Remarks about gays prompt suspension of 'Duck Dynasty' star
-
Gays are stupid, inbred, dirty morons. Is it offensive now?
-
Do people actually proudly refer to themselves as a hillbilly? I assumed that was like calling yourself dumb or stupid. I didn't realize any group of people actually identify themselves as hillbillies.
I am not saying any rural person is a hillbilly. A stupid, uneducated, not well spoken backwoods country person is a hillbilly.
People identify as gay. Part of the definition of gay isn't being a stupid, inbred moron. To call all gay people stupid and inbred would be offensive, yeah.
I am not sure why you aren't getting the difference here? I am not sure how now all of a suddent the gays are oppressing everyone else by asking to be treated as equal. "Oh my god! Times are changing and I disagree! Those damn gays are oppressing me! Why can't they just not get the same as everyone else and be happy".
I realize you said you don't care either way. But are you really going to try to jump on the cal conservative bandwagon of "the evil, liberal, gay agenda corrupting america"?
I am guessing you are doing your normal "I am bored so I will try to just work someone up". If anything your responses make so little sense, it is weird. You normally make more sense than this
-
Really? You've never heard anyone proudly call themselves a redneck or a hillbilly? That's a bit of an ignorant statement I think. Having been born and raised In the hills of west Virginia doesn't make you deliverance. Why, the great orator himself, Abraham Lincoln, came from a humble log cabin in Illinois did he not?
From Wikipedia
Lincoln led the United States through its greatest constitutional, military, and moral crisisthe American Civil Warand in so doing preserved the Union, abolished slavery, strengthened the national government and modernized the economy. Reared in a poor family on the western frontier, Lincoln was self-educated, and became a country lawyer, a Whig Party leader, Illinois state legislator during the 1830s, and a one-term member of the United States House of Representatives during the 1840s
If he weren't a hillbilly in the long ago of 1809 he surely would have been considered a country bumpkin by the wealthy and arrogant New England elite. Probably also by the wealthy and arrogant Southern plantation owners. But then, he showed them all didn't he?
-
You know or ought to know that I historically support the gay marriage issue. But you pretending that hillbillies expressing disgust at the gay lifestyle is somehow more defamatory than "intellectuals" (that's in quotations because a real intellectual would know better) lambasting hillbillies as ignorant contemptible morons. A double standard, in other words.
-
The two are not equal though, not in how they are carried out.
-
I don't recall all rural people being called hillbillies. I think the only one being called a hillbilly is the gent who was spouting off about how he doesn't understand gay people and how they are in the same vein as dog fuckers. Sounds like a hillbilly to me.
I live in WV. There is a very marked difference between rural folk and hillbillies. Living here with a black wife gets interesting when you encounter hillbillies.
-
The two are not equal though, not in how they are carried out.
Yes they are equal until the point where violence enters the picture.
Early man walked away as modern man took control. Their minds weren't all the same and to conquer was their goal. So He built his great empires and he slaughtered his own kind, and he died a confused man and killed himself in his own mind... -
I don't recall all rural people being called hillbillies. I think the only one being called a hillbilly is the gent who was spouting off about how he doesn't understand gay people and how they are in the same vein as dog fuckers. Sounds like a hillbilly to me.
I live in WV. There is a very marked difference between rural folk and hillbillies. Living here with a black wife gets interesting when you encounter hillbillies.
I don't recall all rural people being called hillbillies. I think the only one being called a hillbilly is the gent who was spouting off about how he doesn't understand gay people and how they are in the same vein as dog fuckers. Sounds like a hillbilly to me.
I live in WV. There is a very marked difference between rural folk and hillbillies. Living here with a black wife gets interesting when you encounter hillbillies.
Yes they say there's a difference between black folk and n-words too. A lot of people don't hold to that, just as the wealthy elitist nyc hipster will dismiss you as a hillbilly on sight or the second that that west Virginia twang leaves your mouth. Fact of life, deal with it. The only people who say "there's a difference between rural people and hillbillies" is someone who feels he is unjustly being lumped in with hillbillies. I get your point I live in Berlin heights Ohio. Cornfields, soybean fields and orchards as far as the eye can see. Near as I can tell I'm not Larry the cable guy yet. But then that is the point I'm trying to make. Who are we to judge Larry the cable guy?
