly bellowed at the top of his lungs, I dont give a f - - k if she has cancer or not, I want that f - - king makeup room.

----------


## Jeepnokc

> Mainly my issue is how the liberals say they are tolerant but only is as far as if you agree with them.


Because that doesn't happen with the conservatives? * Both sides are guilty of this*.  Example.....protesting the play (The most fabulous story I think was the name of it) that is going on right now or gay marriage.  No one has been able to explain to me why two guys getting married affects my marriage to my wife in any way.  As far as the play, if I don't want to see the play...I won't go.  It's not like they are putting it on in my front yard.  (Don't try the its in a government owned forum....so is the ten commandments at the capital)

----------


## Urbanized

> Can someone who watches this show explain what is so appealing about it?


Do you have any country cousins? If so, you know how much fun it is to go to family holidays and listen to them yammer about city folk, and hunting, and how entertaining it is watching them rig up ways to have fun and almost kill themselves in the bargain? OK, now imagine them with loads of money and comedy writers.

The end.

----------


## Lord Helmet

> This issue is about the government handing out special rights to preferential groups.


Huh? This thread has nothing to do with government or rights. What are you talking about?

----------


## Stan Silliman

> Can someone who watches this show explain what is so appealing about it?


Do you ever watch Coen Brothers movies? They show us provincial folks in their element and squeeze the funny out of these little ethnic studies. 
Three movies in particular show provincial lower class types whooping it up: "Raising Arizona" "Fargo" and "Oh, Brother, Where Art Thou?"

The Coens accentuate the accents, show the actors in ridiculous situations. "The Big Lebowski" also has a little of that. 

On "Duck Dynasty" you didn't have to hire actors. You get a glimpse of what America fears most, rednecks with money.

----------


## onthestrip

> I guess the difference is Baldwin was making the comments in a hurtful and demeaning way as part of an insult.  *Phil Robertson said we need to love the sinner and share the word of God with them and that to him sex between men didn't seem logical.*


If only Phil had put it so nicely we wouldnt be having this argument. Instead he lumped homosexuality with bestiality and then also insinuated all blacks are on entitlements and welfare when he said they were so happy slaving in the fields during their pre-entitlement days. Basically Phil didnt know how or didnt try to frame his words in a non offensive way, thus A&E decided to take action.

----------


## OKVision4U

> If only Phil had put it so nicely we wouldnt be having this argument. Instead he lumped homosexuality with bestiality and then also insinuated all blacks are on entitlements and welfare when he said they were so happy slaving in the fields during their pre-entitlement days. Basically Phil didnt know how or didnt try to frame his words in a non offensive way, thus A&E decided to take action.


Really?  Where exact did he say this?  Provide link.  Before you get too far down this path.

----------


## Garin

> Huh? This thread has nothing to do with government or rights. What are you talking about?



Daniel D’Addario, writing for uber-liberal Salon, is correct. The Duck Dynasty imbroglio is not about the First Amendment. A&E has the right to suspend whatever actor or television show it deems appropriate for its business. “Freedom of the press is guaranteed only to those who own one,” said A. J. Liebling, highlighting what should be common sense.

D’Addario takes Sarah Palin and other conservatives to task for citing the First Amendment in the debate over Phil Robertson’s comments about his sexual preference and religion published in Esquire magazine. Palin was certainly off base, but notice D’Addario does not touch on the real issue here — the left activist and corporate media sanctified homosexual agenda currently masquerading as the next human rights campaign.

For many Democrats and libs, rejection of homosexuality along religious lines, as expressed by Robertson, is a hate crime little different than the hate crime of Nazis shuffling Jews off to death camps. The absurdity of this is imperceptible to the average liberal. In order to make up for this supposed prejudice, liberals insist gays must be granted special rights by the government. Special government granted rights for one preferential group, of course, necessitates a diminishment of rights of another group.

After special rights are granted to a preferential group by government, the real First Amendment issue arises. People who express disapproval and on occasion contempt for homosexuality are suddenly transformed into hate criminals who don’t deserve the right to exercise the First Amendment.

Since the late 1960s, gay activists have demanded society not only accept their lifestyle unquestioningly, but provide affirmation. “We are no longer seeking just a right to privacy and a protection from wrong. We also have a right — as heterosexual Americans already have — to see government and society affirm our lives,” said homosexual spokesperson Jeff Levi in 1987 before the National Press Club in Washington.
Acceptance of the gay lifestyle necessitates indoctrination. Soon after gay marriage was codified in Massachusetts, the government sanctified validity of homosexuality was merged into grade school curriculum. First grade teachers were instructed that they must “be aware of varied family structures, including… gay or lesbian parents,” and “children must be taught to acknowledge the positive aspects of each type of household.” Books for children with names like “Heather Has Two Mommies” and “Gloria Goes to Gay Pride” included the gay ethic in public education regardless of often vociferous opposition by parents.

The gay agenda, largely designed and promoted by the global elite and the establishment intelligentsia, has worked on multiple levels to erode Christian-based morals, rollback legal statutes with religious foundation, and modify laws to legalize homosexual marriage, force business to hire openly gay people, and in general make negative opinions by individuals regarding homosexuality illegal.
Salon does not tread this territory because it enthusiastically supports the gay agenda, as does the rest of the so-called left. Instead it concentrates on erroneous comments made by Sarah Palin and others who are confused about the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

For the left, special government-granted rights for homosexuals at the expense of heterosexuals is the next wave in the socialist transformation. It is an ideal tool wielded by progressive activists as they bludgeon the opposition in authoritarian fashion and continue an effort to turn political ideology they disagree with into criminal behavior.

----------


## jerrywall

^^ I'm not with these people.

What special rights are LGBTOs trying to get?

I will say, on the flip side, I don't want to see our laws get close to Canada's where you can get fined or arrested for words.  Although I would support bringing back duels.

----------


## Garin

Lesbian
Gay
Bi sexual 
Transgender
What is O ?

----------


## jerrywall

Other.

----------


## Garin

Other than human beings? Not sure what other means.

----------


## Stew

> Other than human beings? Not sure what other means.


Do you really want to know?

----------


## hoya

> Other than human beings? Not sure what other means.


Yeah, I'm gonna agree with Garin on this.  Other?  Seriously?  Just in case we left out some possible group?

----------


## jerrywall

There are folks who don't identify as either gender.  Don't ask me.  The other alternative is Q for "Questioning".

----------


## Garin

Why does a sexual preference throw a person into a category anyway?

----------


## Stew

We're humans. We categorize everything. It's just what we do.

----------


## RadicalModerate

> We're humans. We categorize everything. It's just what we do.


It's one of the things that separates us from the "lower" animals.
That comment will probably be offensive to a few Other Ossholes.
Their being Offended is actually a personal choice.
I didn't Offend them . . . they allowed themselves to think they are Offended.
It's along the lines of "You Hurt My Feelings". No I didn't.  You did.
(btw: that concept isn't an Original thought.  I adopted it from William Dyer back when I was an insecure 20-Something. about 40 years ago.)
(along the way, I discovered that apparently Joyce Meyer has probably also read some of William Dyer's early works =)

----------


## RadicalModerate

> Daniel D’Addario, writing for uber-liberal Salon, is correct. The Duck Dynasty imbroglio is not about the First Amendment. A&E has the right to suspend whatever actor or television show it deems appropriate for its business. “Freedom of the press is guaranteed only to those who own one,” said *A. J. Liebling*, highlighting what should be common sense.


Wow.  That is so weird.  I actually have a copy of a collection of A.J. Liebling's essays.
They are great.  Especially when you consider that he was writing before the invention of The Internets.
He focused a lot on boxing, yet his account of being on a ship, in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean, a few weeks before Christmas, when America's involvement in WWII began, is mesmerizing.

(I chose the word "mesmerizing" on account of "mer" is in the middle and references "sea". =)

Next to "Political Correctness" "Common Sense" is The Biggest Oxymoron of Our Day.


Edited to Add: For the Record: I couldn't care less about the sexual choices of others.
I think EVERYONE deserves a good measure of respect and kindness.
In case I didn't make that clear, previously.

(can i get an 'amen'?  =)

----------


## Garin

Oprah Winfrey; An entire generation of white people have to DIE! - YouTube

Yet this lady is allowed to say a whole generation of white people just need to die. And she gets a free pass its such a lefty move

----------


## dmoor82

?Duck Dynasty? star Phil Robertson appears to verbally attack gay people in newly emerged video - NY Daily News from 2010.

----------


## dmoor82

> Oprah Winfrey; An entire generation of white people have to DIE! - YouTube
> 
> Yet this lady is allowed to say a whole generation of white people just need to die. And she gets a free pass its such a lefty move


Wow, and nothing happened to her?

----------


## onthestrip

> Really?  Where exact did he say this?  Provide link.  Before you get too far down this path.


First, if you are posting here then you are able to use google and find it yourself.

Second, you shouldnt be commenting because it appears you havent even read what Phil said.

----------


## mkjeeves

> comedy writers


 john boy + beverly hillbillies + bill dance 


Here's what the actors looked like before they became american taliban. Duck Dynasty is Fake! And That?s a Fact, Jack! (Video) | Americans Against the Tea Party

In the show, they do resemble some of my kinfolk.

----------


## PennyQuilts

O = Hermaphrodite

----------


## Bunty

> Can someone who watches this show explain what is so appealing about it?


No, but I hope it's as exciting and interesting as Call of the Wildman on Animal Planet.  Probably some people wonder about Turtleman.

----------


## Garin

> O = Hermaphrodite


So shouldn't it be:
Man
Woman
Hermaphrodite

Whats the need for all these other labels? Its very confusing.

----------


## MustangGT

Even Camilla Pagila supported Phil's right to speak his mind.  She essentially told the LGBT community to quit getting butt hurt when somebody says something they disagree with.

----------


## ou48A



----------


## kelroy55

> Oprah Winfrey; An entire generation of white people have to DIE! - YouTube
> 
> Yet this lady is allowed to say a whole generation of white people just need to die. And she gets a free pass its such a lefty move


Either you didn't listen to the short clip or choose to ignore what she was referring to.  She said "older people that were born and bred in prejudice and racism just have to die."   Since that was just a 28 second clip from an interview it's impossible to put in context what led up to her statement,  impossible to those who don't have an agenda and use a 28 second clip from a whole interview to try and make somebody look bad.

Personally I don't care what Phil had to say and I support his right to say it.  I also support his employer's right to suspend him for it.  I went out and said stuff that my employer didn't like or could possible affect their business I would be fired.  Nobody is attacking his 1st Amendment rights.

I'll add if Phil was in the Klan and he said a bunch of stuff about Blacks, Jews, etc that would be ok because he was just expressing himself and his employer should just let it pass?

----------


## TaoMaas

> She essentially told the LGBT community to quit getting butt hurt when somebody says something they disagree with.


Right!  It's not like he said, "Happy Holidays!"  That's something worth getting butt hurt over!

----------


## Garin

> Either you didn't listen to the short clip or choose to ignore what she was referring to.  She said "older people that were born and bred in prejudice and racism just have to die."   Since that was just a 28 second clip from an interview it's impossible to put in context what led up to her statement,  impossible to those who don't have an agenda and use a 28 second clip from a whole interview to try and make somebody look bad.
> 
> Personally I don't care what Phil had to say and I support his right to say it.  I also support his employer's right to suspend him for it.  I went out and said stuff that my employer didn't like or could possible affect their business I would be fired.  Nobody is attacking his 1st Amendment rights.
> 
> I'll add if Phil was in the Klan and he said a bunch of stuff about Blacks, Jews, etc that would be ok because he was just expressing himself and his employer should just let it pass?


I actually watched the entire 12 min clip but spared everyone the interview about her movie the butler and went straight to the goods. She said a whole generation of old white people that were born in the south need to die!

----------


## kelroy55

> I actually watched the entire 12 min clip but spared everyone the interview about her movie the butler and went straight to the goods. She said a whole generation of old white people that were born in the south need to die!


Then please post it for us instead of the 28 seconds you chose to use against her.

----------


## TaoMaas

> I actually watched the entire 12 min clip but spared everyone the interview about her movie the butler and went straight to the goods. She said a whole generation of old white people that were born in the south need to die!


I think you should start a petition to get OWN to fire her!

----------


## OSUMom

I agree that A & E have every right to drop someone from a show for whatever reason they want.  Just like radio stations dropping the Dixie Chicks back in the day.  The difference is, the radio stations were responding to the wishes of their listeners.  It doesn't sound like Duck Dynasty viewers are behind this move by A & E.  And that difference is important.  It is one thing to respond to your customers.  It is another thing to appear to be dictating to them what they can watch based on someone else's opinion.  In the end A & E is in it for the money and making your customer base angry is not a good money move.

----------


## Garin

> Then please post it for us instead of the 28 seconds you chose to use against her.



EUROPEAN RACISM: Oprah Winfrey - Old Racists "JUST HAVE TO DIE" To Further Racial Progress! - YouTube

----------


## kelroy55

It happens....

(CNN) -- The "tweet heard round the world" was followed by the sound of a slamming door Saturday.

Media company IAC has "parted ways" with the company PR executive who tweeted: "Going to Africa. Hope I don't get AIDS. Just kidding. I'm white!"

"The offensive comment does not reflect the views and values of IAC. We take this issue very seriously, and we have parted ways with the employee in question," an IAC spokesman said in a statement.

"There is no excuse for the hateful statements that have been made and we condemn them unequivocally," he said. "We hope, however, that time and action, and the forgiving human spirit, will not result in the wholesale condemnation of an individual who we have otherwise known to be a decent person at core."

----------


## kelroy55

> EUROPEAN RACISM: Oprah Winfrey - Old Racists "JUST HAVE TO DIE" To Further Racial Progress! - YouTube


That's still not the full interview.

----------


## PennyQuilts

> It happens....
> 
> (CNN) -- The "tweet heard round the world" was followed by the sound of a slamming door Saturday.
> 
> Media company IAC has "parted ways" with the company PR executive who tweeted: "Going to Africa. Hope I don't get AIDS. Just kidding. I'm white!"
> 
> "The offensive comment does not reflect the views and values of IAC. We take this issue very seriously, and we have parted ways with the employee in question," an IAC spokesman said in a statement.
> 
> "There is no excuse for the hateful statements that have been made and we condemn them unequivocally," he said. "We hope, however, that time and action, and the forgiving human spirit, will not result in the wholesale condemnation of an individual who we have otherwise known to be a decent person at core."


That was just a pathetic mob action and almost frightening how people went rabid with no more than that.  I don't know what the woman was thinking and you don't either.  What it sounded like, to me, was satire/sarcasm.

