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

[TemplarKormac]

My entire family (all 500+ of them) are Catholic. Don't preach to me about tolerance. The fact is that gays are maimed and killed EVERY DAY, and not just in this country! Christians are by far the largest majority in this country, so please don't try to tell me that you are being oppressed. You people controlled the arguments on this continent for nearly 400 years before the government stepped in and said enough is friggin enough. Get over yourselves already. Christians aren't the only people who live here.

You have 500 family members?

Those are just the ones we have tracked down. And that's just immediate family and spouses. The extended family is much larger than that.



No shit? Darn, I never would have guessed.

And why do you insist that Christians in the modern age feel the need to maim or kill homosexuals?

I have no idea why they feel the need to do so, but they are certainly doing it.

Did Jesus not rebuke one of his disciples for cutting off the ear of a Roman guard? No, Christians aren't the only ones living here, naturally, but to say that 2.7% of the population can dictate policy to the other 98.3% is wholly tyrannical. It defeats the purpose of representative government.

Blame Jefferson - "All men are created equal".

Before you go blaming Christians, examine Islam. Then again, America isn't intolerant of Homosexuality, these countries are, however.

 

[orogenicman]

This isn't about the First Amendment or religious freedom. It's about how far a network will go to punish someone who won't fall into line.

As far as they legally can go. And usually no further.

The big difference is, Phil Robertson is not an actor who was hired to play a part in a television show. If that's what A&E wanted, they should have issued a casting call and done it with professionals. He can't be punished like an actor would be punished. They chose the wrong person to manipulate by ordinary means.

Who signs his paychecks? Hiring professionals to do the show would defeat the purpose - it was, allegedly, a reality show. But hey, this is as real as it gets, right?

 

[orogenicman]

You have 500 family members?

Those are just the ones we have tracked down. And that's just immediate family and spouses. The extended family is much larger than that.



No shit? Darn, I never would have guessed.



I have no idea why they feel the need to do so, but they are certainly doing it.

Did Jesus not rebuke one of his disciples for cutting off the ear of a Roman guard? No, Christians aren't the only ones living here, naturally, but to say that 2.7% of the population can dictate policy to the other 98.3% is wholly tyrannical. It defeats the purpose of representative government.

Blame Jefferson - "All men are created equal".

Before you go blaming Christians, examine Islam.

More misdirection. There are no Muslims on the redducks show.

 

[Katzndogz]

I had a feeling this might have been a set up from the beginning. That's exactly what it was. A&E colluded with GQ to set the whole thing up with a network representative at the interview to make sure it went according to plan.

Right. It is anyone's fault but the guy who uttered the words. Aren't you right wingers the ones who whine about personal responsibility? I guess that doesn't apply when it's a right winger spouting bigotry, eh?

The guy who uttered the words didn't make a mistake. He intended to say exactly what he said. He's not apologizing for it either. A&E knew exactly what the questions would be, they had a representative for the network at the interview.

Telling the truth is not bigotry, it is just telling the truth.

 

[Katzndogz]

This isn't about the First Amendment or religious freedom. It's about how far a network will go to punish someone who won't fall into line.

As far as they legally can go. And usually no further.

Who signs his paychecks? Hiring professionals to do the show would defeat the purpose - it was, allegedly, a reality show. But hey, this is as real as it gets, right?

Yes indeed. This is as real as it gets. If A&E wanted "real" but was only as real as they wanted it to be, they chose poorly. Phil Robertson cannot be punished by A&E depriving him of a paycheck. He doesn't care about the paycheck. The family is worth 400 million dollars. Phil Robertson doesn't need that network, but they do need him.

 

[BDBoop]

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.

He has every right to his perspective, his religion, and the effects of his words and actions. Doors and windows close, others open. Christianity teaches us that there are distinctions between Virtuous and Unvirtouos thought, word, action, and inaction, just as it teaches compassion, patience, and tolerance. There is Sin, there is Forgiveness. Christianity does not condone Homosexual action. It is what it is. Get over it.

Were the focus molding all thought to conform to a persons personal will and perspective, and accept a personal list of what is correct thought and action, while penalizing that which refuses to conform to your view, what kind of rule is that?

Should I apologize for what I believe, should it offend someones ego or vanity? Why is that?

Phil 4:8

Does anyone even know or live this verse anymore? All I hear or see is anger, rage, judgment and whining.

If I came to this board as a non-Christian with questions, I'd probably leave having ruled out Christianity.

