Freedom of Religious Opinion? Not If You're Phil Robertson

[rightwinger]

That was all he said.

Afraid it is not

If he had kept his objections purely religious, there would be no story. Instead he had to get his bestiality comparison in and his distasteful anal sex analysis. There is also his tirade of a sermon in Pennsylvania that was released today. It is obvious the man hates gays

What were his religious reasons for endorsing Jim Crow?

So now others are not allowed to have opinions because you don't like them or disagree with them?

It's a free country....you can say anything you wish

That does not mean there are no consequences for what you say

 

[rightwinger]

A&E has an absolute right to lose hundreds of millions of dollars on principle. They have a right to lose sponsors and the whole network to make GLAAD happy.

It has happened many times when stars self destruct

Best to just cut your losses

Robertson isn't self destructing. GLAAD might be A&E is certainly sweating but not Robertson nor the family. They simply cannot be hurt by GLAAD. If gays wanted to attack someone, they should have chosen someone who cares what they think.

They are free to continue making their duck calls

I wish them luck

 

[TemplarKormac]

Name someone who denied ever buying anything at Wal-Mart, please.

Just about every liberal in my hometown despises Wal Mart. And this is a majorly liberal city, actually.

In Georgia?

[MENTION=41527]Pogo[/MENTION]

Yeah, it's a college town home to the main UGA campus. Believe it or not. Atlanta is majorly liberal as well... the only thing we unite on is college football. Athens Ga, buddy. Liberal. As. Hell.

 

[TemplarKormac]

It has happened many times when stars self destruct

Best to just cut your losses

Robertson isn't self destructing. GLAAD might be A&E is certainly sweating but not Robertson nor the family. They simply cannot be hurt by GLAAD. If gays wanted to attack someone, they should have chosen someone who cares what they think.

They are free to continue making their duck calls

I wish them luck

Liar. You would much rather seek their destruction.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Sports has nothing to do with sports.

A religious view? Explain...why would homosexuality have anything to do with religion?

you were talking about favoritism. and being surprised that people cheer for "their team" and not cheer for the opposite.
It is natural. Favoritism, that is.
That is why I pointed out about sports team - because sports team support is in the same emotional court.

Phil Robertson voiced his opinion based on his religious views and as I understand based the answers on them ( I have to admit I have never heard about the guy before and I have not read the interview in question). Christianity is based on a very precise set of rules and extramarital sex is considered sin by those rules. Since by the Christian belief a marriage is valid only between one man and one woman, the homosexual sex is a mortal sin, because it is 1) adulterous 2) unnatural.
Being homosexual ( or transvestite, or asexual) per se is not a sin. Engaging in the extramarital sex is.
Since we are discussing here the freedom of expressing one's religious beliefs or lack thereof, which started because the above named Phil expressed his views on homosexuality based on them - therefore the connection is discussed.

Based on what...the Bible?

And ignorance and hate.

 

[TemplarKormac]

you were talking about favoritism. and being surprised that people cheer for "their team" and not cheer for the opposite.
It is natural. Favoritism, that is.
That is why I pointed out about sports team - because sports team support is in the same emotional court.

Phil Robertson voiced his opinion based on his religious views and as I understand based the answers on them ( I have to admit I have never heard about the guy before and I have not read the interview in question). Christianity is based on a very precise set of rules and extramarital sex is considered sin by those rules. Since by the Christian belief a marriage is valid only between one man and one woman, the homosexual sex is a mortal sin, because it is 1) adulterous 2) unnatural.
Being homosexual ( or transvestite, or asexual) per se is not a sin. Engaging in the extramarital sex is.
Since we are discussing here the freedom of expressing one's religious beliefs or lack thereof, which started because the above named Phil expressed his views on homosexuality based on them - therefore the connection is discussed.

Based on what...the Bible?

And ignorance and hate.

Have you ever read the Bible?

 

[Dutch]

Maybe Obama's behind this. Cons aren't talking about the ACA. Muuuhaaaaaa

 

[Katzndogz]

It has happened many times when stars self destruct

Best to just cut your losses

Robertson isn't self destructing. GLAAD might be A&E is certainly sweating but not Robertson nor the family. They simply cannot be hurt by GLAAD. If gays wanted to attack someone, they should have chosen someone who cares what they think.

They are free to continue making their duck calls

I wish them luck

It made them multimillionaires. You don't think it was this show do you?

 

[TemplarKormac]

Maybe Obama's behind this. Cons aren't talking about the ACA. Muuuhaaaaaa

Once this is over, it's back to the stockade with him! He hasn't gone anywhere.

 

[candycorn]

I like the way that the Christians treated Joseph Smith for stating his religious views. It cost him his life.