----------


## boscorama

LGBTQ.  That's not an O. It's Q, for Queer.

----------


## Garin



----------


## Garin

I think more people have signed up to boycot Cracker Barrel  than have signed up for obummercare.

----------


## Chadanth

> 


You're aware he got cancelled, right?

----------


## Chadanth

> I think more people have signed up to boycot Cracker Barrel  than have signed up for obummercare.


I boycott Cracker Barrel because their food sucks. Maybe it would be relevant if a place with decent food offended my sensibilities.

----------


## Just the facts

> I think more people have signed up to boycot Cracker Barrel  than have signed up for obummercare.


I go to Cracker Barrel about 3 times a year, but they just made my list as well.

1) No Walmart
2) No McDonalds
3) No High Fructose Corn Syrup
4) No grain-fed beef
5) No A&E
 and now
6) No Cracker Barrel (which now that I think of it has a racist name).

In retrospect - all 6 of those were probably bad for me anyhow.

----------


## Oh GAWD the Smell!

> I go to Cracker Barrel about 3 times a year, but they just made my list as well.
> 
> 1) No Walmart
> 2) No McDonalds
> 3) No High Fructose Corn Syrup
> 4) No grain-fed beef
> 5) No A&E
>  and now
> 6) No Cracker Barrel (which now that I think of it has a racist name).
> ...


You know what else is bad for you? Letting the millionaires and billionaires on TV influence your life to the point where you'd boycott something.

----------


## stick47

> You know what else is bad for you? Letting the millionaires and billionaires on TV influence your life to the point where you'd boycott something.


As opposed to a small gay rights activist group that influences a media company that airs a show viewed by more people than any reality show ever. At least the millionaires etc are success stories vs what? 
I'll take the millionaires for 30 minutes Alex.

----------


## GaryOKC6

While I don't watch Duck Dynasty or care about what he said, I do take exception to A&E trying to stop his right to free speech.  I was watching other shows on A&E every day and I will no longer watch the channel.  There are plenty of other things to watch since I have 280 channels. I already blocked them from my favorites and don't miss them a bit. I am sure that another network would want the show and millions of viewers it brings if A&E does not.

----------


## FritterGirl

> I boycott Cracker Barrel because their food sucks. Maybe it would be relevant if a place with decent food offended my sensibilities.


I've boycotted Cracker Barrel for years for multiple reasons, but I also have a friend who has because of the color of her skin, been treated differently at Crackel Barrel  (seated in a back room with other "non-white" diners, guided toward lesser-priced items on the menu, escorted quickly away from the gift shop area, etc.) and on more than one occasion. Some of these incidents have occurred  while accompanied by her children. She travels much throughout the state for her job and sometimes a CB is the best option nearby as much she may not want to go. 

Back to tbe original post topic, people seem to foget in our technology-driven world that words matter, and technology gives a wider audience than they have ever had before. If getting fired from a job for making statements that are offensive to the public at large and put your employer in a bad light is the worst that happens to you, then to that I say "well, tough luck." Words - and the freedom to express them - comes with responsibility; responsibility to yourself, to the empolyer you represent, and yes, to the world around you.

----------


## Garin

I'm still waiting on Obummer to call a beer summit and get this situation fixed.

----------


## Chadanth

> I'm still waiting on Obummer to call a beer summit and get this situation fixed.


Log cabin republicans have reached out. I still don't know why this is a thing. No one's free speech rights have been trampled. No one has been locked up, silenced, tortured, or anything.

----------


## kelroy55

> While I don't watch Duck Dynasty or care about what he said, I do take exception to A&E trying to stop his right to free speech.  I was watching other shows on A&E every day and I will no longer watch the channel.  There are plenty of other things to watch since I have 280 channels. I already blocked them from my favorites and don't miss them a bit. I am sure that another network would want the show and millions of viewers it brings if A&E does not.


How did they try to stop his right to free speech?  He was free to say what he wanted but often times there are consequences.

----------


## kelroy55

> That was just a pathetic mob action and almost frightening how people went rabid with no more than that.  I don't know what the woman was thinking and you don't either.  What it sounded like, to me, was satire/sarcasm.


So you don't have a problem with what she said?

----------


## no1cub17

> How did they try to stop his right to free speech?  He was free to say what he wanted but often times there are consequences.


Exactly! That's the great thing about America - everyone (including bigots) have the right to say what they want and not be prosecuted. However, A&E is a private company and can deal with their employees as they see fit.

----------


## kwhey

> While I don't watch Duck Dynasty or care about what he said, I do take exception to A&E trying to stop his right to free speech.  I was watching other shows on A&E every day and I will no longer watch the channel.  There are plenty of other things to watch since I have 280 channels. I already blocked them from my favorites and don't miss them a bit. I am sure that another network would want the show and millions of viewers it brings if A&E does not.


Having a reality show is not a right.

----------


## Garin

Cracker Barrel Old Country Store  1,529,680 like this
about an hour ago  
Dear Cracker Barrel Customer:

When we made the decision to remove and evaluate certain Duck Dynasty items, we offended many of our loyal customers. Our intent was to avoid offending, but that’s just what we've done.

You told us we made a mistake. And, you weren't shy about it. You wrote, you called and you took to social media to express your thoughts and feelings. You flat out told us we were wrong.

We listened. 

Today, we are putting all our Duck Dynasty products back in our stores. 

And, we apologize for offending you.

We respect all individuals right to express their beliefs. We certainly did not mean to have anyone think different.

We sincerely hope you will continue to be part of our Cracker Barrel family.

----------


## Chadanth

> Cracker Barrel Old Country Store  1,529,680 like this
> about an hour ago  
> Dear Cracker Barrel Customer:
> 
> When we made the decision to remove and evaluate certain Duck Dynasty items, we offended many of our loyal customers. Our intent was to avoid offending, but that’s just what we've done.
> 
> You told us we made a mistake. And, you weren't shy about it. You wrote, you called and you took to social media to express your thoughts and feelings. You flat out told us we were wrong.
> 
> We listened. 
> ...


Their food is still awful.

----------


## TaoMaas

> ...a show viewed by more people than any reality show ever.


  I don't have the exact numbers, but I'm fairly confident Duck Dynasty has never even sniffed the ratings achieved by "Survivor" or "American Idol".  Don't be a pawn to the marketing department of A&E.  There's a difference between "highest rated ever" and "highest rated ever on a cable network".  One is impressive.  The other gets beaten by reruns of Wheel of Fortune.

----------


## TaoMaas

> Cracker Barrel Old Country Store  1,529,680 like this
> about an hour ago  
> Dear Cracker Barrel Customer:
> 
> When we made the decision to remove and evaluate certain Duck Dynasty items, we offended many of our loyal customers. Our intent was to avoid offending, but that’s just what we've done.
> 
> You told us we made a mistake. And, you weren't shy about it. You wrote, you called and you took to social media to express your thoughts and feelings. You flat out told us we were wrong.
> 
> We listened. 
> ...


Values that sway in the breeze, if you ask me.

----------


## kevinpate

> Their food is still awful.


Sitting here thinking on it, I pretty much only order breakfast grub whenever I eat at CB.  Can't really say much as to what the rest of the menu is like.
It's hard to mess up breakfast grub. Not impossible, but you kinda have to try hard to make it happen.

----------


## FritterGirl

> Cracker Barrel Old Country Store  1,529,680 like this
> about an hour ago  
> Dear Cracker Barrel Customer:
> 
> When we made the decision to remove and evaluate certain Duck Dynasty items, we offended many of our loyal customers. Our intent was to avoid offending, but thats just what we've done.
> 
> You told us we made a mistake. And, you weren't shy about it. You wrote, you called and you took to social media to express your thoughts and feelings. You flat out told us we were wrong.
> 
> We listened. 
> ...


I'm surprised they pulled them in the first place. CB has a pretty long history of being openly anti-homosexual, and engaging in subtle racism in its stores. To each their own. Any decisions made by their corporate HQ with regard to the DD quack-up, is just that, a corporate decision swayed by its consumer base; much like A&E's decision to suspend Phil was just that, a corporate decision made to deflect scandal and to keep the support of advertisers. Not much difference there.

----------


## kelroy55

> Sitting here thinking on it, I pretty much only order breakfast grub whenever I eat at CB.  Can't really say much as to what the rest of the menu is like.
> It's hard to mess up breakfast grub. Not impossible, but you kinda have to try hard to make it happen.


I like the Uncle Herschel's

----------


## RadicalModerate

Isn't the name "CRACKER" Barrel, itself, enough of a reason to boycott the place (since this is a direct insult to Rednecks, especially of the Georgian variety?)
(Or is this related, somehow, to the significant likelihood that almost none of The Phil Robertson Offendees--in this instance--ever tune or tuned into Duck Dynasty?)

----------


## ctchandler

I know it's difficult to mess up breakfast, but I really like their breakfast about as much as any I have had.  I didn't care for the hash brown casserole, but that doesn't mean it's not good, just not for me.  Then I found out that all you had to do was ask for regular hash browns and they replaced the casserole.  And they are good too.  I have had three of their dinners and I didn't care for any of them so it's breakfast only at CB for me.
C. T.


> Sitting here thinking on it, I pretty much only order breakfast grub whenever I eat at CB.  Can't really say much as to what the rest of the menu is like.
> It's hard to mess up breakfast grub. Not impossible, but you kinda have to try hard to make it happen.

----------


## kelroy55

I'm not sure I've had any of their dinners except for the pot pie and it wasn't bad.

----------


## soonerguru

CRACKER Barrel is clearly more concerned about offending crackers than they are gays.

----------


## mugofbeer

If you really think the name of the store chain has anything to do with a racist connotation, you need to read more.

----------


## bluedogok

> Even Camilla Pagila supported Phil's right to speak his mind.  She essentially told the LGBT community to quit getting butt hurt when somebody says something they disagree with.


It's amazing how the 60's activists "get it" and the current ones don't understand what an open and frank discussion of the issues could achieve.
This is where I first read about the Paglia quote that someone else had posted up: PoliticalOutcast.com - Duck, Duck, Noose

If you want to see the origins of what this world has become, you only need to look to universities and colleges in the late 80's . The students from that era are the ones who are speaking the loudest and are a large part of the media and corporate world who are succumbing to the whims of the loud minority whose main goal is the suppression of free speech and thought. Hence, the origins of our current state of political correctness. The first time that I really read anything about it was in an opinion piece by a college lecturer that was published in the January 1990 Playboy magazine called Flexing Muzzles by Nat Hentoff. There is a Playboy archive where you can see the story (a complete archive of the magazine including images) but there is a cached newspaper reprint of the article here without objectionable images:
Clarkson Campus Dining Menu

----------


## RadicalModerate

> CRACKER Barrel is clearly more concerned about offending crackers than they are gays.


On the other hand . . . Perhaps the name CRACKER Barrel is intended to APPEAL to "Crackers", letting them know that they have a home-away-from-home within the walls of the establishment and others need not apply on account they will probably get offended then bitch, whine and moan?  I mean, what says "Cracker" better than rocking chairs and giant checkerboards out on the front porch?

----------


## kelroy55

> CRACKER Barrel is clearly more concerned about offending crackers than they are gays.




Cracker Barrel execs have cracked after just one day ... lifting their ban on Phil Robertson's merchandise ... and it's the ultimate hypocrisy.

A CB rep now says the company had no choice but to cave after "Duck Dynasty" fans blasted them via email, phone and social media. 

Cracker Barrel decided to pull the products because it was so concerned about "equal treatment of all people" and "mutual respect."  In other words, they felt Phil was loathsome.

But so much for principles when the almighty dollar gets in the way.  Cracker Barrel now says, "You told us we made a mistake and you weren't shy about it ... you flat out told us we were wrong." 

And this is precious ... They say, "We apologize for offending you."

So here's the upshot.  On Saturday Cracker Barrel apparently felt Phil had offended gays and that's why they took a stand.  But 24 hours later they realized a bigger problem than offending gays is offending customers who pay for CB stuff.

So now the CB rep took the position the company should have taken in the first place:  "We respect all individuals' rights to express their beliefs."

How do CB execs move from office to office ... hard to do when you don't have a spine.

----------


## Just the facts

> So now the CB rep took the position the company should have taken in the first place:  "We respect all individuals' rights to express their beliefs."


Which is exactly what A&E should have done.

Phil didn't make his comments on A&E, he didn't mention A&E in his comments, and he did say he spoke on behalf of A&E.  It is the equivalent of me saying something about Jax on MetroJacksonville.com and getting banned from OKCTalk for it.

----------


## mugofbeer

The CB executives did the right thing listening to their customers.  They are running a business and are not a social engineering organization.  They dont cater to the gay community.  They will live on and continue to expand their presence around the country because they have good food-not because of any agenda.  The LGBT community needs grow some thick skin and accept that not everyone supports their lifestyle and move on.  Its no different than Opera saying how all those old people in the south just need to die -- a pretty vile thing to say but she has a right to say it -- and I dont see her getting fired or having her products pulled from the shelf.

----------


## RadicalModerate

> So here's the upshot.  On Saturday Cracker Barrel apparently felt Phil had offended gays and that's why they took a stand.  But 24 hours later they realized a bigger problem than offending gays is offending customers who pay for CB stuff.
> 
> So now the CB rep took the position the company should have taken in the first place:  "We respect all individuals' rights to express their beliefs."
> 
> *How do CB execs move from office to office ... hard to do when you don't have a spine*.



These don't go well with Crackers.

----------


## soonerguru

> The CB executives did the right thing listening to their customers.  They are running a business and are not a social engineering organization.  They dont cater to the gay community.  They will live on and continue to expand their presence around the country because they have good food-not because of any agenda.  The LGBT community needs grow some thick skin and accept that not everyone supports their lifestyle and move on.  Its no different than Opera saying how all those old people in the south just need to die -- a pretty vile thing to say but she has a right to say it -- and I dont see her getting fired or having her products pulled from the shelf.


Sure, but why alienate so many potential customers in the first place? It's bad business. Cracker Barrel has a history of racism. These kinds of things eat away at a company over time. It's just bad business. 

Their food pretty much blows anyway so no big loss to me.

----------


## FritterGirl

> Which is exactly what A&E should have done.
> 
> Phil didn't make his comments on A&E, he didn't mention A&E in his comments, and he did say he spoke on behalf of A&E.  It is the equivalent of me saying something about Jax on MetroJacksonville.com and getting banned from OKCTalk for it.


That's not a just comparison in the least. You have no contractual obligation to OKCTalk and are not being paid as a representative of its brand and/or subsidiaries. Many a folk have been fired by their PRIVATELY-OWNED corporations for unsavory and/or poorly-judged comments made on social media and other public forums. We've seen plenty of examples of such this year. This situation is no different.

