GD's next crap thread: Free speach or blatant attempt to discredit gays?

[Harambe]

Duck Dynasty star gets suspended for trying to preach.

https://www.cnn.com/2013/12/19/showbiz/duck-dynasty-suspension/

Duck Dynasty? WTC is that?

A show on A&E about hillbilly duck hunters... I guess.

What about them?

In typical hillbilly fashion, a guy forgets/ignores the fact that the media will eat him alive for anything he says. He then goes on to say things like this:

"It seems like, to me, a vagina -- as a man -- would be more desirable than a man's ****. That's just me. I'm just thinking: There's more there! She's got more to offer. I mean, come on, dudes! You know what I'm saying? But hey, sin: It's not logical, my man. It's just not logical,"

When asked what he thought was sinful, Robertson replied: "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."

"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."

And for his statements, A&E, the company that airs Duck Dynasty, has suspended Phil Robertson.

The question I pose to you, GenDisc, is this:

Should A&E have suspended this man for voicing his beliefs to a GQ reporter that interviewed him?


Rules:
1. This thread is not about gay rights, bestiality, religion, or promiscuity.
2. Keep it civil

In turn I will:

1. Refrain from calling anyone a nutjob, religious or otherwise.

Discuss.

 

[Harambe]

I'll get us started.

I don't think he should have been suspended, as the article was in GQ, not aired on A&E. It seems to me that if you don't like what a guy that's on your show says on your show you can certainly tell him to knock it off/take action. But since this was aired in a completely different forum, and not on the A&E network, I feel like they overstepped their bounds.

 

[One Brow]

Should A&E have suspended this man for voicing his beliefs to a GQ reporter that interviewed him?

A&E has one interest in this: the bottom line. If they feel not responding his comments would help their profitability, or at least not hurt it, they should not suspend him. If they feel his comments would hurt their bottom line, they should suspend him.

 

[One Brow]

But since this was aired in a completely different forum, and not on the A&E network, I feel like they overstepped their bounds.

It's not a different forum. He's being interviewed because he's on Duck Dynasty, otherwise GQ wouldn't be talking to him in the first place. Everything he says and does reflects back; it's unavoidable.

 

[Gameface]

There's two issues here, in my opinion, and they're hared to reconcile for me. The first is that religious institutions have taken a hard stand on homosexuality and have taught their members that it is a sin. The second is that homosexuals are being denied equal rights in our secular society and there is a struggle to correct that.

But on this issue I do not see a contradiction. The man holds a firm set of specific religious views. He expressed his opinion on homosexuality in those terms, that it's a sin. He also went on to express what I think it's pretty normal for a heterosexual man to think, that being attracted to other men makes no sense, because for him it makes no sense.

What society seems to be demanding of public figures is that they either hold a view on homosexuality that directly contradicts their religious teachings or they shut the **** up about it. I don't think that's the right way to progress on these issues. I think religious people should be able to express the religious perspective here without fear of such significant repercussions.

All that said, I find it funny that people get so up in arms about illogical opinions that stem from mystical beliefs while pretending that the mystical beliefs are not to blame. It goes hand in hand.

 

[Harambe]

It's not a different forum. He's being interviewed because he's on Duck Dynasty, otherwise GQ wouldn't be talking to him in the first place. Everything he says and does reflects back; it's unavoidable.

And A&E made a choice to put on a reality show about these guys. They knew what they were getting into. I sincerely doubt they were stupid enough not to consider that these guys were homophobic, given their backwoods, white trash, hillbilly ways.

They knew what they were getting in to, they just didn't care. Now that it's out in the open, they try to cry foul? They didn't care when they were making money and getting positive publicity about it, but now that a guy that has likely made A&E millions shows his colors they disown him?

How is that cool?

 

[bordelais7]

A&E has one interest in this: the bottom line. If they feel not responding his comments would help their profitability, or at least not hurt it, they should not suspend him. If they feel his comments would hurt their bottom line, they should suspend him.