-
We are to judge Larry because he is not funny and he is playing a character haha. Just briefly off topic.
Oh and I am originally from NJ so the locals actually look at me like I am an alien when I speak.
-
The two are not equal though, not in how they are carried out.
Yes they are equal until the point where violence enters the picture.
Yes they are equal until the point where violence enters the picture.
There's hillbilly-bashing?
-
Koala, hillbilly bashing is everywhere and Christmas is on life support.
-
Yes they are equal until the point where violence enters the picture.
There's hillbilly-bashing?
Well the term hillbilly refers to poor Irish Protestant immigrants who settled in the Appalachians or other mountainous regions since it reminded them of their native land. We know they are Protestants because Catholics would not name their children William. They were despised at the time of their immigration and persecuted heavily. The term hillbilly itself is a derogatory slur as we all know: an insult to that group of people. So I wonder why the liberal douche bags don't insist we call that the H word?There's hillbilly-bashing?
WSS
-
There was no dismantling of anyone's rights in that interview. Phil did not say "gays shouldn't have rights" or anything remotely close (in addition to linking it with bestiality, he linked other examples of sin - burglary, drunkenness, slander, swindling). But y'all are right, "gays = horsefuckers" is waaay more sound byte-ey. Good work. He merely said that homosexuality is a sin. According to the bible. Which is correct. You can agree or disagree with the bible, but you can't disagree that what Phil said is found in the bible.
So, imagine the reverse scenario:
What if Phil was gay and talked about supporting homosexuality as a lifestyle in an interview? Where he was asked a question about it, rather than bring it up on his own. Suppose A&E wasn't fond of the gay, and suspended him indefinitely for his remarks? Would you crybaby pussies be supporting A&E then? Of course not. A&E would be sued and then drawn & quartered with respect to their remaining assets.
This is why it's a 1st amendment issue. You have 1 group of people protected & insulated by the 1st amendment and another that is not.
Sure, luck means a lot in football. Not having a good quarterback is bad luck. -Don Shula -
There was no dismantling of anyone's rights in that interview. Phil did not say "gays shouldn't have rights" or anything remotely close (in addition to linking it with bestiality, he linked other examples of sin - burglary, drunkenness, slander, swindling). But y'all are right, "gays = horsefuckers" is waaay more sound byte-ey. Good work. He merely said that homosexuality is a sin. According to the bible. Which is correct. You can agree or disagree with the bible, but you can't disagree that what Phil said is found in the bible.
So, imagine the reverse scenario:
What if Phil was gay and talked about supporting homosexuality as a lifestyle in an interview? Where he was asked a question about it, rather than bring it up on his own. Suppose A&E wasn't fond of the gay, and suspended him indefinitely for his remarks? Would you crybaby pussies be supporting A&E then? Of course not. A&E would be sued and then drawn & quartered with respect to their remaining assets.
This is why it's a 1st amendment issue. You have 1 group of people protected & insulated by the 1st amendment and another that is not.
There was no dismantling of anyone's rights in that interview. Phil did not say "gays shouldn't have rights" or anything remotely close (in addition to linking it with bestiality, he linked other examples of sin - burglary, drunkenness, slander, swindling). But y'all are right, "gays = horsefuckers" is waaay more sound byte-ey. Good work. He merely said that homosexuality is a sin. According to the bible. Which is correct. You can agree or disagree with the bible, but you can't disagree that what Phil said is found in the bible.
So, imagine the reverse scenario:
What if Phil was gay and talked about supporting homosexuality as a lifestyle in an interview? Where he was asked a question about it, rather than bring it up on his own. Suppose A&E wasn't fond of the gay, and suspended him indefinitely for his remarks? Would you crybaby pussies be supporting A&E then? Of course not. A&E would be sued and then drawn & quartered with respect to their remaining assets.
