In Politics and Society: Is it Intolerant to be Intolerant of Intolerance?

[Montrovant]

However twisted or unethical the Phil Robertson situation may be, he was not made to stop speaking by the government or law. He's free to continue speaking as he has without government interference, as he should be. Why would you want to take that away from others?

The thread is not about government infringement or interference. It's about whether we should tolerate intolerance from those trying to impose their brand of tolerance on us all. That's been said MANY times, so I have to wonder if you missed it on purpose.

Some do not read the thread or read the gazillion explanations of that already posted Hunarcy, but thank you, thank you, thank you for 'getting it.' Damn. I hate being out of rep because I definitely would have repped this. (I'll get back to you on that, okay? )

It goes back to the OP that we have developed into a culture not that much different than early America when many of the colonies demanded that people be orthodox. No heresy was tolerated. This was in the days of the scarlett letters, the witch burnings, putting people in stocks, or banishment for nothing other than being heretics who spoke other than the doctrines that were required. Whether mildly or severely, people were punished physically and/or materially for straying off the religiously or politically correct plantation.

But those early Americans figured it out that unalienable rights include the right to be who we are, who we choose to be. And almost all those early punishments were discontinued and declared to be the evils that they were. Such narrow minded and authoritarian restrictions on thought became the rare exception rather than the norm.

But in recent years, some are not content to tell somebody he or she is a jerk or is offensive or is repulsive or is hateful. Now it seems more and more the norm that somebody must be physically and/or materially damaged to punish them for being unorthodox and/or heretical, i.e. politically incorrect.

And to me it is scary that so many here seem unable to understand that when only a certain segment of society is allowed to speak freely without fear of physical or material recriminations, and another large segment of society is not allowed that same liberty, we have no liberties at all.

You have, on multiple occasions, mentioned that you think it should be illegal for someone to boycott based on someone's opinions. I disagree with that. Should I simply not bring it up? Do you want me to make a separate thread, is it too off topic? I have simply been replying to what you have freely stated in the thread.

Who is free to speak without fear and who is not? As far as I can see, no one is free to speak freely without fear of possible recriminations. That's kind of inevitable in an age of instant communication like we have.

I agree that it's fairly juvenile and mean-spirited to 'go after' someone just because you don't agree with or like their opinions. I'm not arguing that. And if you think we, as a society, would be better off if people didn't have that kind of mindset, and if you want to work to try and change societal norms so that people don't do that so often, I can still agree.

I would not agree, however, with the idea that it is a simple or black-and-white issue. I would not agree that doing the same thing in a group is evil and doing it as an individual is perfectly fine. Your responses have led me to believe you consider the amount of influence a person or group can wield to be an important distinction in whether or not trying to get someone fired is an immoral act, and I think that has an air of punishing someone or being jealous of them for having money/influence/power. I'm not saying that's the case, only that when you make the arguments you have, it gives that impression.

I would also question just how tolerant people have been, in general, in US history. I don't think we are such an intolerant people compared to many years ago. Yes, the PC trend recently is annoying, but compared to witch-burnings, stocks, and banishment, what happened with Phil Robertson is little more than a mild reproach.

And I'm still not sure why GLAAD's actions would be evil but A&E's actions in capitulating to their demands would not be.

 

[The T]

That may indeed be a reason. But it does not address whether intolerance of intolerance is in itself intolerance.

Intolerance in any form that is not acted out but is expressed purely as a belief or conviction--was that not intended to be one of our unalienable rights? How can we say we hate intolerance if we are intolerant of an unpopular or un-PC opinion held by another?

Intolerance that is acted out in a material way is something quite different from what I am focused on here.

Just for the record, Phil Robertson is 'acting out' on his anti-homosexual beliefs when he proselytizes on behalf of his version of the Christian religion.

​

He's been told a plethora of times the hole is too deep...yet he digs deeper...hope it doesn't rain though.

