Duck dynasty

[Joanne]

Respectfully, one can choose their own behavior.

Try to chose not to be sexually attracted to men.

[Scarlett]

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.

 

 

I wish someone would explain to me how sexuality is not about sex. 

[Scarlett]

Try to chose not to be sexually attracted to men.

 

 

I said behavior.  Not feelings. 

[albeto.]

Respectfully, one can choose their own behavior.

 

 If this statement is meant to imply that behavior somehow indicates homosexuality is a choice, that simply reveals the lack of knowledge about the matter. Yes, one can choose their own behavior. For example, one can choose to become educated or defend ignorance, but none of this changes what human sexuality is. 

[Mrs Mungo]

In the end? Call me cynical, but the whole thing smacks of, "oh, you don't want to let me out of my contract? I hate gays."

[Scarlett]

 If this statement is meant to imply that behavior somehow indicates homosexuality is a choice, that simply reveals the lack of knowledge about the matter. Yes, one can choose their own behavior. For example, one can choose to become educated or defend ignorance, but none of this changes what human sexuality is. 

 

 

My statement of 'people choose their behavior' is directly meant to indicate that people choose their behavior'.

[Jerico]

I do not think phil was more crude than the f bombs and other curse words dropped in the article by the author.

 

I think phil is right to have his opinions. A & E can fire or suspend whomever they want. I think they will lose more money on viewers boycotting than in ads. Or it will bolster their views. Who knows. But it does show their is an intolerance of the tolerant.

[albeto.]

I wish someone would explain to me how sexuality is not about sex. 

 

In the same way being a woman is not about sex. It's a part of one's overall identity. Being a woman with conventional and traditional identity and attraction is a pretty fortunate deck of cards to have been dealt in this day and age. If you want to know what it's like to be a woman with unconventional and nontraditional identity and attraction, referring to your own experiences will limit your understanding. Learning from others who are knowledgeable will expand your understanding. It's no different than learning about being a woman of color, or a women surgeon, or pilot, or soldier. If someone can't relate, it doesn't mean everyone else is wrong. Perhaps PFLAG will be a good resource to start with if you're genuinely curious about homosexuality: PFLAG: Welcoming Faith Communities.

[QueenCat]

I agree. I don't think his views on homosexuality were a surprise at all to A&E. It is partially why I think the part of the interview where he discusses racial issues is what really prompted the suspension.

 

I was wondering that myself. His thoughts there are pretty stunning.

[Mrs Mungo]

If you want to know what it's like to be a woman with unconventional and nontraditional identity and attraction, referring to your own experiences will limit your understanding. Learning from others who are knowledgeable will expand your understanding.

For people interested in this perspective, here are a couple of items that I found useful-

 

A TED talk:

 

And a blog post from a gay mom who didn't like that TED talk, she explains why:

http://milesandmoms.wordpress.com/2013/11/09/confession-i-hated-that-ted-talk-you-all-loved/

[Slartibartfast]

I think NPR has a good point here

 

 

 

 

But the suspension itself seems to consist of little more than the announcement — little more than the obligatory "we acknowledge that we have to put out this statement and we therefore hereby put this statement out" kind of announcement. What then? What happens when the show comes back, when Phil comes back? He promises he'll only let magazines profile Show Phil, not Real Phil?

 

http://www.npr.org/blogs/monkeysee/2013/12/19/255430555/duck-and-cover-what-exactly-is-the-point?utm_content=socialflow&utm_campaign=nprfacebook&utm_source=npr&utm_medium=facebook

[[email protected]]

Be civil, please. Further name-calling (deleted) will result in bans.

 

Moderator

[Scrub Jay]

I said behavior.  Not feelings. 

 

So if the bible said heterosexuality was wrong, you feel that you could be in a gay relationship or abstinent for life?

 

And I mean general you to people who feel the same, whoever wants to answer.  I don't mean to put you on the spot.

[zoobie]

I do not think phil was more crude than the f bombs and other curse words dropped in the article by the author.

 

I think phil is right to have his opinions. A & E can fire or suspend whomever they want. I think they will lose more money on viewers boycotting than in ads. Or it will bolster their views. Who knows. But it does show their is an intolerance of the tolerant.

