Hi,

I personally think this is wrong. He said what was exactly put in the Bible. He stood up for Christianity. And in result he gets persecuted for it. And not to mention Free Speech. What has this world become? I certainly won't be watching this network anymore.

You can view the full article here: ---------------------> http://tv.msn.com/tv/artical.aspx?news=844242

 

Comment your personal opinions below!

Thanks, and God Bless.

I Know. This Is COMPLETELY Ludicrous.

I'd ban him too for hate speech like this.

""It seems like, to me, a vagina—as a man—would be more desirable than a man's anus. That's just me. I'm just thinking: There's more there! She's got more to offer. I mean, come on, dudes! You know what I'm saying? But hey, sin: It's not logical, my man. It's just not logical."

 

Wowwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww

Hate speech? He spoke directly from the Bible. You call that hate speech?

Hate speech? He spoke directly from the Bible. You call that hate speech?

Yup. Just because it's written in an ancient text doesn't make him any less of an asshole.

He spoke of great wisdom. He said he is not the one to judge anyone. He only goes by the word of God. He is a true, wise, amazing man. It's sad we have people today in the world that don't recognize this.

Here is what Phil Robertson had to say about this.

 

Here is what Phil Robertson had to say about this.

 

"We would all be better off if we loved God and loved each other." Unless who you love happens to be a man or a woman when you are also a man or a woman, in that case, firetruck you.

 

 

Bigotry using the Bible as a source is still bigotry.

Edited December 19, 201311 yr by RoxSoxKH

"We would all be better off if we loved God and loved each other." Unless who you love happens to be a man or a woman when you are also a man or a woman, in that case, firetruck you.

 

 

Bigotry using the Bible as a source is still bigotry.

 

Maybe he said something insensitive, but from what he said his intention was clearly not to say something hateful. Of course, I don't watch the show. This could be an isolated slip up or a long chain of events. 

 

I do find it interesting that the episode had to air before anyone at A&E found out about it though. 

Edited December 19, 201311 yr by Amon

Maybe he said something insensitive, but from what he said his intention was clearly not to say something hateful. Of course, I don't watch the show. This could be an isolated slip up or a long chain of events. I do find it interesting that the episode had to air before anyone at A&E found out about it though.

His" intentions" aren't a good excuse for what he said.

Edited December 19, 201311 yr by Hardrada

His" intentions" aren't a good excuse for what he said.

 

He didn't say anything inherently wrong though. He just gave a (vulgar) reason as to why he isn't homosexual. He doesn't prefer it and his religion doesn't embrace it. 

 

And even if what he did say was truly offensive and derogatory, I hear and see more derogatory things towards gays on a daily basis. Sometimes from the gay rights community itself. 

 

 

 

Those are ads for Obamacare, That's right, the "most LGBT friendly administration in history" depicting homosexual males in the most stereotypical way they possibly could. Instead of say choosing photographs of say, a properly clothed homosexual couple enjoying the holidays, they go for easily the most derogatory depiction of homosexuals possible. 

 

Before the left-wing nutjobs start their witch hunts against conservatives, they should probably get their own act together first. 

Edited December 19, 201311 yr by Amon

He didn't say anything inherently wrong though. He just gave a (vulgar) reason as to why he isn't homosexual. He doesn't prefer it and his religion doesn't embrace it. And even if what he did say was truly offensive and derogatory, I hear and see more derogatory things towards gays on a daily basis. Sometimes from the gay rights community itself.   Those are ads for Obamacare, That's right, the "most LGBT friendly administration in history" depicting homosexual males in the most stereotypical way they possibly could. Instead of say choosing photographs of say, a properly clothed homosexual couple enjoying the holidays, they go for easily the most derogatory depiction of homosexuals possible. Before the left-wing nutjobs start their witch hunts against conservatives, they should probably get their own act together first.

 

Neither of these are appropriate. How did you turn this into a political thing?

Neither of these are appropriate. How did you turn this into a political thing?

