Duck Dynasty's Phil Robertson on Indefinite Hiatus Following Anti-Gay Remarks

[AEON]

Hey FYM,

This has been a fairly big story the last few days. I've never watched this show, but it seem it's quite big (9 million viewers? That's nuts).

I think his remarks and the forced hiatus will cause/have caused quite a bit of debate. While I doubt few people here agree with Phil Robertson's actual remarks - I'm curious what people think of A&E's reaction. Should he be forced off the air for what he said?

Here's the story:

[Pearl]

Robertson has the right to say what he wants, but everyone else has the right to feel offended if they do, and voice their offense.

But I think A&E should leave him on the air, and let the ratings determine whether Duck Dynasty should stay on air. If the ratings tumble, then that's Robertson's consequence. If the ratings stay steady, then it just proves that there are many Americans who sadly think like he does, or don't realize the full extent of how hurtful his comments are.

I don't know. I'm kind of mixed about this. I believe in freedom of speech, but I also do not support bigotry. I also don't think forcing people to accept that times are changing is really the best way to solve bigotry. But I don't know what else to do here. I mean, he also made insensitive comments about African-Americans and the Civil Rights movement, so that's a valid reason to get rid of him. And so is his anti-gay remarks.

Yeah, maybe removing him from A&E may be a good idea, but I'm not solidly sure. Such a move only intensifies bigotry, and by law, anyone who is a bigot is free to express them.

ETA: Yeah, I keep adding to this, but I just want to say that the freedom of speech law is what throws this off. If the US had those anti-bigotry laws, like those in Britain that forbid speech that is meant to spread hatred, then it will change the argument here.

[Galeongirl]

While I think it's pretty damn rude what the guy says, it's his opinion. In our society everyone has the right to be an ignorant asshole, so does he. What I find disturbing is that GC published this stuff. Are they really THAT attentionwhoreish?

I do think, however, that his personal opinions have nothing to do with the show. I don't know the show, don't care about it, and wouldn't give a hoot if this guy was still on the telly. By silencing him I think that A&E give this far more attention than it deserves. If they had just distanced themselves it'd be, as we say here, a tornado in a glass of water, and the storm would die after a short while. By banning him from the show, they agitate the anti-gay lobby and drag out the debate far longer. Which isn't truly a debate, but ah well.

[bono_212]

Is this the part where he "compared" homosexuality to bestiality?

"Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there," he says. "Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men."
He goes on to paraphrase 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."

Because it appears to me that he's just listing things that are listed as sexual sins in the Bible.

Not saying that's right or wrong, just saying that that there's at least a bit of reading between the lines of his words there.

[bono_212]

Honestly, I'm more interested in seeing these comments he supposedly made about how Black people were happier under Jim Crow laws?

[Pearl]

Originally Posted by bono_212

Is this the part where he "compared" homosexuality to bestiality?



Because it appears to me that he's just listing things that are listed as sexual sins in the Bible.

Not saying that's right or wrong, just saying that that there's at least a bit of reading between the lines of his words there.

That's how I read it too, but he was putting bestiality in the same category as homosexuality, which is appalling.

[bono_212]

But that's right out of the Bible, is it not?

[Pearl]

Originally Posted by bono_212

But that's right out of the Bible, is it not?

Whether homosexuality is declared a sin in the Bible or not is up for debate. If you check out the archives, there were quite a few discussions about that.

[bono_212]

Originally Posted by Pearl

Whether homosexuality is declared a sin in the Bible or not is up for debate. If you check out the archives, there were quite a few discussions about that.

OK, but you're depending on an average guy from Louisiana who happened to invent one of the most ridiculously get-rich-quick things ever to have studied theology beyond what his Church or the Bible tells him.

Anyways, thinking about it more, from the small time I spent in HR, I don't think it matters if it's protected speech or not. If he was representing A&E as "Duck Dyansty's Phil Robertson" in that interview and he spoke on a topic that can become heated like that and potentially hurt another protected group, then it's discretionary to A&E.