And Matthew Shepherd...real tolerance there.

 

[candycorn]

you were talking about favoritism. and being surprised that people cheer for "their team" and not cheer for the opposite.
It is natural. Favoritism, that is.
That is why I pointed out about sports team - because sports team support is in the same emotional court.

Phil Robertson voiced his opinion based on his religious views and as I understand based the answers on them ( I have to admit I have never heard about the guy before and I have not read the interview in question). Christianity is based on a very precise set of rules and extramarital sex is considered sin by those rules. Since by the Christian belief a marriage is valid only between one man and one woman, the homosexual sex is a mortal sin, because it is 1) adulterous 2) unnatural.
Being homosexual ( or transvestite, or asexual) per se is not a sin. Engaging in the extramarital sex is.
Since we are discussing here the freedom of expressing one's religious beliefs or lack thereof, which started because the above named Phil expressed his views on homosexuality based on them - therefore the connection is discussed.

Based on what...the Bible?

And ignorance and hate.

Parts of the bible say you should be put to death for wearing clothing made of two different fabrics or something like that. I love "christians" who only take the part of the Bible to heart that fits in with Republican superstition.

If you believe the Bible, you believe the bible; not only the parts you find socially convenient...right?

 

[Dutch]

Based on what...the Bible?

And ignorance and hate.

Parts of the bible say you should be put to death for wearing clothing made of two different fabrics or something like that. I love "christians" who only take the part of the Bible to heart that fits in with Republican superstition.

If you believe the Bible, you believe the bible; not only the parts you find socially convenient...right?

Yea, they have no problem running Newt the adulterer for their partie nomination.

 

[TemplarKormac]

And ignorance and hate.

Parts of the bible say you should be put to death for wearing clothing made of two different fabrics or something like that. I love "christians" who only take the part of the Bible to heart that fits in with Republican superstition.

If you believe the Bible, you believe the bible; not only the parts you find socially convenient...right?

Yea, they have no problem running Newt the adulterer for their partie nomination.

And you have no problem electing one for president, do you?

 

[Dutch]

Based on what...the Bible?

And ignorance and hate.

Have you ever read the Bible?

Do you eat pork of shellfish? That's what I thought, sinner.

 

[kaz]

Afraid it is not

If he had kept his objections purely religious, there would be no story. Instead he had to get his bestiality comparison in and his distasteful anal sex analysis. There is also his tirade of a sermon in Pennsylvania that was released today. It is obvious the man hates gays

What were his religious reasons for endorsing Jim Crow?

So now others are not allowed to have opinions because you don't like them or disagree with them?

It's a free country....you can say anything you wish

That does not mean there are no consequences for what you say

OMG, for a liberal to say that as if you actually mean it...

 

[candycorn]

Hope someone is around to read it to him.

You're aware that he has a Master's in Education right?

You leftists are so silly.

Nah, didn't know that. He has never been interesting enough for me to learn about. Nothing has changed.

 

[Dutch]

Parts of the bible say you should be put to death for wearing clothing made of two different fabrics or something like that. I love "christians" who only take the part of the Bible to heart that fits in with Republican superstition.

If you believe the Bible, you believe the bible; not only the parts you find socially convenient...right?

Yea, they have no problem running Newt the adulterer for their partie nomination.

And you have no problem electing one for president, do you?

Nope, not at all. As long as he does a good job.

 

[kaz]

And ignorance and hate.

Parts of the bible say you should be put to death for wearing clothing made of two different fabrics or something like that. I love "christians" who only take the part of the Bible to heart that fits in with Republican superstition.

If you believe the Bible, you believe the bible; not only the parts you find socially convenient...right?

Yea, they have no problem running Newt the adulterer for their partie nomination.

And of course since you'd never engage in hypocrisy, you condemn tax cheats Slick, Slick's wench, Rangle, Daschle, Jefferson as well as tax evaders Buffett, Gates, Obama and the rest of Democrats who aren't able to do what they preach, right?

 

[Katzndogz]

And ignorance and hate.

Parts of the bible say you should be put to death for wearing clothing made of two different fabrics or something like that. I love "christians" who only take the part of the Bible to heart that fits in with Republican superstition.

If you believe the Bible, you believe the bible; not only the parts you find socially convenient...right?

Yea, they have no problem running Newt the adulterer for their partie nomination.

Of course not. Newt has been successfully married to Callista for years. He sinned, asked for and received forgiveness. No problem at all. He would make a fine president.

 

[kaz]

Yea, they have no problem running Newt the adulterer for their partie nomination.

And you have no problem electing one for president, do you?

Nope, not at all. As long as he does the job.

So is having an economy five years after first elected smaller than when they were elected someone who "does the job?" What say you?