A&E puts Duck Dynasty’s Phil ‘on indefinite hiatus’ following his GQ remarks

phil2

I kind of love the way GQ dropped their Duck Dynasty bombshell yesterday. They did it on East Coast time, early in the morning, and Phil Robertson’s offensive comments about gay people, black people, Muslims, alcoholics and Christianity were ricocheting around the media all day. Everything had the chance to snowball into a full-fledged crisis within 24 hours, culminating with A&E’s decision yesterday evening to put Phil on “indefinite hiatus”. Let’s go through the timeline, shall we?

Apparently, GLAAD came out “within minutes” of GQ’s online publication to publicly decry Phil. Wilson Cruz (yes, THAT Wilson Cruz from My So Called Life!) is one of the GLAAD spokesmen these days, and Cruz told media outlets:

“Phil and his family claim to be Christian, but Phil’s lies about an entire community fly in the face of what true Christians believe,” said GLAAD spokesman Wilson Cruz. “He clearly knows nothing about gay people or the majority of Louisianans — and Americans — who support legal recognition for loving and committed gay and lesbian couples. Phil’s decision to push vile and extreme stereotypes is a stain on A&E and his sponsors who now need to reexamine their ties to someone with such public disdain for LGBT people and families.”

Cruz, who cited an August Public Policy Polling survey showing 56 percent of Louisiana residents supported same-sex marriage, stopped short of calling for an all-out boycott of “Duck Dynasty.”

[From Yahoo]

Shots fired! That was GLAAD giving an explicit warning to A&E and anyone who advertises during Duck Dynasty – GLAAD is watching and they will boycott and petition and out-organize if you don’t turn this mess around. Which is sort of obvious, because I think the overwhelming majority of people were disgusted by Phil’s comments and would have boycotted the show anyway. So, now that GLAAD is coming for the $$$, I guess A&E called Phil and he issued a “clarifying statement”:

“I myself am a product of the ’60s; I centered my life around sex, drugs and rock ‘n’ roll until I hit rock bottom and accepted Jesus as my Savior,” the TV star said in a statement released by A&E Wednesday. “My mission today is to go forth and tell people about why I follow Christ and also what the Bible teaches, and part of that teaching is that women and men are meant to be together. However, I would never treat anyone with disrespect just because they are different from me. 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.”

[From Yahoo]

So, Phil is doubling down on his disgust for non-heterosexual relationships, but he’s also claiming that he would never treat a gay person with “disrespect”. But… that GQ interview was FULL of disrespect and intolerance. I guess A&E realized that they weren’t going to right this bigoted ship with one “clarifying statement” so they just went ahead and put Phil on “hiatus”:

“Duck Dynasty” star Phil Robertson has been placed on indefinite hiatus from the reality program following his controversial remarks in GQ magazine regarding homosexuality. While the cast member has not officially been fired, he will not be filming with the show moving forward.

A+E Networks, parent company of A&E, has released the following statement to Variety:

“We are extremely disappointed to have read Phil Robertson’s comments in GQ, which are based on his own personal beliefs and are not reflected in the series Duck Dynasty. His personal views in no way reflect those of A+E Networks, who have always been strong supporters and champions of the LGBT community.”

“Duck Dynasty” has been a ratings juggernaut for A&E, recently drawing around 9 million viewers for its Christmas special. Gurney Prods.-produced program can move on without Phil Robertson attached to the series, as the bearded men at the center of the Robertson clan include Jase, Willie and Uncle Si, among others.

[From Variety]

Putting Phil on hiatus is one thing, but Duck Dynasty is still a merchandising juggernaut worth hundreds of millions of dollars. The solution, long-term, might be to focus on the other Duck Dynasty people and just leave Phil out of it. Or can they even do that? I really don’t know.

You know what? I’ll say it: I miss Honey Boo Boo and Mama June. You can say what you want about them, but June and Honey Boo Boo were and are the new icons for Southern LGBT tolerance and support. More Mama June and less Duck Dynasty.

FFN_Lohan_Hewitt_UpFront_GGFF_050912_9066773

Photos courtesy of Parade, Fame/Flynet.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

232 Responses to “A&E puts Duck Dynasty’s Phil ‘on indefinite hiatus’ following his GQ remarks”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. GoodNamesAllTaken says:

    Good riddance to that garbage.

    • hellothere says:

      This won’t be popular, but just like the rest of us, he can have his own opinions. Noone has to like them or agree with them, but he is still allowed to think what he wants and voice his opinion if someone asks him questions.

      • Delta Juliet says:

        I don’t agree with what he said, but I too believe he has a right to his opinion. You can’t go around preaching tolerance to everybody and then only apply it to people you agree with. If you’re going to be tolerant of some, you need to be tolerant of all.

        Having said that, I also have to wonder why no one can keep their mouths shut anymore. Tolerance, freedom of speech and all that but can’t anyone just shut up anymore? Sometimes you need to think before you speak and realize maybe you aren’t contributing to the conversation.

      • Frida_K says:

        And we are all allowed to vote with our dollars and walk away from him and his opinions.

      • TheOriginalKitten says:

        “You can’t go around preaching tolerance to everybody and then only apply it to people you agree with.”

        Are you talking to Phil Robertson or to us?
        Because that’s exactly what Robertson does-he claims that he doesn’t hate anyone and respects all his fellow human beings, yet turns around and compares homosexuality to bestiality and acts like slavery was a MET vacation for black folks.

        If your livelihood is dependent on viewership, then you have to be aware of public perception and you really shouldn’t be alienating and condemning homosexuals and black people. I’m sure you can understand how that works. My boss sure as hell doesn’t have the right to say whatever he wants in a workplace either. There’s a reason why EPLI insurance exists.

      • queenfreddiemercury says:

        He’s allowed to have his own opinions. No one stop him from talking. But people can disagree with him. And A& E is his employer and if they don’t like what he is saying they can fire him. Of course this depends on his contract. I don’t really no whats in his contract but maybe there is a morals clause.

      • LakeMom says:

        I don’t watch the show or have idea who these people are but let the audience decide if they don’t want to watch him. Miley Cyrus offends me but I don’t go about demanding she be fired from her record label.

        I don’t know but it just seems like we are slowly seeing disappearance of freedom of speech in this country. Remember that saying ‘I may disagree with your words but I will defend to the death your right to say it.’

      • TheOriginalKitten says:

        Do people truly not understand the difference between a celeb who’s actions *could* be perceived as offensive (ex. Miley Cyrus twerking) and a celeb who is outright condemning and vilifying an entire group of people because of what they do in the privacy of their own homes? Not to mention the dangerously revisionist history? Would you tolerate it if a public figure said that the Holocaust “wasn’t that bad”? …that it was actually a “simpler, happier time” in German history?
        …because that’s essentially what this man said about slavery in the US.

        He really does remind me of Paula Deen-these are two people who truly believe in the “Good Ol’ South” and insist on romanticizing the days of slavery, which was a nightmare for those who lived through it.

        How can you not grasp how offensive and unacceptable that is?

        As far as your comment about free speech-please PLEASE educate yourself. Read the comments here and maybe you’ll start to understand how free speech works.

        ‘I may disagree with your words but I will defend to the death your right to say it.’

        Why would I fight to defend hate?

      • Nerd Alert says:

        Everybody knows we all have “a right to our own opinions,” for crying out loud. Stop saying that. Most people’s opinion is that bigotry sucks.

      • YoungHeartOldSoulNewView says:

        I agree with you hellothere — to a certain extent. I agree that he can say and believe what he wants. However, his audience is ALSO allowed to do the same and form their own opinions about him based on his remarks.

        On one hand, I feel like this guy is a bit hypocritical. He reminds me of Marky Mark with the whole “forgetting his past” and not bringing up what happened in the past or trying to repent/ask forgiveness to the bartender he wronged (which is actually a primary component of Christianity). I also think his reason for voting for Romney was not the real reason he voted for him, because that’s just the dumbest reason I’ve ever heard of. If I used HIS logic, as a black female, I wouldn’t support him or vote for him for anything because I’ll be dogged if I ever want to wander around lost in the deep south.

        Anyway, I partially can’t blame him for being truly ignorant. Of course a white man in the pre-civil rights era never heard black people complaining about their living conditions–I can assure you that virtually NO white men did unless it was a black leader stating it in a publication that white people read/watched. So of course to him they were all content and merry. And he doesn’t seem like he gets out much, so he probably has not interacted with alot of brown people or people with varying sexual preferences. Either way he just stuck both of his feet in his mouth with this interview.

      • Suze says:

        You are absolutely right. He is entitled to his opinion, he is entitled to voice that opinion, the public is entitled to express their views, and A & E is entitled to fire him (or put him on leave).

        IMO, everything worked out as it should.

        I for one am grateful he decided to express his truth. Now everyone knows who he is and what he believes. He has shown his true colors. If you watch that show now, knowing what you know, you can’t pretend these are just cute, harmlessly entertaining country folk and not homophobic bigots.

      • flan says:

        Have noticed this a lot: people have an opinion that offends people. When people give their opinion about that, they complain that “everyone is allowed an opinion”.

        That’s right. Nobody is taking him to jail for what he said. But there are consequences to your actions and that includes the actions your mouth makes.

        Grow up.

      • Tiffany :) says:

        Lake Mom wrote, “I don’t watch the show or have idea who these people are but let the audience decide if they don’t want to watch him. ”

        It isn’t as simple as that. TV shows make money from ad space and the advertisers that buy that time during the commerical breaks. If advertisers pull out because they don’t want their products associated with the show, it doesn’t matter if tons of people watch the show…their viewership alone does not pay A&E’s bills.

        And flan is right, no one is taking him to jail. No one has infringed on his rights or freedoms…folks who disagree are simply exercising THEIR rights and freedoms.

      • MavenTheFirst says:

        This is insane relativistic logic. Tolerance is meant for the recognition of kindred humanity, not for intolerant opinions, or baseless ignorance or baseless hatred. Geez.

    • GoodNamesAllTaken says:

      I’m replying to myself, I know, but after I wrote this, I started thinking about the first amendment, and Jennifer Lawrence asking why we didn’t regulate people calling other people fat on TV, and I started to have some doubts. I think this man is loathsome. I don’t agree with the idea that you can be a nice person and have racists and homophobic attitudes. I think your attitudes about other people reflect who you are, and if the people he works for don’t want to be represented by that sort of person, I completely understand. But is it ok to bar people from expressing their opinions, even if they are disgusting? I don’t know, I’m confused.

