Runescape Bits & Bytes
https://www.rsbandb.com/forums/

Duck Dynasty: Stand With Phil Robertson
https://www.rsbandb.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=85358
Page 1 of 1

Author:  Jasonmrc [ December 19th, 2013, 3:21 pm ]
Post subject:  Duck Dynasty: Stand With Phil Robertson

We've probably all seen this over the news and Facebook so I'm asking,
What's y'alls opinions?

If necessary I can provide some articles about it, but I figured we'd probably all already heard what happened.

Author:  Adbot [ December 19th, 2013, 3:21 pm ]
Post subject:  Register and login to get these in-post ads to disappear


Author:  1 Stone Pwn [ December 19th, 2013, 4:26 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Duck Dynasty: Stand With Phil Robertson

He has the freedom to say it, A&E has the freedom to fire him for it. Simple as that.

Author:  Lord Rickles [ December 19th, 2013, 9:59 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Duck Dynasty: Stand With Phil Robertson

That's right, Stone.

A&E and their sister networks are proud champions of LGBT rights. If you are on their networks putting out a message on your show, they own you and your opinions at all time. You are a REALITY TV star - you aren't an actor. What you say on and off screen carries over to your overall image and the network's image as well.

Let's be honest though, I doubt anyone is surprised by his opinions. As Conan O'Brien said on his show - The dude is a bearded man that makes duck calls with his family in rural Louisiana. No one expected him to have progressive views on LGBT equality. The fact that A&E is surprised by this makes myself wonder why they didn't try to coach them or tell them how to answer these questions without upsetting people who support them as well as their network's affiliates.

Author:  Duke Juker [ December 20th, 2013, 9:02 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Duck Dynasty: Stand With Phil Robertson

I'll just leave this here...relevant part starts are 3:22



For me, Steve Hughes nails it exactly. So what if people are offended? Whatever happened to freedom of speech and having an opinion? We all get the BS copout that just because someone says something and they are affiliated with a company, publisher, or studio, the views of that person are not reflective of said entity. I mean, even if A&E had hypothetically backed him up, it wouldn't mean they agree with him. The problem I have with this is that people expect anyone in the public spotlight to never share their beliefs or views. It's like we pretend that people are too stupid to know opinion from fact. And that's all this situation portrays about society. We're a bunch of sensitive people. The littlest thing upsets us. Although really, I think this has just been hyped by the media and 90% of people don't give a rat's *** about the whole affair.

Granted, I'm not saying A&E doesn't have the right to suspend him or fire him for what he said. Just like people should have freedom to speak and choose, so too should employers. And people need to know that standing up for your beliefs realistically has consequences, whether they be fair or not. All I'm asking for here is some common sense. Rather than being upset or offended, maybe people should grow thicker skins and deal with it. And if they are so inclined, respond back. But don't censor a person just because they have the courage to stand up for what they believe and just so happen to disagree with someone else.

Author:  Jasonmrc [ December 20th, 2013, 12:06 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Duck Dynasty: Stand With Phil Robertson

1 Stone Pwn wrote:
He has the freedom to say it, A&E has the freedom to fire him for it. Simple as that.

Actually....no.

Title VII of the Act, codified as Subchapter VI of Chapter 21 of title 42 of the United States Code, prohibits discrimination by covered employers on the basis of race, color, religion, *** or national origin (see 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2[40]). Title VII applies to and covers an employer "who has fifteen (15) or more employees for each working day in each of twenty or more calendar weeks in the current or preceding calendar year" as written in the Definitions section under 42 U.S.C. §2000e(b). Title VII also prohibits discrimination against an individual because of his or her association with another individual of a particular race, color, religion, ***, or national origin. An employer cannot discriminate against a person because of his interracial association with another, such as by an interracial marriage.

By law, A&E cannot discriminate against him. I suppose you could argue 'personal views' is not in the verbage, but then you could also argue that this falls under religion or ***.

A&E has added fake bleeps and cut the name of Jesus in the show before, this is not the first time they have tried to shun him or the family.

GQ are the ones that asked the question, knowing full well the repercussions it would cause.
Actual quote for those who haven't read it wrote:
Interviewer: What, in your mind, is sinful?

Phil: “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.”

