Duck Dynasty: Beginning of the End?

Off Topic
101

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]Nancy Boy wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Nancy Boy wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Followup article to the one I mentioned a couple posts up:

You Will be Made to Care:

http://dailycaller.com/2013/12/19/you-will-be-made-to-care/[/quote]

He also stated…
In a quote that may raise even more eyebrows than his feelings about gays, Robertson claims he “never” saw black people mistreated during the pre-civil rights era in his home state, and strongly suggests that African Americans were more content under Jim Crow.

“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,” he said. “They’re singing and happy. I never heard one of them, one black person, say, Ã???Ã??Ã?¢??I tell you what: These doggone white peopleÃ???Ã??Ã?¢??Ã???Ã??Ã?¢??not a word!.. Pre-entitlement, pre-welfare, you say: Were they happy? They were godly; they were happy; no one was singing the blues.”

Considering I are a Negro, I am glad you were “made to care” about Jim Crow laws.[/quote]

Why?

Do you honestly think a non-working, entitled, welfare receiving Negro is preferable to a hard working happy one?
[/quote]

African-Americans under Jim Crow were happy and hard working despite the laws. I’m sure if you looked into Jim Crow laws you would agree that they were unfair (unless you think blacks should be governed under different laws from whites.)[/quote]

Oh no, he doesn’t think they should be segregated or slaves. He’s deliberately trying to get rises out of people.[/quote]

I think their is an element of context and tone that changes the meaning of what he is getting at. Which to be fair, I have heard many people, say that they never witnessed the outright persecution of blacks during and before the civil rights movement because they were so poor that worrying about anything beyond their own little world was not really an option.

102

[quote]Phoenix44e wrote:
I would like evryone to know I was completely joking. I just wanted our thread to look the same as msnbc’s and cnn’s so I figured Id throw a couple curve balls in here. Isn’t it funny how testosterone changes things?

I couldn’t give 2 shits less what Robertson’s opinion on this is. And I do believe that TLC will in the long run pay for their initial knee-jerk reaction.

Also did anyone know that Good Ol Phil was an excellent college QB?[/quote]

LULZ…you totally got me bud.

Yea, Terry Bradshaw was his backup…got promoted when Phil left the team because it interrupted hunting season.

103

[quote]UtahLama wrote:

[quote]Phoenix44e wrote:
I would like evryone to know I was completely joking. I just wanted our thread to look the same as msnbc’s and cnn’s so I figured Id throw a couple curve balls in here. Isn’t it funny how testosterone changes things?

I couldn’t give 2 shits less what Robertson’s opinion on this is. And I do believe that TLC will in the long run pay for their initial knee-jerk reaction.

Also did anyone know that Good Ol Phil was an excellent college QB?[/quote]

LULZ…you totally got me bud.

Yea, Terry Bradshaw was his backup…got promoted when Phil left the team because it interrupted hunting season.[/quote]

I know. That’s the weirdest reason I’ve ever figured out. Gotta love a guy who’s just that damn true to his roots though! LOL. “sorry coach, I don’t want to try for the Heisman and NFL fame, I got ducks to hunt”.

Clearly though, he was going to do well for himself either way.

104

[quote]atypical1 wrote:

[quote]Aragorn wrote:
No doubt about that. However, it’s still illegal to do so, as Jewbacca noted. They can bet you won’t sue them and play those odds, or they can (legally) take other actions, but they can’t fire you over that alone.[/quote]

But is that really the case? I ask because I’m held to certain standards and am always assumed to represent my employer on all social media outlets. Wouldn’t those same standards of conduct be relevant here as well?

james
[/quote]

Well, Jewbacca’s the lawyer so I’ll take his word on it. I’m not an expert at law.

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:

[quote]Testy1 wrote:

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
Never watched the show, but effectively being fired for expressing religious beliefs outside the work place falls squarely under about 100 anti-discrimination laws, so this guy can sue the ever-living shit out of A&E.