      • PoliteTeaSipper says:

        In almost every single place I’ve ever worked, “freedom of speech” can lead to “freedom to look for another job.” I used to work at a private Christian hospital where I signed an “ambassador” clause (basically stating that I was representing their facility on and off the clock) and if I got caught doing something the front office found unacceptable (getting drunk in a bar is the most famous example, (a nurse was fired when the CEO saw her wearing a swimsuit top and shorts in Target buying sunscreen–she and her kids were headed for the lake–fired for not being “modest in public”) went to gay pride parades or churches that openly accepted gay people, and the like, that could also get you canned.

        Here’s the deal: Phil is an employee of A&E and as his employer, they can censure him, especially for saying offensive stuff like this in his capacity as a star on their television show. Whenever I complained about my hospital, people would rightfully tell me “don’t like it? Then don’t work there.”

        Free speech only protects you from government censure, not disciplinary action from your employer.

        Personally I hope the entire show gets canned so I don’t have to hear about it anymore, but what is probably going to happen is that Phil will be made a martyr for his bigoted cause.

      • Meggie says:

        PoliteTeaSipper-I love you in a very internet stranger kind of way. Bravo

      • TheOriginalKitten says:

        “But is it ok to bar people from expressing their opinions, even if they are disgusting?”

        He’s not being “barred” from expressing his viewpoint though. He can spew hate all he wants, but he won’t be allowed a public platform for it. That’s his punishment and I think that’s fair.

        THIS is where the free speech argument comes into play-he has the right to say anything he wants to his family, friends and in the privacy of his own home. That does NOT mean he gets to say anything he wants, as a public figure, in a public forum, without facing any consequences. It has nothing to do with his religion or his political affiliation, this is applicable to every single person who’s in the public eye, from politicians to athletes to TV personalities to celebs.

      • queenfreddiemercury says:

        They are a private company, you cannot sexually harass your co-worker at work and claim freedom or speech. What if a gay or Black person was offended by what he said and worked at the same company? Companies usually have their own rules and guidelines to follow and this guy is under contract. He has to follow the rules like everyone else at the company or get fire or leave.

      • mathpint says:

        I’m confused too, Goodnames. Mainly because when Chic-Fil-A’s and Hobby Lobby’s owners decided to state their opinions about particular things – leaning more toward the Duck Dynasty crowd – lots of people got upset about that. Well, they’re a company deciding what they want to do, much the same way as A&E is doing. So, if it’s right for A&E to do it (put him on hiatus because of what they believe to best for their business), so too shouldn’t the other companies? Just some thoughts … I haven’t thought any of this out too much.

        All that said, Phil whatever-his-name-is (don’t want the show) is disgusting, and I can’t believe anyone would *choose* to watch him after this. Sad to say that unfortunately there would be many that would.

      • Aysla says:

        mathpint: the other companies did, though. They were not censured by the government. In fact, freedom of speech was expressed on all sides– there were people that certainly did boycott Chic-Fil-A, but many people went out in droves to buy from them and show their support. I believe they posted record sales, and Chic-Fil-A did not change its stance… and even if they had, it’s still not an example of the right to freedom of speech being infringed (again, it’s freedom of speech without government censure, it doesn’t guarantee that said speech will not yield consequences… i.e., other people/private entities exercising theirs). I feel like you’re only talking to one side (I’m not accusing you directly, just using the “you” rhetorically)– the social liberal side; e.g. “Why do you continue to be upset with the company when they doubled down?” (answer: because that doesn’t magically change what the rest of us believe). I bet A&E will face backlash from the socially conservative side. People will get upset on all sides, that’s the nature of the beast.

    • Meggie says:

      It’s this: he has a right to his own opinion. And to say it.

      But.

      He also then accepts the consequences of those actions. That’s life. First amendment rights doesn’t mean you escape from taking responsibility for being a hypocritical gross excuse of a human being. What if he were mouthing off saying feminists or women are the weaker sex and don’t deserve respect? Same difference to what he’s saying now. He’s a public figure being paid, the company has a right to fire him for damaging their image.

      • hellothere says:

        I agree, he has to “pay” for having an opinion. However, we all judge people. Maybe not to the extent that he so freely spoke, but we do, myself included. We knit pick peoples wardrobes and their relationships and everything else on this site in particular, and we don’t know these people at all. I have my set of values and everyone else on here does as well. But, we can’t put tape over someones mouth and let everyone with the popular opinion speak. We live in a free country and there is beauty in that. I am a Christian and proud of it. But, I don’t believe in hatred. Instead, I will pray for everyone. That includes people who believe things I don’t and people in general. I hope you all have a very Merry Christmas or a blessed holiday, however you choose to celebrate 🙂

      • GoodNamesAllTaken says:

        @hellothere and Delta Juliette, I think we posted at the same time. I had second thoughts about what I said, as you can see from my comment below yours.
        @Meggie and PoliteTeaSipper, that makes sense.

      • KarenJ says:

        hellothere, what I personally object to is what happens when someone, like Phil Robertson, expresses a rigid judgmental opinion based on the Bible (which was written by Stone Age scribes setting down speeches, tales, parables, etc), not intellect or reason, or nature for that matter.

        Nowadays a certain troublemaking segment of our population takes that opinion and uses it to foment anger, divisiveness, and attacks on anyone who is more forgiving of the “sinners” or as Sarah Palin said of the Pope, “liberal”. These same folks attack those who are condemning Robertson for his prejudice,

        I suggest that if you pray, pray for all of us to be less judgmental of others and to refrain from insults, hypocrisy, and childishness.

    • imp says:

      Alec Baldwin has called George Stark “a toxic little queen” and “a little bitch.” He also tweeted “I’d put my foot up your f***ing ass but I think you’d like it too much.”
      He roughs up photographers and is a generall menace. GLAAD loves Alec Baldwin. Capital One stills employs him as their spokesman, and 30 Rock has not been taken off the air. Double standard much?

      • Kiddo says:

        Alec Baldwin was fired from his show and GLAAD spoke out against his last rant. He is no longer the face of Capital One, Samuel L Jackson is, but I have no way of knowing whether Capital One dumped him for that reason or simply moved on. So, for using some negative descriptors, he did indeed suffer consequences and he WAS called out by GLAAD. 30 Rock is no longer in production.

      • Tiffany :) says:

        Kiddo, I have been noticing that you are saving me so much time recently by posting what I was thinking!

      • TheOriginalKitten says:

        Exactly Kiddo. People actually think that Alec Baldwin “got away with it”? Uh, no. Not so much, guys.
        @Tiffany-Kiddo’s good at that right? 😉

      • MaiGirl says:

        Baldwin’s MSNBC show was either canceled or put on indefinite hiatus. While he (DEFINITELY!) still does get more of a free pass than he deserves, he has faced at least one consequence.

      • Tiffany :) says:

        Kiddo is great with comments! I am a fan. 🙂

      • imp says:

        GLAAD and Capital One gave him so many passes until they were called out for their hypocrisy.
        He was spewing his garbage while 30 Rock was a current show, and it will certainly be re-run in syndication.
        As for MSNBC, let’s face it, they realized what a douche he was and that he would not save their abysmal ratings. But you keep making excuses. I’m just looking for a little consistency because Tolerance Lane sure looks like a one-way street.

      • KarenJ says:

        Geez, imp, you can’t be happy with a belated comeuppance for Alec Baldwin, can you? What would you like, for Jane Fonda to get tried for treason 40 years after her Hanoi Jane days? Maybe jail 83 year old Charlie Rangel for those questionable activities he engaged in? (he was censured 333-79).

        You forget how many Republican public figures commit adultery (Sanford, Ensign), get convicted of drug use (Radel), father illegitimate children (Ensign), engage in kinky sex (Vitter), commit treason (McCain, Cantor, Bachmann, Cruz) disrespect the office of the executive or judicial branch (FOX News, Birthers, Tenthers, Koch Brothers, Tea Party, Joe Wilson, Ted Cruz, Sarah Palin, Darrell Issa), waste taxpayer dollars (to the tune of $24 billion recently) — and they never seem to pay a price. If they’re no longer in office, they still get a fabulous pension, insurance, and usually a fat consulting contract. Let’s see a few of them pay a price, for once, instead of the Alex Baldwins, Martin Bashirs, Anthony Weiners, and Eliot Spitzers of the world.

    • Bill says:

      You believe anything the news puts out they say is fact? Come on, what was actually said, and how was in put. The reporters have a history of taking what poeple say, and making it sound the way they want it to sound. Look at what that reporter did to Michael Jackson’s, interview a few years ago, and how it was a total turn around on what was actual said. In fact more reporters and new people lie about everything.

  2. blue marie says:

    Well, can’t really say I’m sad about it but I still have no plans to see this show, just not my thing.

    • Andrea says:

      I honestly had no idea who this guy was until yesterday. I wish I still didnt know.

    • TheOriginalKitten says:

      I also wouldn’t watch this show, mainly because all these reality TV shows are terrible.

      • Kiddo says:

        Reality programming is the pits.

      • Tiffany :) says:

        I feel guilty because I have friends that work in various aspects of reality tv….but hearing of their experiences have only made me dislike it more! It is so sad to me that what could have been such a tool for learning about society (documentary style programs) has evolved into “fiction and degradation as fact and entertainment”. People seem to really enjoy watching real people make fools out of themselves and doing horrible things, as opposed to hiring actors to pretend to be people making fools of themselves and pretending to do horrible things.

        Reality tv should change its name to Mosaic TV, because that is what it really is. A new creation using bits of footage from various events and times.

  3. Zbornak Syndrome says:

    I would have assumed A&E (that’s Arts & Entertainment channel right? LMAO) would have hired them a PR team when they got popular.

    I’m more upset at his carefree attitude about beating up a bar owner and his WIFE and paying them off, than anything else he said in that interview. He’s like “Yeah, it’s in my past. I’m a Christian, I’m forgiven”. But everyone else (homosexuals) are bad! Idiot

    Reality TV is basically a modern WWE (World Wrestling Entertainment). Not interested in either

    • TheOriginalKitten says:

      Amazing right? Yet according to this man’s beliefs, upstanding citizens who have never broken the law will rot in eternal damnation simply because of who they choose to have sex with.