The author works for GQ, not A&E. GQ has the choice to edit out the curse words if they decide to as a business.

 

I don't understand what "their is an intolerance of the tolerant" means. Can you explain?

[AlmiraGulch]

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.

 

As a matter of fact, yes, you can.  If it goes against the stated "morality clause" or written values of an organization, then yes, you absolutely can be terminated.  Particularly in the case of homosexuality, which is not a legally protected class under federal law.

 

I've actually done consulting work for a major regional employer whose CEO actually had the term "sexual orientation" removed from teh company's EEO statement, because he absolutely would discriminate against people based on sexual orientation.  And, it is allowed.  

[BarbecueMom]

In the end? Call me cynical, but the whole thing smacks of, "oh, you don't want to let me out of my contract? I hate gays."

That was my first thought. Wasn't it Jessica Biel who posed nude to get out of her contract on 7th Heaven?

[AlmiraGulch]

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.

 

You're right, of course, about the science, but that's not what Scarlett is saying.  I believe what she is trying to say is that from her perspective simply BEING homosexual is not sinful.  It's ACTING on those homosexual feelings that, the sex act itself, that is the sin.  

 

I don't think she's trying to define homosexuality.  She's simply trying to say that if you are homosexual, you should not have sex with someone of the same sex because that act is sinful, according to the Bible.  

 

I'm sure she will correct me if I am misinterpreting.

[Murphy101]

So if the bible said heterosexuality was wrong, you feel that you could be in a gay relationship or abstinent for life?

 

And I mean general you to people who feel the same, whoever wants to answer. I don't mean to put you on the spot.

Ridiculously brief answer - yes.

[AlmiraGulch]

My statement of 'people choose their behavior' is directly meant to indicate that people choose their behavior'.

 

I understand perfectly what you're saying.  BEING homosexual is not, in and of itself, sinful.

 

Having homosexual sex, though, is.  So, if you're homosexual, you were either dealt a bad hand, or you're choosing it as a lifestyle, but if you don't live in celibacy then you have sinned.   Unless, of course, you decide to have sex with the opposite sex.  Because even if you aren't attracted to them, it's ok because it isn't homosexual?  Except that it's a lie, so I guess that would be sinful, too.

 

So, if you're homosexual, you need to live a life of celibacy.  

 

Is that an accurate interpretation?  

[Scarlett]

So if the bible said heterosexuality was wrong, you feel that you could be in a gay relationship or abstinent for life?

 

And I mean general you to people who feel the same, whoever wants to answer.  I don't mean to put you on the spot.

 

 

I would live celibate yes. 

[Scarlett]

You're right, of course, about the science, but that's not what Scarlett is saying.  I believe what she is trying to say is that from her perspective simply BEING homosexual is not sinful.  It's ACTING on those homosexual feelings that, the sex act itself, that is the sin.  

 

I don't think she's trying to define homosexuality.  She's simply trying to say that if you are homosexual, you should not have sex with someone of the same sex because that act is sinful, according to the Bible.  

 

I'm sure she will correct me if I am misinterpreting.

 

 

Yes, that is what I am saying.

[NicAnn]

I heard this argument in another venue, and it saddens me that people are shocked that others don't buy into the stereotypes of "rednecks". I would think that most of the people upset with his interview are exactly the opposite of narrow minded bigots.

Let me clarify.

a good amount of my family is from the South, my husband is a bearded gun toting hunter, para military guy.

However, lets be realistic. No not every southern guy is intolerant, or says things like this. I'd say the majority aren't. And absolutely I am profiling and making judgements (never seen the show)...but my understanding is that this show, and the other like it (about the south and Cajun people) is promoting a specific type of stereotype. The show is popular in part because the characters play into the Deep South stereotype.

[Murphy101]

For that matter not all heterosexual acts are okay just bc they are heterosexual.

 

If I couldn't find a man willing to marry me and be open to life, I'd have to abstain then too.

 

And ssa is not a sin, according to the RCC, unless acted upon. A temptation? Sure. But just being tempted isn't a sin.

[ThatHomeschoolDad]

You're right, of course, about the science, but that's not what Scarlett is saying.  I believe what she is trying to say is that from her perspective simply BEING homosexual is not sinful.  It's ACTING on those homosexual feelings that, the sex act itself, that is the sin.  