Surely they have a legal department that is telling them to reverse this.[/quote]

It would seem that it would be written into his contract that he is a representative of the company and as such can be terminated if he is not representing them as they see fit.[/quote]

You can’t contract around certain laws in the employment contract, anti-discrimination laws being chief among them.

This is no different (legally) than firing him because he was black.[/quote]

105

[quote]UtahLama wrote:

[quote]Phoenix44e wrote:
I would like evryone to know I was completely joking. I just wanted our thread to look the same as msnbc’s and cnn’s so I figured Id throw a couple curve balls in here. Isn’t it funny how testosterone changes things?

I couldn’t give 2 shits less what Robertson’s opinion on this is. And I do believe that TLC will in the long run pay for their initial knee-jerk reaction.

Also did anyone know that Good Ol Phil was an excellent college QB?[/quote]

LULZ…you totally got me bud.

Yea, Terry Bradshaw was his backup…got promoted when Phil left the team because it interrupted hunting season.[/quote]

I could see that. I was thinking of carrying it on longer but I just don’t have the ability to truely troll a forum.

106

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Anyone else notice the parallels between the people who are militantly anti-gay (people) and those who are radically anti-anti-gay. That there is probably some truth to the idea that homophobes are people insecure in their own lives and sexuality, so they over compensate. That maybe these homophobe-phobes like GLAAD might be struggling so hard to shut out other beliefs because, at heart, they at least worry the other guy is right?[/quote]

Or maybe they’re afraid they might secretly like girls the way we’re afraid we might secretly like guys

107

[quote]Phoenix44e wrote:
I would like evryone to know I was completely joking. I just wanted our thread to look the same as msnbc’s and cnn’s so I figured Id throw a couple curve balls in here. Isn’t it funny how testosterone changes things?

I couldn’t give 2 shits less what Robertson’s opinion on this is. And I do believe that TLC will in the long run pay for their initial knee-jerk reaction.

Also did anyone know that Good Ol Phil was an excellent college QB?[/quote]

Damn, you got me. I would like to thank Phil for 4 of the Steelers 6 Super Bowl trophies.

108

Very telling that those who say it is A&E’s right to suspend Phil also don’t feel that a bakery should be able to turn away gay couples business.

109

the contradiction that exists with liberals is equal parts hilarious and scary.

110

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
It also defeats the purpose for them to be intolerant of intolerance.

[/quote]
Is tolerance the opposite of intolerance? Did we just step into some Terminator time travel incongruities?

111

[quote]dk44 wrote:
Very telling that those who say it is A&E’s right to suspend Phil also don’t feel that a bakery should be able to turn away gay couples business. [/quote]

That would just be intolerant! You know you can’t refuse any minority for anything or its racist or intolerant.

112

[quote]dk44 wrote:
Very telling that those who say it is A&E’s right to suspend Phil also don’t feel that a bakery should be able to turn away gay couples business. [/quote]
Can you list some names?

113

[quote]Bauber wrote:

[quote]dk44 wrote:
Very telling that those who say it is A&E’s right to suspend Phil also don’t feel that a bakery should be able to turn away gay couples business. [/quote]

That would just be intolerant! You know you can’t refuse any minority for anything or its racist or intolerant. [/quote]

Also remember you cant say anything about any religion or it’s just as bad. Unless of course you’re making fun of Christians and especially Catholics, then it’s perfectly ok…

114

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]dk44 wrote:
Very telling that those who say it is A&E’s right to suspend Phil also don’t feel that a bakery should be able to turn away gay couples business. [/quote]
Can you list some names? [/quote]

Wasn’t limiting my quote to T-Nation, and didn’t mean to imply it. But, how about you? I have seen you in the politics thread. Are you ok with a bakery turning away GLADD couples? From your posts, you aren’t. So… are you ok with A&E canning Phil?

