questionswill you still watch duck dynasty?

vote-for-7vote-against
vote-for-3vote-against

Yes, but only after they move to another network! A&E is run by a bunch of sickos! Sheesh! Speak your mind and get in trouble! Real classy!

vote-for26vote-against

Never watched it, probably never will. Lack of interest.

vote-for18vote-against

I don't watch any "reality" shows but I am confused as to why people think A&E "fired" this guy. The show is not aired live so obviously the management at A&E aired his controversial comments for a reason, free publicity, duh. And when that didn't generate enough free publicity they "fired" him.

If you like the show, great, but it is a scary time in our country when people think this is a real issue.

"Idiocracy" is becoming more true every day.

vote-for13vote-against

@ohcheri: Not to mention the whole thing is a fake....they were a bunch of golf playing penny loafer wearing Yuppies before this show was created!

vote-for12vote-against

@hot72chev: And here I was thinking that I was the only person in the country that hasn't seen it.... :)

vote-for19vote-against

@ohcheri: As I understand it, A&E didn't air his comments at all. A segment of an interview he did for GQ (geez, has that magazine changed direction or what?) hit the internet and became, as they say, an overnight sensation.

What I find interesting is that nearly all the fracas is over his comments about gays, while his comments about black people struck me as far more offensive.

It's also important to remember that his TV image of backwoods Loo-zee-anna redneck is seriously contrived. He turned down a recruiting offer from the Washington Redskins, has a Masters in education, and supported his family for several years by teaching.

He's a perfect example of the fact that education and ignorance are not mutually exclusive.

vote-for12vote-against

@magic cave: Actually he is a perfect example of the head-in-the-sand society that focuses on fake people instead of real issues.

This person, his opinions and his show are so far from being relevant I am already embarrassed that I have an opinion.

Ugh, bad me -_-

vote-for10vote-against

@ohcheri: The relevance for me lies in paying attention to how many Murricans have absolutely no concept of what the First Amendment says, while they're squawking themselves hoarse about how Robertson's free-speech rights are being violated. Even Bobby Jindal -- who has aspirations of running for the White House in 2016 -- made a fool of himself by saying, "I remember when TV networks believed in the First Amendment."

I'm not sure which is worse: Jindal doesn't have a clue about what the First Amendment says and means, or Jindal doesn't mind lying to pander to his ill-educated base.

He's a perfect object lesson of why it's important never to under-estimate the ignorance of most people about their own government and their ability to hold on with a death grip to delusional thinking.

vote-for9vote-against

@magic cave: This issue certainly has nothing to do with the First Amendment.

vote-for11vote-against

I avoid "reality" shows . The fact that they are so popular is a sad reflection on our society imo.

About 25+ years ago, Bruce sang his song "57 channels and there's nothing on. "

He needs to update those lyrics.

vote-for4vote-against

Here is some actual reality from several years ago: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5QjaYScgeDs
Haters gonna hate, yo.

vote-for7vote-against

SO I have determined I am prejudice, I caught myself thinking this: I can not believe people are surprised an old redneck from the south would make the discriminatory remark.

Saw the show once, as a guest in someone's house. Seemed to be scripted like other 'reality shows'.

The workers all walked out together because of low wages, I found that to be ironic (ain't it organized labor ruining our country?).

vote-for6vote-against

I wonder if the same people would be wanting him "fired" if it was a gay person who worked for a boss that was ultra-conservative and got "fired" for speaking out about gay rights outside of his workplace...?

I mean talk about intolerance... the term "red-neck" is an elitist term that refers to people who worked in the fields and were bent over all day getting sunburned necks. I find that term bigoted and offensive, but I don't want anyone fired for using it. People just need to stop pretending they're offended. All he said was that he believes homosexuals are sinners. If he's a Christian, he also believes HE is a sinner, and that all unrepentant sinners will eventually face judgement. Personally, I'm an agnostic, but I respect the guy's sincerity in expressing what he believes. Too many other "celebrities" would simply spout whatever opinion they thought would keep them out of trouble.

If he can be fired for what he says outside of work, so can you.... is that the world you want?

vote-for10vote-against

@kamikazeken: No, he was quoted as comparing homosexuality to bestiality. That is beyond the scope of "homosexuality is a sin" - which the Bible clearly states as not something for people to define, but to be left to God.

He absolutely has the right to his beliefs, opinions, and the right to state them. The Network has the right to protect their brand as they see fit. When he was being interviewed by GQ, he was representing that brand, as the "star" of the show - when you're at work, you don't get to say harmful things without consequences. Had he been somewhat professional (and he is a professional businessman, and now somewhat celeb) he would have held his tongue a bit more. Just like every other person at their job.

Had he said this to his brother or cousin or friend, while in private and NOT as a representative of "Duck Dynasty" - we would have never heard about it.

We all have the right to speak our piece. We also have the privilege of facing the consequences that follow.

vote-for10vote-against

Just to follow up, here is the quote, taken from page 2 of the GQ article.

“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.”

Then, there is the part about how much happier black people were under Jim Crow era. (pg1)
(Not enough room. You will find it, it's easy to spot.)

vote-for7vote-against

Freedom of speech and self expression may give you the right to say and think what you like and protect you from prosecution. However, it does not protect you from the societal repercussions and judgement you'll endure for your bigoted remarks. This man is much more capable of expressing his opinions in ways that are less offensive (face it, someone is offended by everything) than he will ever show a camera or interviewer. He has a persona to keep. The racist remarks were far worse but the gay remarks will effect the show. The "homosexuality is a sin" belief is likely representative of what everyone at that dinner table believes and will have a larger effect on the show.

That said, this show is a drop in the bucket to the money these guys make. It's fun but they attracted A&E because they were rich already.

From my wife to the world "stop posting this $#!+ on Facebook, it's ruining my stalking feed"

vote-for2vote-against

So a christian says christian stuff and he gets thrown off TV for being insulting.

I don't have a problem with this.

vote-for6vote-against

@kamikazeken: "If he can be fired for what he says outside of work, so can you.... is that the world you want?"

More or less, yes, if it brings notoriety or uproar to my employer. My last three places of employment had policy clauses that said close to that. When an employee attaches their own controversial statements to their employer's business enterprise, it becomes the concern of the employer. If the exact same statements that Phil made had been said by an A&E camera operator, no one would know or care, but Phil is so closely identified with the A&E program that he should have expected some repercussion.

Many years ago I took a job that involved a lot of local, state, and national media work, most of it on camera or in print. From the first day, I stopped all other "public" activities, no speaking engagements on other issues, no letters to the editor, etc.

It's a simple matter of conflict between one's personal and one's "public" life. It's not unusual or surprising.

vote-for7vote-against

@spacezorro: What he said wasn't "Christian stuff" {see @Thumperchick 's references}
But that is sort of beside the point.
As others have pointed out. If you represent your employer in public, they have every right to expect you to adhere to a certain code. If you sully their brand, you're out.
That doesn't mean he doesn't have the right to express his opinion. It just means, like all things in life, what you do and say has consequences. Personally, I think that seems to be a big issues these days: No one wants to accept the consequences of their actions. Or thinks they need to.

vote-for1vote-against

1. The issue is these people are outraged over ONE comment he made without reading or quoting the entire interview section where he said they love everyone regardless of what they do or believe.
2. Civil rights act of 1964 specifically state it is illegal to do what A&E did because it was based on religion.
3. He spoke as himself, not as a representative of A&E so their actions were wrong.