 

I don't think she's trying to define homosexuality.  She's simply trying to say that if you are homosexual, you should not have sex with someone of the same sex because that act is sinful, according to the Bible.  

 

I'm sure she will correct me if I am misinterpreting.

 

It would seem much is about the doing rather than the being.  Take Leviticus 19:27 "Ye shall not round the corners of your heads, neither shalt thou mar the corners of thy beard."  I totally use that for no-shave days and/or if I'm short on cash for the barber.

[Scarlett]

I understand perfectly what you're saying.  BEING homosexual is not, in and of itself, sinful.

 

Having homosexual sex, though, is.  So, if you're homosexual, you were either dealt a bad hand, or you're choosing it as a lifestyle, but if you don't live in celibacy then you have sinned.   Unless, of course, you decide to have sex with the opposite sex.  Because even if you aren't attracted to them, it's ok because it isn't homosexual?  Except that it's a lie, so I guess that would be sinful, too.

 

So, if you're homosexual, you need to live a life of celibacy.  

 

Is that an accurate interpretation?  

 

 

This post sounds a little snarky but maybe I am just imagining that....over all that is how I feel.

 

To clarify I don't believe it is always ok to have sex with the opposite sex.  I  believe it should  be within a marriage.

[NicAnn]

Seriously?!? This sounds a bit like "profiling". Kinda mean-spirited, IMO ;)

 

Not everyone holds that opinion about bearded southern hunters. But I support your right to say it :)

My post was absolutely profiling. I do not mean it in a mean spirited way. I already posted, but couldn't quote you...but I am certain that all southern boys are NOT bigots, racists, whatever....but for this particular show they are attempting to cash in on the deep south sterotype. So I can assume, maybe incorrectly, that he has made statement like that before.

 

Anyway, no offense meant at all, though I realize its probably very offensive to those in that demographic.

[ThatHomeschoolDad]

I just want to know why the women look so cute and the men look like hobos. 

 

I would refer you to the Old Testament line I posted some moments ago.

[Murphy101]

I just want to know why the women look so cute and the men look like hobos. (No offense to the hobos.)

 

(Just googled pictures of Duck Dynasty.)

? They don't look anything like hobos. Maybe Oklahoma hobos just look exceptionally bad off, but DD guys look like any other outdoorsman except they have a much longer beard. *shrug*

[zoobie]

I just want to know why the women look so cute and the men look like hobos. (No offense to the hobos.)

 

(Just googled pictures of Duck Dynasty.)

Maybe that's why ol' Phil doesn't get it. He's not into hobos.

[Dandelion]

Maybe that's why ol' Phil doesn't get it. He's not into hobos.

 

Are you saying he's hobophobic?  :lol:

[albeto.]

You're right, of course, about the science, but that's not what Scarlett is saying.  I believe what she is trying to say is that from her perspective simply BEING homosexual is not sinful.  It's ACTING on those homosexual feelings that, the sex act itself, that is the sin.  

 

I don't think she's trying to define homosexuality.  She's simply trying to say that if you are homosexual, you should not have sex with someone of the same sex because that act is sinful, according to the Bible.  

 

I'm sure she will correct me if I am misinterpreting.

 

Sure, but even defining homosexuality as "sin" does not conform to the information we have available. If homosexuality is understood to be about same-sex behavior, regardless of whether or not it is understood to be "sin," it is misunderstood by virtue of the information we have available.  I wasn't referring to the concept of sin, but thanks for clarifying any confusion I caused.

  

:)

[AlmiraGulch]

This post sounds a little snarky but maybe I am just imagining that....over all that is how I feel.

 

To clarify I don't believe it is always ok to have sex with the opposite sex.  I  believe it should  be within a marriage.

 

Yes, but what if you are actually homosexual, but choose to marry someone of the opposite sex anyway, for societal or cultural or familial reasons, or whatever.

 

And within the confines of that marriage, you have sex with your opposite sex spouse.

 

You are having heterosexual sex, so the act itself is not sinful, correct?  But what about the sentiment?  What about the fact that you married someone you could not truly give yourself to because it violates who you are at the core?  Is it still ok, because you've chosen to overcome your actual sex drive and have sex in a way that create life?  Or, is it still sinful, because it's essentially a lie?  Well, the sex is not a lie.  You're actually having sex.    You get where I'm going, I think.  

