Duck dynasty

[Scarlett]

To me it is interesting that it is ok to you to read some portions of scripture as non-literal and others as literal. Generally I find people are more willing to take the parts of the bible about sin and behavior that would impact them personally (gluttony, selling all that you own to give everything to the poor, lust etc) as less-than-literal. Which I think is a whole different sin of it's own. There is a difference between feelings and actions to you- that is your personal interpretation. It's a common and popular idea. To some though, they would be just as horrified with lust in themselves as with physically committing acts of adultery.

I hope you don't think I would be ok with having lust in my heart. I wouldn't be. Which is why I would not dwell on or feed an attraction to a man not my husband.

[Scarlett]

Then please explain it to us, because really nobody is understanding what you're trying to say. I mean, it's clear what you SAID. But apparently you're not coming across well. So enlighten us, please.

 

 

 

She said sexually attractive (see quote). Not just attracted. She specified sexual attraction, which to me would suggest lust. There's obviously wiggle room in interpretation there.

Mrs. Mungo explained it well...that a sexual attraction is different than lust.

[Scarlett]

You can think interracial marriage is wrong, but if you dislike people because they are in interracial relationships, then you are a bigot. I'd argue there's less "choice" with homosexuality, biologically speaking, but it's the best comparison I can find at the moment.

I don't dislike a person who lives a homosexual lifestyle.

[mommymilkies]

Mrs. Mungo explained it well...that a sexual attraction is different than lust.

Ok, so why was it even brought up?  I'm still confused by your example in reference to the conversation.  You stated that it's not homosexuality if you do not have sex with a person of the same sex, so I'm assuming it's also not heterosexuality if you don't have sex with someone of the opposite sex. So if you are heterosexual and married to a man (which I'm assuming you're a woman, Scarlett, and not a man married to a man), and you're sexually attracted to another man, that would be heterosexuality in your marriage (if there's sex involved) but not with the man.  Right?  Where did it being an affair even come from? 

[Mrs Mungo]

I read that......the headlines IMO don't accurately reflect what he actually said. He said he never saw it with his own eyes.....in the world he lived in blacks were just as happy as him...they worked in the cotton fields together. That is his memory. It is my 68 yo moms memory as well...and she is not a racist.

 

Quote from the article:

I never, with my eyes, saw the mistreatment of any black person," Robertson is quoted in GQ. "Not once. Where we lived was all farmers. The blacks worked for the farmers. I hoed cotton with them. I’m with the blacks, because we’re white trash. We’re going across the field.... They’re singing and happy. I never heard one of them, one black person, say, ‘I tell you what: These doggone white people’—not a word!... Pre-entitlement, pre-welfare, you say: Were they happy? They were godly; they were happy; no one was singing the blues.â€

 

So, problems I have with the implications of this statement:

1. Being equivalent with black people=white trash. My mom's family picked cotton alongside black people too, but I have never, ever heard them describe themselves as white trash.

 

2. Hearing them sing in the fields means they must not have had any issues with segregation.

 

3. Being black *now* means that you believe yourself entitled, depend upon welfare and are not Godly.

[mommymilkies]

Thank you, Mrs. Mungo.  That was a good overview of the issue. 

[Dandelion]

As far as free speech goes...My husband, Fortune 500 Corporate Guy, does not have the right to adorn his cubicle with hate speech should he choose to do so. In my university teaching days, I did not have the right to wear clothing adorned with obscenities.  Where is the Twitter campaign boycotting SWB because she does not allow us to husband bash on the board?

 

This has nothing to do with free speech as a constitutional issue. 

 

I agree.  When I was in the corporate world, I regularly took "Code of Conduct" classes (refresher classes were required once a year).  In those classes, we were reminded that we were representatives of the company, and as such, things that we said and did reflected back on the company.  And we were clearly told that this extended to our "free time" as well. Obviously, the company wasn't going to prevent anyone from exercising his or her free speech rights outside of work - but they did reserve the right to take action (up to and including termination) if that exercise of free speech somehow negatively impacted the company.  People may not like that, but it's a standard practice - and perfectly legal.

 

I strongly support freedom of speech.  But as others have repeatedly stated in this thread, this is not a freedom of speech issue. It's purely a business decision which A&E is within their rights to make. 

