A&E should be cancelled!

Freedom of speech only applies when the state tries to oppress people's speech. Corporations are free to oppress as much as they like. If A&E have him contractually gagged on certain subjects and he's broken the contract then fir away I say. Both the homophobic remark and the racist remark are odious and factually wrong, and any company is wholly justified in kicking such people to the curb.

I don't think so. He was sharing a viewpoint that about half of all Americans believe and he was quoting the Bible - holy book of some 80% of this country. I don't agree with his viewpoint in the slightest, but we can't fire every conservative republican, every priest or half of the citizens of the United States for having that mindset. And especially not if its a religious viewpoint.

I also don't think Dog the Bounty Hunter should've been fired for his racist remarks. Paula Deen is different because she refused to apologyze or acknowledge that she did something wrong.

so a guy was abandoned because he is not acceppting the "you must love gays" agenda?


there is no need to like heterosexuals nor homosexuals but there is a need for an own opinion as long as it doesn't turn into bait or agitation.
Wonder when&why this sort of fascism has started.Saying this as someone who had a lot contact with gays without any problems long before it was forbidden to criticize &mandatory to worship them.

It's not about the main demographic of the show. It's about the main demographic of the network that makes the show. If continuing to show Duck Dynasty would result in more lost revenue from other shows in their lineup, because of viewers switching off due to the comments, than Duck Dynasty itself makes, then the network is justified in cancelling the show.

Furthermore, it's also about advertising revenue itself. If they have trouble getting companies to advertise during that show, then the show loses its profitability, and thus is cancelled. This can happen because companies who do advertise during the show get hit by boycotts (or even just threats of boycotts), and most companies aren't too bothered about whether their customers are conservative or liberal.

Duck Dynasty is far and away their most popular show. It isn't a simple choice for them to just cancel it considering how much revenue it brings in. A&E will have no problems getting advertisers for a show that pulls ten million viewers per episode. 

What planet do you live on? Gays are still vilified, discriminated against, and physically assaulted on a daily basis in just about every country on earth.

Does it represent more than 50% of their revenue?

Like I said, it's not a question of popularity of that show. If keeping that show destroys the rest of their business, then they're screwed. And it might be harder to get advertisers if large swathes of people choose to boycott any company that advertises on the show, irrespective of the size of the audience.

Tell me - do you honestly believe that the management of the network haven't weighed up the pros and cons of cancelling the show vs keeping it going? Do you really think they'll completely cancel a show, complete with all of the side-effects of doing so, without first considering whether the show is a net liability in the circumstances first? Do you really think that they're that incompetent?

Has that happened? Where are these massive boycotts that are going to destroy any company that advertises on A&E? There has been no evidence that anything like this is going to happen. More people seem to be upset over Phil Robertson being fired than they are over his racist remarks. 

This is a topic that people take very seriously. By commenting in this thread, you are taking a chance of being vilified yourself for having an opinion.

OT - I think that asking a religious heterosexual male about his sexual preferences could always lead to this result. People need to remember that the Gay/Lesbian community seemingly makes up only 5% of the US population. So, his basic belief of not understanding the want to sleep with another man is not odd. The only thing odd in todays world is admitting it as a public figure. He more or less just quoted the bible for his general beliefs. It is not uncommon to lean on religion when a person can't comprehend the science or nature of things.

As far as his comments on african americans, he was retelling his personal experiences. Not every person has been involved or witnessed the horrible things that happened to the black community back in the day. Why does he need to be chastised for not being involved?