----------


## Bunty

> It's amazing how the 60's activists "get it" and the current ones don't understand what an open and frank discussion of the issues could achieve.
> This is where I first read about the Paglia quote that someone else had posted up: PoliticalOutcast.com - Duck, Duck, Noose
> 
> If you want to see the origins of what this world has become, you only need to look to universities and colleges in the late 80's . The students from that era are the ones who are speaking the loudest and are a large part of the media and corporate world who are succumbing to the whims of the loud minority whose main goal is the suppression of free speech and thought. Hence, the origins of our current state of political correctness. The first time that I really read anything about it was in an opinion piece by a college lecturer that was published in the January 1990 Playboy magazine called Flexing Muzzles by Nat Hentoff. There is a Playboy archive where you can see the story (a complete archive of the magazine including images) but there is a cached newspaper reprint of the article here without objectionable images:
> Clarkson Campus Dining Menu


How do you know Robertson and family didn't sign a contract with A&E agreeing they wouldn't say anything controversial to the media?  If so, he should go to another network that allows him to speak his mind, if there is one.

Being fired for being anti-gay goes at least as far back as the 1970s when Anita Bryant got dismissed from singing about orange juice.

----------


## Chadanth

A&E is so upset that they're airing dozens of hours of Duck Dynasty. This whole thing is overblown crap. 

A&E TV Show Schedule - A&E

----------


## RadicalModerate

So . . . If the Robertson's decided to buy Cracker Barrel (and dump the jellyfish currently up near the top of "management") d'ya 'spose they'd change the name to Quacker Barrel?
(they could use the restaurant chain's gift shops as outlet for camos, duck calls, overalls and shotguns . . .)

----------


## mugofbeer

> Sure, but why alienate so many potential customers in the first place? It's bad business. Cracker Barrel has a history of racism. These kinds of things eat away at a company over time. It's just bad business. 
> 
> Their food pretty much blows anyway so no big loss to me.


I not all businesses are there to cater to all people.  Cracker Barrel has a huge following and is generally very busy.  Their business has grown significantly.   The stock price has nearly doubled this year and revenues are up nicely which is hard to do in the restaurant business. I can say I really like the food but the financials really contradictory t your opinion that their food "blows."  You're very much in the minority.

----------


## Just the facts

> That's not a just comparison in the least. You have no contractual obligation to OKCTalk and are not being paid as a representative of its brand and/or subsidiaries.


...and Phil is not a paid representative of A&E.  He is a character on a show they air.  He might get paid to be on show, but they pay him to be himself (i.e. reality TV).  Alas, the family has $400 million.  I am sure they will manage just fine.  On the other hand, A&E will be lucky to survive.

----------


## Just the facts

Under Armour gets it right.

Under Armour Keeps Ties To Duck Dynasty Despite Controversy  CBS Baltimore

----------


## mugofbeer

> ...and Phil is not a paid representative of A&E.  He is a character on a show they air.  He might get paid to be on show, but they pay him to be himself (i.e. reality TV).  Alas, the family has $400 million.  I am sure they will manage just fine.  On the other hand, A&E will be lucky to survive.


I don't know if the other family members agree with Phil or not philosophically.  They are certainly going to defend their daddy when he's being attacked.  If Phil is the only one who said something like this, isn't that a little like swearing off Microsoft product for something the CIO of finance said

----------


## Garin

> ...and Phil is not a paid representative of A&E.  He is a character on a show they air.  He might get paid to be on show, but they pay him to be himself (i.e. reality TV).  Alas, the family has $400 million.  I am sure they will manage just fine.  On the other hand, A&E will be lucky to survive.



Does that make them 1%ers? Maybe that's the real rub here.

----------


## mkjeeves

> ...and Phil is not a paid representative of A&E.


High probability they all knew (and agreed ahead of time) it could end like this...

A&E knew of Robertson's controversial views - expounded in videotaped sermons and elsewhere - before the show premiered in spring 2012, and warned him not to overshare on hot-button topics such as gay rights and race relations, according to a producer familiar with the situation. Phil and other family members also probably signed contracts containing "morals clauses" in which they promised to, among other things, avoid anything that would embarrass or bring shame to A&E or the brand. Such clauses are standard in the entertainment and sports industries.
'Duck Dynasty': A&E warned Phil Robertson about speaking out too much - latimes.com

----------


## bluedogok

> How do you know Robertson and family didn't sign a contract with A&E agreeing they wouldn't say anything controversial to the media?  If so, he should go to another network that allows him to speak his mind, if there is one.
> 
> Being fired for being anti-gay goes at least as far back as the 1970s when Anita Bryant got dismissed from singing about orange juice.


Nothing I posted was about any kind of contractual agreement they might have had. It was about the politically correct mentality and the suppression of dissenting opinions by groups of people. 
But since you brought up contracts, it just isn't that simple to say that he was an employee of A+E Networks as nothing is that simple when it comes to television contracts. More than likely he is not a direct employee of A+E Networks (co-owned by Hearst Corporation and Disney–ABC Television Group), he is probably contracted by a separate production company (Gurney Productions) who distributes through A+E Networks. Some of these production companies pay a fee to the distributor to air the show (like the majority of the reality type of shows that were on Speed) and receive all or part of advertising revenue (doubtful on this popular of a show) or the network may pay the production company and retain advertising revenue. There are thousands of permutations to the contracts of these type of shows without reading through that the network may or may not have the right to "ban" someone. In turn the production company may or may not be able to move the show on their own to another network or distributor. It is all pretty convoluted.

What it comes down to is A+E knew what his beliefs were and the family as well and were willing to exploit that for ratings. They were not caught off guard by this but they didn't care as long as they were making money. Now that there is some backlash about his beliefs (which is his right to hold) they are throwing him under the bus....the typical corporate response.

The one current article by some of the liberals from the past is the correct response, that they need some thicker skin and not everything that could be considered slightly negative is a full on assault of their being, it makes them look ridiculous to act like any perceived negative thought is World War III which is pretty much the response. There are too many "activists" who act without thinking and because they are ensconced in a group of like minded people they never seem to get told not to do something even though it might be the wise decision.

Just like the cake issue here, we all know word gets around quick among groups about the quality or attitude of certain shops. I know it does in the motorcycle community and I would imagine the same happens in the gay community. If that gay couple were really looking for a cake to celebrate their happy occasion they wouldn't have gone to that particular bakery, they went there to be activists and I am sure they had prior knowledge of the owners views as there were some comments on various sites to that effect before they went there (my wife is on several cake decorating sites and knew of the shop). The same could be said about the bakery owner, when he refused service for the stated reason he took on an activist role when saying he was booked or just couldn't do it would suffice. Sometimes discretion is the better part of valor and you need to pick your battles more wisely, there seems to be a whole lot of crying wolf anymore. While I think the shop owner is ridiculous for his response I feel he still should have a right to respond that way, why a gay couple would want to go to a shop where the owner has that attitude is beyond me. Wouldn't going somewhere that accepts and celebrates your values be a better choice? Which you know they did any way after trying to make an example of someone else.

What it comes down to is those who preach tolerance and diversity the most means they are in favor of it as long as you agree with them, if not they will go ballistic on you.




> High probability they all knew (and agreed ahead of time) it could end like this...
> 
> A&E knew of Robertson's controversial views - expounded in videotaped sermons and elsewhere - before the show premiered in spring 2012, and warned him not to overshare on hot-button topics such as gay rights and race relations, according to a producer familiar with the situation. Phil and other family members also probably signed contracts containing "morals clauses" in which they promised to, among other things, avoid anything that would embarrass or bring shame to A&E or the brand. Such clauses are standard in the entertainment and sports industries.
> 'Duck Dynasty': A&E warned Phil Robertson about speaking out too much - latimes.com


They are a pretty shrewd family, they weren't as successful as they were before the show without it. I think this was probably the "out" for they were looking for the show.

----------


## bluedogok

> A&E is so upset that they're airing dozens of hours of Duck Dynasty. This whole thing is overblown crap. 
> 
> A&E TV Show Schedule - A&E


Marketing hype.....

----------


## Stew

It's touching to see the outpouring of support for a multimillionaire getting shafted by the MAN. It does my heart well.

----------


## no1cub17

> The CB executives did the right thing listening to their customers.  They are running a business and are not a social engineering organization.  They dont cater to the gay community.  They will live on and continue to expand their presence around the country because they have good food-not because of any agenda.  The LGBT community needs grow some thick skin and accept that not everyone supports their lifestyle and move on.  Its no different than Opera saying how all those old people in the south just need to die -- a pretty vile thing to say but she has a right to say it -- and I dont see her getting fired or having her products pulled from the shelf.


I'm sorry but who's Opera?

----------


## Stew

> I'm sorry but who's Opera?


I'm going to go out on a limb here and state the OP typed Oprah but the auto spell check thingie changed it to Opera.

----------


## mugofbeer

> I'm going to go out on a limb here and state the OP typed Oprah but the auto spell check thingie changed it to Opera.


Thx.  You are correct.  1 problem with using a not-so-smart phone.

----------


## Chadanth

> ...and Phil is not a paid representative of A&E.  He is a character on a show they air.  He might get paid to be on show, but they pay him to be himself (i.e. reality TV).  Alas, the family has $400 million.  I am sure they will manage just fine.  On the other hand, A&E will be lucky to survive.


You're either joking or deranged. A&E is doing just fine.

----------


## RadicalModerate

> You're either joking or deranged. A&E is doing just fine.


Ya' know . . . in the final analysis . . . I 'spose A&E is doing just that.

Why . . . If'n it warn't fer them Robertson Boys' bullheaded, coonass, stubborndonkeyesque "lousiana" pride over this non-issue du jour, everyone could come out smellin' like a rose.

Heck . . . I was just about to suggest t' Phil that if'n he bought up GQ and A&E and Cracker Barrel at the same time (leveragin' support, o' course, from "the masses" in order to include some re-Fabed version o' some Cracker Barrels--includin' a bar and Daisy Mae clad waitpersonstaff)-- it could be rebranded "Tooters".
With duck calls at every table.

Phil said No.  On account of his so-called "religious" beliefs . . . yet I think he really meant it from The Heart.

----------


## kevinpate

Tooters.

 :Smiley051:

----------


## RadicalModerate

> Tooters.


Whut the heck . . . How about buyin' Vast and re-branding it . . . Huey Long's Vista View? =)

A&E could probably turn it into a "reality TV series" . . . can you imagine the dramatic conflicts?

----------


## Midtowner

> Which posts said that?


Anyone who has suggested his First Amendment rights have in any way been violated.

----------


## ThomPaine

Duck Dynasty Fans Are Sending Me Ridiculous Hate Mail - Business Insider

----------


## RadicalModerate

> Anyone who has suggested his First Amendment rights have in any way been violated.


 . . . is totally out of touch with reality?
(objection, yer honor . . . Counsel is leading the Witless . . . )

----------


## RadicalModerate

> Duck Dynasty Fans Are Sending Me Ridiculous Hate Mail - Business Insider


Dang. Who'd a thunk it?

----------


## kelroy55

> Which is exactly what A&E should have done.
> 
> Phil didn't make his comments on A&E, he didn't mention A&E in his comments, and he did say he spoke on behalf of A&E.  It is the equivalent of me saying something about Jax on MetroJacksonville.com and getting banned from OKCTalk for it.


If he came out against lets say Black or Jews would it be OK?

----------


## Just the facts

> If he came out against lets say Black or Jews would it be OK?


He didn't come out against anyone, he came out against sin.  Maybe that is the part many of you are missing.

Duck Dynasty star Phil Robertson says he is a lover not a hater | Mail Online

Wouldn't you agree that the world would be a better place if there was no sin?

----------


## Garin

> If he came out against lets say Black or Jews would it be OK?


Or Christians? This seems to be the only group of people that can be bashed every single day with no repercussion. Its the largest alternative group and class of people yet its OK to degrade them every chance. 

Where is the great Obuma when you need him? The country is more dived now then it was 40 years ago, and its not a coincidence it was all planned that way.

----------


## mkjeeves

> Wouldn't you agree that the world would be a better place if there was no sin?


In the Islamic definition, a gay Christian man's definition, Phil's or yours? I left out atheists since that word doesn't apply in their beliefs.

----------


## kelroy55

> He didn't come out against anyone, he came out against sin.  Maybe that is the part many of you are missing.
> 
> Duck Dynasty star Phil Robertson says he is a lover not a hater | Mail Online
> 
> Wouldn't you agree that the world would be a better place if there was no sin?



Yes I agree the world would be a better place without sin but I don't consider being gay a sin.  There are lots of sins listed in the Bible like wearing mixed cloth or doing any labor on the Sabbath,  did he come out against those?

----------


## Chadanth

> Or Christians? This seems to be the only group of people that can be bashed every single day with no repercussion. Its the largest alternative group and class of people yet its OK to degrade them every chance. 
> 
> Where is the great Obuma when you need him? The country is more dived now then it was 40 years ago, and its not a coincidence it was all planned that way.


You spend a significant portion of your time on here blaming the world's ills on others and wonder why we're "more dived (divided) now then (than) it was 40 years ago". Please tell me how it was planned and executed.

----------


## TaoMaas

> Or Christians? This seems to be the only group of people that can be bashed every single day with no repercussion. Its the largest alternative group and class of people yet its OK to degrade them every chance.


You can go to the tiniest town in America and there'll be a very good chance that there will be no 7-11 store...no Wal Mart or McDonalds...no synagogue, mosque, or temple...but there'll most likely be a Christian church in town.  There is no war on Christianity.  However, there IS a war on the idiocy that believes Christians are persecuted across the board.  When did this mentality of victimhood take over?

----------


## Just the facts

> Yes I agree the world would be a better place without sin but I don't consider being gay a sin.  There are lots of sins listed in the Bible like wearing mixed cloth or doing any labor on the Sabbath,  did he come out against those?


Labor on the Sabbath was a Jewish law.  Christians don't live under the Law of Moses.  Alas, you and I don't get to decide what sin is and is not.  I hear people always say "times are different now", but those people have no idea what they are talking about.  Homosexuality is documented through out the history of the world.  So is murder and theft and every vice we have today.  There is nothing morally new in 2013 that didn't exist in 2013 BC or 33AD.

----------


## Chadanth

> Labor on the Sabbath was a Jewish law.  Christians don't live under the Law of Moses.  Alas, you and I don't get to decide what sin is and is not.  I hear people always say "times are different now", but those people have no idea what they are talking about.  Homosexuality is documented through out the history of the world.  So is murder and theft and every vice we have today.  There is nothing morally new in 2013 that didn't exist in 2013 BC or 33AD.


