Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Please, will you morons learn what the first amendment protects you from. Fuck!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
It protects us from political reprisal for having an opinion. And I'm sure you know plenty about that.
Reprisal from the military and the government. Did you not go to high school?
The first amendment doesn't protect you from your employer.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Once again ignoring his other comments.
It seems like, to me, a vagina as a man would be more desirable than a mans anus. Thats just me, Robertson stated. Im just thinking: Theres more there! Shes got more to offer. I mean, come on, dudes! You know what Im saying? But hey, sin: Its not logical, my man. Its just not logical.
It seems like, to me, a vagina as a man would be more desirable than a mans anus. Thats just me, Robertson stated. Im just thinking: Theres more there! Shes got more to offer. I mean, come on, dudes! You know what Im saying? But hey, sin: Its not logical, my man. Its just not logical
Isn't that in the bible?
That conservative men never want anal sex should come as quite a surprise to a good many conservatives' wives and girlfriends.
Freedom of Speech does not mean Freedom from Consequence.
Hate is Hate.
FYI...Jesus never said a fucking word about Homosexuality, Homosexual Relationships or Homosexual Marriage.
Why do all of those supporting the hillbilly keep leaving out his other comment about gays that takes it beyond religion?
It seems like, to me, a vagina as a man would be more desirable than a mans anus. Thats just me, Robertson stated. Im just thinking: Theres more there! Shes got more to offer. I mean, come on, dudes! You know what Im saying? But hey, sin: Its not logical, my man. Its just not logical.
Why is it you Communists that everyone conform EXACTLY to your opinion, or you try to destroy them?
Oh that's right, because you are engaged in a war against basic civil rights.
Civil rights? Nobody is calling for the hillbilly to be arrested.
I know some of you watch Duck Dynasty and probably heard that Phil Robertson was suspended by A&E for his opinion on homosexuality. He had the gall to quote 1 Corinthians 6:9 and express himself openly about his opposition to gay marriage. Groups like GLAAD came out in support of the suspension. Don't you find it odd that people like Martin Bashir get a pass for their intolerance toward conservative women, but people like Phil Robertson are being targeted for their beliefs?
Should TV Networks silence religious speech for the political sensibilities of others? As most of you were aware, Chick-Fil-A came under similar scrutiny by gay rights organizations for its views on homosexuality last year. The response from the public was overwhelming, as the restaurant experienced booming profits from the ordeal. Suffice it to say, ratings for the show may experience similar results.
Should Phil Robertson be suspended for his comments in GQ? Or should he be allowed to express himself as he is allowed to by the the First Amendment? My personal opinion here is that no TV network should be allowed to censor a man for expressing his religious beliefs.
There have been many instances of people or businesses being targeted for their religious beliefs, all for being "intolerant." Isn't it strange that you can be allowed to be homosexual, but not a person of faith? The real intolerance here, is of those who cannot accept that others aren't forced to tolerate their way of life or their practices. If you are any freedom loving American; Democrat, Republican or Libertarian, you should be disturbed by this recent turn of events.
Freedom of Speech does not mean Freedom from Consequence.
Hate is Hate.
FYI...Jesus never said a fucking word about Homosexuality, Homosexual Relationships or Homosexual Marriage.
Palin puts down me, why not respond.
And I don't put down all of republicans or Christians, only the ones who are bigots.
As for gun owners, rarely do I say anything about guns, but please find me a quote where I have put them down.
As for anti liberty? Ha! You are funny. I probably want more rights than you do. Plus I know what the first amendment protects me from, you obviously don't. So I wouldn't be talking about liberty.
I don't agree with the guys views. But, they do seem to be his sincere religious beliefs. What is the big deal? He is not advocating violence or hatred against gays. Let it go people.
A black grandson that he would gladly return to the Jim Crow south
It protects us from political reprisal for having an opinion. And I'm sure you know plenty about that.
Reprisal from the military and the government. Did you not go to high school?
The first amendment doesn't protect you from your employer.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
So, TV networks can freely infringe on constitutional freedom without the slightest of thoughts? Does anyone not see the problem with this? Or are you unfamiliar with Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964?
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
A&E violated the hell out of it.
SEC. 2000e-2 (a)(1)
(a) Employer practices
It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer -
(1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individuals race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.
Once again ignoring his other comments.
It seems like, to me, a vagina as a man would be more desirable than a mans anus. Thats just me, Robertson stated. Im just thinking: Theres more there! Shes got more to offer. I mean, come on, dudes! You know what Im saying? But hey, sin: Its not logical, my man. Its just not logical.
