Quantcast
After anti-gay and Racist remarks, should Duck Dynasty be cancelled?

Forums - Movies Discussion - After anti-gay and Racist remarks, should Duck Dynasty be cancelled?

Well the title of this article is completely misleading, His comments were not racist or anti-gay.

Talking about his experience working with young black men, I assume in the early 1950's and describing what he say as a fellow employee is not racist. Would you have preferred he lie and say he didn't see black people singing and enjoying their work? Would you have preferred he describe their mood as angry and spiteful to their employer?

As far as the anti-gay comments I think a bit of perspective is needed. Every major religion views the act of homo-sexuality as a sin, I personally don't know why, but for whatever reason they lump it in with the other major no-no's of adultery, cheating, stealing, (things that we all agree are morally wrong), which raises a larger question of if our ancestors for thousand of years were able to determine the above mentioned sins are morally wrong, why do we make the assumption they are wrong about homo-sexuality? Bigger question for a larger debate but anyways, is it anti-gay to say you believe homo-sexuality is a sin? or is it merely offensive? there is a difference.



Around the Network

No he shouldn't be fired. They knew about the family before putting them on the air. Do they think many gays or black people watch the show? No. So what is going to affect their bottom line more? They can lose the entire show by firing him and lose those truckloads of money from advertising and merchandising. Or they can lose viewership which was surely a minority anyway from all the gays and black people who might be offended by what he said and stop watching.

I think the answer is obvious.



Mr Khan said:
klystron said:
Mr Khan said:

"I'm not going to pass judgement on you myself, but here's proof that you'll suffer for all eternity for what you're doing."

The religion's position is hateful in this respect, and must be rejected at all points.

Are you seriously going to suggest that it's hateful to want to keep someone from an eternity of suffering? Phil said he will love you no matter what you do, but he doesn't want to see you suffer. Is it hateful for a church to offer food to the poor? They don't screen them out, you know. They don't find out who is gay or who does drugs or who worships satan and only feed those they deem worthy. You may want to re-think your view of the world if you seriously find it hateful to care about people. (Please remember that condoning everything others do is not required to be loving or tolerant!)

It is indeed a noble thing to provide unconditional aid, however you have to admit that it is very backhanded to say "I don't hate you, but you're going to burn." It is *wrong* of the religion to embrace this viewpoint, especially since it is based as it is out of a book of the Jewish bible that has been disregarded by modern Christendom in almost every other respect. Clearly there is a matter of choice in which parts of the bible Christians obey, so it is disingenuous to just say "it is repugnant to God, sorry, it's out of my hands but you're going to burn forever", since there's a lot of stuff that was supposedly an affront to the Lord that nobody bats an eye at.

Christian homophobia is an anachronism. It has nothing to do with the core tenets of the faith and could easily be disregarded without creating any major theological contradictions (arguably the bigger contradiction is the pick-and-choose attitude towards Levitical laws).

Agreed, the cherry picking of the Bible for what they will choose to 'damn' is pretty relevent to this topic.  People forget that according to the faith, shellfish are actually mentioned more in the Bible as evil, than homosexuality.  They also forget that the Bible suggests that rape victims are supposed to marry their rapist, children who act out against their parents should be stoned to death, and women who disobey their husbands should also be stoned to death.

And yet, with a nearly 50% chance of divorce this day and age, there are perilously few women being stoned, the shellfish industry is quite healthy, and children continue to defy their parents.  Go figure.

And I have similar misgivings about the 'charity' work, done in the name of the Church.  Yes, they help feed the poor, sure.  But, it's not unconditional, nor is it simply because they want to feed people.  They do it to spread the word of their faith (not to mention to earn 'brownie' points for their vision of what happens after you die), and in third world countries that has helped to bring about new waves of religious killings for accusations of witchcraft. 



scat398 said:
Well the title of this article is completely misleading, His comments were not racist or anti-gay.


They most certainly were. 

If he just said: 'I believe homosexuality is a sin' and left it at that no one would care. 

If he just said: 'I don't think welfare is good for the black community' and left it at that no one would care. 

Instead he went on a rant likening homosexuality to bestiality, he referred to women AS their sexual organs (as if that's the defining part of love or a relationship), and he acted as if the Jim Crow days were a happier better time for black people.  What he said was racist, homophobic and sexist. 



I don't think Duck Dynasty should be cancelled but I understand why he was taken off the show. A&E is running a business and they rely on viewers to watch the show to make them money. They don't know how many of their viewers were offended by the guys remarks so they just denounced themselves from him. It's the same exact thing that happened to Rick Ross when he was dropped by Reebok for his offensive rap lyrics.

You always have the right to express your opinion and corporations always have the right to fire your butt if you're going to affect their money.



