Now I'll Have to Start Watching Duck Dynasty?

"for saying what every good Christian should believe"

fuck 'im. That's not his call.

It is not a credit to the church to browbeat people for not conforming to the party line.

It's not a credit to anybody to browbeat people for not conforming to the party line. Thing is, I don't recall Robertson's expression of his beliefs constituting browbeating of anybody -- but suspending him for having those beliefs does.

No. He was suspended for stating, in an agreed upon interview with a massive, worldwide readership, that being gay was on the same level as engaging in bestiality. He then went on to praise the wonders of vagina, while openly wondering how men could like anus. A&E had every right to suspend him. His speech was not infringed upon, and he probably should have read his contract at least once. A contract isn't like the Bible, you can't just pretend to read it and assume your viewpoint's in there and have other people agree with you without also checking. You have to read them, and I would bet on there being a clause in his contract about making A&E look bad.

Please review. I quoted the blogger you linked, not Phil.

And? He believes some silly shit. So? Y'know, in a contest of competing harms, a hillbilly spouting stereotypically hillbilly nonsense is pretty heavily outweighed by firing a guy for having an unpopular opinion. A&E, basically, just fully and incontrovertibly legitimized all the conspiracy theories about a "gay conspiracy." Robertson learned a lesson about not handing his critics ammunition, but I don't think he'll be the only pupil in that little classroom.

Of course they did; nevertheless, it was an amazingly stupid move on their part.

No, it wasn't stupid. The belief system Phil espouses is on the way out. A newer, younger demographic is taking their place. A&E has to think ahead, and they have to think how Phil's statements would affect them in the media, both social and entertainment. They likely erred on the side of caution, which is the wiser move. They have shareholders, investors, employees, and intellectual properties they have to protect. So how do they protect them? They publicly denounce his statement, suspend him, and watch as people rage buy everything with the Duck Dynasty name on it, a property that funnels a good deal of its profits to A&E. So they get to look good to the public, and still rake in a shitload of cash. Phil and the family are unaffected either way, as they have millions of dollars, and a new opportunity to play up the perceived persecution of Christians angle if they wish. It's win/win.

Not exactly. Watch the "Duck Dynasty" brand managed by A&E versus the "Duck Commander" brand managed by the Robertsons. The former is likely to take a pounding, the latter is likely to soar. Why? Because the audiences weren't tuning in to A&E, they were tuning in to the Robertsons. They're not fans of A&E, they're fans of the Robertsons. A&E harnessed a dynamo, but if they kick it loose, the ratings and money aren't staying with A&E, they're going where the Robertsons go. Why? Because people who tuned in to see that family agree with that family. That dynamic that's on the way out? Yeah, not so fast, man. It's underserved and underrepresented, but it's still very much alive. There's already a massive backlash building, and it's not going to do A&E a single favor.

I think it's a ploy on BOTH parties to raise ratings and sell merchandise. Phil says something A&E doesn't like, they pretend to fire him, fans go apeshit and demand he be back on the show. A&E pretends to "REHIRE" him and the ratings skyrocket. Their merchandise sells out to all the gullible fans, Both A&E and Roberts make out like bandits.

That guy needs to switch to decaf.

Yeah he was a little hyper, BUT he was right. Just look it up.

He didn't tell me anything I didn't already know. He's just loud and annoying. Needs a smack with a tire iron.

It makes practicing my clarinet solo easy depending on Flaslight

Which one of the DD guys are we talking about? I came across this on the interwebz - is this him?

Playing devil's advocate for a minute, do we actually know that Robertson's contract had a clause that would let A&E suspend him for remarks like this? It seems like, given who he is and the show he's on, there'd have to be quite a bit of leeway in the contract for politically incorrect statements.

We don't, but it seems unlikely they would have taken action without running it past lawyers first.

Well, this is far from A&E's first reality show, and they've often had to deal with embarrassing "talent" in the past. Having had to deal with Duane Chapman of "Dog the Bounty Hunter" on multiple occasions, it's pretty much a certainty that the network's "reality" personalities are subject to contractual clauses that permit the network to fire their asses over damn near anything.

Which is incredibly ironic considering that he sells a device that makes a duck think you want to have sex with it.

Can someone please explain why saying someones sexual conduct is a sin is considered "hate speech" or "bashing"?

I believe that all sexual relations outside the marriage of one man and one woman are sins and can cause a person to be separated from God and condemn their souls to hell.
Does that mean that I'm promoting "hatred" of people who have premarital & extramarital sex?

Isn't that a bit ridiculous?

This was explained previously, cunt. Go back and re-read it.

It's more ridiculous when people like you spend their time complaining about the specks within someone else's eyes while refusing to deal with the logs within their own eyes.

No, it wasn't. If I had to guess, somebody threw some empty ad hominems at whoever asked the question previously, just as you've done just now. You can't properly explain total bullshit, which is what labeling an unpopular opinion as "hate speech" in order to justify censoring it is: total bullshit.

That makes a lot of sense as well. I wouldn't be surprised if this was really the brain child of some Hollywood P.R person.

Yes it was, and I do not propose censoring Dayton. I propose continuing to ridicule him.

No it was not. All was said was something about "hatred leading to persecution".

While I will grant that hatred can lead to persecution, I have not found any explanation as to you equate calling something a sin "hatred"

IIRC in the Bible "hate the sin but love the sinner".

I'm not talking about you trying to censor Dayton; you're in no position to do it. I'm talking about insecure activists pressuring a corporation to censor someone. You know; the topic of the thread, as opposed to your perma-hardon for our own version of Gomer Pyle.

No corporation has censored him either, nor are they in a position to.

Does John Castle confusing A&E with PBS?

A&E has ZERO interest is fostering dialogue, showing both sides of an issue, being a platform for free speech, etc.

A&E cares about one thing, selling ads. If they feel that a contractor no longer helps them sell ads, then why would they continue to have a business relationship with him?

That's not censorship, that's capitalism. Something John Castle is obviously not a fan of.

So John, should we nationalize A&E and give them a Free Speech mandate in order to get this guy back on the air?

" I propose to keep buying it, hook, line and sinker...."

I would argue that A & E are the ones guilty of an implied breach of contract. When you put on a reality show. Or that is one about people who are not professional actors then the network is basically "buying" the character of the stars AS IS.

Duck Dynasty even as it was making millions for A & E ended every episode (that I saw, in laws liked it) with a family meal and prayer, knew all the family members were devout supporters of a conservative church and even avoid using any vulgarity and profanity when talking (something rare on all television).

Did A & E have any reasonable expectation that the Robertsons would have an "I'm okay, your okay" view of sexual morality?

It would be like a pro football team cutting a linebacker because he hits too hard.