homosexuals target duck dynasty free speech rites

[blugiant]

“We’re Bible-thumpers who just happened to end up on television,” he tells me. “You put in your article that the Robertson family really believes strongly that if the human race loved each other and they loved God, we would just be better off. We ought to just be repentant, turn to God, and let’s get on with it, and everything will turn around.”

What does repentance entail? Well, in Robertson’s worldview, America was a country founded upon Christian values (Thou shalt not kill, etc.), and he believes that the gradual removal of Christian symbolism from public spaces has diluted those founding principles. (He and Si take turns going on about why the Ten Commandments ought to be displayed outside courthouses.) He sees the popularity of Duck Dynasty as a small corrective to all that we have lost.

“Everything is blurred on what’s right and what’s wrong,” he says. “Sin becomes fine.”

What, in your mind, is sinful?

“Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men,” he says. Then he paraphrases Corinthians: “Don’t be deceived. Neither the adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlers—they won’t inherit the kingdom of God. Don’t deceive yourself. It’s not right.”

[blugiant]

“Everything is blurred on what’s right and what’s wrong,” he says. “Sin becomes fine.”

What, in your mind, is sinful?

“Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men,” he says. Then he paraphrases Corinthians: “Don’t be deceived. Neither the adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlers—they won’t inherit the kingdom of God. Don’t deceive yourself. It’s not right.”

da homosexuals got affend and force A&E fe suspend Phil Robertson. like ifrica sing wat appen to imm freedom aff speech?

http://www.gq.com/blogs/the-feed/2013/12/17/phil-robertson-getty-gospel-according-to-phil-gq-magazine.jpg

Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal got involved in the "Duck Dynasty" controversy Thursday by tweeting his response to A&E's decision to suspend Phil Robertson for his inflammatory remarks in a recent GQ interview.

"I remember when TV networks believed in the First Amendment," he wrote, adding, "it is a messed up situation when Miley Cyrus gets a laugh, and Phil Robertson gets suspended."

a christian seyinn da homosexualitee iss a sinful iss no longar allowed

itt like wen dem homosexuals pon yah tried fe gitt mii banned wen mii stated da fact da homosexualitee iss a oyinbo ting ann itt natt apart aff afrikkan kulcha beefore oyinbo. funnee peeps gitt upset wen blakk peeps bunn fiyah pon plato, greek ann roman kulcha dat push homosexualitee. even dat prison injustice system, dat oyinbo designed fe tunn blakk inna undarcova fags iss a sinfull ann shameful sintinn. thyme fe peeps fe realized dat de homosexuals ann play flithee wen dem tryinn fe restrict christian freedom aff speech

so wat oonnoo tink bout wat da man sed ann didd imm deserved fe be suspended?

[blugiant]

blakk homophile writa artikkle. sund like imm a homo


Watch LZ Granderson at 6:30 p.m. ET Thursday on CNN's "Crossfire." Granderson writes a weekly column for CNN.com. The former Hechinger Institute fellow has had his commentary recognized by the Online News Association, the National Association of Black Journalists and the National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association. He is a senior writer for ESPN as well as a lecturer at Northwestern University. Follow him on Twitter @locs_n_laughs.

Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal got involved in the "Duck Dynasty" controversy Thursday by tweeting his response to A&E's decision to suspend Phil Robertson for his inflammatory remarks in a recent GQ interview.

"I remember when TV networks believed in the First Amendment," he wrote, adding, "it is a messed up situation when Miley Cyrus gets a laugh, and Phil Robertson gets suspended."

The truth is it is a messed up situation when a governor rumored to have his sights on the presidency doesn't understand the breadth of the First Amendment.

The Federal Communications Commission did not send officials into the office of Nancy Dubuc, president of A&E Networks. The FBI did not threaten to put Robertson away, and the Internal Revenue Service didn't freeze his bank accounts.

This is what the First Amendment protects us from -- laws being made that restrict freedom of religion, the press and/or speech. It does not protect us from how society responds to the expression of one's religion, the press or speech.

Robertson's boss punished him for his remarks. The government didn't.
Ben Ferguson: I'd fire Phil Robertson
Lemon: Comments are deeply offensive

Now for those out of the loop, Robertson -- a 67-year-old Louisiana native and a star of "Duck Dynasty" who holds a master's in education -- said, "I never, with my eyes, saw the mistreatment of any black person," and the black people he worked with "were godly; they were happy; no one was singing the blues."

He also compared homosexuality to bestiality and quoted a Bible verse that essentially said anyone who is an adulterer -- which according to Matthew 5:32, includes "anyone who marries a divorced woman" -- is going to hell.

Was it right for A&E to suspend 'Duck Dynasty' star over his comments? Reply now with Yes or No using #Crossfire

There's a lot to chew on in the interview. (To his credit, Robertson issued somewhat of a mea culpa which, in part, read, "We are all created by the Almighty and like Him, I love all of humanity. We would all be better off if we loved God and loved each other.")