[AlmiraGulch]

Sure, but even defining homosexuality as "sin" does not conform to the information we have available. If homosexuality is understood to be about same-sex behavior, regardless of whether or not it is understood to be "sin," it is misunderstood by virtue of the information we have available.  I wasn't referring to the concept of sin, but thanks for clarifying any confusion I caused.

  

:)

 

Yeah, I ,now what you're saying, of course, but that's not what the Bible says, regardless of what the science says.  

 

ETA:  Meaning, that's not what some people interpret the Bible as saying.  Because clearly others who believe in the Bible interpret it differently. 

[Scarlett]

Yes, but what if you are actually homosexual, but choose to marry someone of the opposite sex anyway, for societal or cultural or familial reasons, or whatever.

 

And within the confines of that marriage, you have sex with your opposite sex spouse.

 

You are having heterosexual sex, so the act itself is not sinful, correct?  But what about the sentiment?  What about the fact that you married someone you could not truly give yourself to because it violates who you are at the core?  Is it still ok, because you've chosen to overcome your actual sex drive and have sex in a way that create life?  Or, is it still sinful, because it's essentially a lie?  Well, the sex is not a lie.  You're actually having sex.    You get where I'm going, I think.  

 

Are you really trying to make it a sin that a person would be having heterosexual sex when they desire homosexual sex?  I really don't even have an opinion on that....other than I would hope that person would be honest with their spouse pre marriage.  But if a person feels like that would be a sin then I guess they should remain single and celibate.

 

Humans are capable of resisting temptations--whatever form that takes.

[Jerico]

The author works for GQ, not A&E. GQ has the choice to edit out the curse words if they decide to as a business.

 

I don't understand what "their is an intolerance of the tolerant" means. Can you explain?

First of all, i am sorry for my typo. Hate when that happens!

 

I was just pointing out that some said phil was crude. To me the author (whoever he works for, doesn't matter) used crude language as well.

 

Every one cries out for tolerance of beliefs but cry out against somebody (in this case, phil) having an opinion. He said he believes homosexuality is sinful. He didn't say anything negative about homosexuals other than he believes it is a sin. I am not sure I am explaining myself clearly at all. My brain feels really fuzzy.

[AlmiraGulch]

Are you really trying to make it a sin that a person would be having heterosexual sex when they desire homosexual sex?  I really don't even have an opinion on that....other than I would hope that person would be honest with their spouse pre marriage.  But if a person feels like that would be a sin then I guess they should remain single and celibate.

 

Humans are capable of resisting temptations--whatever form that takes.

 

I'm not trying to make anything a sin.  I don't actually believe in sin.  I'm honestly trying to understand this point of view better.

 

I'm asking if it would be a sin to have heterosexual sex in the confines of a heterosexual marriage if one of the parties is actually homosexual and desires the same sex.  Let's even say they thought they were straight, or thought they could make the homosexual desires go away if they entered into a heterosexual marriage.

 

Wouldn't that lie be just as sinful?

 

This is a real question.  No snark. Or,

[Scarlett]

I'm not trying to make anything a sin.  I don't actually believe in sin.  I'm honestly trying to understand this point of view better.

 

I'm asking if it would be a sin to have heterosexual sex in the confines of a heterosexual marriage if one of the parties is actually homosexual and desires the same sex.  Let's even say they thought they were straight, or thought they could make the homosexual desires go away if they entered into a heterosexual marriage.

 

Wouldn't that lie be just as sinful?

 

This is a real question.  No snark. Or,

 

 

I don't know why any of this would matter to you if you don't believe in sin.  But I can't see how it would be sinful to have sex with one's spouse.

[Scarlett]

I'm not trying to make anything a sin.  I don't actually believe in sin.  I'm honestly trying to understand this point of view better.

 

I'm asking if it would be a sin to have heterosexual sex in the confines of a heterosexual marriage if one of the parties is actually homosexual and desires the same sex.  Let's even say they thought they were straight, or thought they could make the homosexual desires go away if they entered into a heterosexual marriage.

 

Wouldn't that lie be just as sinful?