Just that what some call sin others might call normal behavior. Or personal choice.

----------


## no1cub17

> Labor on the Sabbath was a Jewish law.  Christians don't live under the Law of Moses.  Alas, you and I don't get to decide what sin is and is not.  I hear people always say "times are different now", but those people have no idea what they are talking about.  Homosexuality is documented through out the history of the world.  So is murder and theft and every vice we have today.  There is nothing morally new in 2013 that didn't exist in 2013 BC or 33AD.


Sure, "you and I" don't get to decide - but are you saying someone else does - and has? LOL the victimization of Christianity. Nothing makes me LOL more than to hear that.

----------


## Just the facts

> Sure, "you and I" don't get to decide - but are you saying someone else does - and has? LOL the victimization of Christianity. Nothing makes me LOL more than to hear that.


Yes, God decided and just so there was no confusion, it was written down for us.  If you choose not to believe it, that's up to you, but you won't be able to use the "no one told me" defense.

Anyhow, we already had this portion of the debate on another thread so no point in repeating all of that.

Back to topic, it appears that A&E is retracting their ban on Phil and now they are just crafting the strategy to announce it.

----------


## OKVision4U

> You can go to the tiniest town in America and there'll be a very good chance that there will be no 7-11 store...no Wal Mart or McDonalds...no synagogue, mosque, or temple...but there'll most likely be a Christian church in town.  There is no war on Christianity.  However, there IS a war on the idiocy that believes Christians are persecuted across the board.  When did this mentality of victimhood take over?


I don't know if there is a formal declaration against the Christians but there is a great deal of "push-back" in the public forum.  

Persecution is not a new thing with our faith, it has been around for a couple of thousand years.  In the same book (The Bible) that Phil was referencing states in Matt 5:10, the persecuted will have the kingdom of heaven.

----------


## OKVision4U

> Anyone who has suggested his First Amendment rights have in any way been violated.


Let's see, Phil was Not at the "workplace" & "off hours", so all the corporate law does not apply.  Phil was speaking about "his faith", not your faith / belief, but HIS personal faith / belief.  That (seperates) this cconversation between Civil rights (as an individual) & Corporate Law.

----------


## mkjeeves

> I don't know if there is a formal declaration against the Christians but there is a great deal of "push-back" in the public forum.  
> 
> Persecution is not a new thing with our faith, it has been around for a couple of thousand years.  In the same book (The Bible) that Phil was referencing states in Matt 5:10, the persecuted will have the kingdom of heaven.


On the other hand, there is a formal declaration against non-Christians in the Christian dogma, to convert them if nothing else. Claiming "push-back" as persecution ignores that 1000 pound gorilla in the room.

----------


## Chadanth

> Let's see, Phil was Not at the "workplace" & "off hours", so all the corporate law does not apply.  Phil was speaking about "his faith", not your faith / belief, but HIS personal faith / belief.  That (seperates) this cconversation between Civil rights (as an individual) & Corporate Law.


We have no idea what is in his contract with A&E, but they will frequently include provisions on interviews and media appearances. Regardless  A&E knew beforehand what his views were, as cited in articles offered previously. He spoke his mind, and there were consequences from his employer. Happens all the time.

----------


## OKVision4U

> Yes I agree the world would be a better place without sin but I don't consider being gay a sin.  There are lots of sins listed in the Bible like wearing mixed cloth or doing any labor on the Sabbath,  did he come out against those?


To all NON Christians, you may not get it.  Phil was talking (referencing / quoting) The Bible.  The Word of God.  Phil was speaking about (sin) for ALL men / women.

Non Christians can read The Living Word of God, but you may not "understand" it.

----------


## jerrywall

> Let's see, Phil was Not at the "workplace" & "off hours", so all the corporate law does not apply.  Phil was speaking about "his faith", not your faith / belief, but HIS personal faith / belief.  That (seperates) this cconversation between Civil rights (as an individual) & Corporate Law.


It would only be about civil rights if the government was prosecuting or punishing him for his comments in some way.

----------


## OKVision4U

> On the other hand, there is a formal declaration against non-Christians in the Christian dogma, to convert them if nothing else. Claiming "push-back" as persecution ignores that 1000 pound gorilla in the room.


The Great Commission.  To spread the gospel.  To spread the message to All the Ends of the Earth.  Now, the acceptance portion of that message is a personal decision only that person can decide.

----------


## OKVision4U

> We have no idea what is in his contract with A&E, but they will frequently include provisions on interviews and media appearances. Regardless  A&E knew beforehand what his views were, as cited in articles offered previously. He spoke his mind, and there were consequences from his employer. Happens all the time.


Yes, I'm sure there are a few (provisional) items listed ( but they would be specific) to a conduct.  In Phil's position, we was speaking about "his personal belief".  Let that "sink in".  This is where the Civil Rights begin.

----------


## OKVision4U

> It would only be about civil rights if the government was prosecuting or punishing him for his comments in some way.


No.  Corporations are not above the Constitution.

----------


## kelroy55

> To all NON Christians, you may not get it.  Phil was talking (referencing / quoting) The Bible.  The Word of God.  Phil was speaking about (sin) for ALL men / women.
> 
> Non Christians can read The Living Word of God, but you may not "understand" it.


Seems he was also being selective on what sins he doesn't like.

----------


## Chadanth

> Yes, I'm sure there are a few (provisional) items listed ( but they would be specific) to a conduct.  In Phil's position, we was speaking about "his personal belief".  Let that "sink in".  This is where the Civil Rights begin.


You don't have a constitutional right to a tv show. He government didn't step in, or prohibit his speech. He wasn't jailed. He wasn't silenced. He spoke his mind, and his employer, or an entity he is contractually obligated to, apparently didn't like it. His rights weren't violated unless A&E violated a portion of their contract, which we are not privy to. So no, his "civil rights" are not in question.

----------


## OKVision4U

> Seems he was also being selective on what sins he doesn't like.


No, that is not correct.  Phil put them all in the same category... as equal in the eyes of the Lord.  Phil was quoting this portion of The LIving Word of God.  All sin is the same, that is what Phil was speaing about.

----------


## onthestrip

> He didn't come out against anyone, he came out against sin.  Maybe that is the part many of you are missing.
> 
> Duck Dynasty star Phil Robertson says he is a lover not a hater | Mail Online
> 
> Wouldn't you agree that the world would be a better place if there was no sin?


In his attempt to come out against sin he compared homosexuals (who are born with these sexual desires) to having sex with an animal. He did the worst job of coming out against sin

And maybe you should just ask if the world would be a better place if there were no evil. There are things that Christians consider as sin that arent evil. Homosexuality is one of them. I dont consider a gay person as evil. 

Gays sure get bashed a bunch for their "sinful" ways but why dont speeders get the same treatment. Isnt not obeying the law of the land considered a sin? Why dont we lump speeders together with homosexuals?

----------


## OKVision4U

> You don't have a constitutional right to a tv show. He government didn't step in, or prohibit his speech. He wasn't jailed. He wasn't silenced. He spoke his mind, and his employer, or an entity he is contractually obligated to, apparently didn't like it. His rights weren't violated unless A&E violated a portion of their contract, which we are not privy to. So no, his "civil rights" are not in question.


It doesn't matter what any group ( Government / Corporation / Private Party Group : Teamsters ) likes / agrees w/ it or not.  The Civil portion is seperate.  In Federal Court, this will go all the way up and find Phil was "restricted / fired" him for his personal belief?  Not in a workplace.  Not on duty. Phil was "witnessing" as part of his faith / belief.   When Phil was "restricted by this group", then he has merit.

----------


## onthestrip

> Let's see, Phil was Not at the "workplace" & "off hours", *so all the corporate law does not apply*.  Phil was speaking about "his faith", not your faith / belief, but HIS personal faith / belief.  That (seperates) this cconversation between Civil rights (as an individual) & Corporate Law.


Corporate law? Tell me of this corporate law that A&E must follow. Because Im pretty sure A&E can follow pretty much follow their own "law" when it comes to the hiring and firing of their employees.

----------


## Chadanth

> It doesn't matter what any group ( Government / Corporation / Private Party Group : Teamsters ) likes / agrees w/ it or not.  The Civil portion is seperate.  In Federal Court, this will go all the way up and find Phil was "restricted / fired" him for his personal belief?  Not in a workplace.  Not on duty. Phil was "witnessing" as part of his faith / belief.   When Phil was "restricted by this group", then he has merit.


Do you have an example of that? It didn't go well for Paula Deen.

----------


## OKVision4U

> Corporate law? Tell me of this corporate law that A&E must follow. Because Im pretty sure A&E can follow pretty much follow their own "law" when it comes to the hiring and firing of their employees.


REally, the structure that is "in-place" for all employers are the FEDERAL / Civil Rights (Constitutional ) portions of the law.  That does not "go away".  Like I said, Corporations must follow the Rules of the Road too.

----------


## Chadanth

> REally, the structure that is "in-place" for all employers are the FEDERAL / Civil Rights (Constitutional ) portions of the law.  That does not "go away".  Like I said, Corporations must follow the Rules of the Road too.


You're saying that a corporation cannot fire someone for their speech?

----------


## Roger S

> REally, the structure that is "in-place" for all employers are the FEDERAL / Civil Rights (Constitutional ) portions of the law.  That does not "go away".  Like I said, Corporations must follow the Rules of the Road too.


If you and I were to mutually agree to sign a legal contract that restricted you from using any adjectives while under that contract. The 1st Amendment would not help you in any way if you chose to use an adjective while the contract was binding and I fired you.

----------


## OKVision4U

> Do you have an example of that? It didn't go well for Paula Deen.


These (2) items are seperated by "faith / belief / religion" w/ Phil and Paula's was not part of an organized religion w/ common practices.  ie. witnessing for the Christians.

----------


## Edmond_Outsider

A person in Robertson's place has many bosses--direct and indirect. Most likely, his contract has a part which says he can be released if he does anything which is against the network's policy or does anything to make advertisers bail.

As for the theological argument, he is clearly elevating one catagory of sin above all others while committing many sins in the process. Then, he claims to be a sinner, but not as bad a sinner as those he rebukes. Theologically, this works for a particular ideology based theology--IE culture war theology.

One can debate the merits of this view all day. However, this is his and is not really any more valid than the millions of others proclaimed as the ultimate truth over thepast 2000 years.

The biggest sinner may be the one who claims to own the one truth in spirituality. It is most certainly the largest fallacy of theology to claim one size fits all. 

In the southern baptist church I was raised in, I was told all must have the "personal" relationship to god and in the next sentence was usually as statement about that personal relationship needing to be defined by somebody else. This seemed inconsistant to me even as a grade schooler.

----------


## Chadanth

> These (2) items are seperated by "faith / belief / religion" w/ Phil and Paula's was not part of an organized religion w/ common practices.  ie. witnessing for the Christians.


There's no special carve-out for Christians. Speech is speech, protected (in theory) from government intrusion but not from contractual obligations.

----------


## OKVision4U

> You're saying that a corporation cannot fire someone for their speech?


Yes at the workplace or if there are seperate or additional provisions excluding someone from a "listed" or specific behaviors.  

Now, this provision is DOES NOT exclude them from the Federal Laws that are already in place for the Civil Rights / Constituon / Rules of the Road.

----------


## onthestrip

> REally, the structure that is "in-place" for all employers are the FEDERAL / Civil Rights (Constitutional ) portions of the law.  That does not "go away".  Like I said, Corporations must follow the Rules of the Road too.


I think Im going to have to put you in the Prunepicker category and just stop responding to your posts because you clearly have no idea of what you are talking about.

----------


## OKVision4U

> There's no special carve-out for Christians. Speech is speech, protected (in theory) from government intrusion but not from contractual obligations.


Freedom of Religion is to all (not just Christians).  I just stated how Phil was practicing his belief "at the time" in a NON work related event.

----------


## Chadanth

> Freedom of Religion is to all (not just Christians).  I just stated how Phil was practicing his belief "at the time" in a NON work related event.


Care to cite an actual law or court decision to back up your claim that he cannot be sanctioned by his employer?

----------


## OKVision4U

> I think Im going to have to put you in the Prunepicker category and just stop responding to your posts because you clearly have no idea of what you are talking about.


Whether you agree or not, doesn't change the Law / Constitution.  In Phil's case, his practicing (witnessing) his "religion" will have merit in Federal Court.  Period.

----------


## kelroy55

> No, that is not correct.  Phil put them all in the same category... as equal in the eyes of the Lord.  Phil was quoting this portion of The LIving Word of God.  All sin is the same, that is what Phil was speaing about.


I wonder if Phil wears mixed thread or does any labor on Sundays.  Did he have a Hebrew servant?  Did he sell his daughter as a slave?

----------


## kelroy55

> Whether you agree or not, doesn't change the Law / Constitution.  In Phil's case, his practicing (witnessing) his "religion" will have merit in Federal Court.  Period.


Who denied him his 1st Amendment rights?

----------


## OKVision4U

> If you and I were to mutually agree to sign a legal contract that restricted you from using any adjectives while under that contract. The 1st Amendment would not help you in any way if you chose to use an adjective while the contract was binding and I fired you.


In Federal Court, you would find that "legal contract" would be thrown-out and  Non-binding in Phil's case.  He is "practicing" his belief in a NON work related location or event.  Witnessing as a Christian is a common practice.  The Constitution / First Amendment buries ANY contract (or law) that prevents a person's access to that right.

----------


## Jersey Boss

This is what Jesus says about homosexuality: "                   "

----------


## Chadanth

> In Federal Court, you would find that "legal contract" would be thrown-out and  Non-binding in Phil's case.  He is "practicing" his belief in a NON work related location or event.  Witnessing as a Christian is a common practice.  The Constitution / First Amendment buries ANY contract (or law) that prevents a person's access to that right.


Again, do you have anything to substantiate that?

----------


## Jersey Boss

> In Federal Court, you would find that "legal contract" would be thrown-out and  Non-binding in Phil's case.  He is "practicing" his belief in a NON work related location or event.  Witnessing as a Christian is a common practice.  The Constitution / First Amendment buries ANY contract (or law) that prevents a person's access to that right.


 So if one turns up a dirty UA at work, the claim of being a practicing Rastafarian trumps the employer firing you?

----------


## Garin

> Care to cite an actual law or court decision to back up your claim that he cannot be sanctioned by his employer?




SEATTLE (AP) — A Seattle-area Muslim man who said his former employer fired him because of the beard he wears for religious reason has been awarded more than $66,000, although most of that will go to attorney fees.