 

[hunarcy]

You have, on multiple occasions, mentioned that you think it should be illegal for someone to boycott based on someone's opinions. I disagree with that. Should I simply not bring it up? Do you want me to make a separate thread, is it too off topic? I have simply been replying to what you have freely stated in the thread.

Who is free to speak without fear and who is not? As far as I can see, no one is free to speak freely without fear of possible recriminations. That's kind of inevitable in an age of instant communication like we have.

I agree that it's fairly juvenile and mean-spirited to 'go after' someone just because you don't agree with or like their opinions. I'm not arguing that. And if you think we, as a society, would be better off if people didn't have that kind of mindset, and if you want to work to try and change societal norms so that people don't do that so often, I can still agree.

I would not agree, however, with the idea that it is a simple or black-and-white issue. I would not agree that doing the same thing in a group is evil and doing it as an individual is perfectly fine. Your responses have led me to believe you consider the amount of influence a person or group can wield to be an important distinction in whether or not trying to get someone fired is an immoral act, and I think that has an air of punishing someone or being jealous of them for having money/influence/power. I'm not saying that's the case, only that when you make the arguments you have, it gives that impression.

I would also question just how tolerant people have been, in general, in US history. I don't think we are such an intolerant people compared to many years ago. Yes, the PC trend recently is annoying, but compared to witch-burnings, stocks, and banishment, what happened with Phil Robertson is little more than a mild reproach.

And I'm still not sure why GLAAD's actions would be evil but A&E's actions in capitulating to their demands would not be.

And, I agree that A&E is simply exercising their rights as employers. No one is really arguing that they aren't. I think they were short sighted and alienated their customers, but that's business. My objection is with the (at least implied) threats that they'll drive PR out of public life merely because they disagree with what amount to his religious views.

Also, I have also disagreed with FF over the "making it illegal" issue and she has acknowledged that she is not sure either. Perhaps that is why she didn't respond...I am not sure.

 

[NYcarbineer]

That may indeed be a reason. But it does not address whether intolerance of intolerance is in itself intolerance.

Intolerance in any form that is not acted out but is expressed purely as a belief or conviction--was that not intended to be one of our unalienable rights? How can we say we hate intolerance if we are intolerant of an unpopular or un-PC opinion held by another?

Intolerance that is acted out in a material way is something quite different from what I am focused on here.

Just for the record, Phil Robertson is 'acting out' on his anti-homosexual beliefs when he proselytizes on behalf of his version of the Christian religion.

​

Do you wish to contend that Christians don't try to convert others to Christianity, and that that is a very important part of Christianity?

Let's hear it.

 

[MeBelle]

You have, on multiple occasions, mentioned that you think it should be illegal for someone to boycott based on someone's opinions. I disagree with that. Should I simply not bring it up? Do you want me to make a separate thread, is it too off topic? I have simply been replying to what you have freely stated in the thread.

My take on the illegal comment is should it be illegal to harm someone financially because of a difference of opinion.

 

[NYcarbineer]

They're NOT his words!

They're Bible verses that he spoke. Do you know how many different versions of the Bible there are?

How can someone renounce anything that is written and published unless you are asking people to denounce the Bible.

Just because I recite the Dictionary (from Websters, Oxford, etc,) does NOT mean I own the words.

You blew right past this post:




You continue to harp...
never mind, read it yourself.


Romans 1 Parallel Chapters

I'm done with this.

Merry Christmas!!!

Advance apologies to [MENTION=6847]Foxfyre[/MENTION]

They were his own words. They were a distorted paraphrase of the passage in Romans.

It's so funny that you seem to think there's an important difference.

The important thing is that it doesn't matter diddly squat WHAT he paraphrased. Or whether he made it all up. He expressed an opinion.

But GLAAD was not willing to settle for disagreeing with or criticizing that opinion. They wanted a pound of flesh. They wanted to hurt him physically and materially for no other reason than he expressed an opinion they didn't like.

And no matter WHO does that, GLAAD, the MILLION MOMS, or whomever, it is wrong.