But the interview had a lot for some to be offended by, especially given the number of black, gay and divorced people there are in the United States. And while conservatives such as Sarah Palin want to drape Robertson's remarks with the banner of Christianity, the truth is not everyone who identifies as a Christian subscribes to anti-gay beliefs.

Just as not everyone who identifies as a Christian believes black people were happier before the civil rights movement or that marrying a divorced woman is adultery. This variation in religious expression in general and Christian denomination in particular are also protected by the First Amendment.

Not that it really matters.

Robertson didn't falsely yell fire in a crowded theater -- which Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. said was not protected by the First Amendment back in 1919 -- so he is legally free to say whatever he wants to GQ about anyone he wants.

But that does not mean he is protected from how people react to what he says.

People like his bosses.

Or those who make decisions about advertising.

Or viewers.

This is where Jindal -- as well as those who believe Robertson's suspension violates his constitutional right to free speech -- get it wrong.

You can say some stupid stuff -- whether it's Paula Deen dropping the N-word, Alec Baldwin dropping the F-word, Jesse Jackson using a derogatory word for Jewish people as he talks about New York City -- or Bobby Knight infamously saying, "'I think that if rape is inevitable, relax and enjoy it.'' -- and the First Amendment will keep you from going to jail. But it is not a get-out-of-jail-free card in the eyes of society.

And if you don't believe me -- try walking into your boss' office and call him or her a big fat idiot with ugly children.

Then see if "freedom of speech" helps you keep your job.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/19/opinion/granderson-duck-dynasty/index.html

[blugiant]

da homosexual even tryinn fe paint phil as a racist cah imm sed diss

On growing up in pre-civil-rights-era Louisiana
“I never, with my eyes, saw the mistreatment of any black person. Not once. Where we lived was all farmers. The blacks worked for the farmers. I hoed cotton with them. I'm with the blacks, because we're white trash. We're going across the field.... They're singing and happy. I never heard one of them, one black person, say, ‘I tell you what: These doggone white people’—not a word!... Pre-entitlement, pre-welfare, you say: Were they happy? They were godly; they were happy; no one was singing the blues.”


da realitee iss sum poor oyinbo identeefii widd blakk cah dem wukk side by side widd dem. mee doan see a ting racist widd wat imm sed soo dem homo need fe stapp widd dem sheeeeth

[j-kid]

Another wan bites di dust. Wen yuh hav strong lobby group, an know how fi apply political an financial pressure di powers dat bi wi listen, caa dem scared. Look whe dem ah duh tuh som Jamaican artist. Jus check out JA ah few years from now.

[mountaingal]

To what i understand, there was no abrogation of the man's free speech rights. in fact, it was an assertion of business's rights to fire someone if they think the person will affect their profit.

[blugiant]

To what i understand, there was no abrogation of the man's free speech rights. in fact, it was an assertion of business's rights to fire someone if they think the person will affect their profit.

itt natt soo clearcut. itt bout freedom of speech ann freedom aff xxpression.

wan companee woo owned a town asserted itt rite fe prevent jehovah witness fram handinn out dem literature ann da court ruled against dem. a&e ave a show widd religious fundamental christians ann wan aff da christian paraphase da bible ann a&e decided fe censar imm cah dem disagreed widd wat imm sed in a interview. iff diss case eva went to court itt wood natt be a simple assertshan of a business's rite to fiyah sumwan iff dem tink itt will affect dem profit cah deer iss legal free speech rites issues. da argument being made is dat business's can fiyah annee christian cah dem tink dem faith might affect dem companees bottomline

[blugiant]

Authoritarian Liberals Declare Duck Dynasty Christian Views “Hate Speech”

Media goes beyond disagreement in push for chilling effect against free speech

Kit Daniels
Infowars.com


Political pundits are now flooding the airwaves to not just disagree with Duck Dynasty star Phil Robertson but to also declare that he is engaging in “hate speech” – setting a precedent for a future chilling effect on non-establishment viewpoints.

This morning, a panel group on CNN declared that Robertson’s recent comments in GQ magazine was “dangerous hate speech.”

“He has every right to say what he feels about homosexuality and calling it a sin, but to tie it to something like bestiality, which isn’t even true, may be harmful because there are a lot of kids who are gay who are bullied because of comments like this,” CNN anchor Carol Costello said. “Isn’t that dangerous?”

“This man has attacked an entire group of people with horrific defamation,” Huffington Post contributor Michelangelo Signorile said. “There should be ramifications. There should be outrage.”

Robertson, who is a devout Christian, gave his opinion on homosexuality in the January 2014 edition of GQ magazine.

“It seems like, to me, a vagina – as a man – would be more desirable than a man’s anus,” he said. “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.”

Drew Magary of GQ also asked Robertson what he thought was sinful.

“Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there,” he responded. “Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men.”

“Don’t be deceived. Neither the adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlers… they won’t inherit the kingdom of God. Don’t deceive yourself. It’s not right.”

