Amazon.com Widgets

Was it ridiculous that Phil was banned from Duck Dynasty despite his insulting statements?

Asked by: nrpaul1015
  • Yes it was ridiculous

    Just goes to show the liberal stance of Americans who deny others there right of freedom of speech if it doesn't go with what they believe. It's okay for president Obama to torture men at guantanamo bay to the point all they want to do is die to get out of the hell they face everyday, these men didn't want food and decided they would not eat till they finally died from the hunger, yet Obama has feeding tubes forced into them to force feed them so they can remain alive to be tortured indefinitely. This is what the liberal left wants, they want people put into camps and tortured, they want gun owners guns confiscated, and they want people that believe in God to be silenced because people that believe in God they consider a threat, the government is for pro-abortion but why ? Population control ! Just as david rockefeller announced it at the UN Ambassadors Dinner, video on youtube if you search for it. Now Mr. Robertson is asked a simple question in GQ Phil what do you consider sin ? He Quotes a passage of scripture that says Homosexuality is a sin, drunkenness is a sin, Adultery is a sin. Yet they chose to set their eyes on the word Homosexual, because it is becoming more clear in this country if you say anything about the homosexual community that isn't along the lines of we support you every step of the way, you're made to pay for it be it called names such as a hater,racist, bigot, homophobic. I'm still trying to figure out what racism has to do with homosexuality, but that is what liberals call people who disagree with homosexuality " a racist" Phil Robertson was made to pay for reading a passage of scripture, in the UK it is a criminal offense to say homsoexuality is a sin and it is punishable by Jail time. Is that what people want in America ? Should we go to jail for freedom of speech ? According to the liberals yes we should ! Obama and the liberals want the constitution done away with.

    Https://www.Youtube.Com/watch?V=ClqUcScwnn8

  • Based on my knowledge at the moment, yes.

    I haven't really been keeping up with all of it because I haven't had the time to get into DD, but what I heard was that Phil was banned because he spoke very bluntly about what he believed. There was a quote I saw today that said "If I can't state my opinion anymore, than this isn't America" and I have to agree wholeheartedly. I think he had a right to speak up about what he believed. We all do. I could be wrong, but I believe he spoke up about his belief against same-sex marriage. Just because he was blunt about it, doesn't mean he hates anyone in general. Maybe it was offensive, but I don't think it gave A&E the right to ban him from the show. His beliefs are his beliefs, just like a homosexuals beliefs are his/her own beliefs. If homosexuals can speak up for themselves because of what they believe, why can't people speak up against it because of what they believe? In the end, it's an opinion and we're all entitled to our own. Now, whether or not Phil spoke out of love or not, that I don't know, but that's something I would have to add. If we're speaking our opinions to hurt and degrade others, than there's no reason to speak it. But if we're trying to help someone understand where we're coming from and we have a good reason to speak up, I think it should be allowed.

  • Yes, it was a personal opinion.

    Yes, it was ridiculous that Phil was banned from Duck Dynasty, because he was only saying what he thought. People who preach tolerance are tolerant of everyone except people who disagree with them. Duck Dynasty represents a large section of society that is still very conservative. To embrace diversity is to embrace conservative people, too.

  • A&E needs to put on the big boy pants and cancel the show if they really believe that Phil was wrong.

    It's Hypocritical for A&E to continue to make money off Phil if they are against what he said. Phil continues to make A&E money through reruns and new episodes. If A&E wants to suspend him, it's their right; however they must accept the consequence if the cast members refuse to renew for another season. A&E will lose millions if this happens.

  • Yes it was CLEARLY ridiculous. Coming from a liberal pro gay atheist.

    He has the right to free speech and the right to practice it. He should not be punished for practicing his rights. I am not saying he should not be criticized as that is a whole other boat. This is coming from a liberal, pro gay, pro abortion, atheist person. Sure I disagree. I REALLY disagree. But I accept his opinions and let him be his ignorant self. I personally liked the show either way. I digress, it is time that America grows up and stops trying to punish those who disagree with the majority of the populace. We should be better than most people, a accepting and open minded people, but clearly that is not the case.

  • A&E Wants To Rule Anyone Associated With Them

    The A&E Network should issue a warning statement and full disclosure to anyone who ever appears in any show on their network: You are not allowed to view any of your personal opinions - ANYWHERE, not just on their network - unless those opinions are in agreement with the A&E Network's "official" stance on the matter.