 

This is a real question.  No snark. Or,

 

 

What lie?  I don't get it.  Not doing something you think is sinful isn't a lie even if you desire to do the sinful thing. 

[nmoira]

I don't think there's any Biblical stipulation that marriage cannot be for means of convenience or for the sake business, and sex is for the purpose of procreation. It would be an ongoing lie or deception (ETA: if the person's partner was unaware) that was the sin, not the marriage itself. Is that correct?

[AlmiraGulch]

I don't know why any of this would matter to you if you don't believe in sin.  But I can't see how it would be sinful to have sex with one's spouse.

 

It matters to me because I'm interested in points of view that are different from mine.  Too often people just assume what someone else thinks, or doesn't even bother to ask, and that doesn't do anyone any good in my opinion.  I appreciate your taking the time to actually answer my questions. 

[TranquilMind]

It's no secret that the cast members of that show are devoutly Christian.  They talk about it openly on the show.  But when one of the primary cast members goes on record in a publication stating an opinion that the owner of the show, A&E, believes will be detrimental to its overall brand, they are well within their rights to suspend that cast member.

 

It's a matter of business, and no different than if a Victoria's Secret model gained a bunch of weight.  It's not in line with the overall brand that the company is trying to promote, and so she'd be out.  Same thing happened here.

No, no, no.

It is quite different.  Mr. Robertson has said NOTHING that is not in keeping with Christian doctrine and his obvious stance.  Nothing has changed.  

If a VS model was hired overweight, they can't fire her for saying how much she likes to eat Mrs. Field's cookies all the time.  If she was hired as a thin model and then she gains weight, yes, of course, she has breached the contract.  I seriously doubt Phil agreed contractually to advocate relationships that violate his well-known scriptural faith.  It would be the same as forcing him to advocate infidelity.  Both are outside Biblical marriage.

He is allowed to have an opinion, especially one completely within the parameters of his faith which is showcased on the show. 

[AlmiraGulch]

What lie?  I don't get it.  Not doing something you think is sinful isn't a lie even if you desire to do the sinful thing. 

 

The lie of pretending to sexually desire your spouse when really you're just going through the motions.  In my opinion, sex is a huge part of a marriage.  It should be more than just the physical act.  If I weren't genuinely attracted to my husband, (at a cellular level, I mean, and not just at that moment), I think my entire marriage would be a lie. 

[AlmiraGulch]

No, no, no.

It is quite different.  Mr. Robertson has said NOTHING that is not in keeping with Christian doctrine and his obvious stance.  Nothing has changed.  

If a VS model was hired overweight, they can't fire her for saying how much she likes to eat Mrs. Field's cookies all the time.  If she was hired as a thin model and then she gains weight, yes, of course, she has breached the contract.  I seriously doubt Phil agreed contractually to advocate relationships that violate his well-known scriptural faith.  It would be the same as forcing him to advocate infidelity.  Both are outside Biblical marriage.

He is allowed to have an opinion, especially one completely within the parameters of his faith which is showcased on the show. 

 

This is simply not true.   I know many, many Christians who absolutely do not agree with his stance.  

 

He is allowed to have any opinion he wants.   His employer is also allowed to suspend or terminate him when he expresses those viewpoints in a manner and medium which they deem to be inappropriate.  

[Scarlett]

The lie of pretending to sexually desire your spouse when really you're just going through the motions.  In my opinion, sex is a huge part of a marriage.  It should be more than just the physical act.  If I weren't genuinely attracted to my husband, (at a cellular level, I mean, and not just at that moment), I think my entire marriage would be a lie. 

 

 

Well me too, which is why I would remain celibate.  But we can't assume how people would deal with that in a marriage.  Maybe there is no pretense.  Maybe there is no sex by agreement. 

[Scarlett]

This is simply not true.   I know many, many Christians who absolutely do not agree with his stance.  

 

He is allowed to have any opinion he wants.   His employer is also allowed to suspend or terminate him when he expresses those viewpoints in a manner and medium which they deem to be inappropriate.  

 

 

Just because you know Christians who do not agree with him doesn't mean he said anything against his own Christian beliefs. 

 

Yes, A&E can do what they want.  I guess they did that.

[SKL]

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.

 

 

But the media asks the questions and sets people up.  Your examples involve a person spouting an opinion that is clearly not asked for.