Around the Network
scat398 said:
Well the title of this article is completely misleading, His comments were not racist or anti-gay.

Talking about his experience working with young black men, I assume in the early 1950's and describing what he say as a fellow employee is not racist. Would you have preferred he lie and say he didn't see black people singing and enjoying their work? Would you have preferred he describe their mood as angry and spiteful to their employer?

As far as the anti-gay comments I think a bit of perspective is needed. Every major religion views the act of homo-sexuality as a sin, I personally don't know why, but for whatever reason they lump it in with the other major no-no's of adultery, cheating, stealing, (things that we all agree are morally wrong), which raises a larger question of if our ancestors for thousand of years were able to determine the above mentioned sins are morally wrong, why do we make the assumption they are wrong about homo-sexuality? Bigger question for a larger debate but anyways, is it anti-gay to say you believe homo-sexuality is a sin? or is it merely offensive? there is a difference.

Blacks were not happy during the pre Civil Rights era he is clueless. He was working with young black men back when young black men were to give up their seat in the front of the bus for white passengers? Yea right sureeeeeeee!!!! The guy is talking out of his behind. Blacks were not happy during jim crow and for a white man who isn't black to say that is amazingly ignorant. 

It would be like me saying gays were happier prior to all the "PC gay rights" you see now. I'm not gay, who do I think I am proclaiming how gays feel? That guy is a moron, he's entitled to his own opinion and I accept that and i'm entitled to mine and my opinion is that he's an ignorant moron. 



RG3Hunna said:
I don't think Duck Dynasty should be cancelled but I understand why he was taken off the show. A&E is running a business and they rely on viewers to watch the show to make them money. They don't know how many of their viewers were offended by the guys remarks so they just denounced themselves from him. It's the same exact thing that happened to Rick Ross when he was dropped by Reebok for his offensive rap lyrics.

You always have the right to express your opinion and corporations always have the right to fire your butt if you're going to affect their money.


this is pretty much it.



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?”


RG3Hunna said:
scat398 said:
Well the title of this article is completely misleading, His comments were not racist or anti-gay.

Talking about his experience working with young black men, I assume in the early 1950's and describing what he say as a fellow employee is not racist. Would you have preferred he lie and say he didn't see black people singing and enjoying their work? Would you have preferred he describe their mood as angry and spiteful to their employer?

As far as the anti-gay comments I think a bit of perspective is needed. Every major religion views the act of homo-sexuality as a sin, I personally don't know why, but for whatever reason they lump it in with the other major no-no's of adultery, cheating, stealing, (things that we all agree are morally wrong), which raises a larger question of if our ancestors for thousand of years were able to determine the above mentioned sins are morally wrong, why do we make the assumption they are wrong about homo-sexuality? Bigger question for a larger debate but anyways, is it anti-gay to say you believe homo-sexuality is a sin? or is it merely offensive? there is a difference.

Blacks were not happy during the pre Civil Rights era he is clueless. He was working with young black men back when young black men were to give up their seat in the front of the bus for white passengers? Yea right sureeeeeeee!!!! The guy is talking out of his behind. Blacks were not happy during jim crow and for a white man who isn't black to say that is amazingly ignorant. 

It would be like me saying gays were happier prior to all the "PC gay rights" you see now. I'm not gay, who do I think I am proclaiming how gays feel? That guy is a moron, he's entitled to his own opinion and I accept that and i'm entitled to mine and my opinion is that he's an ignorant moron. 

But he is not ignorant on the matter at hand, if anything you and I are.  He was describing his experiene as a poor whte kid working wth poor black kids.  Just because his  experience doesn't ft the mold of the greater picture doesn't make him racist, which is what some very ignorant people called him.

Again, would you rather have had him lie, or are you calling him a liar?



marley said:
scat398 said:
Well the title of this article is completely misleading, His comments were not racist or anti-gay.


They most certainly were. 

If he just said: 'I believe homosexuality is a sin' and left it at that no one would care. 

If he just said: 'I don't think welfare is good for the black community' and left it at that no one would care. 

Instead he went on a rant likening homosexuality to bestiality, he referred to women AS their sexual organs (as if that's the defining part of love or a relationship), and he acted as if the Jim Crow days were a happier better time for black people.  What he said was racist, homophobic and sexist. 

he most certainley did not link homo-sexuality and beasitiallity and that is a complete lie. He listed various biblical sins.  If i write a grocery list and list apples and eggs am I linking them to anyhting other than the fact they are both food?

He talked about a vagina, he didn't refer to women as a vagina...if you are going to make a point at least try and keep it to the comments and not distort something, what purpose do you achieve by lying to yourself about what he said?