      …smh…

      • MaiGirl says:

        That “pick-and-choose” style of morality is the biggest issue I have with some conservative Christians (notice that I said some, not all, because I know not everyone is like this). It seems to always boil down to their own personal take on morality as good, Christian behavior (and usually it’s incredibly bigoted behavior), and anything they don’t like/agree with is simply ungodly and will send you straight to hell. So hypocritical!

  4. Dawn says:

    Well A & E has to protect their product and this guy just went way over the top. I don’t think being suspended to millionaires will mean all that much in reality and I doubt this guy has a clue to what he said that put him over the top, but it doesn’t matter. I am not outraged by this at all but many people will be.

  5. Pers14 says:

    Good. Boring scripted tripe with a heavy slap of Bible thumping. No thanks.

  6. Dani2 says:

    Well good, he should’ve kept those hateful comments to himself if he wanted to continue making money from the show.

    • Erinn says:

      If they bring it back, I can see them reducing his part on the show. I can also imagine his sons are super pissed.

      • SW says:

        I thought the same thing. I would hope they are anyways. :/ If they aren’t pissed off, it says something about them too….

    • Dutch says:

      There were a lot of stories this summer out that Phil was tied of being on the show anyway. He was already a millionaire from the duck call company. What better way to guarantee your exit than becoming PR plutonium.

  7. Anna says:

    Phil was boring and always annoying on Duck Dynasty, so this doesn’t seem like a real “punishment” from A&E. I’m glad people are speaking out against Phil and boycotting Duck Dynasty, I was appalled by his comments. But anyone who’s seen the show has probably already gotten the vibe from him that he’s bigoted. I wonder how he feels about his adopted grandson( for those who don’t know, he’s Black).

    Btw did anyone else see Sarah Palin’s tweet defending Phil?

    • lucy2 says:

      I didn’t see it, but can’t say I’m shocked she did. I’m guessing it erroneously involved freedom of speech. I feel like Palin misinterpreting a situation and the Constitution is always a pretty safe bet.

  8. Lauren says:

    Let’s not forget he said lots of crazy things about how black people in the south in the civil rights era didn’t have it that bad. He basically said, “they were pickin’ cotton and whistlin’ Dixie and just fine.” He wasn’t only offensive about homosexuality.

    • Kiddo says:

      True. I was stuck at the bestiality thing, it was so strange.

      • Mich says:

        It is a comparison often used by homophones. Bestiality and pedophilia. They equate ‘teh gayz’ with perverts.

    • Launicaangelina says:

      I live in Texas, and as everyone knows, the population is primarily conservative. I’m so frustrated by all the people cherry picking his comments and not focusing on all the disgusting things he said.

    • MollyB says:

      I know! As horribly offensive as his homophobic comments were (and they were, very) his comments about how happy black people were in Jim Crow south were just . . . jaw dropping.

      • Isa says:

        I live in a nearby state and I’m seeing the same problem here.

      • Lady D says:

        “…jaw dropping,” and puzzling. How in this day and age can you not know about the extended horror show that was slavery? It beggars belief. Ditto homosexuality leads to bestiality. How does a mind make that connection? No really, how?

      • MaiGirl says:

        For whatever reason, the media is in on it. Most of the outlets I have seen have focused ONLY on his anti-LGBT comments. I kind of wish that GLAAD had also mentioned that their constituency was disgusted by all his bigoted remarks. And then, I hope that African-American leaders also speak in solidarity. Bigotry is bigotry, and we really should all be on the same page about that. I am an African-American woman, and I am disgusted by EVERYTHING this man said!

  9. Kiddo says:

    Now if only this was the direction for all reality crap, maybe we could get to quality entertainment.

  10. Meow Mix says:

    I’m really curious as to what the other members of the family have to say about this mess.

  11. Shannon1972 says:

    I think if A&E felt strongly about this, he would be fired outright. “Hiatus” means nothing to me – it’s a hollow gesture. I’m interpreting it as paid leave so that they don’t upset their cash cow. Nice fence straddling there, A&E!

    The only bright side to this is that it provoked serious discourse on these issues yesterday. They are important and I’m glad they were brought to the forefront of the internet. I really liked Wilson Cruz’s statement – measured, thoughtful…pretty much the opposite of the duck dynasty guy’s comments.

    • Anne says:

      A&E might only have certain options based on what sort of contract this guy has; they probably are going to have their lawyers research it before they do anything major, so they can’t be sued over it.
      What surprises me is that A&E has nobody who looks over this kind of interview–do these guys not have ‘handlers’ who make sure they aren’t talking too much? (Look what happened to Tom Cruise when he fired the person who helped him keep his mouth shut?!)

  12. QQ says:

    J’adore! *sits back to behold this lil xmas miracle unfold*

    Naturally ya’ll Sarah Palin is already trying to inject herself into this

    • MonicaN says:

      If everyone on this site can insert themselves into the matter by expressing their own opinion, then certainly Sarah Palin can too. The outright vitriol spewed on here for people with differing opinions that may be not popular astounds me, as the most vocal are usually the ones who also preach “tolerance.” The hypocrisy is pathetic. To each his own. The guy has beliefs/opinions that are not hurting anyone. For the record, I don’t agree with him, but I’m also not enraged by his comments because I can dismiss it for what it is – the opinion of one man. Ever hear the saying “your right to swing your arm ends where my nose begins”? It’s like that. Until what someone does injures you (not talking feelings – grow up, people), he can do what he wants and you can choose to pay attention or ignore.

      • Mich says:

        Zzzzzzzzzzz.

      • Leila in wunderland says:

        The man is a racist and a homophobe and has earned all of the vitriol he’s getting. Being tolerant doesn’t mean we have to SILENTLY tolerate someone else’s intolerance. Free speech gives people the right to be racist, homophobic, etc., and it also gives everyone else the right to comment on that person’s racism and homophobia. I do wonder about the character of people who will defend these forms of bigotry as just harmless, unpopular opinions and who will defend a person’s ‘right’ to be an intolerant bigot, but who are against other people’s right to respond to that bigotry.

        The trouble is, his opinions aren’t all that unpopular. Racism and homophobia have existed in this word for centuries and centuries and centuries. People have been discriminated against, suffered, and even died, all because of people’s ‘opinions’ about others based on race and sexual orientation.

      • Mich says:

        @ Leila

        “I do wonder about the character of people who will defend these forms of bigotry as just harmless, unpopular opinions and who will defend a person’s ‘right’ to be an intolerant bigot, but who are against other people’s right to respond to that bigotry.”

        I don’t wonder about these people’s character at all. I think they are showing pretty plainly who and what they are.

        Brilliant comment by the way.

      • Nclark6 says:

        @ MonicaN the problem with these beliefs is that quite frankly they were used to justify hurting someone. Entire groups of people to be exact. He’s insinuating a viewpoint that gay people and blacks are in their respective ways subhuman. Gay people because of the bestiality comment and black people because treat them like crap/subhuman in slavery/segregation that’s perfectly fine, they’ll keep singing a little jig and whistling Dixie. To take it a step further, as someone from Louisiana and familiar with the way things were/are, these beliefs would have created a social structure that would have permanently disenfranchised blacks and gays if outsiders hadn’t forced them to change. You think things would have changed in the South spontaneously with people walking around with viewpoints like this. If so, you’re naive. But to be perfectly honest, yes he can believe whatever he wants, and people have an equal right to call him out. My biggest issue though is when he presumes to tell other people how they should feel about a system of oppression. That is a dangerous tool racists use to rationalize hate. The same crap the President of Iran said trying to tell the Jews how the Holocaust was. I will defend someone’s right to say hateful things all day, however I will call someone out for presuming they know how it was for another group when no, he doesn’t know what it was like to be black back then (my grandmother’s and other older African Americans I’ve talked to accounts differ significantly from his). Secondly as other posters mentioned actions have consequences. Say or do what you want, but that doesn’t protect you from potentially losing your job.

      • Joh says:

        The guy has beliefs and opinions that are hurting people.
        Do you REALLY not see that.

  13. UghInsomnia says:

    If they were real biblethumpers, they’d give away all of their money, their wives wouldn’t wear makeup or jewelry, and they would stone Sadie for talking back. IT IS WRITTEN. Being obscenely rich and flaunting it is pretty frowned upon.

    • Lady D says:

      Where I lived, my MIL’s church needed a new one. They spent +5 million on the building, and it is not the only multi-million dollar church on the coast. I used to wonder how they justified spending so much.

  14. Ag says:

    Good. Racists/homophobes/etc shouldn’t be rewarded for their ignorance and backwardness.

  15. Esti says:

    I’m impressed A&E did this so quickly — this show gets ENORMOUS ratings, so I thought they’d try to ride it out for a while and hope the controversy died down.

    That said, I’m a little disappointed that so much of the blowback has focused solely on his offensive comments about gay men and has basically ignored the equally offensive things he said about black Americans, Muslims, and Shintos. I think his comments about homosexuality were abhorrent, but that the things he said about other races as religions were actually more offensive.

    • TheOriginalKitten says:

      On that note, the full letter from the NAACP can be found here, if anyone’s interested:

      http://www.hrc.org/files/assets/resources/HRC_NAACP_Letter_121813.pdf

      “We want to be clear why Phil Robertson’s remarks are not just dangerous but also inaccurate. Mr. Robertson claims that, from what he saw, African Americans were happier under Jim Crow. What he didn’t see were lynching and beatings of black men and women for attempting to vote or simply walking down the street. And his offensive claims about gay people fly in the face of science. In fact, it’s important to note that every single leading medical organization in the country has said that there is absolutely nothing wrong with being LGBT – it’s not a choice, and to suggest otherwise is dangerous. “

    • G says:

      Please do you think A&E is just NOW realizing this ?? .. probably much worse on the cutting room floor in the editing room. Now that it’s out it’s conveniently “off brand.” On to the next unsuspecting character to make more mindless TV.

    • Katie says:

      I agree and his comments weren’t even accurate. He basically said that cultures without Jesus are murderous savages. Hello? Did he forget about the Crusades?! I don’t judge all Christians for that but it seems he judges every other religion for the atrocious acts of certain individuals. And then he had the nerve to say that Jesus is the only one who can judge people. What a hypocrite.

  16. Kiki says:

    I wonder how much the GQ article was edited. Like I wonder if his comments were included in their entirety in the correct order, or if things were shifted around.

    • Erinn says:

      Oh God – I never thought of that. I’m kind of surprised they even let those ones fly – I feel like GQ had no issues with it because it brought attention to them. I’d think that a regular publication would at least TRY to make people sound less obnoxious and hurtful.