It seems like, to me, a vagina as a man would be more desirable than a mans anus. Thats just me, Robertson stated. Im just thinking: Theres more there! Shes got more to offer. I mean, come on, dudes! You know what Im saying? But hey, sin: Its not logical, my man. Its just not logical
Isn't that in the bible?
That conservative men never want anal sex should come as quite a surprise to a good many conservatives' wives and girlfriends.
I know some of you watch Duck Dynasty and probably heard that Phil Robertson was suspended by A&E for his opinion on homosexuality. He had the gall to quote 1 Corinthians 6:9 and express himself openly about his opposition to gay marriage. Groups like GLAAD came out in support of the suspension. Don't you find it odd that people like Martin Bashir get a pass for their intolerance toward conservative women, but people like Phil Robertson are being targeted for their beliefs?
Should TV Networks silence religious speech for the political sensibilities of others? As most of you were aware, Chick-Fil-A came under similar scrutiny by gay rights organizations for its views on homosexuality last year. The response from the public was overwhelming, as the restaurant experienced booming profits from the ordeal. Suffice it to say, ratings for the show may experience similar results.
Should Phil Robertson be suspended for his comments in GQ? Or should he be allowed to express himself as he is allowed to by the the First Amendment? My personal opinion here is that no TV network should be allowed to censor a man for expressing his religious beliefs.
There have been many instances of people or businesses being targeted for their religious beliefs, all for being "intolerant." Isn't it strange that you can be allowed to be homosexual, but not a person of faith? The real intolerance here, is of those who cannot accept that others aren't forced to tolerate their way of life or their practices. If you are any freedom loving American; Democrat, Republican or Libertarian, you should be disturbed by this recent turn of events.
The TV network didn't censor him.
Phil Robertson can still spout all the ignorance he wants to.
He just can't do it while working for A &E.
And if you owned a business, I doubt you would want someone like that as your spokesman.
Robertson had every right to say what he said, and the television network had every right to kick him off of their property for saying it. And now, viewers have every right to punish the network by boycotting them until they bring Robertson back, as many have pledged to do.
You make it sound like Robertson has some kind of inherent right to be the star of a reality TV show on A&E. If Robertson wants to continue appearing on reality TV he can go find some other network interested in a new show, or he can create his own show and broadcast it himself.
No. He has an inherent right to his opinion. Nobody has an inherent right to be famous. Big difference.
So you agree A&E can fire him?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Reprisal from the military and the government. Did you not go to high school?
The first amendment doesn't protect you from your employer.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
So, TV networks can freely infringe on constitutional freedom without the slightest of thoughts? Does anyone not see the problem with this? Or are you unfamiliar with Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964?
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
A&E violated the hell out of it.
SEC. 2000e-2 (a)(1)
(a) Employer practices
It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer -
(1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individuals race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.
They did not violate his Civil Rights.
They didn't discriminate against him because of his race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.
They suspended him because he said something stupid and offensive.
Where in the Civil Rights Act does it say a company can't discriminate against someone because they make stupid comments?
No, I have a far superior view of our history than you do. In fact, I wasn't the one who said he got his views of the world from the newspaper and the nightly news.
The liberals of America: Don't like reality? Make up your own.
Yes...I understand
You got your view of history from rightwing blogsites
That is how you can post such a ridiculous OP and expect people to think it has any merit
Actually, I didn't. I don't read "right wing blogsites" but you read left wing ones I'm sure. You admitted you do so. I take my history in raw and unadulterated. I am an absolutist, not a revisionist, such as yourself.
So when you run out of argument, you trash my OP? How... intelligent... of you.
I don't agree with the guys views. But, they do seem to be his sincere religious beliefs. What is the big deal? He is not advocating violence or hatred against gays. Let it go people.
Then why did he compare it to bestiality?
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,” he says. Then he paraphrases Corinthians: “Don’t be deceived. Neither the adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlers—they won’t inherit the kingdom of God. Don’t deceive yourself. It’s not right.”
I don't care what it applies to. That doesn't mean you have to sacrifice your beliefs simply for the entertainment of others.
You make it sound like Robertson has some kind of inherent right to be the star of a reality TV show on A&E. If Robertson wants to continue appearing on reality TV he can go find some other network interested in a new show, or he can create his own show and broadcast it himself.
No. He has an inherent right to his opinion. Nobody has an inherent right to be famous. Big difference.
