Duck Dynasty, will Phil's interview doom the show?

• Manhattan Buckeye

  "IWP was just posting to point out that the alleged homophobic part isn't the comment about preferring vagina to male anus, it was the unnecessary and off the cuff comparison of it to beastiality"
  
  I agree. But that wasn't what he said. Many religious sects (including my parents' church) believe that in God's eye a sin is a sin. Regardless if it is murder, or jaywalking. I don't agree, but that is my opinion
  
  Nothing he said was homophobic.
  
  To the point above i don't agree with the idea that one sin is similar to another because it is a sin. I don't even go to their church. But from what I've read he didn't compare gay sex to bestiality - just that one sin is no different than another sin. If I'm incorrect you can correct me.
• isadore

  jmog;1556304 wrote:If you want to argue the Jim Crow law part I can see that argument.
  
  However, anyone who says he was comparing homosexuality to beastiality is a moron and doesn't understand the English language. Either that or they are just way too easily offended which leads me back to the first statement.
  
  
  
  Oh, and like I said before. A&E had every right to fire him just like any employer can to any employee...unless they are a protected class, then you aren't allowed to fire without multiple warnings.

  Both criticism of him are true. And anyone can see from reading First Corinthians to see it was a source for his list of the damned, then he dragged in bestiality.
• I Wear Pants

  jmog;1556301 wrote:What part was homophobic? The part where he gave his opinion that it was sin?

  Can I include the comments he made in the other video (s?) that have since surfaced? Because those definitely were.
• IggyPride00

  

  Phil has a new arch enemy it seems. Charlie Sheen is now demanding an apology from Phil.
  

  hey Mallard brained Phil Robertson!
  you have offended and hurt so many dear friends of mine,
  who DO NOT have the voice or the outreach that I do.
  well news flash
  shower-dodger,
  I will speak loudly and clearly for ALL of them.
  so,
  just when your desperately sub evolved ass thought the pressure was off,
  you are now in the crosshairs of a MaSheen style media
  beat down.
  (I'll try to keep the big words to a minimum as not to confuse you)
  
  your statements were and are
  abhorrently and
  mendaciously unforgivable.
  
  the idea that you have a job
  outside of dirt-clod stacking
  is a miracle.
  
  the only 'Dynasty' you are attached to might be the
  re-runs of that dated show.
  
  the only thing you should ever be in charge of building is a hole in the ground the exact size of
  your head.
  perhaps your beard would fit as well if you plucked out the
  army of scabies and
  bull weevils sequestered deep in it's sarcophagus of dander and weasel pelts.
  
  shame on you.
  you're the only surviving
  brain donor I've ever known.
  
  when the gators and Egrets
  kick you out of their
  hovel,
  you need to make serious amends to those you have
  radically offended.
  
  on the eight day
  when I was whittling my cosmic banjo,
  I'm pretty sure YOU were the scattered dross I then used to light a fire and
  locate the nearest
  Andy Gump.
  
  repulsed by you;
  c sheen
  
  hash tag;
  Duck; that was me.

  [LEFT]
  
  [/LEFT]
• I Wear Pants

  IggyPride00;1556338 wrote:Phil has a new arch enemy it seems. Charlie Sheen is now demanding an apology from Phil.
  
  [LEFT]
  
  [/LEFT]

  What the fuck did I just read?
• IggyPride00

  

  I Wear Pants;1556339 wrote:What the fuck did I just read?

  I don't know, but things get infinitely more awesome when the Warlock gets himself involved.
  
  He's not exactly someone I had pictured being a champion of the gays, but this can only lead to more coke fueled rants for sure.
• LJ

  

  Pretty sure drugged out Charlie Sheen is one of the last opinions they care about, lol
• gut

  I expect Phil to respond with a simple and honest "Who is Charlie Sheen?!?"
  
  I really don't get it. Attack the guy's religion (and plenty can and do), but to villify a person because of their religious views is pretty offensive, too. The media and the nitwits are doing a heck of a job turning this into something more than just some hilljack with a tv show.
• gut

  LJ;1556341 wrote:Pretty sure drugged out Charlie Sheen is one of the last opinions they care about, lol

  That might have been a more effective rant if Phil was on Twitter
• gut

  I think the bigger story here might be that the media apparently cares more about gays than blacks...because the more offensive racist comments Phil made are pretty much being ignored.
• LJ

  

  gut;1556342 wrote:I expect Phil to respond with a simple and honest "Who is Charlie Sheen?!?"
  

  Nah. "I liked you in 'Men at Work'"
• GoPens

  

  Manhattan Buckeye;1556283 wrote:That has been my experience with folks like you....once they lose the argument they don't want to talk anymore (and that includes Harvard law professors). But I'm cool with not talking about it again, but the next time before you get outraged, make sure you have something to be outraged about

  What a fucking elitist. "Folks like you". Who's to say IWP lost the argument? He makes more sense than you do. Go genuflect in front of the mirror a little more.
• like_that

  

  GoPens;1556347 wrote:What a fucking elitist. "Folks like you". Who's to say IWP lost the argument? He makes more sense than you do. Go genuflect in front of the mirror a little more.

  Par for the course for MB. Love he had to throw in the Harvard professor in there. LOL
• Tiernan

  Charlie's 15 minutes are over and he doesn't like some redneck from the bayou getting this kind of attention.
• I Wear Pants

  gut;1556342 wrote:I expect Phil to respond with a simple and honest "Who is Charlie Sheen?!?"
  
  I really don't get it. Attack the guy's religion (and plenty can and do), but to villify a person because of their religious views is pretty offensive, too. The media and the nitwits are doing a heck of a job turning this into something more than just some hilljack with a tv show.