Abdulkadir Omar said he doesn't care about the money.

"It's not even about the money," he said. "It's about standing up for something you believe in."

In 2011, Omar filed his federal lawsuit in Seattle against Sacramento, Calif.-based American Patriot Security, seeking back pay and unspecified damages for emotional pain and loss of enjoyment of life, among other reasons.

According to the lawsuit, Omar was hired by a local manager of the security company in May 2009 and earned $9 an hour guarding a FedEx warehouse in Kent, Wash. He said he started the same day he was hired, and was not told about the clean-shaven policy.

In November 2009, a supervisor from headquarters told him he had to shave his beard because of the policy. Omar refused, saying his beard is part of his religious beliefs. He was suspended, and fired the following spring, the lawsuit said.

An email inquiry to the security company on Wednesday was not immediately returned.

"I truly hope that my case shows millions of American Muslims when they stand up whether it's at work or school, that they will win," Omar said. "I stood up and I won. I want my case to serve as an example."

Born in Yemen, Omar said he immigrated to the United States when he was 10.

"I grew up in this country, I've been living here all of my life. Just like everybody else, I'm an American," he said.

The default judgment says that more than $50,000 of the $66,000 award is for attorney fees, while most of the rest goes to Omar, who said he was unemployed for nine months after being dismissed by American Patriot.

Omar sued the security firm with the help of the Washington chapter of the Council for American-Islamic Relations.

"Religious freedom is the law of the land," said Arsalan Bukhari, executive director of the Washington state CAIR office. "I think religious freedom is what makes American unique and we have very clear laws that states employers, schools must accommodate religious observances."

----------


## Garin

> This is what Jesus says about homosexuality: "                   "


Genesis 19:1-13

1The two angels arrived at Sodom in the evening, and Lot was sitting in the gateway of the city. When he saw them, he got up to meet them and bowed down with his face to the ground. 2"My lords," he said, "please turn aside to your servant's house. You can wash your feet and spend the night and then go on your way early in the morning." "No," they answered, "we will spend the night in the square." 3But he insisted so strongly that they did go with him and entered his house. He prepared a meal for them, baking bread without yeast, and they ate. 4Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom--both young and old--surrounded the house. 5They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them." 6Lot went outside to meet them and shut the door behind him 7and said, "No, my friends. Don't do this wicked thing. 8Look, I have two daughters who have never slept with a man. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do what you like with them. But don't do anything to these men, for they have come under the protection of my roof." 9"Get out of our way," they replied. And they said, "This fellow came here as an alien, and now he wants to play the judge! We'll treat you worse than them." They kept bringing pressure on Lot and moved forward to break down the door. 10But the men inside reached out and pulled Lot back into the house and shut the door. 11Then they struck the men who were at the door of the house, young and old, with blindness so that they could not find the door. 12The two men said to Lot, "Do you have anyone else here--sons-in-law, sons or daughters, or anyone else in the city who belongs to you? Get them out of here, 13because we are going to destroy this place. The outcry to the LORD against its people is so great that he has sent us to destroy it." (NIV)

----------


## Chadanth

> SEATTLE (AP) — A Seattle-area Muslim man who said his former employer fired him because of the beard he wears for religious reason has been awarded more than $66,000, although most of that will go to attorney fees.
> 
> Abdulkadir Omar said he doesn't care about the money.
> 
> "It's not even about the money," he said. "It's about standing up for something you believe in."
> 
> In 2011, Omar filed his federal lawsuit in Seattle against Sacramento, Calif.-based American Patriot Security, seeking back pay and unspecified damages for emotional pain and loss of enjoyment of life, among other reasons.
> 
> According to the lawsuit, Omar was hired by a local manager of the security company in May 2009 and earned $9 an hour guarding a FedEx warehouse in Kent, Wash. He said he started the same day he was hired, and was not told about the clean-shaven policy.
> ...


The article don't make mention of any contract between the company and the plaintiff. I wonder what arrangement they had.

----------


## Chadanth

> Genesis 19:1-13
> 
> 1The two angels arrived at Sodom in the evening, and Lot was sitting in the gateway of the city. When he saw them, he got up to meet them and bowed down with his face to the ground. 2"My lords," he said, "please turn aside to your servant's house. You can wash your feet and spend the night and then go on your way early in the morning." "No," they answered, "we will spend the night in the square." 3But he insisted so strongly that they did go with him and entered his house. He prepared a meal for them, baking bread without yeast, and they ate. 4Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom--both young and old--surrounded the house. 5They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them." 6Lot went outside to meet them and shut the door behind him 7and said, "No, my friends. Don't do this wicked thing. 8Look, I have two daughters who have never slept with a man. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do what you like with them. But don't do anything to these men, for they have come under the protection of my roof." 9"Get out of our way," they replied. And they said, "This fellow came here as an alien, and now he wants to play the judge! We'll treat you worse than them." They kept bringing pressure on Lot and moved forward to break down the door. 10But the men inside reached out and pulled Lot back into the house and shut the door. 11Then they struck the men who were at the door of the house, young and old, with blindness so that they could not find the door. 12The two men said to Lot, "Do you have anyone else here--sons-in-law, sons or daughters, or anyone else in the city who belongs to you? Get them out of here, 13because we are going to destroy this place. The outcry to the LORD against its people is so great that he has sent us to destroy it." (NIV)


Jesus wrote genesis?

Leviticus 19 “‘Keep my decrees.

“‘Do not mate different kinds of animals.

“‘Do not plant your field with two kinds of seed.

“‘Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material.

My poly/cotton blend multicam shirt would have me on death row....

----------


## Jersey Boss

> Genesis 19:1-13
> 
> 1The two angels arrived at Sodom in the evening, and Lot was sitting in the gateway of the city. When he saw them, he got up to meet them and bowed down with his face to the ground. 2"My lords," he said, "please turn aside to your servant's house. You can wash your feet and spend the night and then go on your way early in the morning." "No," they answered, "we will spend the night in the square." 3But he insisted so strongly that they did go with him and entered his house. He prepared a meal for them, baking bread without yeast, and they ate. 4Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom--both young and old--surrounded the house. 5They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them." 6Lot went outside to meet them and shut the door behind him 7and said, "No, my friends. Don't do this wicked thing. 8Look, I have two daughters who have never slept with a man. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do what you like with them. But don't do anything to these men, for they have come under the protection of my roof." 9"Get out of our way," they replied. And they said, "This fellow came here as an alien, and now he wants to play the judge! We'll treat you worse than them." They kept bringing pressure on Lot and moved forward to break down the door. 10But the men inside reached out and pulled Lot back into the house and shut the door. 11Then they struck the men who were at the door of the house, young and old, with blindness so that they could not find the door. 12The two men said to Lot, "Do you have anyone else here--sons-in-law, sons or daughters, or anyone else in the city who belongs to you? Get them out of here, 13because we are going to destroy this place. The outcry to the LORD against its people is so great that he has sent us to destroy it." (NIV)


New testament references only please. You can't pick and choose what Jewish Law you want to follow today.

----------


## Just the facts

None of this matters now anyhow as word from inside A&E says they are just waiting until the Holidays get by so everyone forgets about it and they can quietly drop their Phil-ban, which they are now calling a suspension and not a firing.

----------


## OKVision4U

Garin, just provided this example.  In Federal Court, a corporations "hand book" does NOT carry any weight when it restrict(s) the First Amendment.  I think we should all be happy it is set up this way.  

Like I said, all groups ( Gov / Corps / Entities ) must follow the Rules of the Road.

----------


## Chadanth

> None of this matters now anyhow as word from inside A&E says they are just waiting until the Holidays get by so everyone forgets about it and they can quietly drop their Phil-ban, which they are now calling a suspension and not a firing.


Didn't they always call it a suspension? They know their cash cow, despite his controversies. It's not as though they did it know what they were getting into. Also, I doubt much of the Duck Dynasty audience is offended by what he said. What he said to GQ was obtuse and dumb, but not particularly offensive. Some of the other videos floating around are worse.

----------


## OKVision4U

> The article don't make mention of any contract between the company and the plaintiff. I wonder what arrangement they had.


...the Constitution OVER-RIDES any contract or law.

----------


## Jersey Boss

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ "shenanigans" ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

----------


## Garin

I hope they leave A&E and go somewhere else. A&E will just have to find their next honey boo boo. God help us all. And as for Cracker Barrel I hope their patrons see them for what they really are spineless. UNtil Christians start taking up for themselves they will just continued to be discriminated against by the left and the small minorities that hate them.

----------


## Garin

> New testament references only please. You can't pick and choose what Jewish Law you want to follow today.


Its all God's word if it weren't important it wouldn't have been written.

----------


## kelroy55

> None of this matters now anyhow as word from inside A&E says they are just waiting until the Holidays get by so everyone forgets about it and they can quietly drop their Phil-ban, which they are now calling a suspension and not a firing.


I thought it was a suspension from the start,  this is the only place where I saw it said fired.

----------


## Chadanth

> Its all God's word if it weren't important it wouldn't have been written.


No bacon for you then.

----------


## kelroy55

> Its all God's word if it weren't important it wouldn't have been written.


So you take literally everything that's in the Bible?

----------


## OKVision4U

> You don't have a constitutional right to a tv show. He government didn't step in, or prohibit his speech. He wasn't jailed. He wasn't silenced. He spoke his mind, and his employer, or an entity he is contractually obligated to, apparently didn't like it. His rights weren't violated unless A&E violated a portion of their contract, which we are not privy to. So no, his "civil rights" are not in question.


Chadanth / onthestrip , does the example of Garin in Seattle, help your understanding of the First Amendment in Federal Courts? ...and their position w/ corporations?  ...re:  Religous Practices.

----------


## Chadanth

> Chadanth / onthestrip , does the example of Garin in Seattle, help your understanding of the First Amendment in Federal Courts? ...and their position w/ corporations?  ...re:  Religous Practices.


Maybe. I'd still be curious about provisions in their contract regarding media appearances. We'll see how it shakes out.

----------


## bchris02

I don't understand how so many people can think this is a free speech issue. It's not. The Constitution doesn't guarantee the man's right to be employed by A&E. Remember this next time there is a high profile case where somebody is fired for being gay and you are standing up for that employer's right to at-will employment.

----------


## OKVision4U

> Maybe. I'd still be curious about provisions in their contract regarding media appearances. We'll see how it shakes out.


Also, when Phil said "this is what the Bible says", is different than ( This is how Phil would do it ).   The first is a "witness for Christians" and the other is an opinion.  That falls into the category of common religous practices for Christians.

----------


## OKVision4U

> SEATTLE (AP)  A Seattle-area Muslim man who said his former employer fired him because of the beard he wears for religious reason has been awarded more than $66,000, although most of that will go to attorney fees.
> 
> Abdulkadir Omar said he doesn't care about the money.
> 
> "It's not even about the money," he said. "It's about standing up for something you believe in."
> 
> In 2011, Omar filed his federal lawsuit in Seattle against Sacramento, Calif.-based American Patriot Security, seeking back pay and unspecified damages for emotional pain and loss of enjoyment of life, among other reasons.
> 
> According to the lawsuit, Omar was hired by a local manager of the security company in May 2009 and earned $9 an hour guarding a FedEx warehouse in Kent, Wash. He said he started the same day he was hired, and was not told about the clean-shaven policy.
> ...


bchris, this is exactly where this issue is.  A Freedom of Religion, Constitution issue w/ "religous practices" in the Christian Belief.

----------


## OKVision4U

> I don't understand how so many people can think this is a free speech issue. It's not. The Constitution doesn't guarantee the man's right to be employed by A&E. Remember this next time there is a high profile case where somebody is fired for being gay and you are standing up for that employer's right to at-will employment.


No it does not, the Constitution is bigger than employment w/ companies.  The Federal Courts will be happy to help A&E gain a "clearer" understanding of their role as employers re:  Religous practices.

----------


## Dubya61

> Seems he was also being selective on what sins he doesn't like.


No.  You quit reading too early.



> “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,” he says. Then he paraphrases 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.”


Duck Dynasty's Phil Robertson Gives Drew Magary a Tour

----------


## bchris02

> bchris, this is exactly where this issue is.  A Freedom of Religion, Constitution issue w/ "religous practices" in the Christian Belief.


He has the right to believe that all he wants, but to be outspoken about that belief is another issue depending on A&E's terms of employment, especially if A&E has a specific set of values they are trying project and Mr. Robinson's personal beliefs oppose those values. People have every right to be racist, but racism in the workplace isn't tolerated and in most workplaces you can be shown the door if you are outspoken about it. Let's reverse the situation. Would you want the Federal government forcing a Christian film company to cast an openly gay actor as the lead star of a Christian movie?

----------


## onthestrip

> Chadanth / onthestrip , does the example of Garin in Seattle, help your understanding of the First Amendment in Federal Courts? ...and their position w/ corporations?  ...re:  Religous Practices.


It tells me nothing. There are no relevant details provided in the article and I dont have a copy of Phil's contract with A&E or what state A&E is based. These details probably matter. For all I know this is an apple oranges comparison.



> No it does not, the Constitution is bigger than employment w/ companies.  The Federal Courts will be happy to help A&E gain a "clearer" understanding of their role as employers re:  Religous practices.


Well I guess we should see this in court soon huh? Once again, you have no idea what you are talking about.

----------


## kelroy55

> No.  You quit reading too early.
> 
> Duck Dynasty's Phil Robertson Gives Drew Magary a Tour



I still think he's being selective in what sins he doesn't like.  The Bible is probably full of sins he does but chooses not to acknowledge them.

----------


## Midtowner

> Let's see, Phil was Not at the "workplace" & "off hours", so all the corporate law does not apply.  Phil was speaking about "his faith", not your faith / belief, but HIS personal faith / belief.  That (seperates) this cconversation between Civil rights (as an individual) & Corporate Law.


Perhaps you need to pull out your pocket Constitution and reread your First Amendment.  Pay particular attention to the first four words.

----------


## kelroy55

> No it does not, the Constitution is bigger than employment w/ companies.  The Federal Courts will be happy to help A&E gain a "clearer" understanding of their role as employers re:  Religous practices.



What part of the Constitution has been violated here by either side?

