Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The Costitution doesnt guarantee us our rights according to our sexual preference, homo nor hetero.
Really? So you think that if your state modified its driving laws tomorrow to ban heterosexual people from driving, allowing only homosexuals to do so, that such a law would pass constitutional muster?
Really? So you think that if your state modified its driving laws tomorrow to ban heterosexual people from driving, allowing only homosexuals to do so, that such a law would pass constitutional muster?
It's quite obvious that you and other liberals want to get rid of the First Amendment.
Dissenting opinions will not be tolerated in America any more.
Censor and punish those that voice opposing opinions.
The road to Utopia will be paved with many bodies.
Well, the only appropriate response to intolerance is to be intolerant of it.
The only appropriate response to bigotry is to be bigoted against it.
Robertson has every right to hold his opinion and to speak his opinion. His rights haven't been violated in any way whatsoever. Not one single bit.
However, being a paid employee of a private company, he might have expected some repercussions from his employers who want to distance himself from his hateful, ignorant, fearful bigotry.
He has the right to voice his hateful, ignorant nonsense, and I would fight to the death for his right to his own opinions and his right to speak his mind. But this is a storm in a teacup. Nobody's rights have been trampled on in this case by any stretch of the imagination.
Personally I thought his comments about Blacks being happier during Jim Crow was far more off base and offensive. Guess that shows you who White Liberals in the media care more about.
Good lord. Nobody who knows me would call me a liberal, but I hadn't heard he said this about Jim Crow laws.
Again, I support his right to have his views and speak his mind (which he has every right and freedom to do) but sheesh--what an imbecile.
That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. You will not find a more fervent defender of the 1st Amendment than me.
You believe in tyrany against anti-gay free speech because you don't want some gay people who could harm themselves to do so. The fact that you want to silence people is evidenced in your posts. You're not happy with your life.
I have liked Duck Dynasty since the beginning (indeed, I began the first thread on it in the TV section herein). I also knew, from my early reading, of Mr. Robertson being a "Fundalmentalist Christian" (I believe he became 'born again' after a period of alcoholism), hence I suspected, early on, that he would not be 'gay friendly'.
I was pleased that Duck Dynasty did not, as it could have, become a show pushing the family's Christian beliefs on viewers. The only part that involved their faith is the dinner-table prayer by Phil at the end of each show.
I am not a Christian (or anything else), but I like the Robertson family. I like that each son is still married to their original 'sweetheart', and the grandchilden seem firmly rooted.
Anyway, I was not 'shocked' by Mr. Robertson's viewpoint on gays. I have family members who feel the same way (all 'born again'). My family members are still very decent people, willing to help out less fortunate people. If asked, they would agree with Mr. Robertson's views on whether gays can, for instance, go to Heaven.
Mr. Robertson's viewpoint will not stop me from watching the show, since the show itself does not 'go after' gays (or mention them in any way, shape or form). Gay rights (which I have supported since the mid 1970s, before it became a popular subject, although back then 'marriage' by gays was not even really considered as a viable option even in the distant future) is still marching forward, and will not be impeded by a person giving a Biblical viewpoint.
I was a bit more concerned about Mr. Robertson's viewpoint of how 'happy' black people were back in his youth, and how those he worked with in the cotton fields had 'no reason to sing the blues'. However, he is 68 years old, and the older generation (and younger too) often wear blinders. I imagine the Civil Rights struggle simply was not on his radar back then.
I predict that the Robertson family as a whole will agree to stop the show if the father will not be on. It is their right, and I would support their decision (I would hate to see the family fracture over these comments). Indeed, I have read several times that Phil Robertson was thinking that he would bow out of the show; perhaps he knowingly made his comments thinking that it would accelerate the process.
Fun thing about life, there is always controversy, from the 'All in the Family' days, 'Three's Company' (two girls living with a man, who pretends he is gay!), and continuing to this day.
Yes, no one was trying to take these shows off the air either
People either watched or didn't, not like the left who's feelings seem to be hurt every week. They do need thicker skin, or growing up may be hard to do..........
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
They do need thicker skin, or growing up may be hard to do..........