Duck Dynasty Dis

[Semper Catholic]

I don't agree with cross-cut all the time, but I'm going to give her the courtesy of responding to her responses where I think it's appropriate. If she is really 15yo then she deserves to hear from those older than her and she can do with that what she will.

And I didn't quite see it as an argument... I just saw it as a great opportunity to highlight leftist thought processes in action.

I'm going to slowly back out of this thread because of how weird you're making it.

[NotreDame]

I'm going to slowly back out of this thread because of how weird you're making it.

 

Hey, well you an only compare Christian morality to bigotry so many times before it gets old. 

[CrossCuT]

I'm not 15 and I'm pretty sure he was refering to FP that you cited...I'm not sure if FP is 15 either but who knows.

[NotreDame]

I'm not 15 and I'm pretty sure he was refering to FP that you cited...I'm not sure if FP is 15 either but who knows.

 

Oh ok. I thought everybody knows FP is 16.

[Basilisa Marie]

The fact is the rest of the family won't do the show without Phil, and there's no way A&E would sink their cash cow over this.  

[Pliny]

No, bigotry is not up for interpretation. Hating minority groups is bigotry. It just is. The Klan hold many of the same beliefs Phil Robertson does. Why aren't you on their door step trying to help them get a tv show?

 

The problem is that we've given those with disordered desires and behaviors "minority" status.

 

So now all practicing Christians are "bigots."

[Semper Catholic]

The problem is that we've given those with disordered desires and behaviors "minority" status.

So now all practicing Christians are "bigots."

The proper way to treat them is as subhumans. That's how Phil prefers it at least. Him and his desirable vaginas and anuses.

[Ice_nine]

just a friendly reminder: being an ass =/= getting a point across.

 

The real question is, why do we let television have so much power over us?

[Luigi]

I find it ironic - and revealing - that the media will fight tenaciously for the right to air whatever they want, in the name of "free speech." And yet they don't actually believe in free speech - not when it comes to their employees.

 

Clearly, a "star" has a right to free speech only when s/he speaks in line with the prevailing Hollywood political philosophy. Nearly every "star" worth anything has made public service ads, protested in public, been arrested at embassies, raised funds for, and preached on talk shows about their preferred political stance. And notably, none of them have been fired from their television series.

 

And yet we've seen a couple of television folks get fired in the last few weeks for making anti-gay remarks - remarks that would have been perfectly acceptable and considered "normal" at any previous time in the history of this nation or the world. "Gay" has become not only acceptable but requisite, and all in the last five years or so. It's the latest American fad.

 

I've heard others say, "He signed away his right to speak publicly when he signed his contract." Hhmmpphh! I don't think a private contract can trump the Constitution or a constitutional right. It's pretty much the same argument that Curt Flood made in baseball - my team can't sell me to another team because Lincoln freed the slaves. And he won that argument. You don't lose your constitutional rights just because you take a job. Maybe the Duck Dynasty guy is an idiot, but he still has a right to express himself.

 

We are now in the New McCarthyism. The gays can get someone fired just by complaining that they don't like what a person said - which is, in fact, a representation of what the person believes. In the Fifties, that was called "blacklisting." So Orwell's thought police are indeed at work among us. I fully expect to see congressional hearings in the near future - a year or two - that require suspect persons to defend themselves on this issue, to name names,  and to take oaths of conformity.

[Ice_nine]

I think you may be overreacting a little. Freedom of speech is about freedom from legal prosecution isn't it? I mean if I was employed by the Catholic church and I said "God is dead" you'd support them firing me wouldn't you?

 

I know the climate of the culture is really out of sync with the Church, but we can't keep crying "unfair!" I don't think that's the attitude we're supposed to have. It's so whiny. Let the enemies of the church whine all they want, but I think we need to handle the character attacks a little better.

