Fox:
Phil Robertson, one of the stars of the A&E reality show “Duck Dynasty” who ignited a national controversy this week with remarks he made about homosexuality to GQ, vowed he would not “give or back off” as he joined his family at church in West Monroe, La.
MailOnline reported Sunday that Robertson allowed one of its reporters into a Bible study class he led at the White’s Ferry Road Church of Christ.
“I love all men and women” Robertson said, according to the website. “I am a lover of humanity, not a hater.” When a member of the class thanked Robertson for saying what he said in the interview, he appeared to shrug it off, saying “I didn’t think much of it at all, but it seems a lot of other people did.”
Robertson was suspended indefinitely by A&E after saying that “everything is blurred on what’s right and what’s wrong… Sin becomes fine … 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.”
In response to A&E’s sanction, the Robertsons have reportedly considered pulling the plug on the popular program. Politicians, including Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal have leapt to the family’s defense, decrying what they see as an attack on free speech and Christian values.
During the class, which lasted approximately 45 minutes, Robertson said of the reaction to his comments, “I am just reading what was written over 2,000 years ago. Those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom. All I did was quote from the scriptures, but they just didn’t know it. Whether I said it, or they read it, what’s the difference? The sins are the same, humans haven’t changed.
Are you seriously still defending Jindal (and I suppose Palin as well) of their abject ignorance of the freedom of free speech?
And are you seriously advocating that the long arm of the law has the authority to tell A&E as well as other free market enterprises who they must continue employing under some misguided interpretation of the 1st amendment?
I thought that misinterpretation had been clarified.
It is so typical of today’s conservative lapdogs to stand behind such debunked nonsense only to reappear a day or so later to only regurgitate that same nonsense. It’s within the realm of reasonable intellect to deduce that such tactics are intentional lies with the hopes of repeating them will somehow make them come true.
@Ronald J. Ward:
So do you think that Dan Savage has the right to regurgitate his sick filth on CNN and MSNBC without being fired for it, while Phil Robertson does not have the same right to voice his Biblical beliefs?
RJW, you are a prime example of the sickness of the mind that liberals suffer from.
Again Retire05, why such vile anger?
LOL, another “but, but, but,,,,look over there!”. CNN and MSNBC has the right to fire anyone they like. What precisely is your argument?
A&E, as has been pointed out, is a private enterprise and not a branch of the government. Mr Robertson’s freedom of speech, just like Dan Savage, Paula Deen, et al has not been violated as they are all free to speak however they like. A&E, CNN, MSNBC, et al all have the freedom to not pay them to speak it if they so choose.
This has all been discussed. Jindal and Palin were just wrong as there was no Constitutional violation. Yet here FA is, once again regurgitating or promoting that same myth, knowing damn well that there was no violation of free speech. And here you are in lapdog bobbing head fashion, doing your best to defend them. Quite poorly at that.
When Jindal and Palin decry attacks on free speech, they do not necessarily mean the 1st
Amendment has been breached.
Remember that intimidation of A&E occurred first.
GLAAD came after A&E in emails and phone calls.
Then A&E went after Phil.
GLAAD, sensing blood in the water, now insists that Phil losing a portion of his livelihood is not enough……he must attend re-education camp where gays lecture him until he relents and promises never to express his OWN views in public again.
I recall cases where Muslims threatened Christians in Michigan for the simple act of sharing Scriptures with people in public places.
(Odd, because Islam claims to accept the Hebrew and the Christian Scriptures commonly called the Bible as part of their own sacred scripture!)
In the Michigan case the local police acted as enforcer instead of a cable TV channel.
Same intimidation took place, result?
Muslims and police lost, Christians won.
In the A&E case it looks like a whole bunch of new viewers have discovered the Duck Dynasty show.
We are two of them.
And A&E knows it.
8.9 million Total Viewers joined the holiday festivities with The Robertson Family last night during A&E’s one-hour Duck Dynasty Christmas Special.
Wednesday Cable Ratings: ‘Duck Dynasty’ Leads Night Duck Dynasty was Wednesday’s top cable program, with a 3.5 million adults 18-49 rating up from last week’s 2.9 million adults 18-49 rating.