      • Lady D says:

        It’s disappointing to me that a regular publication would try to hide what someone is really like. Print the interview, warts and all, and let the public decide. The magazine should just be a vehicle to carry the interview, not monitor the conversation for whitewashing purposes.

      • Tiffany :) says:

        I agree, Lady D.

    • cr says:

      Possible.
      However, Phil isn’t denying that he said them, and apparently it’s consistent with how he appears to be on the show. So while there was probably some editing of his quotes, it probably didn’t change the context or the content.

  17. Bodhi says:

    Phil Robertson is a homophobic Bible thumper?? I’m shocked. SHOCKED I say!!

    *Please note: I do not excuse or condone his statements, thoughts, or beliefs. I am, however, pretty amazed at how many people find this whole thing to be a surprise.

    • Kiddo says:

      I don’t know him, never watched the show, not surprised or shocked that people have these opinions, we hear them all too often. I doubt anyone was particularly shocked.

      • Bodhi says:

        Really? I’m seeing a lot of surprise on my news feed. Not, of course, that my feed is indicative of everyone

    • WinterLady says:

      I’m not surprised by his comments, b/c unfortunately that is just how it is with small town, backwoods people in the south ( some of the time). I have older family members like him. I am more shocked that his family and A&E, knowing his attitudes and the fact he apparently can’t censure himself, didn’t reign him in more. Gotta’ keep the gravy train going, ya know? There might be one product they don’t have their faces on in Walmart, can’t have that.

    • Venus says:

      +1. He’s a redneck old man, why are people surprised by his opinions? Just because someone has a reality show doesn’t mean anything about their personal opinions. I completely disagree with him, but I don’t understand why this is a shock to anybody.

      • winterwilde says:

        I’m black and grew up quite near to were Phil currently resides and this whole media blitz about his thoughts on gays, religion, blacks, the olden days. etc IS JUST NOT SHOCKING!!….my black church going father could have said almost all of the same things 70 yr old Phil said in GQ….that old man just spoke his Southern, confederate flag lovin, bible thumpin mind and all he wants to do is shoot birds out of the sky and and sharpen his knife all day anyway…hiatus is a gift to him, I’m sure more folks just like him will continue to watch the show and A&E will continue to rake in advertiser’s dough…I do not agree with his beliefs, but I don’t understand the SURPRISE that some folks seem to have that he voiced them….look at him and if you watched the show you’d see he prob. has no Black or gay Bff’s 🙂

  18. matia says:

    You know, their core audience isn’t intimidated by Glaad or political correctness. I don’t think removing him is the best option when they could make a teaching moment in the show and have more of an impact. I see duck dynasty merchandise everywhere in my town and on people (tshirts etc). Simply taking him off the show will give him victim status due to the “liberal gay agenda” (their words not mine) and just make him more popular. Regardless of the disdain of most CB readers, this is a very popular show in the south/in the country and I don’t think big picture just taking him off the show is going to change his thought process and others who think like him

    • Kiddo says:

      It probably won’t, but should anyone, who is denigrating entire classes of people, be financially benefiting from it ? A&E, I am assuming, has other programming that might appeal to different demographics. Unless they have turned into the bigot network, entirely, they could lose viewership on the whole. This is about money, not ethnics, after all is said and done.

    • Lucinda says:

      That is an excellent point. I have many conservative Christian friends on Facebook and I post pro-LGBT stuff all the time because I want them to be exposed to that idea. I don’t hammer it with angry words. I just simply state my support, quietly and repeatedly because that will make a much bigger difference over time. I’ve never watched this show so I don’t know how the sons stand on all this.

    • Sharra55 says:

      My family and I have been faithful watchers of the show for years. My 9 year old son loves Si. We loved that there is no cussing or in your face sex and we can all watch together. Don’t get me wrong – I love me some cussing and sex – but not for my 9 year old! LOL

      I know that the family is conservative Christian and that is fine. HOWEVER, I was shocked at the outright hate filled comments that Phil gave. It upset me. We will not be watching DD. And that upsets me too. I am from Louisiana and I love and miss the goofiness of my home state (I don’t live there anymore.) But I refuse to support hate. God doesn’t support hate!

  19. PixieWitch says:

    GQ knew what they were doing.

    • G says:

      Completely baited. Wouldn’t be surprised if A&E was just ready to change their product mix… it’s a convenient out.

  20. erinn says:

    i am so disappointed in all of this, although i probably should have detected the ‘undertones’ in the show. i read some comments attached to other articles suggesting that gay people don’t watch this show anyway, so who cares what this guy says? well i’m gay, and enjoyed the program until about yesterday morning! i think it’s interesting that he was able to hold off on these opinions for four seasons of the program. his ghost written book also didn’t condemn homosexuality, although the book definitely had a *vibe*.

    so many comments to this situation in other articles are mind blowingly horrific. i was reading the People article comments last night. still a lot of homophobic (and racist) folks out there, and also an alarming amount of American Citizens who apparently have no idea what ‘freedom of speech’ entails.

    this appears to be a very tight knit family, so i wouldn’t be entirely shocked to see them all walk away from A&E.

    • Erinn says:

      WAIT. Is your name spelled with two N’s!?
      Because I’ve seen like one other person who has had that spelling besides me.

    • TheOriginalKitten says:

      “i think it’s interesting that he was able to hold off on these opinions for four seasons of the program. ”

      You mean on the show? I’m sure clever editing was his friend in that sense. Just because the viewers didn’t see him saying bigoted things, doesn’t mean that he didn’t/doesn’t say them.

      • erinn says:

        kind of makes you wonder where the magic homophobic line in the sand was drawn. if it’s true that the show has already edited out some unsavory opinions (and i agree that this is entirely probable…) and the show already had a good understanding of Phil’s issue with homosexual relationships, was his rather unfortunately graphic tirade in GQ the straw that broke the camel’s back? he was ok when he was the ‘probably homophobic bearded dude’ but now that it’s been confirmed by the general public, now he’s in trouble?

        this whole situation is so fascinating to me, as was the Paula Deen fiasco. even his punishment of being on an indefinite hiatus (conveniently when the show is also on a filming hiatus) is kind of a weird non-punishment in my eyes.

    • Mich says:

      A few ‘freedom of speechers’ found their way over to CB yesterday as well.

      To all the morons pounding the ‘freedom of speech’ drum:
      1. No it doesn’t suck. Freedom of speech is a pillar of democracy.
      2. This isn’t a freedom of speech issue BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENT IS NOT CENSORING ANYBODY. It is a societal issue and has NOTHING to do with the First Amendment.
      3. You are completely ignorant if you think ‘freedom of speech’ has anything to do with society at large condemning racism and bigotry.
      4. While freedom of speech does not suck….racism and bigotry do. And if you fall into either of those categories, you also suck.

      And…non sequitor, but just in case…I don’t give a rat’s ass about your twisted version of Christianity and how you think it gives you license to be hateful and cruel to huge segments of the American population. I’m gonna fight you on that every chance I get and, guess what? God’s got my back. The Bible tells me so.

  21. babythestarsshinebrite says:

    This ignorado could never offend me, that being said I am happy that this assface may be losing out on $$$$$! These personalities don’t deserve that kind of money anyways.

  22. agentscully says:

    While I certainly don’t agree with his views, he still has the right to voice his opinion. He was asked about his views and he gave an honest answer. It seems ridiculous that he would be suspended for such a thing, owing to the whole democratic “freedom of speech” tenet in its Constitution the US seems to be so fond of shouting from the rooftops. It reminds me of an episode of South Park I watched recently, where Big Gay Al was asked to leave the Boy Scouts because of the organisation’s anti-homosexual policy. In the end – and after the town rallied for his LGBT rights – Big Gay Al reminded the townsfolk that the Scouts were just as entitled to their opinions as anybody else. Personally, I’m all for the LGBT community to be given the same legal rights as heterosexuals (marriage, for example) and certainly no-one should face discrimination or be abused simply because of their sexual orientation (or for any other reason for that matter, whether it be race or religious beliefs or socio-economic background). However, that doesn’t mean I’m not going to accept the fact that some people won’t agree with the idea of homosexuality, and are against it. That is their opinion, and they have a right to it. Besides, I think his comments about African-Americans were far, FAR more offensive than his views on homosexuality, but there doesn’t seem to be such a hoopla about those for some reason, at least not from what I have seen.
    And anyway, if people are going to boycott the show they should do it because it’s a terrible show in general and there are far better things to watch on TV or indeed better ways to keep oneself entertained.

    • Kiddo says:

      Why shouldn’t a private business be able to suspend or fire any employee who harms their product? People are fired for no cause on a daily basis. Free speech applies to the government not being able to jail you or punish you for beliefs. It doesn’t guarantee maintaining status in a job.

      • agentscully says:

        You make a good point, but still didn’t A&E suspend him only after GLAAD kicked up a stink about his comments (or did I misread something)? I don’t mean to sound as though I’m trivialising GLAAD’s reaction to his comments – if I were gay I’m sure I would find them very hurtful – but people are going to say hurtful things and there are always going to be people who are against homosexuality. I guess my problem here isn’t with A&E suspending him per se (as you rightly said, a company can terminate or suspend an employee if they feel that employee is damaging their product), it’s with GLAAD getting their feathers ruffled because of some ignoramus from a stupid redneck reality show saying in an interview that he didn’t like the idea of homosexuality. He’s not exactly the Westboro Church, waving around picketing signs.

      • Kiddo says:

        Why shouldn’t they (GLAAD) stick up for the constituency for which they lobby? This man is a public figure who is making mega-bucks, who took a direct stab at their demographic. Their purpose is to advocate, why should they ignore and pretend this type of bias doesn’t exist? Would you expect Big Pharma to lay low if someone wrote an opinion piece about their devilish ways? Would you expect Christian lobbyists to take it on the chin if someone said negative things about them? Would you expect NOW to avoid any statement on an opinion piece that made a blanket assertion about the inferiority of women, simply because some people might always feel this way? Unfortunately, in this society, people pay more attention to celebrities than they do to what politicians are saying. Lobbyists will take the opportunity to respond where there is a lot of attention.

      • TheOriginalKitten says:

        Frankly, GLAAD had an outright OBLIGATION to say something. What shocks me is that anyone would think that the GLAAD organization shouldn’t be upset about this man’s statements…

        Also, saying someone isn’t “as bad as WBC” isn’t much of a compliment.