You insist that GLAAD did something that should be illegal, but you won't say what it is they did.

That's the biggest joke in this thread.

 

[The T]

You have, on multiple occasions, mentioned that you think it should be illegal for someone to boycott based on someone's opinions. I disagree with that. Should I simply not bring it up? Do you want me to make a separate thread, is it too off topic? I have simply been replying to what you have freely stated in the thread.

My take on the illegal comment is should it be illegal to harm someone financially because of a difference of opinion.

^This. Violation of individual Liberty...and a matter for the courts.

 

[MeBelle]

Just for the record, Phil Robertson is 'acting out' on his anti-homosexual beliefs when he proselytizes on behalf of his version of the Christian religion.

​

Do you wish to contend that Christians don't try to convert others to Christianity, and that that is a very important part of Christianity?

Let's hear it.

No, it's not what I contend.

I do confirm your continual attempt to derail this thread.

“However, I would never treat anyone with disrespect just because they are different from me. We are all created by the Almighty and like Him, I love all of humanity. We would all be better off if we loved God and loved each other.”

 

[MeBelle]

The important thing is that it doesn't matter diddly squat WHAT he paraphrased. Or whether he made it all up. He expressed an opinion.

But GLAAD was not willing to settle for disagreeing with or criticizing that opinion. They wanted a pound of flesh. They wanted to hurt him physically and materially for no other reason than he expressed an opinion they didn't like.

And no matter WHO does that, GLAAD, the MILLION MOMS, or whomever, it is wrong.

You insist that GLAAD did something that should be illegal, but you won't say what it is they did.

That's the biggest joke in this thread.

Whoooosshhhh

Edit to clarify my understanding of "physically and materially" to be, when one harms someone financially because of difference of opinion, those harmed financially can be harmed physically IE not being able to put food on the table, keep a roof over their heads, etc.

 

[koshergrl]

and I described the quote as Robertson's own words,

who's lying again??? lolol

BUT, no, he was not 'paraphrasing' because his OWN WORDS altered the meaning of the original text. I described that above.

Most importantly, in addition to all above, they are his own words because he said them, and believes them, and therefore he owns them.

What's amazing is that as much as the quote has been posted, I don't recall seeing any rightwinger here simply denounce the content of the quote.

They're NOT his words!

They're Bible verses that he spoke. Do you know how many different versions of the Bible there are?

How can someone renounce anything that is written and published unless you are asking people to denounce the Bible.

Just because I recite the Dictionary (from Websters, Oxford, etc,) does NOT mean I own the words.

You blew right past this post:

Words written many years before Robertson spoke them.

Romans Chapter 1.

You continue to harp...
never mind, read it yourself.


Romans 1 Parallel Chapters

I'm done with this.

Merry Christmas!!!

Advance apologies to @Foxfyre

They were his own words. They were a distorted paraphrase of the passage in Romans.

It's so funny that you seem to think there's an important difference.

He spoke scripture.

The objection was to the scripture.

If he's fired, it will be because of his religious beliefs...which is, of course, discrimination and a hallmark of progressive society.

"‘I love all men and women. I am a lover of humanity, not a hater,’ he added…
"Then reading from the Bible he said, ‘The acts of the sinful nature are obvious. Sexual immorality, is number one on the list. How many ways can we sin sexually? My goodness. You open up that can of worms and people will be mad at you over it.
‘I am just reading what was written over 2000 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."

http://hotair.com/archives/2013/12/23/quotes-of-the-day-1594/

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2528043/Duck-Dynasty-family-seen-today.html

And the Scripture wasn't Romans, it was Corinthians:

"
“We’re Bible-thumpers who just happened to end up on television,” he tells me. “You put in your article that the Robertson family really believes strongly that if the human race loved each other and they loved God, we would just be better off. We ought to just be repentant, turn to God, and let’s get on with it, and everything will turn around.”
What does repentance entail? Well, in Robertson’s worldview, America was a country founded upon Christian values (Thou shalt not kill, etc.), and he believes that the gradual removal of Christian symbolism from public spaces has diluted those founding principles. (He and Si take turns going on about why the Ten Commandments ought to be displayed outside courthouses.) He sees the popularity of Duck Dynasty as a small corrective to all that we have lost.
“Everything is blurred on what’s right and what’s wrong,” he says. “Sin becomes fine.”
What, in your mind, is sinful?
“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.”


