By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
mornelithe on 22 December 2013
Edit Thread
el_gallo said:
mornelithe said:
Scisca said:
Can't see anything that he said being even close to being offesive. I actually find it very politically correct and see this whole thing only as another episode of the gay terror that is hauting the West and spreading like wildfire. Some month ago there was this case in Poland. Parents of 3 kids decided they don't want their children to participate in an "equality program" in their kindergarten in which they were "educating" boys that they can wear dresses, etc. In return the children got expelled from the public kindergarten!!

That's just fucked up. Tolerance meaning treating everyone equal - cool. Stuff like this? No way!

I don't want to live in a world in which you get fired for saying anything that's not praising homosexualism and homosexuals, especially if it's something like what he said. Yeah, for the Church homosexualism is a sin. Everyone who's religious will tell you that. According to this religion, if you don't truely repent for the sin of homosexualism, you're gonna fry in hell alongside other sinners. #dealwithit. Firing someone for reminding you this or doing things like the kindergarten thing in Poland is pure terror and brainwashing that I will never approve of.

I guess you're missing the whole difference between praising homosexuality and not insinuating that homosexuality will eventually lead to bestiality.  There's a huge area in between those two points, to explore which doesn't have to include insulting or praising lifestyles.  And, if you object to being fired for not towing the company line, I would suggest starting your own business and setting your own rules.  Until then, it's their money and they can do what they want with it.

As far as the Poland issue, I can find no article on it so I can't comment without reading further on the subject.


That isn't what he said. He said it was a sin and listed several other sins along with it.

“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.”

It's his right to say it. It's the companies right to keep him on the show or not keep him on the show.
I will say this though, it is sort of hypocritical for the company to hire someone for a reality television show because of who they are and then feign ignorance or complain when they continue to act like the person they hired.
They hired this guy because he was a hunting, Southern Jesus freak. What did they really think was going to come out of his mouth regarding sin and homosexuality?
If I hire Paris Hilton for a show, I can't turn around and complain that I didn't know she was going to come off sounding like a stupid, entitled, drunken whore in an interview.

The real issue is A&E doesn't want to cancel Duck Dynasty because it makes them tons of cash and since the "show" is just the family, the family could easily go to some competition and take the ratings and cash with them. A&E seems to want to have their cake and eat it too. They want "enlightened" rednecks who pray to Jesus and hunt ducks all day.
Also while everyone is harping on the earlier statements, no one seems to want to read this part of the interview.
As far as Phil is concerned, he was literally born again. Old Phil—the guy with the booze and the pills—died a long time ago, and New Phil sees no need to apologize for him: “We never, ever judge someone on who’s going to heaven, hell. That’s the Almighty’s job. We just love ’em, give ’em the good news about Jesus—whether they’re homosexuals, drunks, terrorists. We let God sort ’em out later, you see what I’m saying?”

You can paint it however you like, as is typically the case with the religious (but these are not rules, exclusive to them.  These apply to everyone) who assume they can say anything without repercussion.  The fact is, he discussed his views on homosexuality as a lead-in to discussing bestiality.  This is a very common trend amongst the religious, first we allow gays to have equal rights, and the ability to marry, and next thing you know we'll be wanting rights to bestiality and pedophilia (also known as the slippery slope argument), without mentioning that marriage/sexual relationships require informed consent, which is not possible from an animal or a child (informed consent has age limits, which is why statutory rape laws exist).  It's a tired, old, and sad tactic used by religious conservatives who lack any real argument against something they simply don't agree with, that's not being forced upon them, and that has no effect on their lives whatsoever, unless they choose to allow it.

He has every right to his opinion/beliefs and to voice them through whatever entity approves such dialogue, however, when you're performing/acting as a representative of a larger company, what you say and do is no longer just about you.  It's about the company you represent, in that vein, no, it is not within his right to say anything he wants without repercussion from his employer.  Much like the PR Exec who, prior to her trip to Africa, made a quip about hoping she wouldn't get AIDs while she was there, and 'just kidding, I'm white', she was fired before her plane even touched down.  Or, how about Hank Williams Jr and getting fired from his NFL affiliation, for stating that the Golf game between Boehner and Obama was like if Hitler and Netanyahu played a round.  Actors, Actress, employees etc... are not entitled to say and do whatever they want, when they're representing their company.  That's simply not reality, and never has been.

He called it a sin, which is hardly letting God sort it out, by that statement alone, he's making a judgement call.  Had he just said what you highlighted, there wouldn't be a problem.  However, we know that is not the case.

By the way, why do you think many job interviews will require or have attempted to gain access to your social networking accounts?  Do you think they want to know your interests and tastes?  Or maybe because they don't want to hire a publicity nightmare?