Any of you see this story? http://tv.yahoo.com/...tml?bcmt=comments-postbox

Ok first off I couldn't really tell what the writers opinions were on this story? It appeared to be pro-gay but it was pretty hard to tell.

Anyway I thought it was hilarious that A&E suspended Phil from filming. I think they have him confused with all the other reality tv show characters. Phil does not need this show nor does he care if it occurs. Its about the same as saying you can't use AOL or internet explorer lol. This decision is also hilarious because Duck Dynasty is the reason A&E is popular. I had to look up what other shows are on there and only other one I had heard about was storage wars. So what's A&E going to do if Duck Dynasty decides to move to another channel and takes it millions of viewers with it?

So anyway that all aside I think its a little ridiculous that there is only one allowed opinion on gay's, the one which agrees with it entirely. Yes I understand that freedom of speech goes both ways and if you present an unpopular opinion you can be subjected to criticism. But does every single comment not 100% supporting gay's have to be portrayed as a some huge tirade?

Thoughts?

they are censoring freedom of speech. it's all fun to give equal rights to gays, i do not disagree with this. but equal means they are on the same level, and a&e is certainly not holding him as an equal to anybody.

just because you don't like what he says, that doesn't mean he isn't allowed to say it. or by god, maybe even just be right.

unless you're a fascist, i guess.

oh, and people with unmarred beards are funny looking

braden, nobody is censoring free speech. there's no "right" to be on television on A&E. that said, liberals are a bunch of whiny babies.

gore vidal once said, (thank you charles krauthammer) that you should never turn down the opportunity for either sex or being on television.

what that has to do with anything, i do not know, i mostly wanted to quote krauthammer quoting vidal ;)

a and e can do whatever they want, you are a hundred percent correct blid, but his contract still pays him his money?

who knows? maybe he is in violation of his contract. maybe there are terms that allow a&e to suspend his pay.

hm, i wonder if since it's conservative family, maybe the whole family might walk, and a and e loses like the largest non singing or surviving on an island tv show on the planet..

after all, i think most people buying duck calls aren't too worried about the liberal lefts agenda what with homosexuality.

should be fun to see if money wins over acceptance of others.

lol, since when do reality tv people willingly walk away from reality tv

when they corner the worlds market on duck calls and have more money than you and i could understand what with to use it for?

But they wouldn't even need to walk away, just go to another channel. But yeah what Brandon said, Phil couldn't care less about the tv deal. He is rich and as long as he has a house to live in, God, his family, and the ability to hunt he happy.

And yes there is definitely a possibility that he is violating some term in his contract, but if I were A&E I would issue some statement about how the views presented by their tv stars do not reflect on their own views, I just think suspending him is going to look bad for them. But it appeases the gay rights groups which apparently is all that matters.

^^^^ THIS ^^^^^^

I have always been and will always be for equal rights for every citizen of this great nation. Gay, Straight, Bi, Trans, Black, White, Yellow, Brown. Whatever you are, you are American, as such you are equal to every other American in the world and should hold equal rights.

That being said, this is getting ridiculous. The censorship of language is mind-boggling. Sure, A&E has the right to choose what airs on their networks but as I said in the other thread on GT; If you don't like what someone is saying or their point of view, change the channel. It is not complicated. I personally don't like the opinions and the hateful and highly disrespectful language used by Rachel Maddow and Chris Mathews, I am not asking for them to be taken off air or to be censored. I just don't watch them. I get on with my life and do other things.

While I am ranting... Merry Christmas to all of you...


I don’t understand what the big deal is…If you are Jewish, tell me “Happy Hanukkah”. If you are Christian, tell me “Merry Christmas”. If you are African American, tell me “Joyous Kwanzaa”. If you don’t prefer those, tell me “Happy Holidays”. I will not be offended. I will be thankful you took the time to say something nice to me. - http://www.idolol.com/...fe660ecfd7dd6784d8d70.jpg

/end rant

Self censorship is still censorship. A&E's response should have been to put out a statement that Phil Robertson's views do not reflect their own and they are filming a series about a real American family and that such views among Americans do exists regardless of whether or not you agree.

You don't have to like his views, but let the man speak. I think his words were doing more damage to his point of view than to the gay community anyway, so there is no point in trying to silence him.