    • TheOriginalKitten says:

      I mean look, I get where you’re coming from because I’m a big supporter of free speech too and while I’ve been very vocal about my opposition to the way this man thinks, I did hesitate at first about my feelings regarding him being suspended.

      Part of me does think that we’re essentially punishing this man for how he chooses to think. That being said, the public backlash he received is not new in the world of celebrities.

      There’s a reason why celebs have handlers and a PR team-they’re really NOT allowed to say everything that pops into their head. Well, they’re allowed to, but then they must face the consequences for their words, and the public might not approve. Phil Robertson is not the first person to face public backlash for being bigoted. Paula Deen, Alec Baldwin, John Mayer, Michael Richards have all suffered public scrutiny for their intolerance.
      Why should this guy get a free pass?
      If he was in a corporate workplace, he would lose his job for saying the things he said here.

      • Kiddo says:

        This actually makes me feel sorry for Alec Baldwin. His offense pales in comparison to this pile of shite.

    • SP says:

      Freedom of speech does not mean freedom of consequences for your speech. He can’t be prosecuted, but there is nothing preventing an employer from firing or suspending him.

    • Lucinda says:

      Freedom of speech protects us from the government (which I’m sure you understand), not freedom to say anything we please. A&E has a brand that they have the right to protect based on comments from those who work for them. People have the right to refuse to associate with businesses based on what they say. That too is freedom of expression.

      • agentscully says:

        Ah, I wasn’t aware of the Government protection thing. Thanks for the clarification 🙂

      • Tiffany :) says:

        I like the way you are handling the discussion, agentscully! 🙂 You sound very mature and rational! Not that I would expect otherwise, but sometimes people can get really heated on matters like this.

    • Mimi says:

      “if people are going to boycott the show they should do it because it’s a terrible show in general and there are far better things to watch on TV”. Hahahaha! Well said my friend!

  23. mrspatrickbateman says:

    While I don’t agree with what he is saying, it is his right to be able to say it. I don’t understand what the big deal is, it’s one man’s opinion, it won’t change yours, mine or anyone elses. No one is going to see eye to eye on everything, it’s just the way it is. If that’s what he believes than that’s what he believes. I will have an issue with it when he is hurting those people, being vicious toward them and slandering them. However when he says, ‘I would never treat anyone with disrespect just because they are different from me. 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’ I will let it go. He’s saying he doesn’t agree but he won’t be cruel to them or treat them differently because it’s not his place to do so. It’s all about fairness, if you believe other people can have a platform and say gay marriage should be legal and 100% accepted, you have to, in turn, accept some others don’t feel that way and have the same rights to express those opinions. Just hold fast to your beliefs.

    • Sachi says:

      Funny. That quote of his that you mentioned as a defense for his extreme views is part of his non-apology, which came after the truly dreadful interview and the backlash.

      He didn’t slander anyone? Did you not read the GQ interview at all? He didn’t just deride homosexuality and say it leads to bestiality, he also went after Islam, Shintoism, and how he has never seen any black person mistreated in the 1960s. Then he contradicts himself and says it’s not his place to judge…after passing on judgment anyway.

      It is his right to say what he wants, but people also have the right to question and criticize him.

      Freedom of speech doesn’t mean freedom from the consequences of such speech.

    • Nicolette says:

      +1. Perfect comment, very well said.

    • Kiddo says:

      You can’t love people and say the things he did about them. It’s like saying woman are all whores, part of the devil’s work and are the scourge of the earth and then saying, “But I treat them with love”. People who want gay marriage legalized are gay people and their friends, they are advocating for their own rights, they aren’t setting up a platform on which to denigrate Christians and insist that Christians are bad.

    • L says:

      He’s free and has a right to say whatever he pleases.

      But everyone else is free to criticize him and his company is free to put him on hiatus if they choose.

    • Mary says:

      @Sachi, you took the words right out of my mouth. He is completely free to say whatever he wants and have his own opinions. However, when those comments reflect negatively on the person who writes your checks (I realize they had lots of money before), don’t expect to not be called out on it.

    • Mich says:

      I’m sorry but no. This is not ‘one man’s opinion’. It is the opinion of a segment of the population that has hijacked our government and is forcing intolerance and cruelty on the nation at large. And Phil has actual political power as demonstrated by the election of a previously unknown Tea Party candidate in Louisiana.

      You know who isn’t hurting anyone? The people Phil denigrates as being perverts destined to rot in Hell for eternity. Those people just want the basic freedom to love who they love and to live life the way God built them to.

      I agree, however, that his saying that Jim Crow days were A-Ok for ‘the blacks’ was actually more disturbing and disgusting. Particularly given the re-emergence of Jim Crow era legislation across the country.

      • EscapedConvent says:

        I applaud your comment, Mich.

      • Nclark6 says:

        @ Mich Thank-you. The people saying it’s not hurting anyone. Have they ever lived in Louisiana? I have until I was 21 and I can honestly say this is not just one person’s opinion. This is reflective of a big segment of the population. It’s one reason why I moved out and made it a priority to never move back . There is still serious racism and a lot of backwards mentalities in the state. In Baton Rouge, the sheriff literally went against the Supreme Court and arrested people for sodomy. The only saving grace was the fact that the D.A. was like I can’t prosecute these people because I have no legal authority to do so. If you don’t believe this happened fairly recently look it up. This is not just some innocent ravings of an old man, but represents a culture that if allowed to “go back to the good old days” would oppress and disenfranchise a lot of people. It absolutely should be called out.

      • Nclark6 says:

        @ Mich I should add it was just gay people being arrested for sodomy and the circumstances were a joke….

      • loveisthecoal says:

        “It is the opinion of a segment of the population that has hijacked our government and is forcing intolerance and cruelty on the nation at large.”

        PREACH. Perfect comment!

    • WinterLady says:

      The problem I have with Phil Robertson’s opinions is that they are incoherent and not based on fact and logic. Don’t like Gay marriage? Fine. Think the gays, liberals, blacks, or Muslims are destroying the world? Okay. All non-believers going to hell? Sure. But back it up with evidence, real evidence, scientific or otherwise. Don’t ignore historical fact. Otherwise what damn point are you making? Oh yeah, you are a hateful and intolerant hypocrite full of false piety.

      And the old “The Bible tells me so” doesn’t cut it for me. The Bible has such gems of wisdom as you shouldn’t eat shellfish or that a women should be stoned if she is found not to be a virgin when she marries, so that doesn’t cut it for me and for a growing number of people. In that case, I should be allowed to open up a copy of any book I please and make a point, but that doesn’t mean I should be taken seriously.

    • Leila in wunderland says:

      He did disrespect and slander them, though. He compared them to pedophiles and people who have sex with animals, and he implied that Christians are better than Muslim, Shinto, and atheist people. Not to mention his condescending comments about black people. If he can’t be bothered to show basic respect for people who aren’t of his own religion and who don’t conform to his archaic views about sex, why should people be bothered to show respect for him or his beliefs? Respect is a two-way street.

      And anyone who thinks that his attitudes toward all these groups of people are just one man’s opinion is delusional.

    • Diana says:

      I can’t believe you’d give this bigot a pass after he says such nasty, ignorant, bigoted things against people who have never done squat to him. And then for him to say he “loves” everyone” & would never treat anyone with disrespect rings very hollow after he spewed his venom. Bringing the bible into it justifies none of what he says-as a matter of fact, he INSULTS everyone who believes in that book!
      Ignorance is very ugly. Time for the Darwin law to kick in and remove the least fit to survive(such as Robertson) from the planet-clean up the gene pool, so to speak!

  24. Bananapants says:

    It annoys me that anyone would go to this man for his opinions anyway. Gross, crappy show. He offended ERRBODY, not just homosexuals. I was particularly Offended by having him bellowing about anuses and vaginas while I was having my morning coffee.

  25. seebee says:

    Well, thank God for that.

  26. Dimebox says:

    I think this story is going to gain more momentum. A news consultant on GMA just characterized Phil’s views as “vile and offensive” and said he had used religion as a weapon. If there is a positive note to this story it is the outpouring of disgust over Phil’s views. I personally won’t watch this show or do anything to put a penny in this bigot’s pockets.

  27. neelyo says:

    Hiatus means nothing, it’s like being suspended from school for a few days. A & E isn’t going to stop the show or perhaps donate to a worthy cause to deflect the criticism.

    The sad part is that like the Chik Fil A and Paula Deen controversy before this, his comments will only reaffirm his fan base’s belief that they’re the victims.

    • Kiddo says:

      It may be the slow walk to firing. They are probably trying to balance not pissing off fans of the cash cow show and insulting viewers of their other programs.

    • Dutch says:

      Phil didn’t seem to want to be on the show anyway, so now he can walk away from the show as a martyr rather than a quitter.

    • The Original G says:

      They are likely negotiating a legal end to his contract.

  28. Tiffany says:

    I have to take classes on harassment and am expected to conduct myself in a manner that will not be detrimental to my company. Every employer, TV or not has that so I am glad he is not getting a pass.

    In the end I am not surprised. I remember seeing them on The View awhile back and they were praised for being a light of positivety in reality TV. Then Phil said something along the lines of people falling for the act and lining their pockets even more. And no one on the couch called any of them on it. This was just a matter of time.

  29. Sachi says:

    I wonder how much of this is calculated by A&E?

    When I first looked up Duck Dynasty on Google 2-3 months ago to see what the heck it was about, there were some articles about how Phil wasn’t gonna come back for the 5th season next year. He was done after the latest season. He didn’t wanna do the show anymore.

    One of his daughters in-law, Jessica, has Instagram. I don’t have an account so I don’t know if you can filter the content you want the public to see, but in it there was a photo of the eldest Robertson son, Alan, who is a pastor. He has appeared on the show a couple of times but he was the only one who didn’t sport the beard and the camo.

    Well, in Jessica’s photo, Alan was also sporting the same beard as his brothers, Dad, and Uncle. The photo was taken last month so it could just be Movember-related, but the beard was already about 4-5 inches long and he was looking much like his brothers with the scruffy hair and beard. I’d think that kind of beard would take longer than a month to grow.

    And then when I read that Phil got suspended, one article mentioned that it might be Alan who could be doing the prayers at the end of the show, replacing Phil.