Backstory: During Phil’s darkest days, in the early 1970s, he had to flee the state of Arkansas after he badly beat up a bar owner and the guy’s wife. Kay Robertson persuaded the bar owner not to press charges in exchange for most of the Robertsons’ life savings. (“A hefty price,” he notes in his memoir.) I ask Phil if he ever repented for that, as he wants America to repent—if he ever tracked down the bar owner and his wife to apologize for the assault. He shakes his head.

Phil :“I didn’t dredge anything back up. I just put it behind me.”

Backstory: As far as Phil is concerned, he was literally born again. Old Phil—the guy with the booze and the pills—died a long time ago, and New Phil sees no need to apologize for him:

Phil: “We never, ever judge someone on who’s going to heaven, hell. That’s the Almighty’s job. We just love ’em, give ’em the good news about Jesus—whether they’re homosexuals, drunks, terrorists. We let God sort ’em out later, you see what I’m saying?”

The Robertson Family said they can't see the show continuing without Phil, the patriarch of the family, at the helm. Either A&E is going to lose the hottest show on TV, or they will eat their words and follow the money. LGBT are not going to pay what the Duck Dynasty show brings in, so it is financially smarter for A&E to side with the Robertsons - regardless of anyone's views.

BTW, A&E did not make the Robertsons, they were doing videos and such before A&E picked them up. Willie is actually the one that started working to get them on TV because their friends all suggested they should. With the amount of fans the Robertsons have, they could easily start a Youtube channel - and it may very well be the most watched channel on youtube.

And just as a little note: A&E has already lost 6.3m viewers since last week due to their little charades. To put it in perspective, that's over 70%.

Gotta go for now. It will certainly be interesting watching this battle unfold.

Author:  Duke Juker [ December 20th, 2013, 9:36 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Duck Dynasty: Stand With Phil Robertson

The fact that there is more backlash from the Robertson supporters than from the opposed proves that people don't care as much about what he said, but more that he actually said it.

‘Duck Dynasty’ Fallout: GLAAD Reeling From Biggest Backlash in Years, Says Rep

Quote:
“I don’t think this is about the first amendment,” Ferraro said. “I feel it’s more about the America we live in today. That is one where Americans, *** and straight, are able to speak out when people in the public eye make anti-gay and racist remarks.”

Two things. First, this is a paradoxical statement. That is, the very reason people can speak out against "anti-gay and racist remarks" like Robertson's is because they have the freedom of speech to do so. This more so strongly proves that "...the America we live in today" still values freedom of speech more than ever. Second, the quote itself is narrow-minded and represents just how weak the opposing argument is. Is it better for all to have the freedom to speak their mind or to force acceptance of something that many people either don't care about or don't accept?

Another thing to keep in mind is that this isn't a one way street. I'm sure pro-gay people have spoken out against religion and Christian views before. Did these people ever get this kind of treatment for what they said? We're those people ever condemned or censored for sharing their beliefs? Is it wrong for Christians to share their beliefs, but OK for pro-gay people to share theirs? Seems hardly fair, but that's exactly the point they are trying to make.

And Robertson concluded his views very appropriately from the Christian standpoint. “We never, ever judge someone on who’s going to heaven, hell. That’s the Almighty’s job. We just love ’em, give ’em the good news about Jesus—whether they’re homosexuals, drunks, terrorists. We let God sort ’em out later, you see what I’m saying?” Ultimately, Christians are to love others, regardless of what they may do or believe. Many of those opposed to Christianity fail to realize this. And true, some Christians don't act accordingly. But the fact of the matter is that Christianity does put more emphasis on loving others than judging for the wrongness of person's life.

In any case, to punish someone for simply sharing their views is not the correct course of action. It'll be interesting to see how this all plays out.

Author:  Adbot [ December 20th, 2013, 9:36 pm ]
Post subject:  Register and login to get these in-post ads to disappear


Author:  trekkie [ December 21st, 2013, 8:51 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Duck Dynasty: Stand With Phil Robertson

It was a question that the interviewer knew what answer he would get. I really don't care, that show is stupid anyway.

Honestly which one of us here was actually surprise that he would say something like that?

This is the equivalent of asking an animal right's activist " what's the most sinful thing people have done"
"Eating animals."

Seriously who cares?

Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC - 7 hours
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/