 

[Scarlett]

Quote from the article:

I never, with my eyes, saw the mistreatment of any black person," Robertson is quoted in GQ. "Not once. Where we lived was all farmers. The blacks worked for the farmers. I hoed cotton with them. I’m with the blacks, because we’re white trash. We’re going across the field.... They’re singing and happy. I never heard one of them, one black person, say, ‘I tell you what: These doggone white people’—not a word!... Pre-entitlement, pre-welfare, you say: Were they happy? They were godly; they were happy; no one was singing the blues.â€

 

So, problems I have with the implications of this statement:

1. Being equivalent with black people=white trash. My mom's family picked cotton alongside black people too, but I have never, ever heard them describe themselves as white trash.

 

2. Hearing them sing in the fields means they must not have any issues with segregation.

 

3. Being black *now* means that you belief yourself entitled, depend upon welfare and are not Godly.

 

 

I have come to dislike the phrase white trash....it is not nice for sure.  But I think his point is that because he was poor white he was sort of equal with blacks in the sense that they were working side by side in the cotton fields.  Singing in the fields could be an indication they were happy...that is what he felt....that they were happy.  And he never heard them complain.  That is his memory.

 

The last part?  About pre welfare, pre entitlement...yeah he lost me there. But overall I just didn't see what he said  as that shocking. 

[Scarlett]

Ok, so why was it even brought up?  I'm still confused by your example in reference to the conversation.  You stated that it's not homosexuality if you do not have sex with a person of the same sex, so I'm assuming it's also not heterosexuality if you don't have sex with someone of the opposite sex. So if you are heterosexual and married to a man (which I'm assuming you're a woman, Scarlett, and not a man married to a man), and you're sexually attracted to another man, that would be heterosexuality in your marriage (if there's sex involved) but not with the man.  Right?  Where did it being an affair even come from? 

 

 

Feelings vs. actions.  That is all. 

[Murphy101]

He likened it to a gateway drug. Like he said: "Sin becomes fine," he later added. “Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there." And then goes on about bestiality, etc.

The guy asked him what he considers a sin and he starts with homosexuality as as example and expands or morphs from there to give other examples.

[ThatHomeschoolDad]

I know it is cheaper to produce reality TV but if it is cheaper to produce then why isn't it cheaper for the consumer? Cable costs have only gone up and there is less and less quality programming all the time. I am not paying for that I hate those shows. 

 

There was actually some press about this regarding Cablevision.  Apparently (and this is prob a simplification), channels are bundled by the content provider, e.g. Viacom, and the cable companies are contracted to take all or nothing.  So if espn is a popular channel that a lot of subscribers want, the provider has to take it with a package of junk channels that only replay the same dozen movies.

 

The cable companies are getting heat from consumers who are increasingly using other outlets like Netfilx, rather than accept the bundle.  Their counter argument is that bundling the junk keeps the cost of the good channels down because there are that many more outlets for ads.  So, yeah, IF the content providers allowed de-bundling, you could buy only the five channels you watch, but it would still be a hundred bucks a month to make up for that lost junk channel ad revenue.

 

Sounds both legit and shady.

[mommymilkies]

The guy asked him what he considers a sin and he starts with homosexuality as as example and expands or morphs from there to give other examples.

What does his quote mean, then? I think we're interpreting it differently.  I'm taking him pretty literally here.  Again: "Sin becomes fine," he later added. “Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there." And then goes on about bestiality, etc.

[Murphy101]

I have come to dislike the phrase white trash....it is not nice for sure. But I think his point is that because he was poor white he was sort of equal with blacks in the sense that they were working side by side in the cotton fields. Singing in the fields could be an indication they were happy...that is what he felt....that they were happy. And he never heard them complain. That is his memory.

 

The last part? About pre welfare, pre entitlement...yeah he lost me there. But overall I just didn't see what he said as that shocking.

Me either. My parents were the children of sharecroppers and would say the same. They aren't saying black folks should be put back in the fields. They are saying meaningful work, even that really hard not appreciated work, makes people happier than living on welfare or getting angry when they get whatever entitlements handed to them.

[Mrs Mungo]

I have come to dislike the phrase white trash....it is not nice for sure. But I think his point is that because he was poor white he was sort of equal with blacks in the sense that they were working side by side in the cotton fields. Singing in the fields could be an indication they were happy...that is what he felt....that they were happy. And he never heard them complain. That is his memory.

 

The last part? About pre welfare, pre entitlement...yeah he lost me there. But overall I just didn't see what he said as that shocking.

He didn't KNOW them or talk to them about the issue, he only heard them singing in the fields. That is stupid.

