Is the GLAAD organization an overbearing, over-politically correct, and hypersensitive group? (Based on GLAAD's recent attacks on Phil from Duck Dynasty!)

Is the GLAAD organization an overbearing, over-politically correct, and hypersensitive group? (Based on GLAAD's recent attacks on Phil from Duck Dynasty!)
  • Absolutely, tolerance has to go both ways.

    Phil expressed his views, said he didn't judge anyone just that homosexuality was immoral by his interpretation of the bible and that he didn't identify with it. Completely within anyone's rights to hold that point of view. As soon as you go after someone like this you've become the intolerant ones and should be chastised for it.

  • Pretty much answers itself

    The problem with organizations like GLAAD, is that they require controversy in order to remain relevant.
    Booker T. Washington once described this very problem within the "Civil Rights" community in the context of racism. I think his quote applies here as well.

    "I am afraid that there is a certain class of race-problem solvers who don't want the patient to get well, because as long as the disease holds out they have not only an easy means of making a living, but also an easy medium through which to make themselves prominent before the public."

  • Phil CAN Disagree With Your Stance, GLAAD

    Many groups - A&E and GLAAD among them - seemingly want to condemn this man for merely having an opinion different from their own and daring to express it. These groups don't want anyone to think critically for themselves. Instead, they want to tell others what to think, and if you disagree with their views, then you are wrong and must change your mind or face ridicule. This is more offensive to me than anything Phil Robertson has said.

  • Attacking with Vile or extreme prejudice does not help your cause GLAAD!

    Phil Robertson was simply asserting his Religious Conservative ideas based on the question format that a journalist from GQ magazine asked. His right to oppose or explain his stance that directly mirrors opposite of him, is his freedom of speech. While GLAAD has a right to oppose Phil Robertson's ideas is also their freedom of speech. My question is what does it accomplish for GLAADs cause to attack a TV reality star that has more than 14 million viewers? Even if you do not like the TV show, getting someone fired because of their opinion or religious affiliation is not a noble or just cause for any organization. I believe GLAAD has overstepped the line. The article posted by GQ was 3 pages, and out of the 3 page article. There was only 3 sentences referenced from the Bible. Phil never showed prejudice he was even quoted saying in the same article " i would never judge another human being, that is not my job". He was not judging, but simply stating his opinion on the matter. With that being said, none should be discriminated against for sexual orientation as well. I believe GLAAD has helped the GLBT community in some cases, but an attack like this does noting but further the gap on tolerance for GLBT community. This attack is nothing more than GLAAD pushing their agenda for complete and unquestionable tolerance with the goal of silencing nay sayers, and posturing extreme religious disdain and prejudice towards Christianity. I have Gay and lesbian friends and they have expressed nothing but shock for GLAAD taking the comments of phil and blowing them out of proportion.

  • They over-reached on this one.

    Phil, closely paraphrased the Apostle Paul in the 1st letter to the Corinthians in his remarks. Glaad is not attacking Phil Robertson, Glaad is attacking the Apostle Paul, effectively calling his remarks homophobic. Most Christians consider Paul's writings to be the Word of God.

    Glaad appear to be taking their fight to God, their creator...Laughable.

    Christians have had enough of these people force feeding their views on us all. From now on I plan to resist Glaad in any legal way possible. They may have awoken the sleeping giant this time. As Christians from all faiths stand up against their non christian views.

  • Intolerance of free speech is anti-American

    Forcing people to think and speak a particular way is both foolish and oddly un-American. We thrive when we are tolerant of the views of others. When we force everyone to accept the same view we become fascist or worse. We should all be encouraged to educate ourselves, think about important issues and share our views openly when we believe they are important. Without anger or hatred, but with lots of rational thought. We don't need to agree with others - but we do need to respect their right to express their ideas.

  • GLAAD just lost any credibility or intimidation factor they might have had before.

    Advertisers will never be afraid of GLAAD again after this petty attack. GLAAD will become the way of PETA - no one gives a crap what PETA thinks anymore. PETA launches a boycott and no one listens. GLAAD would have been better off saving their energies for real hate speech, rather than attacking an old man's religious beliefs. And good luck to A&E for completely alienating 100% of their fan base.
    GLAAD went from being a radical activist group to being a joke.

  • When did GLAAD members become fans?

    The show has always been about a Christian family. Anti-homosexuality has always been a contention between bible believers and those who choose a different lifestyle. When I heard this comment “What’s clear is that such hateful anti-gay comments are unacceptable to fans, viewers, and networks alike,” said GLAAD spokesperson Wilson Cruz. I said who are they talking about. Did they suddenly become fans over night so they could suddenly not be fans anymore? They weren't fans before and they aren't fans now. It isn't a surprise that either side continues to have the same views.

  • GLAAD's attacks on Phil from Duck Dynasty are completely on target and exposed a very dark side of the much loved founder

    GLAAD's attacks on Phil from Duck Dynasty are completely on target and exposed a very dark side of the much loved founder. It is often hard to hear negative things about a celebrity who the masses are fond of even though they don't really know the celebrity. What is more disturbing is that people are still supporting Phil after the evidence has showed he is very likely a child abuser (quote: "you've got to marry these girls when the are 14-16..." and then actually doing this when he is markedly older then his "child bride") Some things are WRONG no matter who is doing it.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.