 

This single incident isn't even a big deal to me.  What bothers me is that it's part of a very disturbing pattern IMO.  They ask a hot-button question knowing the answer is probably going to be unpopular.  Then people decide they need to care what that hairy guy thinks (why?) and get themselves all upset about it.  Then the person gets censured, slimed, boycotted, ruined.  Then as soon as that furor dies down, they go after the next person.  It will never end until people stop thinking it actually matters to us individually what some other human being thinks.

[Caroline]

And no one has said he is not allowed to have that opinion.

 

No, no, no.

It is quite different. Mr. Robertson has said NOTHING that is not in keeping with Christian doctrine and his obvious stance. Nothing has changed.

If a VS model was hired overweight, they can't fire her for saying how much she likes to eat Mrs. Field's cookies all the time. If she was hired as a thin model and then she gains weight, yes, of course, she has breached the contract. I seriously doubt Phil agreed contractually to advocate relationships that violate his well-known scriptural faith. It would be the same as forcing him to advocate infidelity. Both are outside Biblical marriage.

He is allowed to have an opinion, especially one completely within the parameters of his faith which is showcased on the show.

[LucyStoner]

No, no, no.

It is quite different.  Mr. Robertson has said NOTHING that is not in keeping with Christian doctrine and his obvious stance.  Nothing has changed.  

If a VS model was hired overweight, they can't fire her for saying how much she likes to eat Mrs. Field's cookies all the time.  If she was hired as a thin model and then she gains weight, yes, of course, she has breached the contract.  I seriously doubt Phil agreed contractually to advocate relationships that violate his well-known scriptural faith.  It would be the same as forcing him to advocate infidelity.  Both are outside Biblical marriage.

He is allowed to have an opinion, especially one completely within the parameters of his faith which is showcased on the show. 

 

VS could fire a model for doing anything that they deemed damaging to their brand.  They could fire her for speaking out against lingerie or overpriced lingerie or saying that their product is made with child slave wage labor.  They could fire her for cutting her hair or getting a tattoo or unauthorized plastic surgery (that is likely explicitly stated in the contract).  They could fire her for stating that lingerie models are harlots.  They could fire her for staring in fetish porn.  These types of contracts are short and need to be renewed.  If they don't have a reason to breech the contract (and the fact that A&E can suspend him shows they have something in the contract that allows them to suspend people), they can always just fire someone by not renewing the contract.  

 

He can think, say or do anything he want.  That doesn't mean A&E has to keep him or that viewers who disagree with A&E have to keep watching A&E.  For whatever reason, A&E has decided that this action is worth the potential ire/costs to them.  Heck, probably the controversy will help them all.  

[TranquilMind]

This is simply not true.   I know many, many Christians who absolutely do not agree with his stance.  

 

He is allowed to have any opinion he wants.   His employer is also allowed to suspend or terminate him when he expresses those viewpoints in a manner and medium which they deem to be inappropriate.  

I'm sure you know many Christians who are having affairs too or watching porn, or having premarital sex or any number of other sexual things.  That doesn't mean they are doing what is scriptural! 

He is allowed to have an opinion.  A&E knows darn well that he holds this opinion. 

[Scarlett]

VS could fire a model for doing anything that they deemed damaging to their brand.  They could fire her for speaking out against lingerie or overpriced lingerie or saying that their product is made with child slave wage labor.  They could fire her for cutting her hair or getting a tattoo or unauthorized plastic surgery (that is likely explicitly stated in the contract).  They could fire her for stating that lingerie models are harlots.  They could fire her for staring in fetish porn.  These types of contracts are short and need to be renewed.  If they don't have a reason to breech the contract (and the fact that A&E can suspend him shows they have something in the contract that allows them to suspend people), they can always just fire someone by not renewing the contract.  

 

He can think, say or do anything he want.  That doesn't mean A&E has to keep him or that viewers who disagree with A&E have to keep watching A&E.  For whatever reason, A&E has decided that this action is worth the potential ire/costs to them.  Heck, probably the controversy will help them all.  

 

 

True perhaps but comparing firing a VS model for getting fat to this DD character for talking about his religious beliefs which is a HUGE part of the whole image they have.....that comparison is not accurate.