----------


## OKVision4U

> SEATTLE (AP)  A Seattle-area Muslim man who said his former employer fired him because of the beard he wears for religious reason has been awarded more than $66,000, although most of that will go to attorney fees.
> 
> Abdulkadir Omar said he doesn't care about the money.
> 
> "It's not even about the money," he said. "It's about standing up for something you believe in."
> 
> In 2011, Omar filed his federal lawsuit in Seattle against Sacramento, Calif.-based American Patriot Security, seeking back pay and unspecified damages for emotional pain and loss of enjoyment of life, among other reasons.
> 
> According to the lawsuit, Omar was hired by a local manager of the security company in May 2009 and earned $9 an hour guarding a FedEx warehouse in Kent, Wash. He said he started the same day he was hired, and was not told about the clean-shaven policy.
> ...


bchris, ....read this again, you may have missed this.  The Federal Courts have already spoken on this issue.  A&E or any employer must follow the Rules of the Road.

----------


## Midtowner

> . . . is totally out of touch with reality?
> (objection, yer honor . . . Counsel is leading the Witless . . . )


I haven't taken inventory of the whole thread, but that it is 10+ pages and some still clearly think that Robertson has any kind of case against A&E for the violation of his civil rights is just...well...wrong.  That doesn't mean that maybe Robertson can find a lawyer to take the case, he's just not going to win it.  A&E or any company can terminate employees who bring their employers under harsh public scrutiny.

----------


## Midtowner

> What part of the Constitution has been violated here by either side?


None.

----------


## kelroy55

> None.


There are some who think otherwise and I was curious how they reached that conclusion.

----------


## Jersey Boss

Didja ever notice that the only time reactionary right wingers throw around "freedom of speech" rights is when someone is called out for anti gay or anti racial minority comments? No protests when Charlie Sheen called out his producer or Gilbert Gottifried fired from AFLAC.

----------


## Just the facts

Using Muslims as a source of how the government separates church and state is a non-starter.  Muslims have special considerations that aren't afforded any other religion.

On taxpayers&#39; tab: Muslim prayer room, foot baths at San Francisco International Airport - Washington Times




> California taxpayers have footed the bill for Muslim airport cabbies to have their very own prayer room and foot baths at the San Francisco International Airport.
> 
> Muslims are required to pray five times a day — a ritual that also calls for a ceremonial cleansing, the San Francisco Gate reported.
> 
> Royal Cab driver Hasan Khan, a Pakistani immigrant, petitioned the airport for a proper place of prayer, to which it easily obliged, the San Francisco Gate said.
> 
> “*The way we look at it … this was in the interest of maintaining a good relationship with ground transportation providers*,” airport spokesman Doug Yakel told the San Francisco Gate.

----------


## OKVision4U

> I haven't taken inventory of the whole thread, but that it is 10+ pages and some still clearly think that Robertson has any kind of case against A&E for the violation of his civil rights is just...well...wrong.  That doesn't mean that maybe Robertson can find a lawyer to take the case, he's just not going to win it.  A&E or any company can terminate employees who bring their employers under harsh public scrutiny.


No, you are wrong.  In Federal Court, this is a Freedom of Religion re:  Commom Religous Practices like ( Witnessing in the Christian Faith ).  When Phil said "The Bible says"...then that put this entire conversation under Federal Jurisdictionas a Religous Freedom (ie quoting the Bible).   NO corporation can hide from it.  Look at the example Garin provided in Seattle, this is the same thing.  The court ruled in favor of the plantiff.

----------


## Jersey Boss

And you still haven't answered as to whether a Rastafarian can be exempt from a dirty pee test under your freedom of religion trumps employer rights.

----------


## kelroy55

> No, you are wrong.  In Federal Court, this is a Freedom of Religion re:  Commom Religous Practices like ( Witnessing in the Christian Faith ).  When Phil said "The Bible says"...then that put this entire conversation under Federal Jurisdictionas a Religous Freedom (ie quoting the Bible).   NO corporation can hide from it.  Look at the example Garin provided in Seattle, this is the same thing.  The court ruled in favor of the plantiff.


Did A&E prevent him from saying any of those things?  How was his freedom of religion violated?

----------


## onthestrip

> No, you are wrong.  In Federal Court, this is a Freedom of Religion re:  Commom Religous Practices like ( Witnessing in the Christian Faith ).  *When Phil said "The Bible says"...then that put this entire conversation under Federal Jurisdictionas a Religous Freedom* (ie quoting the Bible).   NO corporation can hide from it.  Look at the example Garin provided in Seattle, this is the same thing.  The court ruled in favor of the plantiff.


Ha! Is this like when Ricky Bobby says that if you say "with all due respect" before you say something it allows you to say anything you want? Its in the Geneva Convention!

Once again, always funny to see non-lawyers argue with actual lawyers.

----------


## Edmond_Outsider

> ...the Constitution OVER-RIDES any contract or law.


I don't think there is a lick of actual knowledge of constitutional law in this statement or any of those made previously.

Here a good summary of how employement law really works:

Where Free Speech Goes to Die: The Workplace - Businessweek

----------


## Jersey Boss

> Ha! Is this like when Ricky Bobby says that if you say "with all due respect" before you say something it allows you to say anything you want? Its in the Geneva Convention!
> 
> Once again, always funny to see non-lawyers argue with actual lawyers.


Even funnier when the non-lawyer cites "Garin" as the controlling case.

----------


## kelroy55

> Even funnier when the non-lawyer cites "Garin" as the controlling case.


Pretty much the kiss of death of any credibility.

----------


## Roger S

> In Federal Court, you would find that "legal contract" would be thrown-out and  Non-binding in Phil's case.  He is "practicing" his belief in a NON work related location or event.  Witnessing as a Christian is a common practice.  The Constitution / First Amendment buries ANY contract (or law) that prevents a person's access to that right.


Have you tried yelling "FIRE!!!" in a public place recently.... Go out and give it a try and see how far the 1st Amendment buries any law.

----------


## Midtowner

> No, you are wrong.  In Federal Court, this is a Freedom of Religion re:  Commom Religous Practices like ( Witnessing in the Christian Faith ).  When Phil said "The Bible says"...then that put this entire conversation under Federal Jurisdictionas a Religous Freedom (ie quoting the Bible).   NO corporation can hide from it.  Look at the example Garin provided in Seattle, this is the same thing.  The court ruled in favor of the plantiff.


RFRA?  What kookoo source have you been reading?  RFRA has time and again had its applicability weakened.  It now basically only applies to the internal operations of the federal government.  It was originally created in reaction to a few cases which held that the states could prosecute peyote smokers of Native American religions so long as those laws are of general applicability and are neutral.  The legislature has worked to restore the power of the RFRA and in so doing, have made it basically a creative legal argument sometimes used in Indian law cases, most recently in a challenge to using reclaimed water in a ski resort expansion on the theory that the Natives believed that it would cause them "ghost sickness."

RFRA has absolutely no applicability here.  To suggest so is to admit that you don't know what the RFRA did and further to admit that you didn't do my homework assignment.  Read the first four words of the First Amendment.  What are they?

----------


## Midtowner

> Did A&E prevent him from saying any of those things?  How was his freedom of religion violated?


No, the real question is what has Congress done here.

----------


## no1cub17

> Yes, God decided and just so there was no confusion, it was written down for us.  If you choose not to believe it, that's up to you, but you won't be able to use the "no one told me" defense.
> 
> Anyhow, we already had this portion of the debate on another thread so no point in repeating all of that.
> 
> Back to topic, it appears that A&E is retracting their ban on Phil and now they are just crafting the strategy to announce it.


Sure I can. I believe in God also (or 2 million of them, whichever it is). I just have no recollection of God saying in any of my religious texts that a certain group of people are sinners because they believe something different. But you're right, back on topic we go!

----------


## soonerguru

> I not all businesses are there to cater to all people.  Cracker Barrel has a huge following and is generally very busy.  Their business has grown significantly.   The stock price has nearly doubled this year and revenues are up nicely which is hard to do in the restaurant business. I can say I really like the food but the financials really contradictory t your opinion that their food "blows."  You're very much in the minority.


I'm in the minority in the Deep South, perhaps, but probably not elsewhere. There are more than 300 million people living in the United States. How many of those people like Cracker Barrel? A tiny sliver. I don't dine at Cracker Barrel, joining about 98% of Americans. Hardly the minority, chief.

----------


## Midtowner

In reference to Garin's quote (I have him on iggy because I've never once seen him say anything of substance and believe he's generally just a troll), Phil Robertson isn't going to fall within EEOC's Title VII (which is what the case he referenced was about) unless Robertson was an employee of A&E.  Generally, a network isn't going to place talent like that directly on the payroll.  They're generally not going to have any contractual or civil rights recourse.  Those Hollywood lawyers are pretty good at drafting contracts.

----------


## Just the facts

> No, the real question is what has Congress done here.


Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...

You argued in the past that the Constitution also applies to state and local government (see 10 Commandments on State property).  A corporation is a creation of the state.  So should the Constitution apply to a corporation?

----------


## Midtowner

> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...
> 
> You argued in the past that the Constitution also applies to state and local government (see 10 Commandments on State property).  A corporation is a creation of the state.  So should the Constitution apply to a corporation?


It depends.  Through the Commerce Clause, certain things like 14th Amendment Equal Protection and Fundamental Liberty Interests can kick in to regulate the ability of, for example, a restaurant choosing to only serve whites.  That doesn't mean that, for example, the mall can't tell you to leave your gun at home as the 5th Amendment does not apply to it.  Really understanding the Constitution is a nuanced thing and in most cases, a little research is even required by those of us who have undertaken doctoral-level academic pursuits in the area and some of us who use it quite a bit.

----------


## Just the facts

That's probably because the constitution has been misinterprted by so many judges over the years that it has almost lost all original meaning on most subjects.  Now it is mostly a "make it up as you go" system.

----------


## bluedogok

> Care to cite an actual law or court decision to back up your claim that he cannot be sanctioned by his employer?


The issue is who really employed him? Was he contracted to A+E Networks or was he contracted to Gurney Productions who owns the show. Were there stipulations in the A+E contract with Gurney Productions that determined "behavior" of the show participants? It is really difficult to know what the real situation is without knowledge of all those contracts.




> I haven't taken inventory of the whole thread, but that it is 10+ pages and some still clearly think that Robertson has any kind of case against A&E for the violation of his civil rights is just...well...wrong.  That doesn't mean that maybe Robertson can find a lawyer to take the case, he's just not going to win it.  A&E or any company can terminate employees who bring their employers under harsh public scrutiny.


Just as with the case in the cake baker here in Colorado and Oregon or the photographer in New Mexico there are state laws (civil rights in this case) which go beyond Federal law and are more restrictive. Depending upon the laws in whatever state has jurisdiction (California, Louisiana?) there could be a case for violation of the state civil rights code.

----------


## Garin

Behavior? The man was witnessing to another person , once again just shows that Christians are targeted every chance the libs get.

----------


## Edmond_Outsider

Poor pitiful persecuted Christians. I hear Obama Is personally going door to door, coast to coast sending everybody with a bible to a FEMA concentration camp. It's like NAZI GERMANY to be a Christian in this country! There must be 300 million Christians in Obama's prisons already, right?

----------


## Chadanth

> Behavior? The man was witnessing to another person , once again just shows that Christians are targeted every chance the libs get.


How so? Have you spent much time in jail for your beliefs? Maybe a little water boarding? Come on, something?

----------


## PennyQuilts

This isn't about the constitution.  It really isn't much about the market because it is already signalling what side it is coming down on.  

What this is about is popular culture and the "war" that is going on between the left and the right on the value given to speaking out on what we believe.  The left, these days, is all about being PC and wants to shut down unpopular/offensive speech _because they fail to distinguish between offensive actions and offensive words_.  They also fail to respect traditional Christianity.  It is difficult to believe that this is the same party that supported the right of nazi's to march in jewish neighborhoods with many residents who had survived concentration camps and lost their entire families.  The left used to be committed to the value of political speech, however offensive.  No more unless it is toeing the party line.  They are the most anti diversity crowd ever.  

The right genuinely believes the appropriate (and traditional) remedy to offensive speech is more speech.  They also believe traditional christianity has been unfairly singled out for its beliefs while other religions with similar beliefs are given a pass.  The fundamental unfairness of the sanctimony of the left is infuriating.

----------


## Chadanth

> This isn't about the constitution.  It really isn't much about the market because it is already signalling what side it is coming down on.  
> 
> What this is about is popular culture and the "war" that is going on between the left and the right on the value given to speaking out on what we believe.  The left, these days, is all about being PC and wants to shut down unpopular/offensive speech _because they fail to distinguish between offensive actions and offensive words_.  They also fail to respect traditional Christianity.  It is difficult to believe that this is the same party that supported the right of nazi's to march in jewish neighborhoods with many residents who had survived concentration camps and lost their entire families.  The left used to be committed to the value of political speech, however offensive.  No more unless it is toeing the party line.  They are the most anti diversity crowd ever.  
> 
> The right genuinely believes the appropriate (and traditional) remedy to offensive speech is more speech.  They also believe traditional christianity has been unfairly singled out for its beliefs while other religions with similar beliefs are given a pass.  The fundamental unfairness of the sanctimony of the left is infuriating.


To me, it's not about nazis marching or speech being silenced. He was allowed to speak his mind. No government entity silenced him. His employer didn't like it, and backed away. The market responded, and his employer apparently recanted. No ones rights were trampled. No violation of first amendment rights occurred.

----------


## bluedogok

> To me, it's not about nazis marching or speech being silenced. He was allowed to speak his mind. No government entity silenced him. His employer didn't like it, and backed away. The market responded, and his employer apparently recanted. No ones rights were trampled. No violation of first amendment rights occurred.


There are some state laws that the main intent is to suppress speech, that is pretty much what the "civil rights" lawsuits intent is. That is definitely the case in the academic world, free speech is verboten for the most part on a college campus.

----------


## Chadanth

> There are some state laws that the main intent is to suppress speech, that is pretty much what the "civil rights" lawsuits intent is. That is definitely the case in the academic world, free speech is verboten for the most part on a college campus.


I'd agree, and hope that litigation brings that out. Most (obviously not all) colleges receive significant government money. They should abide by the same restrictions on government infringements, with the possible exception of living spaces.

----------


## Midtowner

> This isn't about the constitution.  It really isn't much about the market because it is already signalling what side it is coming down on.  
> 
> What this is about is popular culture and the "war" that is going on between the left and the right on the value given to speaking out on what we believe.  The left, these days, is all about being PC and wants to shut down unpopular/offensive speech _because they fail to distinguish between offensive actions and offensive words_.  They also fail to respect traditional Christianity.  It is difficult to believe that this is the same party that supported the right of nazi's to march in jewish neighborhoods with many residents who had survived concentration camps and lost their entire families.  The left used to be committed to the value of political speech, however offensive.  No more unless it is toeing the party line.  They are the most anti diversity crowd ever.  
> 
> The right genuinely believes the appropriate (and traditional) remedy to offensive speech is more speech.  They also believe traditional christianity has been unfairly singled out for its beliefs while other religions with similar beliefs are given a pass.  The fundamental unfairness of the sanctimony of the left is infuriating.


