Ah I see. You probably watch it as a guilty pleasure type of thing. Kinda like how I watched Wife Swap after seeing one episode and laughing at the craziness of it. I should give the show a try hehe.

However, fluff A&E with an unsanded duck call for punishing this guy for what he said. They are obviously catering to the small number of people who might stop watching the show because of what this guy said, i.e. Whiney people looking for any excuse to whine.

Its all a conspiracy:)

Part of the reality play!

1. A&E was probably allready getting pressure from advertisors about the Robertson's point's of views.
2. The next season is allready filmed. They can't cut him out completely. So its going to be a long time before they do an episode without him.
3. This Let's A&E take stand. Let's Phil say his piece, create a TON of publicity, and gives them 6 months to work out a solution:)

I think its brilliant.

OK I'm making the above part up. Sorry none of the above is true.

Phil Robertson is a brilliant man. He did the article intentionally. There have allready been issues about A&E putting in bleeps were cursing didn't occur, and trying to censor the family time at the table, and the family prayer. He's upset about the creative direction of it, and did this knowingly creating a powerplay between him and the family. Season 5 is filmed, they are only under contract for one more season.

Its a close united family, they will not continue without Phil. So the RObertson clan has 3 choices.
A film season 6 without Phil, and go get a bigger contract elsewhere with more creative control.
B. Stay with A&E, A&E needs them and their huge ratings more than the RObertson's need A&E. But in doing so regain more control over the show, while agreeing to not make controversial comments like this in the future.
C. Walk from the show, and find an alternative way to promote their product line worth 400M or so.



I think A&E walked into a deliberate trap, and it may take 6 months, and they'll edit/reduce Phil's role in the upcoming season, but I predict either A or B happens. And if B happens, A&E stock will fall:) and they'll realize they made a mistake.


Listen, you can't shoot a show about a redneck family and NOT expect them to express a viewpoint reflective of REDNECK culture! You do what angel said above, add a disclaimer, and then go make money off it. its not rocket science!

it's a conspiracy by the IPCC to sell more Chia Pets in an effort to secretly remove CO2 from the air.

And thus the Guinness book of worlds records for the largest circle jerk has been broken.

Geez, the humanity of it, all those queers prancing around the county clerks hallways getting married while shrieking "fabulous" "Super" at a high pitch and high volume levels.

The reception MUST be held at the local Chic-fil-a just to make a point that we should have the right to buy our fast food in our fancy undies for all to enjoy.

Holy Crap.

This shows the hypocrisy of those who scream daily demanding TOLERANCE but then show absolutely no tolerance for anyone who disagrees at all with them.

Phil did not demand that everyone agree with his opinion, he just said what he believed. But the left cannot allow anyone to disagree with them. There is no TOLERANCE for anyone who disagrees with their agenda.

Actions have consequences? Especially with ones' employer?

WHO KNEW?! I FOR ONE AM SHOCKED! SHOCKED!!!!!!

I also find it downright hilarious that the religious right is fluffing and moaning about TOLERANCE. Get real.

edit: i think i'm going to make my signature in LCN be something really really flaming gay, just so cerberus gets to look at it. :D

Cerberus is old. And spends *a lot* of time thinking about homosexuality. Like, SO MANY of his thoughts are about homosexuality. Isn't that cool?

nope

I think the criticism is labeled at the fact that you can be fired for saying you're opposed to being something, but not for actually being it. (Not that I really think either is all that fair, but that it's the nutshell of the argument).

Frankly, the libertarian in me says A&E can do what it wants, Robertson can say what he wants, GLAD or the various Churches can say and do what they want, but that in the end of the day is really much ado about nothing. The melodrama comes in when you involve cable (and reality) television, a 24/7 news cycle, religion, and the hot button issue of the day with gay marriage. If you go three doors down and his neighbor says this to the local news, it's no big deal. Vice versa if you ask the Equal Rights group down the street from me if it's a big deal that someone in a duck blind somewhere thinks gays are different, I think they will look at you and say, tell me something I don't know, I care about changing laws, etc etc.