In terms of rights, we walk a fine line here between the right of A&E to protect their reputation as they see fit and Phil Robertson's right to speak his viewpoints. The decision would come as to at what point can A&E not deflect criticism for what Phil Robertson said back onto Phil Robertson alone and at what point it truly begins to appear that regardless of what they say, Phil Robertson is reflecting the views of A&E.

Today, A&E has miscalculated where this line is drawn. As a television producer, if you are not occasionally involved in controversy, then I hardly think you're doing your job.

Phil Robertson was not going off on gays on the Duck Dynasty show, so chill out and get on with life. Are we going to let every little bit of criticism bother us? Are we going to eviscerate (metaphorically) every fool on the street or are we going to grow up and merely respond with counterpoints instead of trying to silence people?

Dont care, he has the right to not agree with gay people and they have the right not to agree with him.

Move on, stupid media.

Paula Deen round 2

Cheers to the Duck Dynasty guy. this is a free country, you are supposed to have free speech.

If you don't want to hear what he has to say, than don't watch him. Im sure he could give a rats ass what some fluff wants.

Each to their own,and I have the freedom of speech also. Cheers Duck Dynasty dude!

OMGZ SOMEONE SAID THEY DONT SUPPORT A LIFE STYLE? Lets get all crazy and offended about it!

Did he say he wants to kill them all? No, so move on and care about something meaningful.

Also, if he is suspended I don't see what is stopping the rest of the family from not working on the show themselves since they are just as religious as Phil.

I AGREE WITH A LOT OF YOU POST. SO I WILL PICK THE PART THAT I DISAGREED WITH AND QUOTE IT SELECTIVELY! HA!

THERE IS NO FINE LINE HERE! A&E IS NOT THE GOVERNMENT, AND HAS EVERY RIGHT TO DICTATE TERMS OF HOW THEIR EMPLOYEES AND CONTRACTORS AND SUCH BEHAVE. THEIR EMPLOYEES AND CONTRACTORS AND SUCH HAVE EVERY RIGHT TO ACCEPT OR WALK AWAY FROM THOSE TERMS. BLID NAILED IT ABOVE: THERE IS NO "RIGHT" TO HAVE A TV SHOW ON A&E. A&E BOUGHT THE MEGAPHONE, AND THEY ARE FREE TO DECIDE WHO GETS TO WIELD IT AND FOR WHAT CAUSE.

WHY DO I SINGLE OUT THIS PARTICULAR STATEMENT AND PLACE SO MANY OF THE LETTERS OF POWER IN PLAY? SIMPLE! IMPLYING THAT A&E MAY BE VIOLATING HIS RIGHTS ALSO IMPLIES THAT SOMEONE WITH MORE POWER THAN A&E MAY NEED TO STEP IN AND *DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT!* THE GOVERNMENT IS IN CHARGE OF DEFENDING OUR RIGHTS (BELIEVE IT OR NOT), AND THIS IS A CASE OF LIBERTY VS LIBERTY, SO THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD SIT BACK AND CHEER ON BOTH SIDES!

HA!
BILL DANGER
LOVER OF LIBERTY
THE MIGHTY CLAN [DANGER]!

PEOPLE GET OFFENDED BECAUSE CALLING IT A "LIFE STYLE" IS KIND OF LIKE SAYING "I DON'T SUPPORT THE TEN FINGER LIFESTYLE" OR "I DON'T SUPPORT THE BLUE EYED LIFESTYLE" OR "I DON'T SUPPORT THE SIX FOOT TALL AND OVER LIFESTYLE."

ONE FINAL NIT TO PICK: BEING RELIGIOUS DOES NOT (OR *SHOULD NOT* AT LEAST) IMPLY BEING BIGOTED. TRUE, MANY HAVE USED THE PULPIT AS A MEANS TO PERPETUATE THEIR BIGOTRY, BUT SAYING THEY ARE "JUST AS RELIGIOUS AS PHIL" AND SHOULD THEREFORE WALK OFF THE SHOW, IMPLIES THAT BEING RELIGIOUS DICTATES A CERTAIN VIEW ON HOMOSEXUALITY, WHICH IT DOES NOT.

HA!
BILL
OK, I'LL STOP BEING SERIOUS NOW
THE MIGHTY CLAN [DANGER]!