    A&E must do a lot of heavy editing when it comes to the show, especially with Phil, and has kept a lid on a lot of dirt on the family and the show itself. I doubt A&E didn’t know about the GQ interview especially if the Robertsons are under an ironclad contract.

    If Phil wasn’t planning on remaining on the show in the first place, then it makes sense that the interview was done and Phil freely offered up his extreme beliefs, no more big TV network placing a gag order on him. Why now, right? Why didn’t he do open up about his beliefs when the show was still trying to gain ground and needing to make a lot of money?

    Also, this is the Paula Deen stupidity all over again. Remember the Deen fans crying about being persecuted and showing their support by lining up at Deen’s restaurant and buying her products? Duck Dynasty’s fanbase and core demographic are the same as Deen’s. They love a “martyr” for the cause and the more victimized they feel, the more they’ll come out in droves to show their support.

    • Mich says:

      Paula’s restaurants might have enjoyed an uptick in visitors while the scandal was happening but, in the long run, her career has been utterly destroyed.

      Racism + bigotry are not good PR moves.

    • Suze says:

      This show has been on for five seasons?

      • Sachi says:

        I couldn’t believe it either, Suze. Never heard of it until this year. The Duck Commander company is very successful and already a multimillion dollar business even before the show.

        Phil Robertson always seemed anti-social on the show, has no interest in other things but hunting, ducks, guns, and his wife. He’s how I imagine a real “mountain man” would look, sound, and behave.

  30. Sam says:

    The problem now is that this show will become a cause celebre among conservatives, “family values” people and fundamentalist Christians. They will rally around it and turn it into a focal point. Also, this means it will be the dominant topic of conversation on Fox news for the next 4 weeks or so.

    I personally am still just shocked that Phil was even allowed to do an interview without prior screening of questions, a media handler present or at the minimum, some kind of media training. The interview sounds like he was by himself and just allowed to say whatever he wanted. Isn’t it the network’s duty to make sure situations like these are avoided?

    • TheOriginalKitten says:

      In regards to your first paragraph—but who really cares? I mean, if fundamentalist Christians want this man to be the spokesperson for their religion, then they have bigger problems than I could ever imagine. All they’re doing is emphasizing how archaic, outdated and frankly, narrow-minded their views are. I don’t care if you’re a bigot under the guise of religion, a bigot is a bigot is a bigot and the vast majority of Americans understand this. The Tea Partiers are just the loudest-not the largest-representative of the conservative Right.

      • Sam says:

        My problem is that wrapping something up in religion tends to be a pretty quick way to legitimize nasty views. Most of the comments I’ve seen about this tend to latch onto the argument that Phil was merely sharing his “faith” and that nobody should really take offense. It also legitimizes him as a poster child. The narrative around this isn’t going to be “man says very offensive, biased stuff.” So far, I’m seeing a lot of stuff that frames this as a “power of the gay lobby” type of thing, or First Amendment, or “assault on people of faith” type of stuff. I’ve met a lot of people who, unfortunately, believe that matters of faith should be off-limits or treated with kid gloves. I wish that were not the case. But the Right and conservatives tend to be very good at framing the parameters of a conversation, and I worry that they will dominate this one. Already, the conservative internet seems to be up in arms over this. I hope more progressive people don’t let it go either, but I worry that we’ll just keep hearing about it.

      • Mich says:

        @ Sam

        The far right Christian Tea Party wing have taken the concept of being victimized to a high art. The fact that 1) no-one is victimizing them and 2) they use this as a way to cause real harm to others seems to go totally over their heads.

      • TheOriginalKitten says:

        ITA Sam but I honestly think that the people who subscribe to that view are in the minority-they are a small but very vocal faction..maybe I’m being an idealist or maybe it’s because I’m in Boston, which is a bit of a “Liberal bubble” in some respects.

      • prayforthewild says:

        Sam, I agree with what you’re saying regarding the public conversation, and how it’s being manipulated to being about this man’s religion and ‘faith.’ Why it is that MOST of the conversation going on in the media is surrounding what he said about the LGBT community, while almost completely ignoring his offensive/racist comments about the pre-civil rights era south, “pre privilege, pre welfare”?

        IMO the conversation is being steered completely toward only certain comments because that hate can be translated into, “Well, those are his ‘beliefs'” or, “Well, that’s his ‘faith'” AKA religion, freedom of religion, blah, blah…

        I am really disappointed that the comments regarding race are barely being discussed, as they were just as offensive as his comments about the LGBT community. IMO if we’re going to talk about it, then let’s talk about all of it and not allow the narrative to be drawn for us because I am offended by ALL of it.

  31. Christin says:

    This show is very popular in certain areas. To see what the fuss was about, I watched several episodes around the time the new season kicked off in August. IIRC, in early summer, Phil was holding out and saying he might not be on the show for the new season. Some type of agreement was reached, but it sounded like he was over it. I also remember reading that one of his sons said that Phil wanted to share his beliefs on the show and the son told him something to the effect the show was not the PTL Club.

    Add to it that this family claims the business has made them many millions. For all these reasons, I don’t think he cares about appearing on the show. He seems to have a rather rigid personality, and I doubt he will ever cave to any PR advice.

  32. cr says:

    Regarding Phil and freedom of speech:

    Freedom of speech doesn’t mean there aren’t consequences from what you say, it just allows you the right to say it. And for other people to respond to it.
    He’s part of a larger company, A&E, that also has the right to make business decisions based on what he’s said. And in this case it was the decision done under the belief that his comments hurt the A&E brand.
    So no, Phil’s First Amendment rights aren’t being violated by people criticizing him for this interview or by A&E suspending him.

    • Cazzee says:

      I know! I love it. I call this game “The First Amendment Watch”.

      First someone says a bunch of offensive things. Next come the repercussions. Then the person gets their panties in a bunch and screams, “First Amendment!” – not realizing that freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences. Laughter ensues.

  33. LouLou says:

    I find it hard to believe that A&E didn’t know about his bigotry the whole time. Come on. People like this guy do not possess critical thinking skills. They really do not understand how idiotic they are.

  34. Kim1 says:

    Well I guess his Black grandson already knew that his grandfather thingks life was better for Blacks pre civil rights.Not being able to vote,not being allowed to eat at restaurants,stay at hotels,seperate schools,water fountains,swimming pools,etc.The Good Old Days when a Black teenage boy could be killed for talking to a White Woman.Those were the Days.

  35. mollie says:

    He was able to make his comments without restraint or fear of imprisonment. Freedom of speech. At Will employment means that his employer has the right to make changes to his employment status for any reason, or no reason at all. He can use his freedoms to look for another job should he wishes, but his “freedoms” do not have to negatively affect his employer.
    Good riddance to him. By the way, Dan Savage’s new review of Sarah Pay-lin’s Christmas book is hilarious.

  36. CrazyCatLady says:

    Thank you Kaiser! I have been turned into some sort of Christian basher on Facebook because I agree with A&E. His interview IS full of hate and intolerance. I hate living in the bible belt.

    • TheOriginalKitten says:

      I actually feel sorry for some Christians because not every Christian is like Phil and I think some would greatly disapprove of Robertson being the spokesperson for their religion.
      I know plenty of loving and tolerant Christians–but this may also be due to the fact that I live in the northeast, which is for the most part more socially-liberal overall.

      • gg says:

        this ^^^^^. There is another generation of younger people out there who get it. Phil does not get it and he does not speak for anyone but himself.

      • blue marie says:

        He doesn’t speak for the Southern Christians either, or at least not me or any of my friends/family I associate with. It would never cross my mind to say some of the things he has. I try to live my life by the golden rule, that is what Jesus taught me.

      • TheOriginalKitten says:

        I don’t doubt it for a second, ladies.

        This dude’s ignorance does not lessen the love I have for my Christian friends and family, but again, they’re a different type of Christian than this man–and I also agree with Marie that it’s not specific to geography. Some of the most loving, tolerant people I’ve ever met in my life are southern Christians.

    • Sam says:

      This is why I really hate people like Phil. They tend to call themselves “Christians” as opposed to referring to themselves by their particular denomination. I hate that, because it gives the impression that all Christians believe as they do. And that is certainly not the case. I did a little Goggling and found out that Phil is a member of the Churches of Christ (not to be confused with the United Church of Christ, which is pretty liberal). I wish he’d ID himself by denomination so we at least know what denominations are still teaching this Biblically incorrect drivel.

      There are a great many Christian denominations that welcome gay people and think there’s nothing wrong with them. But Phil and people like him don’t want to acknowledge that they exist. They say we are “false” Christians and they are the real ones. So please know that many Christians are not like this at all and work to argue against Christians like Phil.

  37. Pants says:

    I don’t agree with anything he said, but yes, he does have a right to say it. Though it may have helped if he’d been reminded that now that he and his family are famous, they are representatives of sorts for A&E and shouldn’t say things that are so inflammatory. Good call to A&E for pulling him for now, and hopefully they come up with a good long-term solution.

  38. gg says:

    What I really don’t want to happen is more faith intolerance from people just because this guy says he’s a Christian and spews ignorant garbage. God is Love, not hate. Phil’s on his own here. I get really sick and tired of a public figure saying something stupid and then everybody gets a huge bug up their asses ranting that everybody in that person’s faith is just as stupid as the ignorant public figure is because faith makes you say ignorant things. Because that’s only more ignorant hate on top of the first pile of ignorant hate.

  39. Happy21 says:

    While I agree with nothing he said and find his comments absolutely ignorant and think he should have just kept his opinions to himself, I also believe in freedom of speech and not to be punished for ones beliefs. Should he have no said them, of course he shouldn’t have but should he punished because he has an opinion that is so ignorant and unpopular, I don’t know. Of course, A&E is looking out for A&E and the money they make off of this family so they did what they needed to do to keep making money. But in the end we all can think what we want and we can say it if we want no matter how politically incorrect and ignorant it may be.

  40. dlsmith says:

    I have watched Duck Dynasty many times. Generally, I enjoy the show. However, Phil has always rubbed me the wrong way. I can’t stand watching him. His comments are no surprise. Phil is incredibly intolerant on the show. He speaks ill of everyone, his grand-daughters, wife, women in general. He seems to think everyone and everything is stupid and beneath him. It’s like watching a constantly angry person who exists just to let every other person know that they are stupid and worthless and a waste of time. His “funny” little rants on subjects and negativity made me change the channel numerous times. The show will only get better without him. Bring on more Jase and Uncle Si!

  41. curegirl0421 says:

    Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences.

