WN: 'Duck Dynasty' star sparks culture war with opinions on g

[The_Patriot21]

I didn't know people had a constitutional right to be on television.

 

thats not the right that was violated. He has the right of free speech. regardless of whether its on television or not and he shouldn't be punished for answering a question honestly. Seems to me, you should try to understand the actual issue-before being sarcastic.

[other one]

 

I didn't know people had a constitutional right to be on television.

 

thats not the right that was violated. He has the right of free speech. regardless of whether its on television or not and he shouldn't be punished for answering a question honestly. Seems to me, you should try to understand the actual issue-before being sarcastic.

 

He has the right to free speech concerning the Government,  the constitution does not give us those rights over Citizens or Corporations.    A&E has the right to fire him if they so choose, and if they think it is going to hurt their business they really are obligated to their stock holders to do so.

However in this case it looks like it was not a good idea to do so.  But hey, we do have the right in this country to make stupid decisions  We should not talk down to A&E for violating Phill's rights to his opinions....   they have the right to their opinions also, and the freedom to choose who works for them and who doesn't....

 

A&E may well be guilty of being really dumb, but I don't see that they have violated any laws of any kind......   unless we have declared stupidity illegal.

[The_Patriot21]

your technically right other, A & E has the right to fire phil over this. I think its morally wrong, but I think they have the right-even though theyre basically, telling phil he has no right to his opinion. Im not advocating government/legal action to resolve this. I am, however, boycotting A&E. After all, I reserve the right to not support them because of their narrowmindedness. Its hypocritical-A&E supporting gays free rights, but tromping on a christians.

[MrsRational]

your technically right other, A & E has the right to fire phil over this. I think its morally wrong, but I think they have the right-even though theyre basically, telling phil he has no right to his opinion. Im not advocating government/legal action to resolve this. I am, however, boycotting A&E. After all, I reserve the right to not support them because of their narrowmindedness. Its hypocritical-A&E supporting gays free rights, but tromping on a christians.

 

You are 100% right...they have the right to do whatever they wish with their network and you have the right to not watch it. I think he answered the question in a stupid way but I don't think he should be fired either.

[Guest shiloh357]

 

 

I didn't know people had a constitutional right to be on television.

 

thats not the right that was violated. He has the right of free speech. regardless of whether its on television or not and he shouldn't be punished for answering a question honestly. Seems to me, you should try to understand the actual issue-before being sarcastic.

 

He has the right to free speech concerning the Government,  the constitution does not give us those rights over Citizens or Corporations.    A&E has the right to fire him if they so choose, and if they think it is going to hurt their business they really are obligated to their stock holders to do so.

However in this case it looks like it was not a good idea to do so.  But hey, we do have the right in this country to make stupid decisions  We should not talk down to A&E for violating Phill's rights to his opinions....   they have the right to their opinions also, and the freedom to choose who works for them and who doesn't....

 

A&E may well be guilty of being really dumb, but I don't see that they have violated any laws of any kind......   unless we have declared stupidity illegal.

 

 

The problem is that A&E didn't fire him over his comments, per se.  They already had the transcript of the interview and they knew the comments BEFORE the interview was published.  They fired Phil Robertson to appease the loud-mouth gay community that made a stink about it.  Had the folks at organiatizations like GLAAD not said a word, most of us would never had heard about this interview.  

 

He was fired under false pretenses, realy.  A&E wasn't "outraged" until the gays made a lot of noise. Suddenly A&E decided to make a rash business decision that was based on a few special interest groups.  I am sure in hindsight they are wishing they had waited to find out what the actual viewership thought and what others in America thought before they made the decision to suspend him indefinitely.  

[other one]

 

 

 

I didn't know people had a constitutional right to be on television.

 

thats not the right that was violated. He has the right of free speech. regardless of whether its on television or not and he shouldn't be punished for answering a question honestly. Seems to me, you should try to understand the actual issue-before being sarcastic.

 

He has the right to free speech concerning the Government,  the constitution does not give us those rights over Citizens or Corporations.    A&E has the right to fire him if they so choose, and if they think it is going to hurt their business they really are obligated to their stock holders to do so.

However in this case it looks like it was not a good idea to do so.  But hey, we do have the right in this country to make stupid decisions  We should not talk down to A&E for violating Phill's rights to his opinions....   they have the right to their opinions also, and the freedom to choose who works for them and who doesn't....

 

A&E may well be guilty of being really dumb, but I don't see that they have violated any laws of any kind......   unless we have declared stupidity illegal.

 

 

The problem is that A&E didn't fire him over his comments, per se.  They already had the transcript of the interview and they knew the comments BEFORE the interview was published.  They fired Phil Robertson to appease the loud-mouth gay community that made a stink about it.  Had the folks at organiatizations like GLAAD not said a word, most of us would never had heard about this interview.  

 

He was fired under false pretenses, realy.  A&E wasn't "outraged" until the gays made a lot of noise. Suddenly A&E decided to make a rash business decision that was based on a few special interest groups.  I am sure in hindsight they are wishing they had waited to find out what the actual viewership thought and what others in America thought before they made the decision to suspend him indefinitely.  

 

 

I totally agree that Phil was removed from the show because his answers to the questions angered Gay people.  And it was the angry Gay people who are banned together to financially hurt A&E. When you are in business that the public either chooses your service or not by their own feelings about your company or product, you make business decisions on that whim of the public.   I understand that is why they took him off the show and though neither of us like thier action, it is their right to run their business in the manor they see fit.  I understand what you are saying and that is why I would for the near future not watch thier network (which is my right to do).   I just want to make sure we are not acting out of anger, but just calmly making them pay in the long run.