And if the CEO of a major company got up on the podium and quoted George Wallace in a whimsical reminiscing tone of better days gone by and said "Segregation now, segregation tommorow, segregation forever!"

They'd can his ass.

It's like that.  Remember, back then, Christianity also used to stand for segregation.  It's like that.

----------


## Edmond_Outsider

A person in robertson's position controls the capital of a company like A&E and also each of their advetisers in a very direct way. Prior to this, DD was an amusing show nobody really took that seriously and was highly likable as a result. Now it is symbol for a very contentious and rapidly taboo mindset. 

The comparison to Montgomery, 1963 is spot on. What celebrity became more popular for being a hard segregationalist?


 Remember Anita Bryant? She ruined her career for a very similar controversy. What sponsor want their product's market cut by the association with controversy? 

This is the way market works and how convictions are tested.  Robertson wants to crusade for his brand of morality. Now he gets to demonstrate the strength of his convictions in a way he probably hs never imagined he would have to. He has been literally preaching to the choir for many years. Now he gets to find out how the rest of the world reacts to his brand of biblical "truth."

It is sad that the loss of popularity this will cause will likely have implications for the family far beyond what any of them could think was possible. 

Is it ironic that the right thinks the market is infallible only when it serves the wealthy but hates it when other constituencies benifit?

----------


## MadMonk

The same rules concerning topics of discussion at family gatherings apply to celebrities and interviews - keep your political and religious views to yourself and everyone will be better off.

----------


## kelroy55

> The same rules concerning topics of discussion at family gatherings apply to celebrities and interviews - keep your political and religious views to yourself and everyone will be better off.


Amen to that

----------


## kelroy55

Hmmmm  anyone think this is a violation of his 1st Amendment?

Colorado State defensive line coach Greg Lupfer was suspended for two weeks without pay on Monday due to his actions during the Rams’ 48-45 victory over Washington State in the New Mexico Bowl on Saturday.

Cameras caught Lupfer making an anti-gay slur to Cougars quarterback Connor Halliday from the sidelines during the game.

The punishment for Lupfer includes the suspension, plus mandatory anger management and diversity training to be paid by Lupfer. He will also receive a letter of reprimand and be put on a zero-tolerance status by the university.


“I accept these consequences — two weeks without pay and the training programs — and I am thankful for this second chance to continue coaching at Colorado State and be a part of the Ram Family,” Lupfer said in a statement. “I am deeply sorry for my behavior, which does not represent who I am or my values. I embrace the opportunity to participate in anger management and diversity sensitivity training. I was angry and careless with my words, and my words hurt many people. I sincerely apologize to the GLBTQ community for causing pain by using a slur without considering its meaning. I take ownership of my words and fully understand why people are very upset.”

----------


## Garin

Why aren't comedians and rappers held to this same example? Tosh says something about queers on his show nightly. And rappers say the dreaded n word every time that open their mouth. Pretty soon we'll all the bad words will be gone and life will be great.

----------


## Bunty

I tried watching Duck Dynasty for the first time.  I found the show so boring with poor acting, I had to leave it.  For a reality show, "Call of the Wildman" on Animal Planet is more interesting with some drama as well as humor.

----------


## Just the facts

> Why aren't comedians and rappers held to this same example? Tosh says something about queers on his show nightly. And rappers say the dreaded n word every time that open their mouth. Pretty soon we'll all the bad words will be gone and life will be great.


Haven't you learned, it's not what you say, it's who says it.  If actions were the measuring the stick the Hollywood/Entertainment left would be the most hated and reviled people on the planet.  Instead, they get award shows.  BTW - Tosh wouldn't make those 'jokes' if his audience didn't think they were funny.

Anyhow, if you spend too much time trying to figure out the logic of crazy people it will drive you crazy.

----------


## RadicalModerate

> I tried watching Duck Dynasty for the first time.  I found the show so boring with poor acting, I had to leave it.  For a reality show, "Call of the Wildman" on Animal Planet is more interesting with some drama as well as humor.


What d'ya mean "acting"? This is a "reality" show.

----------


## Edmond_Outsider

> Why aren't comedians and rappers held to this same example? Tosh says something about queers on his show nightly. And rappers say the dreaded n word every time that open their mouth. Pretty soon we'll all the bad words will be gone and life will be great.


Some are, some aren't. Context and offense are rarely equal. Michael Richards certainly suffered for his onstage N-storm. Others have as well.

As for rappers, context is everything. I don't like how some use language, but I am not the audience. 

Any sub-culture has mores which are exclusive to it. For some black folks, the double standard is part of their feelings of empowerment and believe this is one way they can turn the tables on society which continues to have double standards for it.

I don't agree with it, I'm merely stating one rationale.

White subculture's have the same idiomatic idiosyncrasies. My family comes from the ozarks. That gives me the ability to self-apply the term "hillbilly" to myself and my family. I wouldn't, however, go to LeFlore county and say, "hey hillbilly" to any stranger at the walmart even though they might be wearing a "hillbillies luv dert" T-shirt.

Life isn't fair and this story isn't likely to turn out well for the Robertson family.

I'd lay odds there will be some divorces and  social stigma attatched to this event in store for some of the younger family members. This aspect is likely to hit the grandkids hardest. One of Jase's kids has talked about how the pressures of being associated with the show--before the controversy--caused him suicidal depression. Now, these kids will have to bear the stigma of being seen as gay-bashers. 

West Monroe isn't much different from any other part of the country--I visit there 4 or 5 times a year--and the locals aren't likely to be in lockstep with the fundamentalism of Phil's statements. I doubt Phil has any idea how this

----------


## bluedogok

> Hmmmm  anyone think this is a violation of his 1st Amendment?
> 
> Colorado State defensive line coach Greg Lupfer was suspended for two weeks without pay on Monday due to his actions during the Rams 48-45 victory over Washington State in the New Mexico Bowl on Saturday.
> 
> Cameras caught Lupfer making an anti-gay slur to Cougars quarterback Connor Halliday from the sidelines during the game.
> 
> The punishment for Lupfer includes the suspension, plus mandatory anger management and diversity training to be paid by Lupfer. He will also receive a letter of reprimand and be put on a zero-tolerance status by the university.
> 
> 
> I accept these consequences  two weeks without pay and the training programs  and I am thankful for this second chance to continue coaching at Colorado State and be a part of the Ram Family, Lupfer said in a statement. I am deeply sorry for my behavior, which does not represent who I am or my values. I embrace the opportunity to participate in anger management and diversity sensitivity training. I was angry and careless with my words, and my words hurt many people. I sincerely apologize to the GLBTQ community for causing pain by using a slur without considering its meaning. I take ownership of my words and fully understand why people are very upset.


More than likely it is a violation of campus policy and possibly the Colorado Civil Rights Laws as the interpretation of that is rather broad.

----------


## RadicalModerate

Colorado State actually beat another team?  Inconceivable!

----------


## kwhey

> ...and Phil is not a paid representative of A&E.  He is a character on a show they air.  He might get paid to be on show, but they pay him to be himself (i.e. reality TV).  Alas, the family has $400 million.  I am sure they will manage just fine.  On the other hand, A&E will be lucky to survive.


A&E has been around since 1985 and is owned by Disney.  They will be fine.

----------


## kwhey

> ...the Constitution OVER-RIDES any contract or law.


So can I go to my boss and him and asshole and think "freedom of speech" protects me from being fired?  Let me quote the first amendment for you: 

"The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances."

All this says is that Congress cannot interfere abridge your free speech.  In other words you can't go to jail for mocking the the powers that be.  It does not address what rules individuals, private enterprise, companies and groups can impose on personnel.

----------


## kwhey

> Why aren't comedians and rappers held to this same example? Tosh says something about queers on his show nightly. And rappers say the dreaded n word every time that open their mouth. Pretty soon we'll all the bad words will be gone and life will be great.


Why?  Because those companies choose not fire or suspend them.  Simple as that.

----------


## RadicalModerate

> So can I go to my boss and him and asshole and think "freedom of speech" protects me from being fired?  Let me quote the first amendment for you: 
> 
> "The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances."
> 
> All this says is that Congress cannot interfere abridge your free speech.  In other words you can't go to jail for mocking the the powers that be.  It does not address what rules individuals, private enterprise, companies and groups can impose on personnel.


I agree that The Phil Robertson Tempest in a TV Pot doesn't have much to do with Constitutionally protected Freedom of Speech.  However, he didn't actually go up to his "A&E boss" and call him an asshole.  All he did was express his personal beliefs in a Metrosexual Magazine interview.  Phil needs to correct his error and actually call his "A&E boss" an asshole to his face (if he can figure out which end of the blob of corporate protoplasm to speak toward).  That way, there could possibly be a rational reason for "exiling" him back to his mansion by the bayou to hunt, fish, play with his duck calls and count his money.

Even if his (imagined) opinion of his "A&E boss" is spot on.

Hell, even YOU know that this is true. 
(C'mon . . . Admit it:  You KNOW that this "summary judgment" of the situation is right . . . =)

One thing about it all . . . At least we ain't a-wastin' time talkin' 'bout Honey Boo Boo and Street Outlaws . . .

----------


## kevinpate

> ... At least we ain't a-wastin' time talkin' 'bout Honey Boo Boo and Street Outlaws . . .


And why aren't we.  good grief man, Farmtruck got beat out for the gatekeeper spot .... _by a gurl_!  That jes' ain't right bubba, ain't right at all.

Oh man, and I'm all outta deathnog too. What's da world a comin' too?





*no useful brain cells were killed in the writing of this post, just some long unused ones.

----------


## RadicalModerate

^^^ Dang.  =)

----------


## Uncle Slayton

Read one article this morning that 'industry insiders' are calling A&E's reaction to this a 'rookie mistake', one of them saying (dead-nuts on point) that "here's a multimillionaire who lives in a *swamp*.  I don't think he gives a flying f**k what A&E thinks."  

The truly entertaining part of this whole little bit of nothin' is watching the media's reaction when they realize that "there's a whole lot more of them than there are of us" and trying in vain to hide their disgust with the increasingly large number of people who support Robertson.  The face they make is the same one you make when you step in a fresh pile of dog droppings.  

For whatever you may believe about him, Robertson has been pretty consistent all the way throughout.  WYSIWYG, take it or leave it.  Worst case scenario, he walks away only worth $200 million?  

Hurt me some more like that.

----------


## Urbanized

I'm not going to wade (get it...waders?) into this debate. It's a no-win regardless of which side you're on. You won't change any minds.

What is more interesting to me anyway is the business aspects of the whole mess, and particularly the PR aspects, since that is an industry I have had some involvement in. My question was how it happened in the first place. This franchise is a monstrous money-maker for a number of companies, and as others have mentioned there was surely knowledge of Phil's evangelical views, which he has not been shy about sharing publicly.

So how did these companies with so much to win or lose allow this interview to happen to begin with? I mean, dozens of contest shows have succeeded for more than a decade in keeping contestants from revealing show outcomes before the appointed times, and these shows are often populated by desperate, certifiable nut cases.

I don't think it has really been discussed here (or many other places) but Forbes had a pretty good breakdown of where the PR breakdown apparently happened. Seems the reporter got Phil alone on an ATV during a time when he assumed the conversation was off-the-record, and he let his guard down. The rest is history. Major fail on A&E's part.

I myself have had a reporter try to get "the real story" when the camera was "off" (but not really off), and all I can say is that there is no such thing as off-the-record when dealing with media, unless it is someone you know well and trust implicitly. In 20 plus years of dealing with media I have only dealt with one reporter ever who I absolutely trust to honor that agreement between a reporter and a source.

----------


## Uncle Slayton

I just read that the Rev'run Jack'hnnn (to use the Buckley pronunciation) has jumped in. He and his Rainbow Push Coalition have demanded a pre-extortion conference...uh...meeting with A&E and Cracker Barrel (whose resolve seems to have weakened under an onslaught of pissed off customers).  

Nothing brings out ol' Jesse like the smell of a good shakedown in the air and the prospect of a few shekels in his pocket.   Sharpton can't be far behind.

----------


## Just the facts

> Read one article this morning that 'industry insiders' are calling A&E's reaction to this a 'rookie mistake', one of them saying (dead-nuts on point) that "here's a multimillionaire who lives in a *swamp*.  I don't think he gives a flying f**k what A&E thinks."  
> 
> The truly entertaining part of this whole little bit of nothin' is watching the media's reaction when they realize that "there's a whole lot more of them than there are of us" and trying in vain to hide their disgust with the increasingly large number of people who support Robertson.  The face they make is the same one you make when you step in a fresh pile of dog droppings.  
> 
> For whatever you may believe about him, Robertson has been pretty consistent all the way throughout.  WYSIWYG, take it or leave it.  Worst case scenario, he walks away only worth $200 million?  
> 
> Hurt me some more like that.


Here is the story you read.

'Duck Dynasty' Debacle Has TV Industry Abuzz As A&E Charts New Territory - Deadline.com

Where have we heard this before?




> Said one exec, “Their statement … should have been simply along the lines of, ‘The opinion stated by Phil is his opinion only; it’s not the opinion of A&E’ — and let it go.”

----------


## Just the facts

> A&E has been around since 1985 and is owned by Disney.  They will be fine.


Well, you are half right.  ABC-TV Group owns 50% of A&E and ABC-TV Group is a subsidiary of Disney.  They'll survive as a network but some of the executives might not.

'Duck Dynasty' Debacle Has TV Industry Abuzz As A&E Charts New Territory - Deadline.com




> Added another: “Gay groups and others can come after [the network], but that’s a lot better to deal with than to have the stars of your [hit] show want to take it elsewhere for not supporting them.”
> 
> ...
> 
> “Someone’s going to have to back down,” said one industry vet, predicting it’s not going to be the Robertsons. “Either [A+E Networks CEO] Nancy [Dubuc] says, ‘This is not the position of the network and we respect Phil’s religious beliefs,’ and we all move on from there, or I don’t think the show survives on A&E,” the source continued.
> 
> “They’re going to have to apologize,” agreed another. “If they want them back, they’re going to have to eat crow. They’ll probably do it right after Christmas. Look for a note sometime over the next week and a half.”

----------


## Dustin

He's back on the show... shocker!

A&E reverses course on 'Duck Dynasty', will resume filming

----------


## Easy180

Same publicist as Miley Cyrus...Look for Phil to be singing between bedsheets in the near future

----------


## kevinpate

Phil is reportedly Happy, Happy, Happy.