  42. Bea says:

    The hypocricy is astounding.

    There are a lot of people calling a man out in the most vile way possible yet not realizing they are doing the same thing that they are accusing him of. Insulting his religtion, his family, his lifestyle is no different from what he said.

    Remember when it comes to the Thought Police, they won’t always go after the person you disagree with.

  43. Paul says:

    When they reach the top of the mountain, we sure do like to watch them fall don’t we? The ONLY person hurt by these comments was Phil Robertson – because he got fired. PC police wins again.

    • EscapedConvent says:

      I don’t think so. I think it’s more that A & E would like to keep a so far very popular show on the air & maybe would prefer not to p-ss off a large part of the viewing public. There’s no way to know how many people who watch the show agree with Phil Robertson.

      is it PC Policing to tell someone obnoxious to sit down & shut up?

    • GirlyGirl says:

      Top of the mountain? PC Police?

      I think you meant to post this on Infowars.

    • Tiffany :) says:

      Actually, A&E could be greatly hurt if their advertisers pull out of their time slots. His actions aren’t without consequences.

  44. Theresa says:

    Speaking first and asking forgiveness later is the new self-censoring. I am getting pretty tired of celeb interviews for “shock” value. Indeed, some of their statements seem to be truly representative of who they are, but some people say s**t just to get attention, knowing full well they’ll be skewered for their opinions. What do they really care, what you John Q Public really thinks? They’re laughing at your bonnet in a beehive all the way to the bank. They want you in a tizzy! And then the canned back-pedaling, is sooooo eye-rolling, and no way written by the offending celebrity, but certainly signed off. It’s almost like a new page of the “how to get attention” playbook has been written; say stupid offensive shocking things in interview, get a lot of attention in the media, appear contrite and offer placating apology in form of obvious ghost-written soundbite. Move on. Boo-yah!

    Go ahead, be outraged and debate the heck outta the situation. That is what “they” want. GQ wants attention, A and E wants attention, these yokel duck dudes (who are they anyway?) want attention. Everyone wants attention, and guess what, they get it! So they’re gonna do it again, and again and again. Until there just isn’t any outrage left for what we really need to be outraged about (did this s**t knock the latest terrible atrocity in Syria off the headlines???)

    I know I know. Why am I here, if I don’t care. But I do care. I want to be a voice of reason, provide a different perspective every now and then. So how about we just accept this for what it is; annoying people saying stuff and us going on with our lives. Everyone, have a great holiday season.

    • TheOriginalKitten says:

      No one’s in a tizzy.

      No one’s losing sleep over this.

      A public figure said something incredibly ignorant and people are reacting.

      As Americans, we’re exercising our right to express our feelings and opinions and contrary to what you state here, that is actually a very healthy thing, something that we should all be grateful for, as not every society has the right to openly express their viewpoints.

      I don’t see why you would think that remaining silent about things that we perceive to be morally wrong would be better than speaking out against it. *shrugs*

      • Theresa says:

        No one is in a tizzy? When I wrote this comment, this stupid incident was the headline on CNN. Ridiculous.

        You can express opinions, hell this site depends on people coming on here expressing themselves. But the amount of debate spent on a backwoods hirsute redneck and his unsurprising ignorance irks me.

        There is also a difference between being silent, and being over the top with the amount of attention this is garnering.

        That is my point.

  45. The Original G says:

    NO ONE has stopped Phil from expressing his opinion. He’s expressed it in a national magazine and his point of view widely reported. His freedom is totally intact.

    He has a right to his opinion, but he doesn’t have a right to a TV show. If A+E finds that he’s not who they want to employ as an entertainer, THAT is capitalism. Live with it.

  46. Brown Eyed Girl says:

    all i have to say, is that im tired of seeing his beard on my facebook today. 2 pages i have been invited to like on facebook have at least half a million “likes” EACH. imagine if people rallied like that against unemployment and hunger in america.

  47. The Original G says:

    BTW, I don’t buy his country bumpkin schtick for a minute, either.

  48. GirlyGirl says:

    Is this supposed to be surprising?

    Honestly, I feel everyone has a right to say anything they want whenever they want. If you believe in free speech you believe people have the right to say things that offend your entire being.

    But if you’re some jackass who’s only talents are having a beard and firing a gun and some short-sighted broadcaster gives you money to be an idiot, you should probably stfu.

    Good luck in TV oblivion guys who make duck calls and look like Lynyrd Skynrd’s roadies!

  49. paranormalgirl says:

    The guy can say anything he wants. He can espouse all the hate and ignorance he wants. Being tolerant means having a “willingness to accept feelings, habits, or beliefs that are different from your own.” I accept that Phil Robertson has feelings, habits, and beliefs that are different from my own. I hope that he can tolerate me thinking he’s a jackass.

  50. Deedee says:

    This is not a troll comment, but a real question. Peoplecare arguing that Phil has a right to his opinions (i agee) and his right to voice ( i also agree). But if the tv station doesnt advocate that opinion, havent they the right not to film and air him anymore ( especially if its in the contract)??bFrom what ive read from some blogs, some people dont agree.

  51. Mabs says:

    Awesome news.

  52. Sue says:

    I agree that his comments were rude and inappropriate. However, freedom of speech is just that we are allowed to say what we want. I am so thankful that I live in a country like this. The question then is employment. Does an employer have the right to fire you if you do no believe the same way what that they do and you speak up about it? For example if you are a nurse and you believe that homosexual couples should be allowed to be married and you speak openly about it but you work in a Catholic Hospital that disagrees with this should they be allowed to fire you? Does your ability to be employed depend on what you say? Is that true freedom? Or are we gagging people with the threat of a job? Kind of say what we want you to say or you are fired? Is that true freedom? How much does an employer have control over? Would we really just lose freedom of speech if everyone would be afraid they would be fired if they said what they really thought?

    • Kiddo says:

      Of course they have the right to fire you. Especially if while speaking, you are not only representing yourself, but the organization as well. Remember, the only reason he was interviewed in the first place was because he was on their channel, in a show.

      • Sue says:

        Yes well – then you have to know what an organization stands for. What does A & E stand for. Would they fire someone for speaking badly about Jews? What about calling a group of people fat? Who determines what is inappropriate? So a nurse at a Catholic hospital must never voice her opinions on gay marriage or be fired. Does a nurse represent the Catholic faith and belief system just because she works at their hospital? Hard questions – but be aware that giving unlimited power to an employer is kind of scary.

      • Kiddo says:

        I think if you are a nurse at a Catholic institution you understand the parameters and you won’t speak as an advocate for abortion, for example, while representing the hospital. I’m sure if you talk to friends about it, outside of work, you are not likely to get fired unless you are strongly advocating and being very public about it.

        You are not giving unlimited power to an employer. You can say whatever you want and you a free to seek other employment and they are free to let you go, for any number of reasons. In other words, they can’t muzzle you, but they aren’t required to provide unconditional love either. Why should biased speech be protected as a term of employment?

        As it is, some of the negative things he was saying relate to protected groups:
        U.S. federal law protects employees from discrimination or harassment based on sex, race, age, disability, color, creed, national origin, religion, or sexual orientation.

        Uttering things that can be taken as harassment against protected groups if the individual is interpreted as being a representative for an organization can put that organization in a sticky wicket. Does A&E hire gay or black people? Are any staff on the set gay and/or black? His attitudes and public opinions may create a hostile environment for them to work in.

      • Kiddo says:

        are free…I’m so tired today, sorry.

      • cr says:

        @Sue:
        “Hard questions – but be aware that giving unlimited power to an employer is kind of scary”.
        This is happening in some ways, but having your employees not behave like a-holes to their customers or their fellow workers I don’t see as a form of infringing upon my freedom. I don’t find dress codes infringing upon my freedom.
        I find right to work policies, forced, unpaid overtime, reduced benefits, etc., that worries me more.

    • The Original G says:

      It’s certain, that Phil’s contract with A+E outlines the kind of public promotional activities he can and can’t do. I’m sure he’s expected to behave in alignment with A+E’s corporate values. If so, they have every right to end his contract. Phil’s probably forgotten what he signed. Many corporate workplaces have codes of conduct in place. You agree to them when you get hired.

  53. Sue says:

    By the way I have never watched this show and know nothing about this man. I am just thinking about the debate. It is a good debate and we are lucky to have it because we live in a free country.

  54. peaches mcdooby says:

    we have the freedom to make our own choices….

    turn Duck Dynasty on or off in support of your views….pretty simple really

  55. St says:

    Well part of me is glad, maybe this idiotic show will disappear. I haven’t watch a single episode, yet it’s always mentioned somewhere. Like that boo boo stuff, teen mom and endless housewifes shows. Can’t wait till it will go away all. But on the other hand… Well this is straight out censorship. Whatever that guy thinks it is his business. He doesn’t like gays – that’s his choice. Freedom of speech anyone?

    Society pushes it too hard. Wasn’t it just few years ago when basically everyone thought that gay stuff was wrong? For 2 000 years everyone (church, government, society) told people that gay stuff was wrong and sin. Then in matter of some 6-8 years it became ok and now everyone who doesn’t think like that is evil monster. Wasn’t it like 10-15 years ago when people would make jokes. Wasn’t that Tom Hanks Philadelphia movie not that long time ago? Wasn’t it not too long ago when Ace Ventura was so disgusted when he found out that he was kissing man that he tried to wash his mouth for 2 hours? And it was funny for everyone. Now we are only step away from putting people who don’t like gays in prison. It reminds me of that hunt on communists back in cold war days. How they were destroying life and career of anyone who they suspect could be communist.

    They destroyed that Gre’s Anatomy actor career for one word. They fired this Duck Dynasty guy. Now almost every week media tries to find some anti-gay remark in some actors interviews and then bully them for it. Every person that doesn’t like gay is being labeled as some evil hateful monster. It’s like: “You don’t like gays? Then we will come to you and will make you”. Society pushes it too hard. And I feel like there will be huge backlash eventually.

    That guy doesn’t like gays? That’s his choice. It’s not like he is asking to forbid them or bully them. What happened to freedom of thought? Because it looks like there is no such thing anymore in America. Soon those celebrities will be afraid to give interviews. Because someone will always find some stuff to bully them for. And all we would have would be their thoughts about weather, kittens and world peace.

    • Kiddo says:

      How was he censored? If he was, we all wouldn’t have known what he said.