    At least if such a warning were issued, there would be no surprises, and perhaps those of Duck Dynasty and other shows would choose not to be part of the A&E Network and would instead elect to be on a network which actually tolerates free speech.

  • It's his opinion which was asked

    So what if someone said they don't like fat women. Do they need to be banned? He was asked questions and answered them honestly. Do you honestly expect everyone to agree that being gay is right, no, so why ban someone. They're allowed to have their own opinions, just like you. It's not like he was a bad person for not liking gays. So tired of if you don't like gay people or your religious or have different opinions your "bad", which is what happens all the time.

  • Free Speech for all

    Phil Robertson was specifically defining his point as one of our amendment rights we are allowed that. In this secular world that does not seem to be approved of, but what he said is somewhat accurate. He seems to be putting it in a rather crude manner, however it is only an expression of his rights. According to the liberals view aren't we ENTITLED to that?

  • I agree with him

    It was wrong of them to ban him because he speaks out against what he considers wrong. Maybe he should have said what he wanted to in a more polite manner, but suspending him for not agreeing with the crybabies who want gay marriage is wrong. I'll use my word count.

  • I don't think so.

    Even though the head of the so called duck dynasty said in my opinion some very insulting and discriminatory things on the topic of gay marriage, his suspension was a bit of an overreaction. There is freedom of speech in this country, even if what is spoken is not entirely tasteful.

  • While speaking to GQ he was representing his employer (A&E) as well as himself.

    A&E as an employer must maintain an egalitarian stance or risk losing revenue because of lost sponsorship. As an employer, A&E must maintain certain cultural and workplace standards of conduct that must be applied evenly for fear of internal corporate strife as well. While Phil has the right to speak his mind, the employer has a right to protect their business as they see fit. A&E believe these statements, that we're vile and devicive will hurt their long term business strategy and therefore are justified to suspend Phil.

    Most people know not to go out in public and say things that potentially could work their way back to their workplace and get them fired. Phil, somehow is missing this instinct.

  • Not at all ridiculous.

    Phil made remarks that offended an entire community of people. By doing so, he caused possible harm to his employer. A&E had every right to suspend him. He has always had (and apparently likes to exercise) his freedom of speech. But freedom of speech does not equal freedom of consequences from that speech. To be honest, the most entertaining thing to come from this embarrassing event was Sarah Palin proving yet again that she has no idea what our constitution says or how it works...

    Posted by: so26
  • Justice is sweet.

    I will sound gleeful, but I am glad that Phil was banned. No, it wasn't ridiculous. I don't understand why people think otherwise. Freedom of Speech? He had, has, and will have it! He was free to speak it. Maybe it would've been better if he DIDN'T HAVE IT, because he wouldn't have been banned! Ironic for some. (Sarah Palin)

    People are confusing freedom of speech with the consequences of it. Why are people opposed to the consequences? Not sure, a company who doesn't do high-profile topics doesn't want to face a backlash for stupid comments; ban the idiot. Seems simple to me.

  • A&E has all the right in the world to ban him for his offensive comments!

    A&E has all the right in the world to ban him for his offensive comments. What he said about gays, though it was his opinion, is still bigoted and A&E rightly doesn't want to be perceived as endorsing or condoning these views. On top of this, he made statements about treatment of blacks in the segregated South before the Civil Rights movement which suggested they were being treated fairly.

    What BS! For everyone up-and-arms about his job loss - too bad! A&E has the right to banish. And his constitution rights are still very much protected. He isn't in jail after all.

  • Who Cares All That Much?

    You can fire someone for being a douchebag. What's ridiculous is that everyone cares about this guy so much. Celebrities say stupid, offensive stuff all the time; why is this particular case so newsworthy?

    Because liberalism comes under fire by the individuals who just want their world to stay the same. But I think that it is a GOOD thing that liberalism comes under fire; how can you alter your philosophies to better serve your immediate political goals if you are never challenged?

    In any event, this scandal was blown way out of proportion, and I figure that as long as everyone else in America is losing his or her job, why not Phil Robertson?

  • Time for Grammar Nazi!:

    Wrong use of the word "despite". You should say "for" within this particular context. "Despite" would be like if they banned him from Duck Dynasty in spite of the fact that he made insulting comments. As if the insulting comments were a reason not to ban him for something else yet they decided to ban him anyways.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
GWL-CPA says2013-12-23T21:03:04.883
His statements were not insulting at all. 67% of the world believes that homosexuality is bad for society.