How capitalist of you. I would like to think that businesses aren't solely motivated by profit, and feel some measure of responsibility to do good and stand up for beliefs.

That said, you're probably right.

THAT said, I'm having a hard time accepting that A&E made the correct the decision. The myriad of ways this could backfire seem to me to vastly outnumber the potential loss they would have taken had they taken no action.

 

[Gameface]

How capitalist of you. I would like to think that businesses aren't solely motivated by profit, and feel some measure of responsibility to do good and stand up for beliefs.

That said, you're probably right.

THAT said, I'm having a hard time accepting that A&E made the correct the decision. The myriad of ways this could backfire seem to me to vastly outnumber the potential loss they would have taken had they taken no action.

Right, can't they say "This is reality television. The people depicted are REAL and they have their own independent views on a variety of issues. We do not necessarily condone, endorse or agree with those views. Viewer discretion is advised."

 

[Harambe]

What society seems to be demanding of public figures is that they either hold a view on homosexuality that directly contradicts their religious teachings or they shut the **** up about it. I don't think that's the right way to progress on these issues. I think religious people should be able to express the religious perspective here without fear of such significant repercussions.

This. People should feel free state their beliefs without duress. Only when they start chastising others that have contradictory opinions that we need to do something about it.

I guess an argument could be made in this situation that his statements were derogatory to the point of chastisement, but only the sensitive types should whine about it.

 

[Stoked]

Ultimately I think this hurts A&E. But they were in a no win situation. if they don't take him off the left has a field day. If they do the right has a field day as they currently are. The problem is, will the rest of the family close ranks and follow him out the door? If so does another network pick them up? They are a gold mine right now.

I feel this is free speach. he is getitng hit for his opinion and to be honest I do not agree with it.

Also a trend that I have noticed is that people are confusing acceptance with love. They are not mutually inclusive. I love my brother but at one point in time he was a thief and a drug addict. I did not accept the way he lived his life and his actions but I loved him.

So this notion of the entire population (I am sure there are those that do) against gay rights is doing so out of hate is as foolish as being against gay rights.

The whole point of this life from the normal Christian view point is free agency. Now they want to limit any choice that goes agaisnt the teachings of Christ? If everyone is forced into obedience then what is the point?

 

[LogGrad98]

There's two issues here, in my opinion, and they're hared to reconcile for me. The first is that religious institutions have taken a hard stand on homosexuality and have taught their members that it is a sin. The second is that homosexuals are being denied equal rights in our secular society and there is a struggle to correct that.

But on this issue I do not see a contradiction. The man holds a firm set of specific religious views. He expressed his opinion on homosexuality in those terms, that it's a sin. He also went on to express what I think it's pretty normal for a heterosexual man to think, that being attracted to other men makes no sense, because for him it makes no sense.

What society seems to be demanding of public figures is that they either hold a view on homosexuality that directly contradicts their religious teachings or they shut the **** up about it. I don't think that's the right way to progress on these issues. I think religious people should be able to express the religious perspective here without fear of such significant repercussions.

All that said, I find it funny that people get so up in arms about illogical opinions that stem from mystical beliefs while pretending that the mystical beliefs are not to blame. It goes hand in hand.

This is the full-swing of the pendulum. There was a time when it was about free speech, now it is about "correct" speech or don't speak at all.

To expound. The free speech movements of the 60's and 70's, and later for the gay community in the 2000's mostly, in which the attitude was basically "yay finally we can talk about being gay and being happy to be gay and having sex outside of wedlock and whatever other counterculture thing we want and look how great all these things are", had an effect that now must be suppressed: that others, also exercising their freedom of speech, might express a different view, to wit "no I still think these things are wrong and you shouldn't do them." It was cool and all when it wasn't mainstream, and the activists were still "sticking it to the man". But now, as part of political correctness, and the fact that the counterculture is becoming more mainstream, the only way to maintain the momentum is to suppress dissenting opinions. So the suppressed counterculture stages a cultural revolution that becomes the norm and then suppresses a "new" counterculture, since it goes against the new norm. And the pendulum has swung the other way.

