Ruffled Feathers Over Duck Dynasty - Page 8
+ Reply to Thread
Page 8 of 14 FirstFirst ... 456789101112 ... LastLast
Results 71 to 80 of 137
Like Tree58Likes

Thread: Ruffled Feathers Over Duck Dynasty

  1. #71
    Posting Addict
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Posts
    23,628

    Default

    I actually don't think they have a right to suspend him. I mean, yes they have the RIGHT, but they should have seen this coming and had a better plan than trying to suspend him from filming a show about his own family. They could not possibly have been surprised that this was his opinion...they should have had a plan in place and not tried to punish him -- however ineffectively -- for the way that they already knew he was. That's my objection: that they must have known this about him all along.
    Laurie, mom to:
    Nathaniel ( 11 ) and Juliet ( 7 )




    Baking Adventures In A Messy Kitchen (blog)

  2. #72
    Posting Addict Alissa_Sal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Debating Away on the Debate Board!
    Posts
    11,770

    Default

    Laurie, I agree it seems disingenuous, like "It's okay by us if he is this way as long as he keeps quiet about it...."

    But I'm just saying that now that the cat is out of the bag, so to speak, I think they have the right to fire him or suspend him or whatever if they don't like the way he represents them.

    As to whether or not he could film about his own family, I assume that is up to a) who owns the land they are filming on (if it's his then he would need to agree to it) and b) if the family themselves agree to continue without him. If not, then I assume the show would just be over.
    -Alissa, mom to Tristan (5) and Reid (the baby!)

    Got an opinion? We've got a board! Come join us for some lively debate on the Face Off! Debate Arena board.

  3. #73
    Posting Addict
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Posts
    23,628

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alissa_Sal View Post
    Laurie, I agree it seems disingenuous, like "It's okay by us if he is this way as long as he keeps quiet about it...."

    But I'm just saying that now that the cat is out of the bag, so to speak, I think they have the right to fire him or suspend him or whatever if they don't like the way he represents them.

    As to whether or not he could film about his own family, I assume that is up to a) who owns the land they are filming on (if it's his then he would need to agree to it) and b) if the family themselves agree to continue without him. If not, then I assume the show would just be over.
    I think they have the right to, but I think it's kind of stupid....they would be smarter to make a loud & clear statement that they completely disagree with him. But yeah, it's his land, his house, his family, and they already said they will not shoot without him.

    I may have a different perspective because I used to work there. I just can't fathom why they didn't have a good plan in place for this, given the fact that they are self-proclaimed rednecks.
    Laurie, mom to:
    Nathaniel ( 11 ) and Juliet ( 7 )




    Baking Adventures In A Messy Kitchen (blog)

  4. #74
    Posting Addict GloriaInTX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Posts
    7,721

    Default

    I think they have the right to fire him, but I think it is pretty silly to pretend they didn't know in advance what he would say if asked that question. They knew going in exactly what he stood for. They are just trying to play both sides and I don't think they ever had any intention of cutting him from the show. They are just trying to appease the gay activist crowd because of the liberal control of the media. It is pretty easy to put him on hiatus during a time when they aren't even filming anyway.

    I also have to say that it is ridiculous that with the amount of filth they put on reality shows with the Kardashians and similar stuff it seems kind of a silly reason to take someone off. Really what are they going to claim he is breaking a morality clause for standing up for his belief when these trashy reality stars are allowed free reign? Has our society really come to that?
    Last edited by GloriaInTX; 12-23-2013 at 11:37 PM.
    Mom to Lee, Jake, Brandon, Rocco
    Stepmom to Ryan, Regan, Braden, Baley
    Granddaughters Kylie 10/18/2010 & Aleya 4/22/2013


    I never consider a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosopy, as a cause for withdrawing from a friend. --Thomas Jefferson

  5. #75
    Posting Addict GloriaInTX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Posts
    7,721

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alissa_Sal View Post
    Gloria, LOL about that dude being "a lover." Here is something else he has said about gay people (although not in that interview)


    'Duck Dynasty's' Phil Robertson: Five more debate-worthy quotes - latimes.com

    Imagine I said "Christians are full of murder, envy, strife, hatred. They are insolent, arrogant haters. They are heartless. They are faithless. They are senseless. They are ruthless. They invent ways of doing evil."