[mommymilkies]

Feelings vs. actions.  That is all. 

So you're not heterosexual unless you have sex with someone of the opposite sex, then? So it's not something that is part of you biologically, but just because of your actions? 

[LucyStoner]

I think attraction is different than lust. Sinning in your heart requires more than a fleeting attraction that you do not dwell upon. Scarlett used the word attraction. I do not agree with all of what she has said in this thread, but I disagree that her statements on that topic were inconsistent with Biblical teaching.

 

I suppose some view lust as an action and not just a thought.  The focus was on actions and not thoughts.  If my brother is attracted to men and wants to marry one because he is in love (check and check, done and done), then I don't see why someone who condemns homosexuality as a sin would only see my brother as committing the sin of homosexuality if he is sexually active.  Is he not sinning on the nights his husband and him don't sleep together?  I hardly think that those who say it is a sin would really think so.  

[Murphy101]

What does his quote mean, then? I think we're interpreting it differently. I'm taking him pretty literally here. Again: "Sin becomes fine," he later added. “Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there." And then goes on about bestiality, etc.

“Everything is blurred on what’s right and what’s wrong,†he says. “Sin becomes fine.â€

 

What, in your mind, is sinful?

 

“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.â€

 

It's a list. He isn't listing it as a gateway. He is just starting his list with it. He is rambling like he always does. Like many old people do tbh.

[SKL]

I don't have time to read many comments, so sorry if someone already said this:

 

WHY don't people attack the media for asking these questions in the first place?  There will ALWAYS be people of ALL persuasions who don't agree with the politically correct line.  So these media people are deliberately forcing a person to either tell their personal truth or lie - neither of which is gonna feel right to anybody.  The media should not go there in the first place.  Are they suspending the GQ intervierviewer?  Are we boycotting GQ?  WHY is this considered OK?

 

Disclaimer - I've never watched Duck Dynasty, I don't think I could ever be a fan of all those ZZtop wannabes, and I really don't care what anybody thinks about LGBTQRSTUV or pretty much anything else.  This is just another in an ongoing series of the media attacking people for having their own individual opinion.

[LucyStoner]

I love how he said they "weren't singing the blues".  Dude, they invented the blues and loooooooooong time before the end of Jim Crow. That is comic gold.   

[umsami]

I have come to dislike the phrase white trash....it is not nice for sure.  But I think his point is that because he was poor white he was sort of equal with blacks in the sense that they were working side by side in the cotton fields.  Singing in the fields could be an indication they were happy...that is what he felt....that they were happy.  And he never heard them complain.  That is his memory.

 

The last part?  About pre welfare, pre entitlement...yeah he lost me there. But overall I just didn't see what he said  as that shocking. 

 

Once again, it comes down to his being a very ignorant man--but whether or not he truly is, or is playing to an equally ignorant, bigoted audience, I don't know.

 

Being poor and black in the South pre-Civil Rights and poor and white in the South were completely different.  Whites still had a presumption of innocence and entitlement, even if they were dirt poor.  They could go into any restaurant, use any restroom, etc.  Their kids could attend a far better equipped school.  They didn't have to worry about lynching. They could vote.  They didn't need a special guide like the Green Book telling them which establishments they could stop in, if traveling. 

 

Just cause your singin' in the cotton field doesn't mean life's all peachy keen.

[Scarlett]

He didn't KNOW them or talk to them about the issue, he only heard them singing in the fields. That is stupid.

 

 

He said he didn't know them?  ?  I thought he said he never heard them complain.  I doubt many blacks or poor whites spent a lot of time discussing racism while in the cotton fields.

 

I agree he probably isn't super smart.....but he has his own memories. 

[Scarlett]

Once again, it comes down to his being a very ignorant man--but whether or not he truly is, or is playing to an equally ignorant, bigoted audience, I don't know.

 

Being poor and black in the South pre-Civil Rights and poor and white in the South were completely different.  Whites still had a presumption of innocence and entitlement, even if they were dirt poor.  They could go into any restaurant, use any restroom, etc.  Their kids could attend a far better equipped school.  They didn't have to worry about lynching. They could vote.  They didn't need a special guide like the Green Book telling them which establishments they could stop in, if traveling. 

 

Just cause your singin' in the cotton field doesn't mean life's all peachy keen.

 

 

I totally agree....but the point is he is talking about how HE remembers things. 

[SKL]

There is no freedom of conscience in this country.

