I find this quite interesting actually.

First off here is a link to why http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/1...n_4465564.html

For anyone that cares, Phil Robertson is head of the duck call making millionaire family now with their own tv show. He was suspended from the tv show for the comments made in the above article.

But in my mind it begs the question that is it alright to be anti gay when you are using the bible as your reference. (Thats rhetorical btw its not right to be anti gay with any reasoning, but theres a bejillion (well not quite) people coming out in support of and agreeing with Mr Robertson, and likely noone will bat an eyelid because they are all god fearing bashers that are merely following what the good book says. To the point that people are openly defending his right to say that because of the whole freedom of speech thing aside from anything else. (which I also get btw)

But if on the other hand you take the bible out of it, and Phil and his followers were coming out and saying we hate gay because it's not normal. There would be an outcry.

I haven't read his speech or whatever he said, I believe he said that being gay is not normal, I am not that bothered by that, and won't be loosing too much sleep over a few words spoken by a duck call maker.

But can I ask what ever happened to free speech? It's supose to be in the constitution or maybe it's just ok for some to say stuff, and not ok for others. Using the bible is neither here nor there, it's still his honest opinion period. Sort of a free speech if it is PC and checked out by the Gov first rule.

I don't agree with what he said, but I do agree he should be allowed to say it, same as the critics are saying he was wrong to say stuff, that's their use of their access to a free and open opinon granted in the free world.

Just to add, I had a read, so why did the paper even print what he said? I say they are just as much to blame for upsetting the gay and lesbians because if they would have said, we can't print that it's total bull crep then no one would be upset and we all be happy little peoples. No one would have known that he had these opinions would they!!!

He was allowed to say it. He said it and he's not in prison, ergo it's free speech. Your point is moot.

Hmm yeh, good point. He lost is job tho yeh? Or suspended for it.

I've no idea who this bloke is or what he stands for, but apparently Sarah Palin (remember her) has jumped to his defense; so, based on this fact alone I believe it's safe to assume he's a twat.

http://arts.nationalpost.com/2013/12...ay-statements/

Good article, Mandy, also the one linked beneath it on fans' reactions. I guess we'll find out what happens next year. Although many fortunes are at stake the family is already rich, so doesn't alsolutely need the show. There was no mention of the rest of the family, so we don't know if Phil's fundamentalism is shared or what pressure he may come under from them, but as the article says there isn't enough conservative support to drive the ratings and A&E can't chance it anyway, plus they have all next year except for one episode already in the can. If what they've produced but not aired becomes unusable because of this, (unlikely though that is) and millions and millions head for the drain, A&E is still big enough to take the hit.
I don't think the viewers would buy a half-baked retraction from Phil, (the predicted response). The Dali Lama got away with it though, softening his stance that homosexuality is a abberation totallly incompatible with Buddhism, to homosexuality is a lifestyle that is not appropriate for a Buddhist priest,but that all are accepted as followers. A&E must be scrambling like crazy to save the work they've already done.

If he'd been gay himself and started with "start with heterosexual behaviour and work out from there" what would have been the result?

No idea? What do you think of it and what if he did do what you said, have you got an opinion on this or not?

I have to say that Mr Jones has his MO down perfect.

Since A & E is not the government, they have every right to restrict who and what is said on their network, freedom of speech only applies to to the government creating laws restricting it.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

One has the freedom of speech from being restricted by the government, but private entities have the right to restrict it, be it on their TV shows or elsewhere.

Same reason forums such as this can moderate and delete opinions that don't mesh with the rules of the forum.

He's a conservative on TV. It would be more newsworthy if he had said he had a gay couple as friends.

God Bless America.

I've never paid much attention to this before but I'm curious is to why there a tv programme about a family of tramps? Is it some sort of postmodern ironic voyeurism for the student/clubbing crowd?

Given his background and beliefs nothing he said is particularly surprising. The TV Network obviously was surprised for some reason...

Just saw the full AP article and see the family is behind him, and say they won't play without him, which makes me wonder if a less savoury network like Fox or some rogue satellite channel could pick them up. When you top the ratings there's so much money involved...

This really suprises me that a fire and brimstone lay preacher from the deep south(there are videos out there) quotes the bible and upsets people,,NOT.
I also read the media were bringing up quotes out of context about in his words blacks picking cotton,,,but when you read the article phil was also in the fields hoeing /picking cotton alongside his sharecropper neighbours.
seems to me the paper asked the questions knowing that publicity /outcry would sell more papers.
jimmy

Nobody is infringing on his right to free speech (a right which is not without reasonable limits) in any way. He is free to say whatever he wants. But A&E is also just as free to remove him from the show.