 

[orogenicman]

In all fairness to @Redfish:

Federalist 10 did address the issues of factionalism, and the detriments it has on the government. By this, he meant the tyranny of the minority. However, he contended that such tendencies should not be allowed to be destroyed, since the essence of our liberty was to be allowed to communicate and coalesce. While the minority is allowed to have equal rights, and while the majority is not allowed to run roughshod over them, they cannot be allowed to determine the absolute course of a country.

true, and those provisions were established by majority vote. My point----right and wrong in a society are established by majority vote or opinion.

That only applies to governing. Anti-discrimination laws apply also to the marketplace, but not in the instance where an employer doesn't like the stupid comments an employee is making that affects the employers reputation or business. The government is restricted from infringing on your free speech. Your employer is not, and never has been.

 

[birddog]

Liberals are so amazingly stupid, it's funny!

They need to read our Constitution and Bill of Rights, and try to be fair and objective which is likely an impossible task!

 

[Dutch]

Congrats Templar. This thread may be longer than the "Obama birth certificate" thread on the Hannity forum.

 

[Katzndogz]

What it is, is that liberals cannot recognize independence when they see it.

 

[Luissa]

I could give two shits about they gays. Don't care what two people do behind closed doors. Don't care if they get married, has no effect on my life. But listening to self proclaimed faux libertarians like you does make me ill.

There is no way he is libertarian. If he was, he wouldn't have a problem with A&E suspending or firing Robertson.
He might claim to support the free market, but he really doesn't.
His brain is too full of video games to understand what being a libertarian actually means.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You not being a libertarian, but a far left liberal, you don't know anything. So why presume to?

I have made it clear, (even [MENTION=24452]Seawytch[/MENTION] can attest) that while I disagree with homosexuality, I do not begrudge anyone equal protection under the law. What I have a problem with is people playing the thought police, enforcing standards of political correctness on those of opposing viewpoints, and corporations such as A&E using their influence to silence men of faith or anyone else for that matter.

If that isn't libertarian, I don't know what is.

The fact you think I am a far left liberal, proves even more that you are clueless. And I if you think you are a libertarian, than you know a lot less than I do.
And your last sentence proves my point. You are not a libertarian.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Luissa]

Says the guy yammering about how Robertson's a bigot and a racist. That post was for you [MENTION=20866]Dutch[/MENTION]. There are simply people out there who don't share the same views as you, I suggest you deal with it.

Please share with me the post where I said he was a bigot or racist.

Sigh, complicity is the highest form of deceit. You didn't have to say anything for me to know you agreed with anyone who said he was a bigot or a racist.



Spare me.

So that's a no?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Redfish]

In all fairness to @Redfish:

Federalist 10 did address the issues of factionalism, and the detriments it has on the government. By this, he meant the tyranny of the minority. However, he contended that such tendencies should not be allowed to be destroyed, since the essence of our liberty was to be allowed to communicate and coalesce. While the minority is allowed to have equal rights, and while the majority is not allowed to run roughshod over them, they cannot be allowed to determine the absolute course of a country.

true, and those provisions were established by majority vote. My point----right and wrong in a society are established by majority vote or opinion.

That only applies to governing. Anti-discrimination laws apply also to the marketplace, but not in the instance where an employer doesn't like the stupid comments an employee is making that affects the employers reputation or business. The government is restricted from infringing on your free speech. Your employer is not, and never has been.

Damn but you libs are thick headed--------anti discrimination laws were put in place by MAJORITY VOTE.

A&E had the right to ban Phil from being on the show. Phil had the right to express his beliefs. YOU have the right to express yours.

YOU do not have the right to silence anyone who disagrees with you.

 

[orogenicman]

I had a feeling this might have been a set up from the beginning. That's exactly what it was. A&E colluded with GQ to set the whole thing up with a network representative at the interview to make sure it went according to plan.

Right. It is anyone's fault but the guy who uttered the words. Aren't you right wingers the ones who whine about personal responsibility? I guess that doesn't apply when it's a right winger spouting bigotry, eh?

The guy who uttered the words didn't make a mistake. He intended to say exactly what he said. He's not apologizing for it either. A&E knew exactly what the questions would be, they had a representative for the network at the interview.

Telling the truth is not bigotry, it is just telling the truth.

