Now I'll Have to Start Watching Duck Dynasty?

Bettin a lot of em had their panties in a wad over the Dixie Chicks too.

I can honestly say I have never watched that shit in my life. So glad I ditched the dish 5 years ago. I saw pictures of them and I could tell that must be a very cerebral show.

To be fair, though, not all rednecks would support Phil's statements. I believe the word you're looking to replace "redneck" would be "moron," and those we can find in every walk of life.

Nah, rednecks is closer to the mark.

Yes because everyone knows being gay is sinful.

Hey, I'm a redneck.

http://www.relevantmagazine.com/culture/tv/duck-dynasty-hip-hop-and-our-failure-communicate

His family seems not to understand the concept behind freedom of speech, along with the people screaming for A&E's collective head. Phil is still free to espouse his believes, A&E has simply decided that they're not letting him use their association in the process. What they have done is perfectly legal, and reasonable. They suspended him. They haven't fired him, they haven't flogged him and jailed him, they suspended him from a TV show that they control, one in which he participates, one that holds a sizable part of A&E's viewership, a viewership made up of many people, including ones that Phil railed against in his statement. Phil's speech hasn't been curtailed, censored, or infringed upon.

These people can invoke God, the Bible, and Jesus all they want. They had full reign to do so on their show, and the fact that they're baffled about A&E's actions shows that they just don't get the point. The world doesn't revolve around them, and A&E acted in good faith by letting them make their faith a centerpiece of the show. A&E has been even handed, and more than fair in that regard. Just because they're Christians doesn't mean they get a blank check to say whatever the hell they want without any consequence.

In short, perhaps they should spend less time in prayer, and more time reading their contracts.

Freedom of speech is one thing, but you're not revoked of the repercussions of said speech....especially when it's not even all about homosexuality. Catch his comments about the Jim Crow laws?

That's okay, no one else who's sticking up for him did either.

But unless I'm reading this wrong, they're not saying that what A&E did was illegal. They're saying that they are disappointed in what A&E did. Seems pretty reasonable to me. One other thing. IMHO, Phil wasn't out to prosthelytize. He was asked a question, and he answered it.

I didn't. What did he say?

Vaginal sex is better than anal sex. I've tried both. And performed quite well in both instances I might add.

Which brings into question why they are disappointed. Phil likened homosexuality to bestiality, went into graphic detail of why he doesn't get it, and then proceeds to tell people he doesn't judge! If I were A&E, damned right I'd suspend him, because A&E is going to feel the brunt of this anyway. They're damned if they do, and damned if they don't. Might as well make the smarter, safer decision. It's not reasonable to wonder why Phil was suspended considering his remarks. It's out of touch. It boils down to "Hey, all he was saying is that gay people are in the same category as people who engage in bestiality, and that from what he saw, black people were doing just fine under Jim Crow laws, so what? What did he say that was wrong?"

Citation Needed.

That's funny John, you wouldn't last a day in the woods alone.

Hey, hey, I know how to start a fire, I know how to navigate by night, and I know how to pitch a tent.

Again, a lot of protestants don't see one sin as any worse than another. A sin is a sin is a sin. And again, this is coming from a guy who has publically admitted that he is a recovering alcoholic and adulterer. This isn't that suprising.

On the other hand, I don't really blame A&E from doing what they did either. They pretty much had to.

This is the first I heard that. That's just nuts.

I agree. Anal is gross. I don't get the appeal.

So the family doesn't understand the first amendment, that's the main take away. The statement also strongly implies that they don't understand contracts.

I get what you're saying, but right now homosexuality seems to be the sin du jour.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/enter...n-sounds-off-on-gays-20131218,0,6319736.story

So, apparently, it's wrong to treat people disrespectfully because:

*They look different from you.
*They

Aaaaaaand now you're gonna lose your tv show.

Well yeah. I wonder why.

The hell they weren't.

They invented the blues.

Okay, that's not quite as bad as it was spun.

See, that's where it's getting dangerous. And while it's not a First Amendment issue (because there's no government involvement) it is a freedom of expression issue. A corporation has taken a step to curtail an unfashionable opinion, and the media has leapt all over it like dogs on a thrown steak. Meanwhile, Baldwin and Bashir didn't raise a peep out of them.

Hey, they're in it for the money. Why shouldn't they be?