Read More http://www.gq.com/entertainment/television/201401/duck-dynasty-phil-robertson#ixzz2oRVU5aH4

The actual phrase:

"Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind..." KJ

Close enough for government work for sure.


Or don't you know that the unrighteous will not inherit the Kingdom of God? Don't be deceived. Neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor male prostitutes, nor homosexuals,
- World English Bible

 

[hunarcy]

Whoooosshhhh

Exactly why I decided that he's a Self-Feeding Troll and put him on ignore.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Demanding that someone be fired from a TV show because they said something you didn't like is an exercise in free speech. That happens to be a constitutionally protected right.

To make that illegal you'd have to amend the Constitution, which would never happen because it's an absurd, laughable idea, for starters.

Threatening an action for the same reason is also an exercise in free speech, unless the action threatened does itself violate some other law. Once again, amend the Constitution if you think you're going to make that one illegal.

Rallying thousands or millions or however many to support you in either of those demands is an exercise in freedom of assembly, also constitutionally protected.

So, since all of the above is irrefutable, Foxfyre,

all for the sake of protecting the bigot Phil Robertson, desires a massive trashing of the Bill of Rights.

 

[MeBelle]

They're NOT his words!

They're Bible verses that he spoke. Do you know how many different versions of the Bible there are?

How can someone renounce anything that is written and published unless you are asking people to denounce the Bible.

Just because I recite the Dictionary (from Websters, Oxford, etc,) does NOT mean I own the words.

You blew right past this post:




You continue to harp...
never mind, read it yourself.


Romans 1 Parallel Chapters

I'm done with this.

Merry Christmas!!!

Advance apologies to @Foxfyre

They were his own words. They were a distorted paraphrase of the passage in Romans.

It's so funny that you seem to think there's an important difference.

He spoke scripture.

The objection was to the scripture.

If he's fired, it will be because of his religious beliefs...which is, of course, discrimination and a hallmark of progressive society.

"‘I love all men and women. I am a lover of humanity, not a hater,’ he added…
"Then reading from the Bible he said, ‘The acts of the sinful nature are obvious. Sexual immorality, is number one on the list. How many ways can we sin sexually? My goodness. You open up that can of worms and people will be mad at you over it.
‘I am just reading what was written over 2000 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."

Quotes of the day « Hot Air

Duck Dynasty star Phil Robertson says he is a lover not a hater | Mail Online

And the Scripture wasn't Romans, it was Corinthians:

"
“We’re Bible-thumpers who just happened to end up on television,” he tells me. “You put in your article that the Robertson family really believes strongly that if the human race loved each other and they loved God, we would just be better off. We ought to just be repentant, turn to God, and let’s get on with it, and everything will turn around.”
What does repentance entail? Well, in Robertson’s worldview, America was a country founded upon Christian values (Thou shalt not kill, etc.), and he believes that the gradual removal of Christian symbolism from public spaces has diluted those founding principles. (He and Si take turns going on about why the Ten Commandments ought to be displayed outside courthouses.) He sees the popularity of Duck Dynasty as a small corrective to all that we have lost.
“Everything is blurred on what’s right and what’s wrong,” he says. “Sin becomes fine.”
What, in your mind, is sinful?
“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.”


Read More Duck Dynasty's Phil Robertson Gives Drew Magary a Tour

The actual phrase:

"Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind..." KJ

Close enough for government work for sure.