Couldn't have said it better...:)

freedom of speech doesn't apply to privately run businesses like A&E. only da gubmint.

sidenote, i find it sadly humorous that the folks that are most vocal about 'freedom of speech' are generally the ones who don't understand just exactly what the freedom of speech is or what rights it grants you. do we not teach civics class in middle school anymore? :(

[quote poster=BILL_DANGER; 27944; 516097]

PEOPLE GET OFFENDED BECAUSE CALLING IT A "LIFE STYLE" IS KIND OF LIKE SAYING "I DON'T SUPPORT THE TEN FINGER LIFESTYLE" OR "I DON'T SUPPORT THE BLUE EYED LIFESTYLE" OR "I DON'T SUPPORT THE SIX FOOT TALL AND OVER LIFESTYLE."

ONE FINAL NIT TO PICK: BEING RELIGIOUS DOES NOT (OR *SHOULD NOT* AT LEAST) IMPLY BEING BIGOTED. TRUE, MANY HAVE USED THE PULPIT AS A MEANS TO PERPETUATE THEIR BIGOTRY, BUT SAYING THEY ARE "JUST AS RELIGIOUS AS PHIL" AND SHOULD THEREFORE WALK OFF THE SHOW, IMPLIES THAT BEING RELIGIOUS DICTATES A CERTAIN VIEW ON HOMOSEXUALITY, WHICH IT DOES NOT.

HA!
BILL
OK, I'LL STOP BEING SERIOUS NOW
THE MIGHTY CLAN [DANGER]! [/quote]

When I said religious I did mean to say they probably do have the same views as him, which may or may not include Phils religious beliefs about homosexuality, if any exist.

constitutional amendment is for the government. the idea that as an individual i am allowed freely to speak my voice or opinion is basic human rights. whether you're american, chinese, or canadian.

and no, my middle school did not teach me american constitutional law. fluffing canada, man

hehehe. sure, you technically have 'freedom of speech' when dealing with a private company. what you don't have is 'freedom from consequences from exercising your freedom of speech' when dealing with a private company. barring a union, or an employment contract, an employer is able to fire you for pretty much any reason at any time. i'm sure being on a big tv show like that, there's an employment contract - but i'd wager there are terms in there that cover this sort of situation which led to his suspension of employment.

you have the freedom of speech. if you call your boss a big doodoo head and you hate his guts and he's a fluffty boss, that's cool, that's your right. it's also his right to fire you for doing so.

and did you really mention china when we're talking about freedom of speech and basic human rights? srsly?

A&E has the right to fire him on their reality show.

This!

sorry trife, i misunderstood. i didn't realize your only rights are the ones given to you by your [hopefully not] oppressive governments.

Your only rights are the rights you were born with and the government aren't allowed to suppress. However your right does not imply someone's else's obligation to provide it for you. You can speak whatever you want however A&E is not required to broadcast your views and this is not censorship, you can still speak somewhere else. (For the record, I actually agree with this Phil Robertson's views.)

Trife is a big doodoo head

I am Gay. (those that know of me from chats and and in MD, know this fact)

This issue is dumb. He said something dumb, and his employer canned him for it. It is the employer's decision. There may be something in his contract that gives them legal grounds on this. If not, then we will hear about it later on, if the guy really cares.

He can voice his opinion. At least he didn't say we deserve to die, just that he sees us as sinners and all and an abomination or whatever... I've been called worse by my friends. So meh.

They do, just like the girl who got fired for her halloween costume of the boston marathon bomb victim.

The main point i was making, while he is protected from getting fired, it is stupid that it even got that far. He said what he believes. If you don"t like it, don't watch the show and don't buy the duck calls. It is that simple. As MO said, he didn't call for them to die or anything.

An employer can fire him for saying something in public they don't like. If I go on facebook and say something my employer doesn't like they can fire me as well.

A&E is well within their rights to fire him if they want. Not saying it was the right decision but it was the decision they made.

Let's also face the fact that this is an old redneck who claims to be religious. When they asked him that question they were setting him up. Let's not be stupid.

If you as my grandpa about stuff I'm quite sure you will hear worse things. Not saying it makes it right but the people from their generation don't have the same political correctness as our generations do.

My generation is much more tolerant and accepting of people different from themselves than my grandpa's generation. Let's put some perspective on it.





I agree totally however it doesn't change the fact that an employer can, and do all the time, fire people for making outlandish public statements. This is especially true for people in the media/actors/etc. Many of your local news anchors have what they like to call "mortality" or "ethics" clauses in their job contract and if broken i.e. make a statement the company doesn't support they can and do get fired for it.

Also one other point I want to make is that the LGBT community needs to quit being so hyper sensitive to people who have a differing opinion about their sexual preference.