One person is thanking their lucky stars: Barack Obama. So the real converse argument to the right is that Phil Robertson is secretly trying bail Obama out of troubled waters. Now you have the truly sinsiter/cynical/conspiratorial view represented.

once they got Mr. Robertson to define sin, did they happen to ask if he was a sinner? and did he admit to being a sinner?

I guess I'll just have to watch out for those pink rattlesnakes. HITH, HITH.

Couple of points:

Saying that you do not agree with homosexuality or that it is morally wrong is not hate speech, oppressive or anything out of the ordinary that should constitute being fired anymore than saying "I don't believe Christianity is correct" or "I don't believe gambling is morally correct". I'm sure 99% of us here will find things in everyone here that they do not believe is the correct way to live your life. Expressing that is fine and is how discourse takes place. As long as you aren't actually advocating real oppression in some form there's nothing wrong with saying you disagree with the homosexual lifestyle.

It absolutely should be up to the states legislatures or constitutions to define what constitutes a state recognized marriage however the people of that state see fit. If the judicial system is going to say the legislature lacks that power then it absolutely does open up the door in the future for all sorts of other sexual behavior that may also have it's roots in genetics(since homosexuals use the "born this way" argument). Why exactly should states have the authority to say a brother and sister can't get legally married if they are two consenting adults? What about someone who was born attracted to minors and wants to get married to a consenting 13 year old? If the government does not have the right to restrict marriage to between a man and a woman what right do they have to restrict it to two people? You may scoff at this however the unintended consequences of judicial decisions like this are very very real and have been realized many times in the past. The legislature DOES have the right to define what a state recognized marriage is however they see fit within the confines of the US and their own Constitutions. The proper venue to get homosexual marriage recognized is in the state legislatures and so far the pro homosexual marriage argument appears to be gaining traction and winning the debate. Court decisions over this are flat out wrong and make me cringe.

If you want to argue religion, at least get your facts straight. Christianity believes what it says in Scripture that Jesus abolished all the laws of the old testament except for those which he reiterated. So throwing out old testament law to call people hypocrites just shows you are ignorant about what you're trying to argue about.




The religious right being against gay marriage, abortion etc etc, isn't intolerance. It's standing up for what they believe in.

yea bonuses

-
Well we do have this
Matthew 5:17
"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil."
hmm Jesus displays not the slightest objection to the cruelties of the Old Testament. They stand as is, apparently unless specifically 'tweaked' by his word. And no where in the New Testament does he mention homosexuality.

So the Old Testament verses about homosexuality stand. As do most all the other ridiculous laws, of which I chose to paraphrase two in my previous post;

Leviticus 11:10
And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you

Deuteronomy 22:11
Thou shalt not wear a garment of divers sorts, as of woollen and linen together.

Well except if you listen to Paul's POV in Ephesians and Romans, in which yes i guess much of the OT was just a sloppy typo and you can now disregard.

But even Jesus gets a little confused in Luke:
16:16 The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it.
16:17 And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail.

Well, unless you would prefer Exodus
12:14 And this day shall be unto you for a memorial; and ye shall keep it a feast to the Lord throughout your generations; ye shall keep it a feast by an ordinance for ever
or 1 Chronicles
16:15 Be ye mindful always of his covenant; the word which he commanded to a thousand generations
or Leviticus
23:14 ..it shall be a statute for ever throughout your generations in all your dwellings

It's all very confusing. You would think the perfect word of God as given to us savage humans via The Bible would have a little less contradiction. When God laid out the Old Testament, he knew the New was coming around the corner, right?

A perfect word, from a perfect being, wouldn't leave all that wiggle room for cherrypicking. It is, after all, The Most Important Communication Ever. Or so It says.
Can't The Perfect Word be a bit more consistent?
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/otlaw.html

But back to Phil Robertson and his comments.. because in his own defense he states ‘All I Did Was Quote From the Scriptures’

What does Jesus say about homosexuality?
go ahead, google it.
Nothing. Nada. Zip.