 

This was already a political thing. We were discussing whether or not it was fair for A&E to fire this man over the expression of his religion. This is a political matter from the get-go. Especially considering how the left is bashing Phil relentlessly while the right is supporting him fanatically. 

 

Regardless, my point was that Phil didn't do anything worse than what many people do on a daily basis, some even do it dishonestly, posing as supporters of the LGBT community while simultaneously perpetuating negative stereotypes. At least Phil is being honest. The people judging him are the same people who tell you to cut down on greenhouse gasses while traveling the world in a private jet. 

Edited December 20, 201311 yr by Amon

This was already a political thing. We were discussing whether or not it was fair for A&E to fire this man over the expression of his religion. This is a political matter from the get-go. Especially considering how the left is bashing Phil relentlessly while the right is supporting him fanatically. Regardless, my point was that Phil didn't do anything worse than what many people do on a daily basis, some even do it dishonestly, posing as supporters of the LGBT community while simultaneously perpetuating negative stereotypes. At least Phil is being honest. The people judging him are the same people who tell you to cut down on greenhouse gasses while traveling the world in a private jet.

This could get way more political than it needs to be, but I wasn't going to take it there. This is about a tv channel and one of it's employees. They have every right to fire him for being offensive, especially when they are considering viewership.

Edited December 20, 201311 yr by Hardrada

This could get way more political than it needs to be, but I wasn't going to take it there. This is about a tv channel and one of it's employees. They have every right to fire him for being offensive, especially when they are considering viewership.

 

You can be one of those people who refuse to accept that things get political, but that won't change it. When the political factions and media start taking sides, it gets political. 

 

Credit card companies have the right to screw over their customers into bankruptcy, but that doesn't mean its the proper and moral thing to do. A&E has every right to fire Phil, yet that doesn't mean it was what they should have done, especially for a first time offense. 

You can be one of those people who refuse to accept that things get political, but that won't change it. When the political factions and media start taking sides, it gets political.  Credit card companies have the right to screw over their customers into bankruptcy, but that doesn't mean its the proper and moral thing to do. A&E has every right to fire Phil, yet that doesn't mean it was what they should have done, especially for a first time offense.

Exactly, it gets as political as people want it to be. I hardly think he's being screwed over by this. He already has millions. Stealing money from people, and professing a religious viewpoint that Is well known to be bigoted, is not a fair comparison.

Stealing money from people, and professing a religious viewpoint that Is well known to be bigoted, is not a fair comparison.

 

He didn't steal anyone's money, that's a wild and baseless claim. Also, if you actually look at both sides of the story you'll find he's not bigoted. 

He didn't steal anyone's money, that's a wild and baseless claim. Also, if you actually look at both sides of the story you'll find he's not bigoted.

I was talking about the credit card companies and screwing people over financially. I wasn'timplying he did.His wording could have been worse than it was, but opposing homosexuality on religious grounds is bigoted. Whether he knew it or not, he said something he shouldn't have if he didn't want backlash. He's free to say whatever he likes, but when he said something like this, he shouldn't be suprised by the response it gets.

Why is this such a big deal? He can say what he wants to and the network can do what they want.  Freedom.  Murica.  USA #1.

While I hate him after making such a disgusting comment, to be fair I don't watch the show, so I guess MAYBE there could have been context? But anyway, he DOES NOT have freedom of speech. 

 

Freedom of speech is a political right. The government cannot do anything to this man because of what he said, even if the government is like wow that is really gross and wrong. BUT it's not a private right. AE is a private company that can do whatever they please. If they don't want to be associated with hateful views they don't have to be. That's why companies have the right to fire people if they say something the company disagrees with--because they are a private business and are not bound by freedom of speech. 

lmaooo it's easy for straight people to say that something like this doesn't matter and that it was just his """"freedom of speech"""" because they aren't the ones who are directly affected by people like him

 

 you all have no idea what it's like to be afraid of being killed or thrown out of your house because someone's religion says that you're disgusting or immoral

Edited December 21, 201311 yr by Shana09