[ThatHomeschoolDad]

No, he is married to a man.  I am thankful we live in a state where, after years of building a life and family together, they were able to make that legally official.  His station wagon, Costco shopping, coupon clipping, PTA board, SAHD lifestyle doesn't seem, thus far, to have damaged straight people marriage.  

 

I still don't like that SAHD spells "sad."  :-(

 

Unfortunate acronym.

[Jane in NC]

There is no freedom of conscience in this country.

 

Excuse me?  Please elucidate. 

[Mrs Mungo]

I totally agree....but the point is he is talking about how HE remembers things.

You aren't getting what I am saying, so let me try again. It *doesnt matter* if those are his memories. He is claiming to know something about the *black* experience based upon his tangential relationship with them as a white man. That is using white privilege to perpetuate racist ideas (blacks are ungodly, rely on entitlements, etc).

[LucyStoner]

 

It's a list. He isn't listing it as a gateway. He is just starting his list with it. He is rambling like he always does. Like many old people do tbh.

 

People link things on lists.  What do I need to do today?  What do I need at the store?  

 

If I say Southern and then list a bunch of negative words, that's a problem.  I don't see how what he did was any different than that, just insert homosexuality and say bestiality and promiscuity instead of redneck and ignorant.  

 

Honestly if I were from the deep South I would be offended that A&E put this kinda TV program on the air as a representative of my culture.  I think people watch this stuff (Honey Boo Boo, Toddlers and Tiaras etc) in large part to make fun of it.  

[SKL]

Excuse me?  Please elucidate. 

 

See my prior comment.  This thread is so hot that many people posted right after my first.

 

I have no desire to argue.  I just wonder when it became important to us as a society to control the inner thoughts of everyone else on the planet.

 

[Scarlett]

So you're not heterosexual unless you have sex with someone of the opposite sex, then? So it's not something that is part of you biologically, but just because of your actions? 

 

 

I have said this over and over again.  I, as in IMO, believe the actions to be the sin.  That has nothing to do with how we define ourselves. 

 

I believe some people are predisposed to be alcoholics....I don't think that gives them a pass to become drunkards. 

[Murphy101]

Idk. I think some things never change. Folks talk in the field. And if they ain't talking to you, then you're probably the one the rest are talking about. Lol

[Scarlett]

You aren't getting what I am saying, so let me try again. It *doesnt matter* if those are his memories. He is claiming to know something about the *black* experience based upon his tangential relationship with them as a white man. That is using white privilege to perpetuate racist ideas (blacks are ungodly, rely on entitlements, etc).

 

 

That isn't how I read his comments at all....he mostly just seems to be rambling on and on about things from 50 years ago. 

[mommymilkies]

I have said this over and over again.  I, as in IMO, believe the actions to be the sin.  That has nothing to do with how we define ourselves. 

 

I believe some people are predisposed to be alcoholics....I don't think that gives them a pass to become drunkards. 

But you are an alcoholic whether or not you stop drinking.  And really, this is just a horrible, horrible, horrible example.  Alcoholism is terrible.  It causes death, families are destroyed...what does homosexuality cause?  Oh yeah, love.  My bad.  I guess we should consider that as bad as liver failure and drunk driving. 

[Jane in NC]

See my prior comment.  This thread is so hot that many people posted right after my first.

 

I have no desire to argue.  I just wonder when it became important to us as a society to control the inner thoughts of everyone else on the planet.

 

 

These were not inner thoughts.  These were comments expressed to a media outlet.

 

As I noted earlier, a comment you perhaps did not read, corporations restrict speech of employees on a regular basis.  My husband works for a Fortune 500 that does not allow employees to distribute political or religious tracts from their cubicles.  Does this mean that his corporate employer controls his "inner thoughts"?  Last time I check, there is no chip implanted that determines how he votes.

 

His corporation also dictates his behavior.  He cannot go to work under the influence of alcohol. Contracts often determine how employees behave even when they are not physically at their place of employment. But he can *think* any darn thing he wants.

 

A&E has the right to suspend employees should they choose to do so. Remember corporations are people too.  ;)

[Scarlett]

But you are an alcoholic whether or not you stop drinking.  And really, this is just a horrible, horrible, horrible example.  Alcoholism is terrible.  It causes death, families are destroyed...what does homosexuality cause?  Oh yeah, love.  My bad.  I guess we should consider that as bad as liver failure and drunk driving. 

 

 

You would be an alcoholic yes, but not a drunkard.