Regardless of whether you agree or disagree with Robertson’s opinion, it’s seems pretty extreme for CNN and others to label it “dangerous” and violence-inducing, especially considering that Robertson paraphrased the First Corinthians from the New Testament of the Bible.

Will CNN and other liberals also start blaming Christian churches for violent crimes as they do with gun manufacturers?

The point here isn’t about what Phil Robertson said or his Christian lifestyle; rather, it’s the mainstream response to his opinion that goes way beyond disagreeing with him.

They are using this to push an anti-free speech agenda designed to keep anyone from speaking out against viewpoints propagated by the establishment.

http://www.infowars.com/liberals-declare-duck-dynasty-christian-views-hate-speech/

[Gen]

him also seh black people were happy pre-civil rights


“I never, with my eyes, saw the mistreatment of any black person," Robertson is quoted in GQ. "Not once.

Where we lived was all farmers. The blacks worked for the farmers. I hoed cotton with them. I’m with the blacks, because we’re white trash. We’re going across the field.... They’re singing and happy. I never heard one of them, one black person, say, ‘I tell you what: These doggone white people’—not a word!...

Pre-entitlement, pre-welfare, you say: Were they happy? They were godly; they were happy; no one was singing the blues.”

[mountaingal]

itt natt soo clearcut. itt bout freedom of speech ann freedom aff xxpression.

wan companee woo owned a town asserted itt rite fe prevent jehovah witness fram handinn out dem literature ann da court ruled against dem. a&e ave a show widd religious fundamental christians ann wan aff da christian paraphase da bible ann a&e decided fe censar imm cah dem disagreed widd wat imm sed in a interview. iff diss case eva went to court itt wood natt be a simple assertshan of a business's rite to fiyah sumwan iff dem tink itt will affect dem profit cah deer iss legal free speech rites issues. da argument being made is dat business's can fiyah annee christian cah dem tink dem faith might affect dem companees bottomline

your analogies are a bit off. the JWs were not employees of the town. the interviewee was not an employee of A&E nor had a contract with the network, from what you are saying.

i think the argument to be made if this goes to court (and i don't see that it would), is that the network would be held hostage to it's contractee's views, especially those views that would have an adverse impact on the market for their product.

also, from what i've read, the duck dynasty patriarch can still express his views quite freely, and could probably start his own tv show to speak his views openly. he would probably have a better case for freedom of speech if people then take him on about his views on gays and black folks.

[Peasie]

So Sarah Palin and Gov. Bobby Jindal are now besties with Duck Dynasty patriarch? I smell a rat.

[evanovitch]

I like the show n like the family....I wish dem gays would tek demselves down to the bayou, Ozarks anywhere in the deeeeeeeeeeppppp bush n protest...really I would....wen dem ready fi do dat rather than tek pot shots from afar I will be impressed....so tyad of everything dem a bawl n if black people bawl dem must get ovah it

di man was speaking as is his right n he was not being inflammatory....dem was out fi di family from the get go...saying dem cruel cause dem kill so many animals..but note wat dem kill dem nyam...so now these one a try dem own ting

anybody tek a minute to read the entire interview.....the family don't need the show as they r already multi-millionaires...the network will not drop the show as it is the most successful on the air...n frankly the audience I am positive don't incude the gay community...n if dem try push di show off the air, the audience will push back on the network...this too will pass

[mountaingal]

n frankly the audience I am positive don't incude the gay community.

i wouldnt be too sure of that. duck dynasty may just be the kind of camp that appeals to sections of the gay community. all that camo.

also, i'd question the notion that gays who may be having a problem would be from afar. i'm sure those duck dynasty guys wouldn't need to travel far from their homes in Louisiana to encounter homosexuals. the southern queen i think is a trope, no?

[evanovitch]

[QUOTE=mountaingal;748976] i wouldnt be too sure of that. duck dynasty may just be the kind of camp that appeals to sections of the gay community. all that camo.

also, i'd question the notion that gays who may be having a problem would be from afar. i'm sure those duck dynasty guys wouldn't need to travel far from their homes in Louisiana to encounter homosexuals. the southern queen i think is a trope, no?[/QUOTE



I meant that the protesters would be afar..gays in the Ozark n Bayou not marching up n down Main Street

[blugiant]

him also seh black people were happy pre-civil rights


“I never, with my eyes, saw the mistreatment of any black person," Robertson is quoted in GQ. "Not once.

Where we lived was all farmers. The blacks worked for the farmers. I hoed cotton with them. I’m with the blacks, because we’re white trash. We’re going across the field.... They’re singing and happy. I never heard one of them, one black person, say, ‘I tell you what: These doggone white people’—not a word!...

Pre-entitlement, pre-welfare, you say: Were they happy? They were godly; they were happy; no one was singing the blues.”

doan tink da man racist aftah readinn imm camment cah so-called "white trash" use fe wukk side bye side widd blakks so dem developed at least wukkinn relationship widd blakks.

da qwestian dat wood affend dem sellout blakk organization iss dat imm challenge iff blakk ar reallee better awf under da civil wrong farce oyinbo ann sellouts blakks passsed?