Jesus does say in Matthew:
7:13 Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:
7:14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

So by Jesus' own words, it seems not many at all will get into heaven.
Especially if you have wealth:
Matthew 19:24 And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.

But Jesus says nothing about the gay. Paul is attributed to some anti-gay sentiments but prior to translation he may have been speaking of the child temple prostitutes (both male and female) or the practice (in Paul's time) of adult males taking teen boys 'under their wing' for tutorship and sexual favor.
Interesting (but not surprising) that this Ducky Phil Robertson only seems to hate on the male prostitutes btw lol


I'm glad I'm a straight (sorry to disappoint you scode), far-from-wealthy atheist, otherwise I'd be so confused by scriptures that I might have to play the odds at 50/50 no matter my predilection :

Luke 17:34
I tell you, in that night there shall be two men in one bed; the one shall be taken, and the other shall be left.

Luke 17:35
Two women shall be grinding together; the one shall be taken, and the other left.

There ya go. You can increase your odds of going to heaven all the way up to 50% if you, ya know, get your gay on.

and #1 on the list of cherrypicking by Phil R and sooo many other Good Christians, and most regularly ignored:
Matthew 7:1-3
Judge not, that you be not judged. For with what judgment you judge, you will be judged; and with the measure you use, it will be measured back to you. And why do you look at the speck in your brother’s eye, but do not consider the plank in your own eye?
-
Phil Robertson doesn't just get his hate on for gays. Look at the spectrum of his statements.
That's why I added the link from 2010 in my previous post, it helps to provide a context for his ignorant views.
Or check out this article: When You Defend Phil Robertson, Here's What You're Really Defending
http://www.businessinsider.com/...-really-defending-2013-12

huh? is today a church day? maybe i should check and see if they have any seats left open for mass. might be a good day to get preached at.

I gotta admit, your using the verse about the women grinding in that way made me laugh so hard I almost pissed myself. Imposing our slang on ~2000 year old text is hilarious.

And Phil DID paraphrase scripture with his comments, as 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 says: "9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, 10 nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."

What I find pretty sad though, is what you and your article both equate saying someone is a sinner means that you hate them. By that logic you then mean that all Christians, no matter how liberal or conservative, hate everyone, since Romans 3:23 says "for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,"

My biggest issue with all of this, is that somehow in our modern age we have equated tolerance with acceptance.

All of you people are so freakin' ignorant, I can't even believe it.

There is a difference between spirituality and religion.

People who are religious are not generally open to new suggestions, or protocols, they want the stability of the same process all the time, hence we have the majority of the Catholics, they go to church on Easter and Christmas, and rely on the priests to read and interpret the bible for them.
People who are fundamental Christians, some of them are what I refer to as "judgemental Christians", who's main focus is pointing out how everyone elses planks are so much bigger than theirs.

People who give a crap about the welfare of all around them, these are the true spiritual people who worry about their neighbors, making sure there are no starving children in your neighborhhod, these are the folks I can identify with.

They judge no one, interfere with no one, but hold tight to their beliefs and morality, which is something we need a lot more of around here.

We cannot have a truly successful democracy without good morally grounded people who are concerned that their friends and neighbors are not wanting for food, shelter and good sense.

I really hate having to justify my beliefs to people who are so far afield with their belief system that there cannot be any sort of commonality at all.

For example, try to get an athiest to explain there is no god and provide solid proof in the doing of it, and he cannot, just like the true believer cannot provide absolute quantifiable proof of the existence of God.

Fundamentally it boils down to one thing, there are two sides to every argument, and both sides have their douchebags.

i don't want a truly successful democracy. i want 7 billion people running around doing their best to protect my rights. could also use a few very attractive female virgin sacrifices that would be willing to get knocked up a bit.

he may or may not be suing them who nows.. but A&E caved in vic

seems that there's going to be a shortage of lawyers in the next generation. guess we'll be going back to dueling to determine who is the most Manly Man. no. probably robot proxie fights. if the cash ain't being handed out, the majority of people really don't give a damn if you have any.

:)