 

 

[NotreDame]

I think you may be overreacting a little. Freedom of speech is about freedom from legal prosecution isn't it? I mean if I was employed by the Catholic church and I said "God is dead" you'd support them firing me wouldn't you?

 

A&E has the freedom to drop people for any reason, of course. 

 

Why it's especially worrying to me is that this (dropping someone for simply calling homosexuality immoral) is happening in the context of multiple, genuine infringements on the freedom of religion... From being forced to pay for birth control via the ACA, to rulings forcing photographers and wedding cake makers to work same-sex weddings:

 

http://www.examiner.com/article/christian-photographers-must-shoot-gay-weddings

 

It's not a situation where provision is being made for the private sector vs public.  People that think like that rarely make the distinction between the two anyway. 
 

[dUSt]

[Ice_nine]

A&E has the freedom to drop people for any reason, of course. 

 

Why it's especially worrying to me is that this (dropping someone for simply calling homosexuality immoral) is happening in the context of multiple, genuine infringements on the freedom of religion... From being forced to pay for birth control via the ACA, to rulings forcing photographers and wedding cake makers to work same-sex weddings:

 

http://www.examiner.com/article/christian-photographers-must-shoot-gay-weddings

 

It's not a situation where provision is being made for the private sector vs public.  People that think like that rarely make the distinction between the two anyway. 
 

 

Of course, but these things that you mention did not happen here. Just because we may be on the side of the fence that doesn't agree with the decision doesn't mean we should cry persecution at every little thing that doesn't go our way. It makes us look hyper-reactionary and that means people will take us even less seriously than they already do.

 

Make any sense?

[NotreDame]

Of course, but these things that you mention did not happen here. Just because we may be on the side of the fence that doesn't agree with the decision doesn't mean we should cry persecution at every little thing that doesn't go our way. It makes us look hyper-reactionary and that means people will take us even less seriously than they already do.

 

Make any sense?

 

Yes, it makes sense, but I never cried persecution.  I called the people facists, which is what they are.  I don't think it makes me look hyper-reactionary and it's ok with me if you feel differently.

 

(That said, I do believe the elite and the left hate the Church and that this is a form persecution.)

Edited December 21, 2013 by NotreDame

[jeffboom]

Yes, it makes sense, but I never cried persecution. I called the people facists, which is what they are. I don't think it makes me look hyper-reactionary and it's ok with me if you feel differently.

(That said, I do believe the elite and the left hate the Church and that this is a form persecution.)

So the left "facists" are or are not persecuting the church?

[NotreDame]

So the left "facists" are or are not persecuting the church?

 

At this point it's probably fair to say that it is a matter of opinion whether there is an element in the US trying (and in some cases successfully) persecuting Christians (including the Catholic Church.)  My opinion you could probably guess.  Others would feel differently. 

[jeffboom]

At this point it's probably fair to say that it is a matter of opinion whether there is an element in the US trying (and in some cases successfully) persecuting Christians (including the Catholic Church.) My opinion you could probably guess. Others would feel differently.

There certainly are some in the United States (including portions of our government) that are hypersensitive to religious and conservative free speech. Those who are in positions of power within the media are the most obvious examples of liberal hypersensitivity. I seriously doubt this is persecution or facism though. That usually implies a level of physical coercion, or threat of physical coercion.

[ardillacid]

A&E has the freedom to drop people for any reason, of course. 

 

 

 

Do employers have the freedom to fire people for any reason?

[NotreDame]

Do employers have the freedom to fire people for any reason?

 

If they are white males?  Yes.  :hehe2:

 

But in all seriousness, good catch.  I don't think anyone is doubting their right to indefinitely suspend the duck-father.

[Ed Normile]

Give me a break. You can't say the bigoted things he said without consequences. Sorry but it's called personal responsibility. For the record he also said things about black people that was just as disgusting.

The whole persona is a made up crock. Before they were famous they were a bunch of white bread golfing WASPS. Not hillbillies.

 

This was very bigoted, was it from the show ?

 

ed