    • cr says:

      “Now we are only step away from putting people who don’t like gays in prison.”
      Hardly.

      “Freedom of speech anyone? ” This, and how it actually applies, and doesn’t apply, has been gone over in multiple comments on this very thread and today’s Palin thread.

      Perhaps the acceptance of gays and gay marriage has come a long way (And yet still has so far) is because of the realization that gays are people too, with rights and should be treated accordingly? And that gay marriage hasn’t brought about the downfall of society?

      I read this comment and can’t help but think it sounds like a lot comments that are defending not just his right to say what he said, but what he said. But trying to not sound like they’re actually agreeing with him.

      • St says:

        I personally don’t care about gays. I don’t support them, I don’t hate them. I just don’t care and have no strong opinion about it. But here I am – have to defend myself. Because good and saint people accused me because I wasn’t jumping and shaming that guy with all my guts…

        I’m just tired of all those bulling of celebrities. Every week. One day it’s No Doubt, then Ireland Baldwin, then Britney Spears and on and on. I think that americans are too sensitive about those whole stuff. It started as good will, people were so proud to be supportive and be against racism, homophobia, killing whales and against everything. And now it turns into witch hunt for every person they think is not supporting their views or something.

        People will read every word in celebrity’s interview, then will find something to grab on to and here comes the bulling and accusations. They will sit on comments and accuse, hate, shame… This is really becomes ridiculous. When they even jumped on Britney Spears who is barely sane, when they jumped on Ireland Baldwin for some costume.

        Many people don’t see it from their “I am saint” pedestal. But they are really not better then those people they accuse. Everything is like: “I’m so good and merciful and supportive of every right there is. And anyone who I think is not – is enemy and hateful person and will go to hell”.

        In the end people (and celebrities) will be afraid to say anything. Because they will be afraid that they will be bullied, fired, put their career in jeopardy. This is big step back.

      • cr says:

        “I personally don’t care about gays.” For someone who personally doesn’t care about gays you spent a lot of time in your comment talking about them. Just saying.

        “Everything is like: “I’m so good and merciful and supportive of every right there is. And anyone who I think is not – is enemy and hateful person and will go to hell”.”

        Not seeing that as a general trend. Specific instances, yes, but calling someone out for being a racist/homophobic/etc. isn’t bullying. They’re still free to be whatever they are.

        But society changes, and what was seen as acceptable hate is no longer seen that way. Phil Robertson’s beliefs weren’t really out of the ordinary when he was growing up, and still aren’t in certain parts of the US. But luckily, a great many of Americans have moved beyond that. And pointing out that society has changed isn’t bullying.

  56. Baskingshark says:

    And so it was that Phil Robertson shanked the golden goose. Er, duck.

  57. GiGi says:

    I read the entire GQ article and I don’t see where they are saying he compared homosexuality to bestiality??? Where does it say that? I thought he was talking about ‘sins’ in general…

  58. Diana says:

    That nasty old dirty man deserved what he got. Comparing gays (his fellow human beings) to those who commit bestiality shows his ignorance, hatred and bigotry, as do his words about other groups of people.
    Most shows and sports teams and many businesses have behavior clauses. Get caught shooting up, get caught patronizing prostitutes, get busted for something, say or put something very offensive on FB and you agree when you sign that you won’t do these things-you lose your meal ticket. They have the legal option to fire you or remove you from the show “temporarily”. Opinions are like @$$holes-everybody has one. HIS are offensive to most of us.
    I never understood the appeal of Duck Dynasty, and I’ll sure be glad when this show milks all it can from these loser rednecks and fades to black.

  59. Nemesis says:

    First if all, I’m a 36 year old white woman that lives in Louisiana. So just so u know I was born and raised among family where some believe this stuff. My Memaw is an 89 year old bigot racist fat shammer. But I still love her. She has a right to her opinion and beliefs just like everybody else. I just don’t have to see her. She was raised in that cookie cutter 40′s and 50′s magazine cover generation. You know the one, the one whee everybody was white perfect and heterosexual. My momma didn’t raise me this way. I once asked my Memaw if she had to choose between the three for her granddaughters, would she rather one of us marry a black man, be a lesbian or get fat. She said that basically she’s disown us for all three.

    Well guess what? I’m fat. So, I just don’t visit her cause I don’t want to feel like shit about myself. She’s good about that. And I’ve met plenty of women and black men that I would consider relationships with. So maybe one day I can meet a black woman and become the trifecta and whatever.

    My mom, although I think she’d have an initial problem with it, I know would end up supporting me in the end with my choices. As long as my partner was a good person. Some of my uncles, who are of the same generation as Phil, would not.

    My point is, the south’s OLDER generation is stuck in its ways. BUT they maybe our dads, grandma’s or other family members, and we still love them. We will always love them. They don’t define us.

    That’s just the way they are. And they have the same right to their opinion and beliefs as everybody else. Just like you. Now the Robinson family is making a lot of money off of their tv show. You can support or not, it’s your choice.

    I’ll tell you another thing. My cousin, who I grew up closely with, had an uncle that was gay. Like back in the 80′s when that stuff was just not normal, not even by your people standards. His mom and dad (my 2nd grandparents) loved him no matter what, and stood by him until he died of aids. They are wonderful people.

    Now take out of this what you want, but realize this, just like we all have a crackhead in the family, we also have somebody out there that’s an asshole.

    Maybe my family history just gives me a greater tolerance to these kind of beliefs. Maybe I’m just as ignorant as them. Whatever, the fact is that traditional Christian families (like the robertson’s) feel under attack. So they are gonna start attacking back. Christian people sincerely feel like they are currently under attack by the PC brigade. As long as your not white, Christian and straight you can call “bigot” or “racist” or whatever you want to shut up these people. Traditional Christians seriously are seeing the boogeyman everywhere.

    Sorry for the essay just wanted to say what I thought.

    • cr says:

      “Whatever, the fact is that traditional Christian families (like the robertson’s) feel under attack. So they are gonna start attacking back. Christian people sincerely feel like they are currently under attack by the PC brigade. As long as your not white, Christian and straight you can call “bigot” or “racist” or whatever you want to shut up these people. Traditional Christians seriously are seeing the boogeyman everywhere.”
      Yes, because they want to see the boogyman everywhere. Sorry, but as someone who was raised Christian, the granddaughter and grandniece of ministers, I don’t see Christianity being under attack. What I see is a segment of the United States having trouble dealing with the fact the society they grew up in, and had some sort of power (white, christian) that world doesn’t exist anymore. This doesn’t mean they’re being oppressed. It doesn’t mean I’m expecting them to change their views. But calling them out and pointing out what what they believe isn’t really acceptable anymore isn’t oppression. Even if they want to think that.

    • Tiffany :) says:

      Nemisis,
      Thanks for sharing the perspective you have gained through your experiences with your family!

      I agree that some Christian families of certain demoninations feel like they and their way of life are under attack. I think they sincerely feel this way, but from my perspective, it is pretty amazing that they don’t see that preventing people from being denied their civil rights is not an “attack” on anyone so much as it is giving equal freedoms to those they disagree with. They are not being oppressed, rather, others are gaining freedoms. It just feels like an attack to them because, in all honesty, their traditions included the oppression of others.

  60. Isabelle says:

    This morning with it being all over the news and social media, my first thought was “Mama June proves not everyone in the South has that same view.” Wish people got this outraged over other problems in our society versus a reality show. Funny how this causes outrage among some Christians but economical/social justice issues never invoke this kind of anger. I’m enjoying FB though, because people have lost their freaking minds and its somewhat entertaining.

    • Tiffany :) says:

      As has been stated in many other comments, his freedom of speech has NOT been hampered in the slightest. Other Americans also have freedom of speech, and they are using that freedom to disagree.

      Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences for what you say. It does not mean that no one can disagree with you. It does not mean that you are protected from actions from your employer if you represent them poorly. Enough with the “freedom of speech” battle crys from people who don’t understand what that phrase means.

  61. mikeal says:

    As some who don’t believe that freedom of speech doesn’t mean freedom from consequences, I still think there have to be room for conversation not just punishment.

    If you’re incline, you can read these essays on looking at the bigger picture and how we deal with these situations.
    http://peejbrennan.tumblr.com/post/70509641220/duck-dynasty-and-all-that-jazz

    http://sorrytelevision.wordpress.com/

  62. master yoda says:

    Neat. I guess dominance has replaced tolerance as someone’s battle cry. I guess the wealthy ruling class makes their own rules.

  63. DaninAK says:

    Phil and his family teach more about a positive family structure with moral integrity than anything else on TV, he preaches his beliefs around the country and stands up for himself and his religious views without waiver, if he doesn’t get put back on his family will leave as well, and personally I feel that mainstream people wanted any reason they could to get the show off the air. The real issue is that he can say how he feels and then receives blowback, but fortunately America stands behind him, over the last 24 hours there have been over 2 million people who have signed a petition to boycott A&E until he is reinstated.

  64. bettyrose says:

    Many people have already made similar points, but I don’t think this can be said enough: The first amendment only protects you from an act of congress limiting your freedoms; it does not protect you from being fired, dumped by your lover, or hated by the general public for behaving like a jackass. Moreover, your employer is primarily concerned with profits, and if your “free speech” impedes on their ability to earn profits (and thus the livelihoods of all the other employees), the constitution does not protect you. Can you sue your employer? Yes. Are you guaranteed a win? No. “Freedom” is a pretty subjective concept, but 5000 years of history suggest that it basically means not going to jail for just being you. So rage on a-holes. Your freedom is not in jeopardy, but the free-market is under no constitutional obligation to support you.

  65. FullMoon says:

    REALITY CHECK: Duck Dynasty has been on for a while, so A&E has known what Phil is all about. This was a calculated move by the network. Duck Commander is worth millions; the paltry $200k the family makes per episode means nothing. This will solidify their base and their product.

  66. Kloops says:

    The racism! The homophobic bigotry! This guy can take his dubious morals and live with the consequences. A&E is in a precarious position. Sure, they want the money this juggernaught provides, but there will be a consequence. Not all consumers are down with bigotry. This family does NOT reflect my family values.

  67. rkintn says:

    I didn’t read the comments because I know pretty much where everyone here stands on the issue. Maybe you should check out Facebook to see how many actually support him and are boycotting A&E. The millions who watch are the millions who agree with him and his family. It would be interesting to see how those numbers stack up against those who oppose him. Also, his family has issued an official statement. Look it up.