    You'd call me "loving" I assume?

    (And yes, I do know that he's paraphrasing from the Bible. I just wouldn't call that particular passage of the bible "loving" either. LOL

    Anything can sound worse when taken out of context. The only problem was that he wasn't just talking about gay people he was talking about all sexual immorality, which includes heterosexuals, plus people with other sins as well, so pretty much all sinners. If you back up the video of him to 17:00 instead of starting at the point the article sends you would see that. When you tell your child they are doing something wrong is it because you hate them or because you love them? Would you call everything that Jesus said loving?

    Romans 1
    21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.

    24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

    26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

    28 Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done. 29 They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31 they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy. 32 Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.
    Jesus in Matthew 10
    34 “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I have come to turn “‘a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law—
    36 a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.’[c]
    37 “Anyone who loves their father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves their son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. 38 Whoever does not take up their cross and follow me is not worthy of me. 39 Whoever finds their life will lose it, and whoever loses their life for my sake will find it.
    Last edited by GloriaInTX; 12-24-2013 at 12:28 AM.
    Mom to Lee, Jake, Brandon, Rocco
    Stepmom to Ryan, Regan, Braden, Baley
    Granddaughters Kylie 10/18/2010 & Aleya 4/22/2013


    I never consider a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosopy, as a cause for withdrawing from a friend. --Thomas Jefferson

  6. #76
    Community Host
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    13,781

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alissa_Sal View Post
    Laurie, I agree it seems disingenuous, like "It's okay by us if he is this way as long as he keeps quiet about it...."

    But I'm just saying that now that the cat is out of the bag, so to speak, I think they have the right to fire him or suspend him or whatever if they don't like the way he represents them.

    As to whether or not he could film about his own family, I assume that is up to a) who owns the land they are filming on (if it's his then he would need to agree to it) and b) if the family themselves agree to continue without him. If not, then I assume the show would just be over.
    So if I am understanding things correctly, no one is debating that A&E should not have been allowed to fire him, only if it was the right thing to do or not? I just want to make sure I am on the right page.

    My problem is not with the fact that they suspended him, but with the idea that people can not express unpopular opinions. Would you be ok as I stated before if someone was suspended for voicing their support for Gay rights? Which btw I am sure happens. I imagine there are any number of churches that would fire an employee for publicly stating they were for gay rights. That said, I strongly disagree that something can not be a religious belief if it is not politically correct. I also think A&E has really angered a large amount of people and that will dictate what happens next.

    ~Bonita~

  7. #77
    Community Host
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    13,781

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by freddieflounder101 View Post
    There are beliefs, and then there's bigotry. All along, the Robertsons have talked about God and their relationship to Jesus, and their religion, and nobody has batted an eye. THOSE are religious beliefs.

    It's when Phil Robertson showed BIGOTRY and expressed it in a national magazine that things took a turn. You can keep saying it's in the Bible all you want, but as has been pointed out hundreds of times, there are a lot of things in the Bible that people understand are cultural and historical and don't apply, such as views of women, of slaves, etc. When you tell a national audience that you think homosexuality is equated with bestiality, that is a whole other ball game. When you say that black people were happy under Jim Crow, that's another ball game.

    He wasn't fired for his religious beliefs. First of all, he wasn't fired. They said "suspended from shooting" which really means nothing. Second, it wasn't his religious beliefs because MANY MANY CHRISTIANS DO NOT AGREE WITH HIM. It was his INTERPRETATION and his bigoted one at that.

    He has the right to express his opinion and his employers have the right to choose to stop putting him on tv. What I think is really stupid on their part is that (a) they knew he was ignorant on these topics already; (b) you can't stop someone from filming when the filming happens in his house with his wife and children; (c) his show is responsible for half the revenue at A&E right now; and (d) the new season starts airing in a few weeks and he's in it 100%.

    I think A&E made a stupid BUSINESS decision and I think they should have known this was coming...I sure did. I worked there but didn't have any personal dealings with them at all, but I knew they'd need a plan in place for such a thing.