Or don't you know that the unrighteous will not inherit the Kingdom of God? Don't be deceived. Neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor male prostitutes, nor homosexuals,
- World English Bible

This is where Romans came into play:

So conservatives now wish to tell me that I am out of line to find this:

"Women with women, men with men, they committed indecent acts with one another, and they received in themselves the due penalty for their perversions. They’re full of murder, envy, strife, hatred. They are insolent, arrogant, God-haters. They are heartless, they are faithless, they are senseless, they are ruthless. They invent ways of doing evil."

spoken by Phil Robertson a few years ago,

objectionable.

Yes, I'm the villain if I don't quietly and obediently tolerate that sort of hate speech.

Words written many years before Robertson spoke them.

Romans Chapter 1.

 

[MeBelle]

Demanding that someone be fired from a TV show because they said something you didn't like is an exercise in free speech. That happens to be a constitutionally protected right.

To make that illegal you'd have to amend the Constitution, which would never happen because it's an absurd, laughable idea, for starters.

Threatening an action for the same reason is also an exercise in free speech, unless the action threatened does itself violate some other law. Once again, amend the Constitution if you think you're going to make that one illegal.

Rallying thousands or millions or however many to support you in either of those demands is an exercise in freedom of assembly, also constitutionally protected.

So, since all of the above is irrefutable, Foxfyre,

all for the sake of protecting the bigot Phil Robertson, desires a massive trashing of the Bill of Rights.

And back to the OP we gooooooooooooooo

It isn't just the Phil Robertson/Duck Dynasty controversy. It manifests itself in judgmental and hateful neg reps at USMB. It frequently dominates the media and congressional rhetoric from the hallowed chambers of the Senate and House, and is too often included in official Presidential statements. It makes its way into laws to punish what is defined as 'hate crimes'. It is sinister, pervasive, increasing, and, in my opinion, evil.

It is, for want of a better term to describe it, an intolerance of intolerance.

It is the syndrome of those who demand tolerance for their point of view whether it be their chosen lifestyle, their Atheist views, changing the traditional definition of marriage, who is entitled to the resources of others. . . .the list goes on and on. . ..

. . . .but who will not tolerate the point of view of opinions of many of those who disagree or think or believe differently--i.e. those described as "intolerant". And such people, if they are on the 'wrong' side of the debate are deemed fair game to denigrate, insult, diminish, marginalize, boycott, and sometimes to destroy.

For example--and by no means is this the ONLY example--we demand tolerance for those who wish to marry someone of the same sex. We consider it intolerant to deny anybody the ability to express such beliefs. There us a huge outcry of injustice if anyone is 'punished' or 'boycotted' or 'fired' or whatever for expressing such beliefs.

Where is the demand for tolerance for the beliefs of a Phil Roberson who sees it differently? He is not an activist attempting to interfere nor is he attacking any individual or group. Is punishing him for expressing his belief not also intolerance?

NOTE: Very much hoping this will be left in politics so we can have a chance to keep it on topic. Also strongly requesting that members be respectful and tolerant of the views expressed by others and that we can keep it civil.

 

[koshergrl]

Demanding that someone be fired from a TV show because they said something you didn't like is an exercise in free speech. That happens to be a constitutionally protected right.

To make that illegal you'd have to amend the Constitution, which would never happen because it's an absurd, laughable idea, for starters.

Threatening an action for the same reason is also an exercise in free speech, unless the action threatened does itself violate some other law. Once again, amend the Constitution if you think you're going to make that one illegal.

Rallying thousands or millions or however many to support you in either of those demands is an exercise in freedom of assembly, also constitutionally protected.

So, since all of the above is irrefutable, Foxfyre,

all for the sake of protecting the bigot Phil Robertson, desires a massive trashing of the Bill of Rights.

Wrong again.

You cannot fire a person for their religious beliefs...particularly if you were aware of those beliefs when you hired them.

Where A&E went wrong was to OK the interview in the first place.

What dolts! Lolol!

 

[NYcarbineer]

They're NOT his words!

They're Bible verses that he spoke. Do you know how many different versions of the Bible there are?

Feel free to show us the passage that matches PR's 'sermon'.