This is why it's a 1st amendment issue. You have 1 group of people protected & insulated by the 1st amendment and another that is not.
As a free market libertarian I would say that A&E can do whatever the fuck they want with their product. If their contract said that they don't want someone chatting about how they like the dick and Phil signed it, then he would be subject to getting fired. Simple as any other morals clause in a contract. The same rule applies if a teacher signs the contract at a private catholic school to work and decides after signing to come out as gay. The teacher signed the contract and knows that the school can fire them. There is no legal recourse.
That being said, the paying public can then vote with their wallet as to what they want to do. They could continue to give the network their money or boycott. So it is not a 1st Amendment issue. No one is being prevented from expressing an opinion. No one is being arrested.
-
You are free to say whatever you want and others are allowed to react accordingly.
-
There was no dismantling of anyone's rights in that interview. Phil did not say "gays shouldn't have rights" or anything remotely close (in addition to linking it with bestiality, he linked other examples of sin - burglary, drunkenness, slander, swindling). But y'all are right, "gays = horsefuckers" is waaay more sound byte-ey. Good work. He merely said that homosexuality is a sin. According to the bible. Which is correct. You can agree or disagree with the bible, but you can't disagree that what Phil said is found in the bible.
So, imagine the reverse scenario:
What if Phil was gay and talked about supporting homosexuality as a lifestyle in an interview? Where he was asked a question about it, rather than bring it up on his own. Suppose A&E wasn't fond of the gay, and suspended him indefinitely for his remarks? Would you crybaby pussies be supporting A&E then? Of course not. A&E would be sued and then drawn & quartered with respect to their remaining assets.
This is why it's a 1st amendment issue. You have 1 group of people protected & insulated by the 1st amendment and another that is not.
There was no dismantling of anyone's rights in that interview. Phil did not say "gays shouldn't have rights" or anything remotely close (in addition to linking it with bestiality, he linked other examples of sin - burglary, drunkenness, slander, swindling). But y'all are right, "gays = horsefuckers" is waaay more sound byte-ey. Good work. He merely said that homosexuality is a sin. According to the bible. Which is correct. You can agree or disagree with the bible, but you can't disagree that what Phil said is found in the bible.
So, imagine the reverse scenario:
What if Phil was gay and talked about supporting homosexuality as a lifestyle in an interview? Where he was asked a question about it, rather than bring it up on his own. Suppose A&E wasn't fond of the gay, and suspended him indefinitely for his remarks? Would you crybaby pussies be supporting A&E then? Of course not. A&E would be sued and then drawn & quartered with respect to their remaining assets.
This is why it's a 1st amendment issue. You have 1 group of people protected & insulated by the 1st amendment and another that is not.
I don't think you can fire someone based on their race, gender or sexual preference. So yes, if he was fired for being gay then there would be an issue.
If was straight but said he supported gay marriage, and he got suspended for it, then no, I see no issue. A&E would still be able to do what they want based on the contract signed.
-
There was no dismantling of anyone's rights in that interview. Phil did not say "gays shouldn't have rights" or anything remotely close (in addition to linking it with bestiality, he linked other examples of sin - burglary, drunkenness, slander, swindling). But y'all are right, "gays = horsefuckers" is waaay more sound byte-ey. Good work. He merely said that homosexuality is a sin. According to the bible. Which is correct. You can agree or disagree with the bible, but you can't disagree that what Phil said is found in the bible.
So, imagine the reverse scenario:
What if Phil was gay and talked about supporting homosexuality as a lifestyle in an interview? Where he was asked a question about it, rather than bring it up on his own. Suppose A&E wasn't fond of the gay, and suspended him indefinitely for his remarks? Would you crybaby pussies be supporting A&E then? Of course not. A&E would be sued and then drawn & quartered with respect to their remaining assets.
This is why it's a 1st amendment issue. You have 1 group of people protected & insulated by the 1st amendment and another that is not.