I'm not denying that A&E has the right to remove Phil from the show, but to say that this is not censorship is to ignore the facts. A&E has chosen not to have Phil on their show so as to keep his views from being recorded for TV; this is censorship. Do they have the right to censor the show, yes, but it is censorship. Is all censorship bad? Well no, I don't think news providers should allow their anchors to disparage fat people. There are some things which society and businesses should seek to censor through non-governmental action. Do they have the right to fire Phil for his comments? Maybe, that depends on his contract with them. What they've done to this point is certainly legal, however.

Legality, notwithstanding, does not make it the right business decision to make or the right thing to do in general. I think it was both a bad business decision and the wrong thing to do. As I said above, I feel that A&E should have distanced themselves from Mr. Robertson's comments. This would have introduced an element of controversy into the show and would not see A&E as the potential target of backlash from those people who agree with Phil Robertson's views or those who, like myself, merely feel that they should not have removed him from the show based upon his comments.

They didn't censor what he said. They said they do not support what he said and do not want him on their network anymore. Different.



What's your point? In many states employers can fire you for any reason they want, or no reason at all, there are obviously exceptions to this such as fireing someone for being black isn't legal but you get the point right?

Anyways back on subject it's called employment-at-will and it works both ways. You can quit your job anytime you want and your employer can fire you anytime they want. People on TV shows will have a contract, his statements almost 100% voided that contract (I say that without ever seeing the contract!).



I agree and think it was lame they fired him for it. But A&E felt the best thing to do for their brand (A&E brand) was to discontinue his employment. They didn't just willy-nilly do it you can bet your ass there was thought put into it. How do you know what the right decision was for them? Are you an A&E exec? Didn't think so.

Requiem, whether A&E can fire Phil Robertson absolutely depends on his contract with them. Employment at will is irrelevant if there is a contract. Right now, all they have reported doing is suspending him from filming. They have not reported that they have fired him.

As far as who I am to judge that A&E has made a bad business decision, I am a living, breathing, thinking, sentient being. I am allowed to judge the soundness of anyone's decision if I want to. I have sighted the fact that A&E could have used the controversy in their show. I have sighted the fact that they are facing a backlash for this decision. I even described an alternative decision that they could have made in regard to this matter. I'm sure they did give this situation some thought, but I still believe that they have made the wrong decision. I don't know whether this is going to prove to be the right decision or the wrong decision, but I think that it's going to prove to be the wrong decision. A&E could have made a lot worse decisions, but their decision is certainly not unworthy of criticism both from a social and a business perspective.

As for who I am, I have an undergraduate degree in business, I get and read the Wall Street Journal almost everyday. I pay attention to business news and I pay attention to political news. I remember when people wanted to boycott Chick-Fil-A for comments made by the company's president and I remember the subsequent buycott counter-protest which resulted in several Chick-Fil-A restaurants running out of chicken.

Who am I to question A&E? I'm Angel1. Who are you?

2 Things Req--- 1, i didn't see the LGBT say a thing about it until A&E announced it. This was solely an A&E thing.. (if i'm wrong, then ok, I am wrong, but i didn't hear about any of this until I heard an uproar on a few people's FB post that he was indefinitely suspended.
2, As Angel stated, at-will doesn't count if there is an actual contract. I am sure every TV show has clauses stating termination can occur for varied reasons.

Anyway, I wasn't really saying who is right or wrong in the matter. I'm just sayin what was done is done, regardless of what people think.
Also, some people may want to study what "freedom of speech" really means.

Don't know anyone who watches this show, sounds like a Fox "News" story.

The gays took over the term "beard". This is just the duck boys fighting back.

Get over it, you bunch of queers.

Now kiss me.

I didnt read all of this thread, and I am sure this statement will come across as ignorant (well it definitely will to some people). But since when the fluff did fluffs have rights? fluffing homo's!!!!


Yeah that will definitely come across as ignorant, even though it shouldn't!

oh and if i offended any fags with the above post, go suck a fluff, what you do is unnatural, apart from lesbians, well the so called lesbians in the porn i download, i know they are not really lesbians, thats why its so hot, because i know they really love the fluff, like a true woman should!