Romans 1 - Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called - Bible Gateway

 

[NYcarbineer]

Demanding that someone be fired from a TV show because they said something you didn't like is an exercise in free speech. That happens to be a constitutionally protected right.

To make that illegal you'd have to amend the Constitution, which would never happen because it's an absurd, laughable idea, for starters.

Threatening an action for the same reason is also an exercise in free speech, unless the action threatened does itself violate some other law. Once again, amend the Constitution if you think you're going to make that one illegal.

Rallying thousands or millions or however many to support you in either of those demands is an exercise in freedom of assembly, also constitutionally protected.

So, since all of the above is irrefutable, Foxfyre,

all for the sake of protecting the bigot Phil Robertson, desires a massive trashing of the Bill of Rights.

Wrong again.

You cannot fire a person for their religious beliefs...particularly if you were aware of those beliefs when you hired them.

Where A&E went wrong was to OK the interview in the first place.

What dolts! Lolol!

You should either learn to read or learn to shut up.

 

[koshergrl]

You sound a little testy there, troll. Not making a very good showing can do that to you.

 

[NYcarbineer]

They were his own words. They were a distorted paraphrase of the passage in Romans.

It's so funny that you seem to think there's an important difference.

He spoke scripture.

The objection was to the scripture.

If he's fired, it will be because of his religious beliefs...which is, of course, discrimination and a hallmark of progressive society.

"‘I love all men and women. I am a lover of humanity, not a hater,’ he added…
"Then reading from the Bible he said, ‘The acts of the sinful nature are obvious. Sexual immorality, is number one on the list. How many ways can we sin sexually? My goodness. You open up that can of worms and people will be mad at you over it.
‘I am just reading what was written over 2000 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."

Quotes of the day « Hot Air

Duck Dynasty star Phil Robertson says he is a lover not a hater | Mail Online

And the Scripture wasn't Romans, it was Corinthians:

"
“We’re Bible-thumpers who just happened to end up on television,” he tells me. “You put in your article that the Robertson family really believes strongly that if the human race loved each other and they loved God, we would just be better off. We ought to just be repentant, turn to God, and let’s get on with it, and everything will turn around.”
What does repentance entail? Well, in Robertson’s worldview, America was a country founded upon Christian values (Thou shalt not kill, etc.), and he believes that the gradual removal of Christian symbolism from public spaces has diluted those founding principles. (He and Si take turns going on about why the Ten Commandments ought to be displayed outside courthouses.) He sees the popularity of Duck Dynasty as a small corrective to all that we have lost.
“Everything is blurred on what’s right and what’s wrong,” he says. “Sin becomes fine.”
What, in your mind, is sinful?
“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.”


Read More Duck Dynasty's Phil Robertson Gives Drew Magary a Tour

The actual phrase:

"Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind..." KJ

Close enough for government work for sure.


Or don't you know that the unrighteous will not inherit the Kingdom of God? Don't be deceived. Neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor male prostitutes, nor homosexuals,
- World English Bible

This is where Romans came into play:

So conservatives now wish to tell me that I am out of line to find this:

"Women with women, men with men, they committed indecent acts with one another, and they received in themselves the due penalty for their perversions. They’re full of murder, envy, strife, hatred. They are insolent, arrogant, God-haters. They are heartless, they are faithless, they are senseless, they are ruthless. They invent ways of doing evil."

spoken by Phil Robertson a few years ago,

objectionable.

Yes, I'm the villain if I don't quietly and obediently tolerate that sort of hate speech.

Words written many years before Robertson spoke them.

Romans Chapter 1.

So? Robertson borrowed from them, and them distorted them, to concoct an anti gay rant.

He is NOT protected from being fired by A&E by claiming there is a religious basis for his bigotry.

He is only protected by whatever the language of his contract with A&E protects. And I guarantee he has a contract with A&E.

 

[NYcarbineer]

You sound a little testy there, troll. Not making a very good showing can do that to you.

Suffering the idiocy of illiterates like you CAN do that to a person.