@Ronald J. Ward:
Are you saying you support right-to-work laws that allows companies to fire people for reasons such as A & E used to put Phil Robertson on “hiatus?”
Perhaps you would like to show where I mentioned Governor Jindal/Governor Palin in any of my posts? Or are you just hearing voices again?
And like all liberals, you call me a lapdog( in a derogatory way), but think that you should not be exposed to my objection to you when you do. Double standard, much, RJW? Who’s the angry one here? Sounds like you have some issues to deal with and want to project them onto others.
Nanny, you say “When Jindal and Palin decry attacks on free speech, they do not necessarily mean the 1st
Amendment has been breached” and then wander off in different directions. Their comments were quite clear.
Retire05, this means I advocate right-to-work? Right to work is precisely that, an environment where an employ has a right to work just as they have a right to quite and an employer has a right to fire at will. Right to Work by the way, has more to do with Republican states undermining union’s ability to collect dues in order to fund their campaign drives and has become more of an assault since the SCOTUS’s Citizen’s United ruling allowing corporations and unions to contribute untold campaign funding. And when you think about it, the conservative push for Right to Work actually conflicts with everything conservatives pretend to believe in as it mandates unions to represent workers who choose not to pay for that representation. Flip, flop.
If you are not here “in lapdog bobbing head fashion, doing your best to defend them”, what was the purpose of your #2 response?
@Ronald J. Ward:
Employ has a right? Right to quite what?
Spell check much?
Now, I understand a progressive like yourself thinks that only union organizations should be able to donate millions of $$ to the campaigns of Democrats (99%) as that is fair in your mind. But what are corporations if not a group of individuals who work toward one common goal, as do unions.
Unions were, at one time, a worthwhile endeavor. But no longer. The saint of the left wing, FDR, pretty much managed to make unions moot as he managed to pass laws that protected workers from the kind of abuse that unions originally addressed. But, shhhh, don’t tell liberals that a liberal president put them on the back burner.
Now unions are nothing but a fund raising arm of the DNC, and when you look at the salaries that union big wigs collect, along with their perks and expense accounts, it is clear they are not acting in the interest of the membership.
If a union is going to claim to represent ALL workers, then they should represent ALL workers. But they don’t. Richard Trumka represents Richard Trumka. And if you think that union big wigs represent the workers, I will politely remind you of Hostess Bakeries. The unions involved were so interested in throwing their weight around they managed to put hundreds of workers out of a job. Hostess sold, regrouped and now employs hundreds of NON union workers. And while they gave union members bad advise, not one union executive lost their job over the Hostess fiasco.
Figure it out. Your cognitive dissonance is not my problem.
Granted Retire05, I’m not quite the wordsmith today. Impressive observance.
The fact that you’re still blaming the Union for the vulture capitalism that took down Hostess speaks volumes and further demonstrates why trying to have a rationale conversation with you isn’t going to happen. That’s not anger by the way but simply stating reality although I’m sure you’re quick to argue differently.
As far as figuring out the nature of your response of # 2 as well as others, I already have.
@Nanny G:
Yes, and that was with Phil IN the show. Wait til the first show without him in it, and see what the audience then, 1 or 2 gay guys? Duck Dynasty will win, GLAAD will lose.
@Ronald J. Ward: RJW,
you said that, but I don’t believe you mean it. Do you actually think an employer should be able to fire a man if that man says he is gay? How about does the owner of a bake shop have the right to not bake a cake for a gay wedding?
funny, I thought he meant quiet, but he actually meant quit.
@Ronald J. Ward:
it’s quite obvious that you don’t know the facts on the unions being very misguided in the Hostess deal. Maybe you should read up on it a little before you continue to make an ass of yourself in your lack of knowledge.
@Redteam: No, I don’t think employers should be able to fire because of sexual orientation or race or religion or other obvious reasons which I assumed was a given.
I’ve read up on Hostess and aware of their downfall which was not due to being unionized. Hostess is a case with a history of workers taking concessions after concessions, management inflating their own salaries, and management failing to diversify their product and sales at a time when competitors were doing so. Yet, here you are again regurgitating debunked talking points.
It’s ironic that we’re falling back to my first comment of this thread which read
@Ronald J. Ward:
I learned long ago that when a liberal uses the word ‘debunked’ it means they don’t have a clue, but it sounds good.