115

[quote]dk44 wrote:
Very telling that those who say it is A&E’s right to suspend Phil also don’t feel that a bakery should be able to turn away gay couples business. [/quote]

Who said that? As a business owner you should be able to do that. As a capitalist you would be foolish to though.

james

116

[quote]atypical1 wrote:

[quote]dk44 wrote:
Very telling that those who say it is A&E’s right to suspend Phil also don’t feel that a bakery should be able to turn away gay couples business. [/quote]

Who said that? As a business owner you should be able to do that. As a capitalist you would be foolish to though.

james
[/quote]

Well, a Colorado court for one.

117

There is so much wrong with the defense of Phil it’s hard to know where to start. I guess firstly A&E can fire him for any reason they choose. Whether he has a case that will hold up in court is up to lawyers who have actually read his contract. I’m sure he could find some Shylock to represent him.(see what I did there?) but there is plenty of precedent for public figures losing jobs b/c they ‘embarrassed’ a network.

Second there is no persecution of Christianity in contemporary America. Claims of “we can’t express our views b/c the [insert group conservatives are ranting against here] will slander us and be intolerant,” over and over and over just sound ridiculous because there is almost nothing easier than being a Christian here.

Third, there is nothing wrong about not tolerating bigoting speaking. Make no mistake, the statements Phil is quoted assaying are at their core hate speech. He is not merely 'expressing his views he espousing a philosophy that wants poeple to not live freely. Homosexuals have and still arereal victims in our society. They have been legally barred from serving in the military, jailed when the status of homosexuality has been discovered, not alowed to visit loved ones in the hospital, beat up, dragged behind vehicles, and they have socially shunned, ridiculed and embarassed simply for being homosexual.

This doesn’t happen to Christians. To defend Phil for upholding this type of status quo is bigotry and hatred against an already intolerated group. He is not only expressing his opinion he is defending indefensible behavior. To uphold that homosexual behavior is a 'sin like besteality, adultry, and the like is to iss saying homosexuals are intolerable in society. Not the theological realm people are trying to thinly veil their intolerance behind but he and those that defend him are supporting the secular and legal bigotry that, sadly, is commonplace in our society. It is in this secular realm that these discussionsn are taking place. They occur in the Supreme Court, on the floor of Congress, in town and city halls across this country, they are not isolated to churches and theological panel discussions. To claim the ‘intolerant liberals’ should defend hatred is to not understand theequality that an inclusive liberal desires.

Finally, if he IS such a good Christian why is he not speaking against Red Lobster or Long John Silvers? Isn’t eating shellfish a sin as equal as all other sins? Does he wear more than one type of cloth at a time? Or is it the case that like all good politicaly motivated Christians he cherry picks which part of the bible to follow? Furthermore, as a Christian, shouldn’t the teachings of Christ guide his speech and actions? Not some random quotes from the Old Testament? Christ never mentioned homosexuality.

118

[quote]xboxwarrior wrote:
There is so much wrong with the defense of Phil it’s hard to know where to start. I guess firstly A&E can fire him for any reason they choose. Whether he has a case that will hold up in court is up to lawyers who have actually read his contract. I’m sure he could find some Shylock to represent him.(see what I did there?) but there is plenty of precedent for public figures losing jobs b/c they ‘embarrassed’ a network.

Second there is no persecution of Christianity in contemporary America. Claims of “we can’t express our views b/c the [insert group conservatives are ranting against here] will slander us and be intolerant,” over and over and over just sound ridiculous because there is almost nothing easier than being a Christian here.

Third, there is nothing wrong about not tolerating bigoting speaking. Make no mistake, the statements Phil is quoted assaying are at their core hate speech. He is not merely 'expressing his views he espousing a philosophy that wants poeple to not live freely. Homosexuals have and still arereal victims in our society. They have been legally barred from serving in the military, jailed when the status of homosexuality has been discovered, not alowed to visit loved ones in the hospital, beat up, dragged behind vehicles, and they have socially shunned, ridiculed and embarassed simply for being homosexual.