 

The only culprit in the whole mess are we Christians.....   it's been so long since we stood up for something,  A&E was shocked that we really cared...   But like I say, it's a free country to do stupid things....  and it is a free country to make them pay for it.   Actually I'm very much interested in seeing if there are really enough Christians to make a difference or will the gays win out again.   Will Christians really stop watching the show if Pill isn't on it....  if they do keep it on the air.   The whole thing may go down in history as being the thing that pushed conservative Christians over the edge and into action.

 

But keep in mind that when I say that A&E has the right to do what they want with Phil, I am not saying that we shouldn't make them pay for it.....    I don't watch Duck to start with, but I do watch other shows there.....   or at least I did.   We also didn't go to Cracker Barrel while they had removed their products from their shelves.  I have also requested that Direct TV not renew their contract to put the network on the satellite system....   If all 14 million of the people who watch the show did the same it would really get their attention.

 

 

I am told that in two places in Louisiana (I didn't really pay attention to where)  when Cracker Barrel took the Duck promotion products off the shelves, they didn't have a single customer for the entire morning the next day.   That was why they changed their minds so quickly.

 

Anyway, I didn't mean to stir you guys up, just make a point that A&E does have a right to make dumb decisions, but they didn't violate any of Phil's rights.....   Just violated our conscious and we're going to make them pay for it in the pocket book.

 

Paraphrased, they didn't violate Phil's rights, they simply made me mad and I'm going to help God out and make them pay for it.

 

Fact is, I'm rather enjoying seeing Christians stand up and say no and if I left a different impression then I didn't write well.

[other one]

...  and as for Phil, he's gotta be loving this....   not only does he get to chuckle a bit on the way to the bank, when did the media ever cover someone speaking the truth in this country.....   it's been a lot longer than my 66 years.   More people hve heard Phil's beliefs and preaching on Gays than any time I can remember.....   The people are rich in the first place so they don't really need the money as much as any of us that I know of might.

So, It's really a good thing for Phil, and a good thing for us, a good thing for the Gospel and maybe, just maybe might turn the tide of political correctness in this country.......    but only if we stand up and make it happen.

 

So please don't think I'm saying to let it go.......    just go for it for the right reasons.....   and enjoy the trip.

[Guest shiloh357]

I totally agree that Phil was removed from the show because his answers to the questions angered Gay people.  And it was the angry Gay people who are banned together to financially hurt A&E. When you are in business that the public either chooses your service or not by their own feelings about your company or product, you make business decisions on that whim of the public.  

 

That's just it.  This was not a public outcry for his removal, just a few voices from the homosexual community.   Had A&E made a decision based on what the the public wanted, they would not have suspended him.  The public is calling for his re-instatement.   They didn't wait to listen to the whim of the public.

 

The only culprit in the whole mess are we Christians.....   it's been so long since we stood up for something,  A&E was shocked that we really cared...  

 

The real shock for A&E is that the show was so popular, despite repeated attempts by A&E to sabotage it.   The show was not supposed to be do popular.  It was supposed to be laughed at, not laughed with.  It was supposed to be ridiculed by America as a bunch of dumb Christian rednecks and should not have lasted more than two seasons.   But it took off and became a media empire on its own.   It was more than A&E wanted it to become and they tried earlier to bring it down.

 

Anyway, I didn't mean to stir you guys up, just make a point that A&E does have a right to make dumb decisions, but they didn't violate any of Phil's rights..... 

 

I hear what you are saying.  I am just pointing to the hypocrisy of the Left that defends leftist TV personalities like Bill Maher who calls Chrisitans, "herpes" on the ground that to punish him for saying that is a violation of his first ammendment rights.   The Left will defend the vilest remarks made by Bill Maher as "free speech" but when a Christian says that homosexuality is a sin, suddenly he can be punished because A&E's rights as a business supercede our constitutional rights to free speech, thus his rights were not violated because when Christians are plugged into the equation, punishing their beliefs falls outside the purview of the Constitution.    

 

The Left as a very seletive way of interpreting and handling the Consititution.   Phil Robertson doesn't need defending.  But he represents a priniciple that does need defending.  Because if we let it go this time, and the next time, and the time after that, pretty soon we find that we have given up too much ground and we will suffer bigger and more costly consequences for publicly stating what we believe. 

 

Better to deal with this when it is just a small issue, than to let it go until it is too big and too out of control to manage and we find ourselves in chains we forged for ourselves.

[The_Patriot21]

The cracker barrel thing was a misunderstanding with duck supporters jumping to conclusions. To my understanding they only removed duck dynasty products which are owned by A&E but left duck commander products which is owned by the Robertsons. Cracker barrel was actually supporting Phil. Those supporting Phil really shot themselves in the foot on that one.

[Guest AFlameOfFire]

I would be curious about A&E's "morality contract", anyone know what's in it? I was curious after listening to another video where some woman mentions it.

But I just cant wrap my brain around the idea of A&E having a "morality" contract (or what kind of morality they are of).

Morality? While bleeping out the Robertson's words on Duck dynasty (so as to make it "appear" as if) they were swearing on the show?

Then getting ticked off about Phil quoting God's words on that very subject (of immorality itself). Then going after Phil for "his words" (as if his opinion only) when in reality his words pertained to the doctrine his faith (which is far older then Phil, A&E or those "outraged" by Phil).

Why do they call it a morality contract? Which was somehow violated by quoting the scriptures which disagrees with immorality and becomes a dilemma for Phil between the two.

Two different moral standards maybe?