 

I am sorry the analogy offends you. 

[SKL]

These were not inner thoughts.  These were comments expressed to a media outlet.

 

As I noted earlier, a comment you perhaps did not read, corporations restrict speech of employees on a regular basis.  My husband works for a Fortune 500 that does not allow employees to distribute political or religious tracts from his cubicle.  Does this mean that his corporate employer controls his "inner thoughts"?  Last time I check, there is no chip implanted that determines how he votes.

 

His corporation also dictates his behavior.  He cannot go to work under the influence of alcohol. Contracts often determine how employees behave even when they are not physically at their place of employment. But he can *think* any darn thing he wants.

 

A&E has the right to suspend employees should they choose to do so. Remember corporations are people too.  ;)

 

OK but does an actor get to decline to ever give an interview so he can avoid being placed into the position of having to lie or tell an unpopular truth?  Probably not.  He has to go answer questions and I guess you agree that when he does, he must lie, because the truth (i.e., what he actually believes) is not acceptable.

 

It's wrong.  I think we should boycott all media outlets that force their employees to speak against their conscience.

 

[umsami]

OK but does an actor get to decline to ever give an interview so he can avoid being placed into the position of having to lie or tell an unpopular truth?  Probably not.  He has to go answer questions and I guess you agree that when he does, he must lie, because the truth (i.e., what he actually believes) is not acceptable.

 

It's wrong.  I think we should boycott all media outlets that force their employees to speak against their conscience.

 

 

Yes, they do get to decline. There are actors who do not give interviews.  Nobody forced him to give one…and from reading it, it sounds like he was spouting off on a wide variety of topics, and didn't self-censor.  Perhaps he didn't think he had to.

 

 

Edited December 19, 2013 by Moderator
Removed partisan politics

[Luanne]

His comments on the segregated south were merely what he saw growing up.  They were facts, not opinions. 

[Cricket]

I completely agree.

 

What I'm seeing online is outrage by many that his right to free speech is being trampled on, and how it's another example of how Christianity is being so unfairly discriminated against. Neither of those is the case here.

 

He has the right to say whatever he wants, but not necessarily without consequence. It's not his religion that his employer took issue with, but rather those specific points of view that he openly disclosed in a manner that A&E decided was contrary to their overall brand messaging. I don't understand why people can't see that.

I don't know that voicing an opinion on a societal issue that is currently in the public square for discussion necessarily deserves termination of employment. I fail to see a connection. Where is the line drawn? So any Christian employer who believes homosexuality to be a sin is well within their rights for firing an employee for the sole reason of speaking out publically in support of gay marriage? Something tells me lawsuits would be filed.

[Luanne]

I don't know that voicing an opinion on a societal issue that is currently in the public square for discussion necessarily deserves termination of employment. I fail to see a connection. Where is the line drawn? So any Christian employer who believes homosexuality to be a sin is well within their rights for firing an employee for the sole reason of speaking out publically in support of gay marriage? Something tells me lawsuits would be filed.

 

No, but apparently it is the other way around. 

 

[Dandelion]

OK but does an actor get to decline to ever give an interview so he can avoid being placed into the position of having to lie or tell an unpopular truth?  Probably not.  He has to go answer questions and I guess you agree that when he does, he must lie, because the truth (i.e., what he actually believes) is not acceptable.

 

It's wrong.  I think we should boycott all media outlets that force their employees to speak against their conscience.

 

 

I think you can answer questions honestly while still being tactful, or give a "non-answer" that's still truthful.  Politicians do it all the time.   ;)

 

I've been in plenty of situations in my personal and work life where I've chosen not to answer certain types of questions with the unvarnished truth, for a variety of reasons.  In none of those situations did I "speak against my conscience".  I simply chose not to put it all out there.  IMO there's a big difference.

 

Phil Robertson could have answered the interviewer's questions in a way that would not have gotten him suspended.  He chose to use graphic and offensive language and draw extreme comparisons.  That wasn't necessary.  Truth and tact are not mutually exclusive. 

[Jane in NC]

 

It's wrong.  I think we should boycott all media outlets that force their employees to speak against their conscience.

 

 

Sorry but I think that people should behave professionally.  Teachers should not tell students that they are stupid, doctors should exhibit some sort of bedside manner, all of us should just keep our mouths shut sometimes.  I may think your purple coat with lime green polka dots is hideous but do I need to tell you? 