But, I have next to no HR experience besides working in the department, so I could be wrong.

[trojanchick99]

My guess is A&E was getting pressure from their advertisers. They'll suspend him until the furor dies down and then reinstate.

I don't know why people are surprised a conservative Christian from the deep South has these types of views.

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by bono_212

Honestly, I'm more interested in seeing these comments he supposedly made about how Black people were happier under Jim Crow laws?

from NPR:

in the same GQ article, including that "pre-entitlement, pre-welfare," the black people he knew were "godly; they were happy; no one was singing the blues." That stuff is also pretty ... startling.

so, as ever, let's not pretend that BECAUSE RACISM isn't still a working force in society.

i'm not terribly surprised at what he said, i'm also not surprised that he feels as if the Bible gives him license to freely believe grotesque things, or that he uses the Bible to also justify whatever prejudices i'm sure he's held as a product of his time and era and location.

i'm also not terribly surprised at the comments in articles i've read on this. apparently people think this is a free speech issue, and that we just live in a different country now BECAUSE OBAMA. (seriously, people are blaming A&E's actions on Obama).

at the end of the day, he is an employee of A&E and signed a contract that i'm certain had clauses that covered issues such as this -- all reality stars do, all NFL players do. it's also true that DD is an immensely popular show, and a scripted one with actual sit-down table readings beforehand. all those lines you hear in the interviews are being read off of cue cards or prompted by the producer just off camera. it's a situation comedy, only with "real" people.

he works for A&E, and they can do whatever they want with their product.

my guess is that, since it is a ratings juggernaut -- it is amazingly popular -- he'll be back, but A&E knows that in an increasingly tolerant, modern, pluralistic America, anti-gay comments (and anti-black comments) will cause more people to turn off in disgust than on in support.

[Pearl]

I'm not surprised he made those comments. Just one glance at him and it's clear he's not going to be at a pro-gay or anti-racism rally anytime soon.

I think this was a PR move on A&E's part so they wouldn't be accused of siding with the anti-gay crowd. Whether pressure to bring back Duck Dynasty will make them change their minds remains to be seen, but I'm sure some other station, albeit conservative, will pick up the show.

[trojanchick99]

To be clear, the show isn't being taken off the air, just him.

[bono_212]

Originally Posted by Pearl

Just one glance at him and it's clear he's not going to be at a pro-gay or anti-racism rally anytime soon.

I really really hate comments like this.

[trojanchick99]

Agreed. A good friend of mine is from Kentucky and looks like a mountain man. He's not a homophobe and not racist. Hell, half the hipsters in Silverlake have huge beards these days.

[Pearl]

Sorry about that. I wasn't only referring to his beard, though. Clothing can say a lot about a person.

But yeah, got foolish there. Bigots can look like anybody

[Diemen]

Redneck says something offensive about sexual orientation and race. Film at 11.

I mean, when the show itself sort of prides itself on giving us a slice of redneck life, I find it a little odd that A&E would be shocked that some of his views would be pretty... narrow (to put it politely). At least shocked enough to remove him from the show.

[bono_212]

Originally Posted by Pearl

Sorry about that. I wasn't only referring to his beard, though. Clothing can say a lot about a person.

But yeah, got foolish there. Bigots can look like anybody

Again, though, clothes? Really?

[anitram]

I've never heard of Duck Dynasty. Don't think I'm missing much judging by the description.

This isn't a free speech issue anyway.

[Inner El Guapo]

Originally Posted by Pearl

Just one glance at him and it's clear he's not going to be at a pro-gay or anti-racism rally anytime soon.

Originally Posted by Pearl

Sorry about that. I wasn't only referring to his beard, though. Clothing can say a lot about a person.

But yeah, got foolish there. Bigots can look like anybody

This is just a whole bucket of wow.