If an employer doesn’t have the right to fire at will, does the employee have any obligation to do his job as he is hired to do? If the employee can do anything he wants to, why can’t the employer fire him if he doesn’t do what he’s supposed to do? I would guess your version of what happened at Hostess would be quite different than the story for Hostess.
@Ronald J. Ward:
What is a conservative lapdog, and how is it different from a secular progressive lapdog?
@Redteam:
I think you pretty well nailed it with an admission that my version is of what happened at Hostess whereas yours is a “story” “for” Hostess. I’m arguing with facts and reality while you’re relying on inflated myths and trite talking points, using Hostess’s bargaining associates as the culprit when in fact it was vulture capitalism and incompetent management that led to their demise. You cover your ears and sing “la la la” to the reality that employees and the Union had previously agreed to concessions while the company was tripling the pay of executives. The paper trail speaks for itself.
Even the most conservative economist concede “partial” blame to mismanagement while only the extreme hacks pretend those arguments don’t exist.
In a non-union shop in most states, an employer has a right to fire at will with the exception of discriminatory reasons (those damn pesky govmint regulations). They can fire someone if they don’t like the color of their shoes or if they’re tardy for the 1st time in 20 years. They can fire them for no reason at all as long as they don’t fire them for “the wrong” reason which would be race, because they are in the National Guard and subject to deployment, and other laws that may or may not vary from state to state.
In union shops, employment terms and conditions are defined in the bargaining agreement between management and union. I’m not aware of any union contract that forbids an employer from firing an employee for not doing his/her job or for insubordination or for doing “anything he wants to”. Where does this situation exist? What union and/or bargaining contract contains such language? What ruling has the NLRB or any union grievance arbitrator given that supports your argument? What management has agreed to such a contract and why on God’s green earth would they do so as there are “bargaining in good faith” laws that would rule in their favor?
In short, precisely what the hell are you talking about? My arguments focus more on reality or perhaps “what happened”,what really does or does not happen. Your arguments seem to reject reality and simply makes up silly stuff, anything to enhance your snake oil salesmanship or perhaps distracts from reasonable rebuttals. That should address your question of “What is a conservative lapdog, and how is it different from a secular progressive lapdog?”.
@Ronald J. Ward:
Show me where my argument ‘rejects reality’. What part did I ‘make up’? What did I say in my ‘rebuttal’? Talking about ‘making up stuff’. While you’re making up stuff about tripling the pay, tell me what the CEO was hired for (money) in what year and what was his pay and what year did they triple it? Then steer me to the Union side of the argument, all you linked to is 500 pages filed by the bakery, nothing by the union. Seems as if the bakery is open and above board. Where is the official statement of the unions.
@Redteam:You forgot to answer the question:
I answered your question in my last paragraph. Why do you need me to research execs pay to prove me right when you could easily research to prove me wrong. Let me answer that for you. I’m right and you’re distracting, trying to put me on the offense while you’ll just simply distract again with another non sequitur question to change the subject. Why? Because your argument has no legs and is unable to stand up to scrutiny. Your rhetoric, spin, and evasiveness along with your obvious ignorance on the issue at hand bores me.
By the way, where’s your answer to my question? What union and/or bargaining contract contains such language to support your arguments? You don’t answer because I caught you saying something you can’t back up, sooooooooo, you ignore and go in a different direction.
Irony strikes once more. Palin, after making asinine comments, now backtracks with an admission she was clueless about what she was talking about. Is this some conservative habit or something? Is there something in the conservative water that just makes you guys shoot from the hip without a clue of what the hell you’re talking about?
I have no intent to prove you right.
You’re the one that is not providing the legs for your argument.
You are walking backwards. Try answering the question.
I don’t even know which of your rambling comments you are referring to. Try using English grammar in your paragraph and sentence structures.
Link us to the comment she made saying that she is clueless.
It was established some time ago that only the Dimocrats drink turd flavored water, you overloading?
Typical, typical, typical. Yawn!
@Ronald J. Ward:
Hey, it was the Dimocrats that came up with that, I just repeated it.
@Redteam: You just repeated it for what reason? As a distraction in order to avoid your unfounded statements about employers unable to fire workers who refuse to work? To enhance your evasive tactics of the argument?