This doesn’t happen to Christians. To defend Phil for upholding this type of status quo is bigotry and hatred against an already intolerated group. He is not only expressing his opinion he is defending indefensible behavior. To uphold that homosexual behavior is a 'sin like besteality, adultry, and the like is to iss saying homosexuals are intolerable in society. Not the theological realm people are trying to thinly veil their intolerance behind but he and those that defend him are supporting the secular and legal bigotry that, sadly, is commonplace in our society. It is in this secular realm that these discussionsn are taking place. They occur in the Supreme Court, on the floor of Congress, in town and city halls across this country, they are not isolated to churches and theological panel discussions. To claim the ‘intolerant liberals’ should defend hatred is to not understand theequality that an inclusive liberal desires.

Finally, if he IS such a good Christian why is he not speaking against Red Lobster or Long John Silvers? Isn’t eating shellfish a sin as equal as all other sins? Does he wear more than one type of cloth at a time? Or is it the case that like all good politicaly motivated Christians he cherry picks which part of the bible to follow? Furthermore, as a Christian, shouldn’t the teachings of Christ guide his speech and actions? Not some random quotes from the Old Testament? Christ never mentioned homosexuality.[/quote]

lol. I love it when people who believe christianity is wrong tell me how to be a christian. It’s kinda like a herterosexual telling a homosexual how to be gay. And I have to say, you are doing it all wrong.

119

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]xboxwarrior wrote:
There is so much wrong with the defense of Phil it’s hard to know where to start. I guess firstly A&E can fire him for any reason they choose. Whether he has a case that will hold up in court is up to lawyers who have actually read his contract. I’m sure he could find some Shylock to represent him.(see what I did there?) but there is plenty of precedent for public figures losing jobs b/c they ‘embarrassed’ a network.

Second there is no persecution of Christianity in contemporary America. Claims of “we can’t express our views b/c the [insert group conservatives are ranting against here] will slander us and be intolerant,” over and over and over just sound ridiculous because there is almost nothing easier than being a Christian here.

Third, there is nothing wrong about not tolerating bigoting speaking. Make no mistake, the statements Phil is quoted assaying are at their core hate speech. He is not merely 'expressing his views he espousing a philosophy that wants poeple to not live freely. Homosexuals have and still arereal victims in our society. They have been legally barred from serving in the military, jailed when the status of homosexuality has been discovered, not alowed to visit loved ones in the hospital, beat up, dragged behind vehicles, and they have socially shunned, ridiculed and embarassed simply for being homosexual.

This doesn’t happen to Christians. To defend Phil for upholding this type of status quo is bigotry and hatred against an already intolerated group. He is not only expressing his opinion he is defending indefensible behavior. To uphold that homosexual behavior is a 'sin like besteality, adultry, and the like is to iss saying homosexuals are intolerable in society. Not the theological realm people are trying to thinly veil their intolerance behind but he and those that defend him are supporting the secular and legal bigotry that, sadly, is commonplace in our society. It is in this secular realm that these discussionsn are taking place. They occur in the Supreme Court, on the floor of Congress, in town and city halls across this country, they are not isolated to churches and theological panel discussions. To claim the ‘intolerant liberals’ should defend hatred is to not understand theequality that an inclusive liberal desires.

Finally, if he IS such a good Christian why is he not speaking against Red Lobster or Long John Silvers? Isn’t eating shellfish a sin as equal as all other sins? Does he wear more than one type of cloth at a time? Or is it the case that like all good politicaly motivated Christians he cherry picks which part of the bible to follow? Furthermore, as a Christian, shouldn’t the teachings of Christ guide his speech and actions? Not some random quotes from the Old Testament? Christ never mentioned homosexuality.[/quote]

lol. I love it when people who believe christianity is wrong tell me how to be a christian. It’s kinda like a herterosexual telling a homosexual how to be gay. And I have to say, you are doing it all wrong.[/quote]

Doing what all wrong? I am neither telling someone how to be homosexual nor a christian. I am saying it is wrong to defend homophobic policy behind theological dogma. If conservatives choose to use their religion as the basis of government then that is wrong. Have your theological arguments in church keep them out of the poitical arena. If one chooses to defend only part of God’s word they also choose to be called bad christians.