  Do you hold the same views when WBC is protesting soldiers funerals? What if he wasn't religious but held the same views regarding blacks and gays or whoever? Would it be okay to criticize him then? Why do we give free passes to people holding opinions we think are assholeish/offensive/not-okay-in some way simply because "well it's their religion and we need to respect that". No, I don't. I respect his right to have and practice his religion. If the state were forcing him to stop practicing his religion then I'd be upset. But I don't have to respect his religious opinions.
  
  And who's turning it into anything more than it is, the people saying "whoa dude, that's a pretty assholeish thing to say", the tv network that suspended a guy because he said a bunch of controversial and arguably racist/homophobic things, or the people who when those two things happen go "stop censoring people you're violating the 1st Amendment which of course guarantees us a right to voice whatever we want on a privately held television network"?
  
  Besides the entertaining semantic arguments I'm having on here with people like Manhattan Buckeye and others (where we clearly disagree but that's not really a problem) I don't really care. An old baptist "preacher" from Louisiana is pretty low on the list of opinions I give a shit about. Unless I'm in the market for a duck call, then maybe I'll tune into his opinion.
• gut

  I Wear Pants;1556364 wrote:Do you hold the same views when WBC is protesting soldiers funerals? What if he wasn't religious but held the same views regarding blacks and gays or whoever? Would it be okay to criticize him then?.

  He believes what he does because of his religion, so criticize his religion and not his choice to practice a religion. You don't win hearts and minds attacking someone for their religious beliefs, but people get stupid when they are emotionally invested. And that's what has brought out the right to defend a perceived attack on religion - the right and left are just feeding off each other in an slow news week.
  
  And comparing free speech to this is not the same - religion is a protected class. And protesting outside someone's funeral is very disrespectful and is miles away from regurgitating what your religion says to someone in an interview. If Phil's comments caused anyone a flash of emotional harm that person has a lot bigger problems.
• HitsRus

  

  And comparing free speech to this is not the same - religion is a protected class. And protesting outside someone's funeral is very disrespectful and is miles away from regurgitating what your religion says to someone in an interview. If Phil's comments caused anyone a flash of emotional harm that person has a lot bigger problems

  This. WBC disrupting funerals and getting in a mourner's face is a lot different than some dude spouting in a magazine interview.
  Get a thicker skin....we all will be better off.
• Manhattan Buckeye

  GoPens;1556347 wrote:What a fucking elitist. "Folks like you". Who's to say IWP lost the argument? He makes more sense than you do. Go genuflect in front of the mirror a little more.

  1) If like that agrees, with you, that pretty much makes you wrong automatically.
  
  2) Apparently you missed the at my message, but it is still correct. Nothing Robertson said was homophobic. What he said about Black people was far worse, but they don't get butthurt the way certain gay people do if you don't give them a cookie for preferring men's butts over women's ladyparts. There is a reason why GLAAD is backing off. They realize they overplayed their hand on this.
• hang_loose

  Charlies glory days are over until he can keep his "nose" clean ( I feel sorry for his kids)........Trying to keep his name in the news by jumping on this guy (in my opinion) lowered him-self even farther.
  
  Anyone know where that "letter" came from?
  
  Phil (like I know him, yeah right :RpS_lol has the right to voice his opinion in this country just like everyone else. Nothing he said was against the law. A lot of countries don't play that crap! I don't think your going to see a long line of people breaking their "doors" down to live there.
  
  America, you may think its bad but I'm not trading places to anyone outside of the US.
• pmoney25

  

  I wonder if the support for Phil would be the same if he were Muslim and he was quoting the Qur'an. Somehow I doubt the religious freedom folks would be jumping to his defense.
• Manhattan Buckeye

  pmoney25;1556470 wrote:I wonder if the support for Phil would be the same if he were Muslim and he was quoting the Qur'an. Somehow I doubt the religious freedom folks would be jumping to his defense.

  No, he'd be given a key to the White House and Harvard law professors would want him to give a speech.
  
  This thread is probably getting close to the political board so I won't push it that much, but the USA is absolutely nuts now. You can offend certain people, but not other people. Grow a thick skin and don't be offended if someone doesn't like you.
• queencitybuckeye

  Manhattan Buckeye;1556471 wrote:You can offend certain people, but not other people. Grow a thick skin and don't be offended if someone doesn't like you.

  I'll agree with this, pointing out that it applies to both sides of any issue, particularly a battle where the winner has been determined. The hill has been taken, people need to stop being the last holdout getting off a few random shots. The other side can start dialing back the victimhood setting.
• pmoney25

  

  Manhattan Buckeye;1556471 wrote:No, he'd be given a key to the White House and Harvard law professors would want him to give a speech.
  
  This thread is probably getting close to the political board so I won't push it that much, but the USA is absolutely nuts now. You can offend certain people, but not other people. Grow a thick skin and don't be offended if someone doesn't like you.

  I am not offended by any of it. You do realize both sides are acting a bit ridiculous at this point.
  
  Everyone has the right to say offensive things and to call some one out if they feel offended but if you do you better be prepared to own up to it and not bitch and moan if you are held accountable.
  
  This is not some war on Christianity that some are trying to make it out to be.
• HitsRus

  

  There is truth in what both of you say (MB and pmoney)....but the real overreaction came from A&E which stoked the fire by 'suspending' him indefinitely. Otherwise, Phil says what he says...there is some grumbling by some people who take offense...an then life goes on as usual as it should.
• queencitybuckeye

  HitsRus;1556491 wrote:There is truth in what both of you say (MB and pmoney)....but the real overreaction came from A&E which stoked the fire by 'suspending' him indefinitely. Otherwise, Phil says what he says...there is some grumbling by some people who take offense...an then life goes on as usual as it should.

  True, assuming that one accepts that the situation isn't as contrived as the show itself.