    But on a basic level, he didn't get in trouble for being religious. He got in trouble for making public statements expressing his bigotry.
    I wanted to go back to this post because it has been bothering me. You can not lump all Christians together in the same lump. There are a great many beliefs and religions that fall under that large term. I am sure there are many on this board that call themselves Christian and do not believe any thing at all the same as I believe. Just because I do not believe just exactly the same as some of you does not mean that my beliefs are not religious or that I am any less Christian than anyone else. I am not referencing to Homosexuality specifically but the idea that someone could be deciding what is or is not a religious belief because it is not what you think is Christianity is really mind boggling and to be frank, offensive.

    ~Bonita~

  8. #78
    Posting Addict Spacers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    My avatar is the tai chi -- a symbol of the eternal cycle of life
    Posts
    16,573

    Default

    The lawyer folks I know think that there is probably a clause in his contract that requires him to either have an A&E rep present for interviews, or to make sure that everything is vetted by A&E before agreeing to let it be publicized. A&E knows that the appeal of this kind of show is to the "everyman" and they try to walk the fine line between letting the people be who they really are, and not letting them piss off the viewing public and, perhaps more importantly, the advertisers. The lawyers say, with the exception of shows like Real Housewives where the whole point is to wait for the train wreck to happen, it's a very common clause in entertainment contracts. A&E had to do "something" with him because he breached his contract, but they aren't stupid enough to sanction him too much because he's a beloved moneymaker for them.
    The number of U.S. states in which a person can marry the person they love regardless of gender: 30 and counting!

  9. #79
    Posting Addict
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Posts
    23,628

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AlyssaEimers View Post
    I wanted to go back to this post because it has been bothering me. You can not lump all Christians together in the same lump. There are a great many beliefs and religions that fall under that large term. I am sure there are many on this board that call themselves Christian and do not believe any thing at all the same as I believe. Just because I do not believe just exactly the same as some of you does not mean that my beliefs are not religious or that I am any less Christian than anyone else. I am not referencing to Homosexuality specifically but the idea that someone could be deciding what is or is not a religious belief because it is not what you think is Christianity is really mind boggling and to be frank, offensive.
    You're missing my point. I'm not saying you're not religious. I'm saying that A&E'S reasons for "suspending" him are not due to religion. They don't care how Christian he is, he can talk about Jesus and religion all day long (which he often does) and they would not suspend him for that. Their reaction was to his public statements about homosexuality, NOT to his Christianity. They would not care what religion he said he was, or if he said he was an atheist, once he made those statements, THAT was the issue.
    Last edited by freddieflounder101; 12-24-2013 at 09:38 AM.
    Spacers likes this.
    Laurie, mom to:
    Nathaniel ( 11 ) and Juliet ( 7 )




    Baking Adventures In A Messy Kitchen (blog)

  10. #80
    Posting Addict
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Posts
    23,628

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GloriaInTX View Post
    I think they have the right to fire him, but I think it is pretty silly to pretend they didn't know in advance what he would say if asked that question. They knew going in exactly what he stood for. They are just trying to play both sides and I don't think they ever had any intention of cutting him from the show. They are just trying to appease the gay activist crowd because of the liberal control of the media. It is pretty easy to put him on hiatus during a time when they aren't even filming anyway.

    I also have to say that it is ridiculous that with the amount of filth they put on reality shows with the Kardashians and similar stuff it seems kind of a silly reason to take someone off. Really what are they going to claim he is breaking a morality clause for standing up for his belief when these trashy reality stars are allowed free reign? Has our society really come to that?
    Well that show is on a different network. (Kardashians)

    It's not about appeasing gay activists. A ton of people at A&E and on the DD production team are gay and were truly offended. People at the production company were hurt -- they work with him every day. I know from working there that they take the rights of others very seriously and they truly did want to respond to this in a strong way. They support gay rights.

    But they are wimps, and they want their business to keep going, and their profits are tied up in that show, it's the biggest hit they've ever had and anything they put on after it gets ratings, everything they make connected to it sells. So they were truly dismayed and offended by his statement but recognized too late that they couldn't do much about it. They don't control the show the way you might think...the family is powerful because of their success. The family simply told them they couldn't shoot around Phil, so the network had to back off or lose the show.
    Laurie, mom to:
    Nathaniel ( 11 ) and Juliet ( 7 )




    Baking Adventures In A Messy Kitchen (blog)

+ Reply to Thread
Page 8 of 14 FirstFirst ... 456789101112 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
v -->

About Us | Contact Us | Privacy Policy | Sitemap | Terms & Conditions