The Network remains somewhat Anxious and Edgy on whether the Duck can still lay down golden eggs.

The Critics are not angry. After all, the decision is probably good for an extra call to action fundraising email or mailout in 2014.

And Uncle Si, well he heard tea party and wondered what the fuss was about. Every day is a tea party for Si.

And over at Quacker Barrel, the gift shop is struggling to keep Duck stock on the shelves.

And somewhere in Hollywood, Rick Dees is still trying to figure out when Ducks went redneck.

----------


## Uncle Slayton

> He's back on the show... shocker!
> 
> A&E reverses course on 'Duck Dynasty', will resume filming


Guess Jesse Jackson and the Rainbow Shakedown Train didn't get the meetings they 'demanded' with A&E and Crapper Barrel.

----------


## RadicalModerate

> Guess Jesse Jackson and the Rainbow Shakedown Train didn't get the meetings they 'demanded' with A&E and Crapper Barrel.


Frankly, it disappoints me that they didn't.
'Course, Phil could invite them out to The Mansion on The Bayou
In order to determine the difference between a Reverend, a Pastor,
And [a] Shakedown Con Artist(s).

Yet, that is unlikely to happen
In the Modern Whirld.

'ceptin' maybe at that little beer-fest
at the white house over an unrelated issue.
a while back . . .
what don't count
no ways.

----------


## trousers

> Same publicist as Miley Cyrus...Look for Phil to be singing between bedsheets in the near future


I'm more worried about the future tie-ins. Twerk Dynasty.

----------


## trousers

And does this subject really deserve 3 threads?

----------


## RadicalModerate

> And does this subject really deserve 3 threads?


I sort of wonder that, too, especially since I don't ever watch the show, yet I think this isn't about Duck Dynasty, it's about "the principle of the thing."  And it's about The Culture War, a topic that is probably involved in 3000 threads in here.

Variety Headline:
Phil un-FIRED
A&E EXecs FRIED

Look for Phil on the cover of Rolling Stone in the near future.

----------


## mkjeeves

I'll tell you some other folks who are happy happy happy...my gay brother and his lover of 20+ years who  were legally married the day after Christmas. The winds aren't blowing Phils direction even though his novelty is still appealing in some duck blinds.

----------


## RadicalModerate

> I'll tell you some other folks who are happy happy happy...my gay brother and his lover of 20+ years who  were legally married the day after Christmas. The winds aren't blowing Phils direction even though his novelty is still appealing in some duck blinds.


Well . . . I'm happy happy happy for your brother, too.
Just out of curiousity . . . How do they decide which one is the "wife"?
Or do they have some sort of role rotation here?

----------


## mkjeeves

What, some rule says they can't both be wives at the same time?

----------


## RadicalModerate

> What, some rule says they can't both be wives at the same time?


I guess that would be okay if they are lesbians . . .

----------


## trousers

You know these Duck Dynasty guys do look like they could be Beliebers.

----------


## kelroy55

> Same publicist as Miley Cyrus...Look for Phil to be singing between bedsheets in the near future


There's a visual I didn't need

----------


## kelroy55

> And does this subject really deserve 3 threads?


I'm still surprised people are so upset about a multi-millionaire not getting a check for a few weeks.

----------


## RadicalModerate

> I'm still surprised people are so upset about a multi-millionaire not getting a check for a few weeks.


Dude . . . It ain't the checks . . . It's the balances.

----------


## ctchandler

Kelroy55,
I'm not upset, I don't even watch their show, I did once when somebody mentioned how good it was, but I'm not a reality show person.  In our republic, the majority (mob) doesn't rule (and I'm a believer in our republic), but this was fun watching A & E lose in the "court of public opinion".  Now if Phil had done something totally distasteful, or criminal, say gay bashing or truly racist comments, I wouldn't feel that way, but quoting from the bible, albeit "loosely" didn't bother me.  I do hope he's a little more thoughtful next time he gets into a one-on-one interview.
C. T.


> I'm still surprised people are so upset about a multi-millionaire not getting a check for a few weeks.

----------


## kevinpate

If this isn't on their Quackmas album, it oughta be


Oh ducky blind, oh ducky blind
You keep the wind off my behind
Oh ducky blind, oh ducky blind
You keep the wind off my behind
I heard a quack, up in the sky
I took my shot, as it flew by
Oh ducky blind, oh ducky blind
My aim was true, tonight we dine.

----------


## kelroy55

> Kelroy55,
> I'm not upset, I don't even watch their show, I did once when somebody mentioned how good it was, but I'm not a reality show person.  In our republic, the majority (mob) doesn't rule (and I'm a believer in our republic), but this was fun watching A & E lose in the "court of public opinion".  Now if Phil had done something totally distasteful, or criminal, say gay bashing or truly racist comments, I wouldn't feel that way, but quoting from the bible, albeit "loosely" didn't bother me.  I do hope he's a little more thoughtful next time he gets into a one-on-one interview.
> C. T.


I don't watch it either and I only read a small portions of his interview.  I still don't see what happened as a 1st Amendment issue as many do and I'm also not too upset a multi-millionaire has to go a couple weeks without an A&E paycheck because he said something stupid. Life will go on and DD will continue to attract lots of rednecks to A&E.  The dollar is mightier than stupidity.

----------


## GaryOKC6

> I don't watch it either and I only read a small portions of his interview.  I still don't see what happened as a 1st Amendment issue as many do and I'm also not too upset a multi-millionaire has to go a couple weeks without an A&E paycheck because he said something stupid. Life will go on and DD will continue to attract lots of rednecks to A&E.  The dollar is mightier than stupidity.


Could have been a publicity stunt for all we know.  If it was it really worked.  I never had any interest in the show at all until this happened. I have watched it several times in the last week and it is actually pretty entertaining.  It is also interesting that A&E would have a Duck dynasty marathon over the holidays.

----------


## ctchandler

Gary,
I believe the marathon was already scheduled and let's face it, it's A & E's "cash cow".  I suppose it could have been a publicity stunt, but in today's "politically correct" society, in my opinion, it wasn't a stunt, they made a decision and then with the outcry, backed down.
C. T.


> Could have been a publicity stunt for all we know.  If it was it really worked.  I never had any interest in the show at all until this happened. I have watched it several times in the last week and it is actually pretty entertaining.  It is also interesting that A&E would have a Duck dynasty marathon over the holidays.

----------


## kevinpate

never attribute to clever marketing what can be more easily explained as knee jerk stupidity.

----------


## Just the facts

> Well . . . I'm happy happy happy for your brother, too.
> Just out of curiousity . . . How do they decide which one is the "wife"?
> Or do they have some sort of role rotation here?


If you watch "I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry" they will tell you the answer.  Few movies have made me laugh that much.

----------


## FritterGirl

I guess old Phil doesn't like homosexuality, but a little pedophilia never hurt anyone, right? 

Phil Robertson on marriage: Duck Dynasty star advised men to find 15-year-old girls who will ?pick your ducks.?

----------


## RadicalModerate

Wow . . . That sounds almost Mormonian . . . or even, allyah forbid, Islamesque . . . on the surface.
(next thing ya' know, Phil will be ending the dinner table prayer with "_all'y'all quackbar_" and that's the day that i boycott the show i never watch on account of it would add insensitivity to boredom.)

----------


## bchris02

I read the article.  He is talking about marriage, about how girls should be married by 15 or 16.  It's really not far off from the Oklahoma norm of marrying your high school sweetheart at 18 or 19.  In some states its legal to marry younger than that with parental consent.

----------


## Stew

> I read the article.  He is talking about marriage, about how girls should be married by 15 or 16.  *It's really not far off from the Oklahoma norm of marrying your high school sweetheart at 18 or 19*.  In some states its legal to marry younger than that with parental consent.


That is factually incorrect. The median age of first marriage for an okie sweetheart is 24 years old. So, I'd say its about a decade from the Okie norm.

----------


## RadicalModerate

Interesting Factoid: When you even mention "Mormons" in the course of a conversation, even if you apply the camo-extension of "-ian" or "-esque" you get bombarded with banner ads for The Book of Mormon.




> That is factually incorrect. The median age of first marriage for an okie sweetheart is 24 years old. So, I'd say its about a decade from the Okie norm.


That may be true, but how do the sidewalk and/or borrow ditch ages factor into that demographic.
(sorry, just failed that where is you from quiz regarding semantics over on that other thread.  I think I said "parkway" instead of median or boulevard. =).


(carry on . . .)

----------


## Prunepicker

> Interesting Factoid: When you even mention "Mormons" in the course 
> of a conversation, even if you apply the camo-extension of "-ian" or 
> -esque" you get bombarded with banner ads for The Book of Mormon.


One must understand that mormons aren't Christian.  They aren't 
even close.

----------


## Easy180

> One must understand that mormons aren't Christian.  They aren't 
> even close.


Well now Romney disagrees with ya

----------


## PennyQuilts

Oh, come on, people.  He married his wife when she was fifteen and he wasn't that much older.  It's how they used to do things when he was young and he is stuck in his ways.  Cut him some slack.  Pedophilia?  Please.

----------


## Prunepicker

> Well now Romney disagrees with ya


That's because Romney isn't a Christian.  He's a mormon.  They 
believe that Jesus and Lucifer are brothers.  This fits with the Marvel 
comic book Thor and not the Bible.

----------


## Prunepicker

> That is factually incorrect. The median age of first marriage for an okie 
> sweetheart is 24 years old. So, I'd say its about a decade from the 
> Okie norm.


You are correct, sir.

----------


## bluedogok

> Oh, come on, people.  He married his wife when she was fifteen and he wasn't that much older.  It's how they used to do things when he was young and he is stuck in his ways.  Cut him some slack.  Pedophilia?  Please.


Yep, my mother was 17 (just graduated high school) and she is around the same age that he is. My parents have been married for 53 years.

----------


## PennyQuilts

> Yep, my mother was 17 (just graduated high school) and she is around the same age that he is. My parents have been married for 53 years.


I married at 16 (marriage lasted 24 years).  My mom married at 17.  Her mother (my grandmother) married at 14 and HER mother (my great grandmother) at 13.  Craziness but that is how it used to be done.  Back in the days when premarital sex was frowned upon and birth control was more iffy (and those concepts were in their last gasps when I was in my teens), families strongly encouraged teenagers in love to tie the knot.  When you consider the times, it made sense because the alternative was enough to ruin a young girl's life and damn her to a lifetime of poverty.

----------


## Midtowner

> That's probably because the constitution has been misinterprted by so many judges over the years that it has almost lost all original meaning on most subjects.  Now it is mostly a "make it up as you go" system.


By adopting the English Common Law doctrine and in holding with the prevailing opinion in Marbury v. Madison, since right around the beginning, we've observed _res judicata_ and the judiciary's power to interpret all federal laws, including how the Constitution will be applied.  If you think Marbury v. Madison was the wrong holding, I guess you're entitled to your opinion, but you're going to have to unravel about 210 years of "making it up as we go along," which is entirely how the system was designed to work.  

And again you're speaking as if you believe that the founding fathers were some monochrome monolithic organization where everyone agreed on everything, which couldn't be further from the truth.  Hamilton wanted to install Washington as the King of an all-powerful monarchy.  Hamilton also didn't think the concept of a Bill of Rights was really relevant because the Constitution wasn't granting the government the power to inflict harm on free speech, so what use was a citizen's right to it?  If you really make a go of studying the early legal underpinnings of the Constitution and the people involved in crafting it, you'll see how perilously close we got to a lot of things being very very bad.

History aside though, "original meaning" is something one particular group of judges and justices champion... of course those same folks think it's great that everyone can have a gun whether or not they are involved in the state's militia.  So there's that.

----------


## KenRagsdale

People.  People.  People.

I have only watched "Duck Dynasty" as of late.  This family is not a group of slack-jawed, hay-bailing, group of swamp rats.  Please listen to their collective vernacular.  The "Dynasty" stars are more discerningly intelligent than the image they project.  Please be aware this was a conflict between a family of the super wealthy, and a broadcast organization with serious financial clout.

This, in my opinion, is a contractual dispute; nothing more, nothing less.

Both parties entered into the agreement several years ago, presumably under the advice and recommendation of adequate counsel.

Both parties have now made peace.  The program will be more exposed and popular than ever, and everyone goes to the bank.

----------


## RadicalModerate

This dude was only less smarter than Mr. Haney and Einstein's country cousin.

Oh.  And the Robertson clan.

----------


## kevinpate

FWIW to the A&E folk: 

The Robertson clan have just announced their upcoming line of Duck Commander shotguns, semi-auto rifles and semi-auto pistols, featuring the slogan - Faith...Family...Ducks and every purchase includes a bandanna like the one Willie R regularly (aka all the freakin' time) wears.

Now, not only does the family have legions of followers on and off the internet, the boys down south and their pappy are fixin' to help arm them as well.

Take that to the duck blind and chaw on it fer a spell.

----------


## RadicalModerate

Word on the street (outside of a courthouse that shall remain nameless) says that negotiations are underway with these guys to produce a remake of this classic substituting "beards" for "legs" . . . Apparently, the musicians are amenable to the suggestion.  (they will get a cut of the profits from the beards, some of which were left over from George Clooney's wardrobe in "O! Brother Where Art Thou?")

----------


## Mel

Re-doing a ZZ-Top songs seems a bit blasphemous.

----------


## RadicalModerate

They are forgiven.

----------


## Mel

Maybe officially but I have been a fan of Top for a long time. If it's done well musically and with respect I guess it would be ok.

----------


## Chadanth

> Word on the street (outside of a courthouse that shall remain nameless) says that negotiations are underway with these guys to produce a remake of this classic substituting "beards" for "legs" . . . Apparently, the musicians are amenable to the suggestion.  (they will get a cut of the profits from the beards, some of which were left over from George Clooney's wardrobe in "O! Brother Where Art Thou?")


Funny, considering they didn't even have beards before the show.

----------


## RadicalModerate

> Funny, considering they didn't even have beards before the show.


Neither did The Soggy Bottom Boys . . .

----------


## mkjeeves



----------


## RadicalModerate

> 


Zee Zee Top: That li'l ol' garage band from Texas.
(before the invention of Foster Grants and beards)

----------


## RadicalModerate

After All is Said and Done . . . I sure hope The American Pickers Team learnt sompin' frum all this here stuff on account o' they are, like, totally, like non-political.  (however, i suspect both of them of having Christian principles . . . 'cause actions speak louder than words . . . or at least they used t' =).

(of course, I'm comparin' History Channel to A&E and the "standards" may be written in disappearing ink)

----------