Obviously he made a huge mistake, that is, if he wanted to remain on the show. Just because A & E allegedly knew that the questions were doesn't absolve the man for the answers he gave to them. He has a right to look stupid. And anyone has a right to call him on his stupidity.

Telling the truth? So you think that African Americans were all jump with joy happy pre-civil rights? None of the were singing the blues (ahem, despite the fact that they INVENTED the musical genre)? Give me a friggin break. It wasn't the truth. Every response he made to those particular questions was as far from the truth as he could have gotten.

 

[TemplarKormac]

There is no way he is libertarian. If he was, he wouldn't have a problem with A&E suspending or firing Robertson.
He might claim to support the free market, but he really doesn't.
His brain is too full of video games to understand what being a libertarian actually means.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You not being a libertarian, but a far left liberal, you don't know anything. So why presume to?

I have made it clear, (even [MENTION=24452]Seawytch[/MENTION] can attest) that while I disagree with homosexuality, I do not begrudge anyone equal protection under the law. What I have a problem with is people playing the thought police, enforcing standards of political correctness on those of opposing viewpoints, and corporations such as A&E using their influence to silence men of faith or anyone else for that matter.

If that isn't libertarian, I don't know what is.

The fact you think I am a far left liberal, proves even more that you are clueless. And I if you think you are a libertarian, than you know a lot less than I do.
And your last sentence proves my point. You are not a libertarian.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The fact you are having to play defense proves my point, Luissa. You demonstrate all the identifiable traits of a far left liberal. I'm sorry, I'm not buying your BS today.

 

[orogenicman]

This isn't about the First Amendment or religious freedom. It's about how far a network will go to punish someone who won't fall into line.

As far as they legally can go. And usually no further.

Who signs his paychecks? Hiring professionals to do the show would defeat the purpose - it was, allegedly, a reality show. But hey, this is as real as it gets, right?

Yes indeed. This is as real as it gets. If A&E wanted "real" but was only as real as they wanted it to be, they chose poorly. Phil Robertson cannot be punished by A&E depriving him of a paycheck. He doesn't care about the paycheck. The family is worth 400 million dollars. Phil Robertson doesn't need that network, but they do need him.

Then he won't mind if they cancel the show on his account.

 

[Luissa]

You not being a libertarian, but a far left liberal, you don't know anything. So why presume to?



I have made it clear, (even [MENTION=24452]Seawytch[/MENTION] can attest) that while I disagree with homosexuality, I do not begrudge anyone equal protection under the law. What I have a problem with is people playing the thought police, enforcing standards of political correctness on those of opposing viewpoints, and corporations such as A&E using their influence to silence men of faith or anyone else for that matter.



If that isn't libertarian, I don't know what is.

The fact you think I am a far left liberal, proves even more that you are clueless. And I if you think you are a libertarian, than you know a lot less than I do.

And your last sentence proves my point. You are not a libertarian.





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The fact you are having to play defense proves my point, Luissa. You demonstrate all the identifiable traits of a far left liberal. I'm sorry, I'm not buying your BS today.

No I don't. Your problem is, you assume what My view point is on a lot things. Most you idiots, like Uncensored don't bother to even ask me.. Just assume.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[orogenicman]

Liberals are so amazingly stupid, it's funny!

They need to read our Constitution and Bill of Rights, and try to be fair and objective which is likely an impossible task!

We have, and nowhere does it say that an emlpoyer cannot fire an idiot for being an idiot.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Please share with me the post where I said he was a bigot or racist.

Sigh, complicity is the highest form of deceit. You didn't have to say anything for me to know you agreed with anyone who said he was a bigot or a racist.



Spare me.

So that's a no?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Not everything has to be said or implied publicly, Luissa. Even you know that.

"Silence is golden."

 

[TemplarKormac]

The fact you think I am a far left liberal, proves even more that you are clueless. And I if you think you are a libertarian, than you know a lot less than I do.

And your last sentence proves my point. You are not a libertarian.





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The fact you are having to play defense proves my point, Luissa. You demonstrate all the identifiable traits of a far left liberal. I'm sorry, I'm not buying your BS today.

No I don't. Your problem is, you assume what My view point is on a lot things. Most you idiots, like Uncensored don't bother to even ask me.. Just assume.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I don't assume. Your reactions tell me all I need to know. So analytical am I, that I look for patterns, analyze behavior and speech patterns. Thus, I have never caught you at odds with a liberal on this board, but you are constantly warring with conservatives here. Simple statement of observation, Luissa. No need to lie.