Right?

do you even think about what you say? i'm curious what other groups you believe are less than human?

you can put blacks/women/thugs/rednecks/asians/indians/muslims/transgenders/rich/poor in there, and it'll still be the ignorant opinion of a bigot.

not saying people have to approve of other folks' lifestyles/religion/culture, but to think of certain groups of people as being less than human and not deserving of rights... wow.

edit, incase some folks don't notice, i changed the group that scodey was targeting... to suggest that we've been down this road before - of thinking of certain groups as less than human - fifty years ago. the good news is that this terrible way of thinking will largely disappear over time. hatred won't win out. how difficult is to treat different groups of people as equals?

says the person who at the drop of a dime will denigrate canadians.

unless he spells colour with u..

"to suggest that we've been down this road before - of thinking of certain groups as less than human"

so you admit, the kkk are equally as human, equally as deserving rights, or forgiveness, or adoration, or respect, or the ability freely and openly to verbalize their thoughts without the fear or threat of vitriol or hatred so associated with being proud of your white skin?

so, trife, you support the rights of the racist right?
:P

blacks/women/thugs/rednecks/asians/indians/muslims/transgenders/rich/poor

Anything but middleclass white people are less than human.

:)

Straight middleclass white people I should say.

oh and add midgets to that list, fluffing midgets, that fluff is unnatural!

(FYI thanks for fixing my original post for me, though you should of just put a / then added blacks, it would of still been right!)

Yes canadians too, i do not know why the USA has not evaded canada and killed all the canadians, those people make me sick!

some may argue that america has evaded canada quite successfully. you realize at the end of wwii we had the third largest navy on the planet? oh, and the last time they tried any sort of invasion type thingy they lost, handily?

on a less important note, why will america never invade turkey? no? think.. bombs in the ground?

Third largest Navy on the planet? Are you talking simply hull displacement or total amount of ships?

You do realise the third largest navy you had was actually pretty toothless :P, it was mainly escorts and transports, so compared to the 1st and 2nd biggest navy, sure it was was large but you didnt have anything that could take on battleships and such that some countries still had.

However you did have the ability to train large amounts of experienced seamen, who served on all ally ships, I even believe that canadians served on some of the escort ships NZ had during WW2. That fact is one that is sorely overlooked with regards to the battle of the atlantic, Canada contributed a large portion of the manpower for the convoys which helped win the war. something to be very proud of.

Unfortunately, Trife, I do not think we still teach civics in the classroom anymore. Thus there is a whole generation of Americans that is growing up not understanding the basic tenets of democracy, and thus will be led like sheep to the slaughter when the government decides that it is powerful enough to take away the people's rights.

This is a sad thing for me, having been born and raised in the City of Philadelphia, having belonged to the Cradle of Liberty Council of the BSA, and having served in the US Navy.

Thomas Jefferson once espoused that having and keeping a democracy requires a moral and motivated society. Of which we seem to have neither these days.

I believe in the right for people to be able to speak their minds, and that includes viewpoints that differ from mine, but I cannot help but notice that some folks rights seem to weigh heavier than others, and this is wrong.

If you are gay, you can force people who are morally opposed to fund your lifestyle choices, and then get out in the street in your undies expressing your pride in your choice, yet the same pride is denied to a kid who has a different viewpoint and wears a "Straight Pride" T-Shirt to school, yet any schmuck can wear a "Gay Pride" T-Shirt to school and be fawned over by the academic elite, while they stone the kid wearing the straight pride T-Shirt.

The swing towards liberalism and socialism in this country is disturbing at the least.

I believe that it will lead to a new American Revolution to restore the rights guaranteed by the Constitution to all and sundry that live here as Americans.

We need to return common sense to the forefront of the American Political Scene, we need to get rid of corrupt politicians, not keep electing them. We need real leaders with a clear vision of the original intent of the Constitution and the founders of this great country.

We need to stop splitting hairs on every subject and face the facts that some things are WRONG and punish them accordingly. Now, someone is getting offended that I am not supporting their right to be gay or something. Well, Fear Not Gay Person, I don't hate you, in fact, I don't really care what you do behind your bedroom door, it's Nunya to me.

It's None of my business, but I would kindly ask you to not go out in the street in your underwear and parade around you personal pride where I have to endure the sight as it disturbs my peace and quiet.

Is that too much to ask?

Just keep it in your bedroom where it belongs, like I do, I don't get out and about in my undies celebrating the fact that I got laid last night by a hot straight and normal girl. So, don't do it to me either.

It's not too much to ask. Be reasonable, not confrontational, if you behave confrontationally, guess what you will get in return?