I don't think you can fire someone based on their race, gender or sexual preference. So yes, if he was fired for being gay then there would be an issue.
If was straight but said he supported gay marriage, and he got suspended for it, then no, I see no issue. A&E would still be able to do what they want based on the contract signed.
I don't think you can fire someone based on their race, gender or sexual preference. So yes, if he was fired for being gay then there would be an issue.
If was straight but said he supported gay marriage, and he got suspended for it, then no, I see no issue. A&E would still be able to do what they want based on the contract signed.
You can most definitely get canned if you agree to a contract that stipulates (insert whatever religious group) morals and you choose to break that arrangement. I have a few friends that currently work at or have worked at private christian and catholic schools. They canned people for coming out gay. They also canned people for getting divorces. They had zero legal recourse because it was all spelled out in their employment contracts.
-
Keep in mind these were all private institutions.
-
Oh, well if they signed something beforehand then yeah, I could see that.
-
Just had a couple of hot dogs for lunch and saw the restaurant example that was posted.
I don't know why individuals successful in a business tend to venture into gray areas like this. Remember Jack Nicklaus in the early 90s when asked about blacks in golf?
Nicklaus responded by saying "blacks have different muscles that react in different ways."
Now, I love Jack Nicklaus, used to cut the grass in his neighborhood in Dublin, Ohio, but, unless I am mistaken, he doesn't have a degree in physiology. So why would he say that?
Another guy here in town where I work has a restaurant. He plays Fox News the whole time he is open with the sound turned down, which is fine, I don't have to look and ESPN is on another TV. I am sitting at the bar on lunch and this guy starts feeding me the latest talking points about things that neither one of us seem to have a good grasp on. Screw me, I just want a hot dog, not hot dogma. How about asking whether or not my food is any good first at least? Bottom line, I get my hot dogs at a place now that doesn't even have a TV. The owner, well, acts like an owner instead of a political operative.
Now, I know next to nothing about duck dynasty, this is the most I have ever heard of the show and I have never seen it. Yet again, here is a successful individual complaining explicitly about butt sex and a host of other "sins". Pretty freaking far from duck calls unless they are up someone's rectum...Now I learn he is also a pastor, a "missionary who just happens to be on TV". Again, somehow pastors all across the country guide their flocks without explicitly comparing anuses and vaginas in public, especially in GQ, so why must he again? Surely he knows some missionaries were boiled in water and eaten for spreading the gospel, so what's the problem with a little blow back now? God is on his side after all...and in duck dude's mind good chefs stir the pot apparently...what's the issue? Oh yeah, he may lose some money...
Objectively, someone could posit that he was trying to build up his audience, congregation and duck call sales by publicly sharing his beliefs. Why else appear in GQ? If that was the case then he has to accept the flak with the kudos. He does play himself on tv and not Jesus of Nazareth...so it is easy to connect his "outside" opinions with his on-screen "character".
Bottom line: the LGBTQ folk are out of the closet and organized and aggressive. They are not the easy targets they used to be. I had to take a required class with someone whose specialty was identifying the centuries-old put-downs that people used to use for gay and transgender folks in Europe. Talk about looking to be offended, digging in the past to be offended more like it. Anyone else know a 500-year-old Spanish word for "fag"? Add to that the publicity of the high suicide rates for LGBTQ teens over the last ten years (many due to bullying) and you begin to see some of the reasons for their aggression.
Flip it around and look at it this way: what if Christian teens were suiciding in concerning numbers over Christianity and the LGBTQ folks were on TV and in magazines saying that Christianity is an abomination and that Christians are damned in this life and the next? Would that be considered free speech as well or a provocation?
Also, they are not just seeking "tolerance" as some have suggested. Tolerance for them is a joke, they want acceptance and do not appear to be willing to stop short of their goal.
As for Duck Dude, I wonder if he would like another chance at answering the question? As we see on these forums every day:
FREE SPEECH = FREEDOM TO PROVOKE CONSEQUENCES
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login