 

[fishonjazz]

I'm always of the opinion of..... if you don't like what someone says or thinks then ignore them and don't watch the show he is on or read his interviews.

Sticks and stone will break my bones but words will never hurt me.

So to summarize..... I don't care that he said those things (even though I don't agree) and I don't think he should have been punished

 

[bordelais7]

Ultimately I think this hurts A&E. But they were in a no win situation. if they don't take him off the left has a field day. If they do the right has a field day as they currently are.

I have no data on this, but given the nature of the show I wouldn't be surprised if the majority of their viewers fall into the "right" category. Interesting to me that they chose to piss THAT group off.

 

[LogGrad98]

I have no data on this, but given the nature of the show I wouldn't be surprised if the majority of their viewers fall into the "right" category. Interesting to me that they chose to piss THAT group off.

Oh I am sure there is a healthy group that watches to reinforce their opinion of "those" people. Confirmation bias, right OB? There are plenty of people that love to point to the backward wrong thinking of the "redneck right" to make themselves feel better for suppressing their freedom of speech.

 

[One Brow]

They knew what they were getting in to, they just didn't care. Now that it's out in the open, they try to cry foul? They didn't care when they were making money and getting positive publicity about it, but now that a guy that has likely made A&E millions shows his colors they disown him?

How is that cool?

I'm not sure what "cool" has to do with it. Reality TV is always an attempt to make money off of people in exchange for offering them some sort of fame. Robertson just killed that one goose.

Does anyone really think that Phil Robertson will in any way suffer from this? For every dollar he loses from A&E, he will get back at least that much riding the Christian persecution complex. There will be speaking engagements, fundraisers, books sold on WorldNetDaily, etc.

 

[One Brow]

How capitalist of you. I would like to think that businesses aren't solely motivated by profit, and feel some measure of responsibility to do good and stand up for beliefs.

Man, wouldn't that be nice? However, even then, you're looking at the beliefs of Robertson compared to the beliefs of the executives at A&E.

THAT said, I'm having a hard time accepting that A&E made the correct the decision. The myriad of ways this could backfire seem to me to vastly outnumber the potential loss they would have taken had they taken no action.

More than anything else, I would guess that comes down to sponsors. Does A&E get more money from the Chick-Fil-As of the corporate world or from the Home Depots?

 

[One Brow]

Oh I am sure there is a healthy group that watches to reinforce their opinion of "those" people. Confirmation bias, right OB?

Not exactly, but certainly a related phenomenon. I agree with you that's probably a decent part of the audience, people who want to laugh at them.

 

[One Brow]

I sincerely doubt they were stupid enough not to consider that these guys were homophobic, given their backwoods, white trash, hillbilly ways.

By the way, that's a pretty judgmental and ugly sentiment in a couple of different ways.

 

[One Brow]

What society seems to be demanding of public figures is that they either hold a view on homosexuality that directly contradicts their religious teachings or they shut the **** up about it. I don't think that's the right way to progress on these issues. I think religious people should be able to express the religious perspective here without fear of such significant repercussions.

I work for a hospital. If I go on a TV interview with my job plastered below my name, and spout off on ObamaCare (either pro or con), I'm risking my job, and the stakes are greater when you are high-profile. If A&E chose to keep Robertson, fine with me. However, he doesn't deserve any special consideration in that regard.

 

[bordelais7]

More than anything else, I would guess that comes down to sponsors. Does A&E get more money from the Chick-Fil-As of the corporate world or from the Home Depots?

But ultimately, those companies are looking out for THEIR bottom line and don't want to give up on effective advertising channels. I'm skeptical that sponsor boycotts are ever carried out to the extent of causing long-term damage. And often, they backfire (Chick-fil-a)