Indeed typical.
I did. Do you need a tutorial on how to open a link? Or are you, once again, relying on distractions to slip away from your failed arguments. It would defy logic to deduce anything other than the latter.
You say “Try using English grammar in your paragraph and sentence structures” and you then say “Dimocrats drink turd flavored water, you overloading?”. Obviously, you’re the debate king and I’m so busted, or, or something akin to such abject stupidity.
Gays have civil rights in our society — along with all the rest of us. What gays want however is universal acceptance which is not a civil right.
Our civil rights are INDIVIDUAL rights…..freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, freedom from involuntary servitude, the right to vote, the right to equality in public places, the right to due process of law, the right to equal protection under the law.
I think an important point here is that gay activists don’t want to extend respect and tolerance to religious people that they are seeking for themselves. They insist religious people either change their beliefs OR keep quiet. Arne Duncan, Obama’s Sec Education, has made sure our children are taught early on that homosexuals must be tolerated while religious people need not be tolerated.
The group rights known now as ”homosexual rights” cannot be absolute without the country sacrificing freedom of conscience, thought and speech for many other individuals.
Obama has made divisiveness a hallmark of his style of politiking.
Remember his buddies, the ”occupiers?,” what about the son-he-never-had – Trayvon Martin?, recall him telling Hispanic voters to bring a gun to the political fight?
A review of Obama’s top bundlers, who have brought in $500,000 or more for the campaign, shows that about one in six publicly identify themselves as gay.
Is this all an A&E distraction from the abject failure of ObamaCare?
Could be.
Ronald J. Ward
THE CONSERVATIVES SHOW SUPPORT FOR THE ROBERTSON,
and you have the nerve and arrogance to blame them,
while you democrats support the degenerates in their rank guess who it was,
and the HOODED BIRD, also for many years, and many corrupt and cheat and thieves all in their group,
they support any devilish speech, THEY SUPPRESS
CHRISTIANITY IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS,
did you ever see the GAI PARADE BEING SUPPRESS ON THE STREETS WITH MANY CHILDREN WATCHING
with a dumstruck face showing their inner debate of their soul,
and you have the arrogance of accusing the smarter than you HERE TAKING SIDE WITH A CHRISTIAN WHO EXPOSE CORRUPTION BY USING THE WORDS OF THE BIBLE HE BELIEVE IN,
AND YOU are AMONG those who take good care of their perverts ,
how dare you ACCUSE, and you are just a minion small shot, in their group,
don”t think that you impress anyone here,
YOU ARE NOT WELL EQUIPT TO ACCUSE ANY HERE,
you better clean your side first,
@Ronald J. Ward:
The word ‘clueless’ is not in the comments you linked to. She was asked to comment on the story in GQ and she said she hadn’t read it and couldn’t comment on it. What would you expect her to do, be dishonest and say she had read it and pretend to answer the question? I guess that’s what libs do; so, yes I guess you would expect that.
There are no grammatical errors in that sentence.
You’re out of your league, lib.
@Nanny G:
So true. I don’t personally care if a person is homosexual. I don’t care if two of them want to live together. What I don’t like is that they want me to be required to ‘like it’. To not make any comments adverse to their lifestyle at all, regardless of my beliefs. I grew up as a Christian and was taught that homosexuality is a sin, just as adultery is. I feel like it is my right to say what my religious beliefs are, just as a gay person has the right to say that being homosexual is their ‘right’ and they have the right to proclaim how great it is and that they ‘don’t’ think it is a sin. I think both sides have the right to say what their beliefs are without being ‘shouted down’ by the other side. Homosexual’s in gay parades see nothing wrong in wearing their ‘assless’ chaps in public, but have a real problem with Nativity scenes in public. I don’t care if gays don’t like manger scenes, but they shouldn’t be allowed to keep Christians from having them. We aren’t allowed to not let them have their ‘gay pride’ parades in public. Live and let live. I can accept that apparently some gays are really born gay. I don’t think most of them are, but then I don’t care. I don’t think most persons are born Christian, but apparently about 80% of Americans, at some point, choose to become Christians. Only about 1-2% of Americans choose to become gay. The other 1/2% are likely born gay.
It is strange to me that the 80% group have less rights than the 2% group do.