 

When I was a grad student, there was a professor who did not believe that women were capable of doing higher level mathematics.  Did the women in his class need to hear his tirade on this?  The professional thing would have been to teach the class and keep his opinions to himself.

 

[Mrs Mungo]

His comments on the segregated south were merely what he saw growing up.  They were facts, not opinions.

He knows for a FACT that black people were happier and more Godly before the civil rights movement? That is what you're claiming?

[Slartibartfast]

His comments on the segregated south were merely what he saw growing up.  They were facts, not opinions. 

 

I think you accidentally mixed up the words "fact" and "opinion" in this post.

[Joanne]

I don't know that voicing an opinion on a societal issue that is currently in the public square for discussion necessarily deserves termination of employment. I fail to see a connection. Where is the line drawn? So any Christian employer who believes homosexuality to be a sin is well within their rights for firing an employee for the sole reason of speaking out publically in support of gay marriage? Something tells me lawsuits would be filed.

He is a profitable commodity. When he compromised that, they put him on suspension.

 

Here, in Texas, employers can fire you at will.

 

Related to the topic and commerce - the Chil Fil A CEO is able to have his opinion and use funds in that direction. And customers are able to support OR boycott CFA according to theirs.

[albeto.]

I have said this over and over again.  I, as in IMO, believe the actions to be the sin.  That has nothing to do with how we define ourselves. 

 

I believe some people are predisposed to be alcoholics....I don't think that gives them a pass to become drunkards. 

 

Respectfully, your beliefs do not conform to the information we have available. Homosexuality is no more "about" sex than being American is "about" hanging the stars and stripes outside your front door. The behavior is motivated by, not the defining attribute of, one's identity.  One can choose their own beliefs, but one cannot choose their own facts.

[livetoread]

His racial memories, as stated, imply some real ugliness as well as ignorance. He could have acknowledged basic history by saying, "Here's my experience, but I know that wasn't true for a lot of AAs." Or something that indicates he understands things weren't all "Happy Negro" before. He didn't. I'm glad he is being smacked down.

 

Sharing his experiences on this matter the way he did was just a thinly veiled dog whistle to his racist supporters. It was ugly.

 

I know nothing about DD, but if they really do know better than this stereotypical ignorance, shame on them for using it as their brand.

[Joanne]

Respectfully, your beliefs do not conform to the information we have available. Homosexuality is no more "about" sex than being American is "about" hanging the stars and stripes outside your front door. The behavior is motivated by, not the defining attribute of, one's identity. One can choose their own beliefs, but one cannot choose their own facts.

Which is why Phil's comments were trashy and ignorant. Homosexuality and heterosexuality are not about genitals. By "going there" he belies his reductionistic and insulting understanding of sexual orientation.

[albeto.]

Which is why Phil's comments were trashy and ignorant. Homosexuality and heterosexuality are not about genitals. By "going there" he belies his reductionistic and insulting understanding of sexual orientation.

 

 

Word.

[zoobie]

OK but does an actor get to decline to ever give an interview so he can avoid being placed into the position of having to lie or tell an unpopular truth?  Probably not.  He has to go answer questions and I guess you agree that when he does, he must lie, because the truth (i.e., what he actually believes) is not acceptable.

 

It's wrong.  I think we should boycott all media outlets that force their employees to speak against their conscience.

 

 

No one at A&E has forced him to do anything. If someone at the network held a gun to his head and made him say, "I LOVE HOMOSEXUALITY!" then we'd have some legal issues. (His comments about race are as disturbing, if not more IMO.) He wasn't forced to give the interview. He wasn't forced to answer in a graphic and vulgar manner. He *chose* to get paid to be on television. He chose to sign a contract with A&E, a contract that certainly outlined behavior and moral expectations. He chose to behave in a manner that caused him to be suspended from employment. If he had answered the question with, "I believe homosexuality is a sin," (or some other non-disgusting response), he would not have been suspended. He has not been tossed in jail. His employer has decided that he is not a good fit for their company. He wasn't suspended because he's Christian, or old, or male (which would be legally protected). He was suspended for being a moron and conducting himself poorly in an interview. Bigot is not a protected class.

[Scarlett]

Respectfully, your beliefs do not conform to the information we have available. Homosexuality is no more "about" sex than being American is "about" hanging the stars and stripes outside your front door. The behavior is motivated by, not the defining attribute of, one's identity.  One can choose their own beliefs, but one cannot choose their own facts.

 

 

Respectfully, one can choose their own behavior.