Duck Dynasty's' Phil Robertson on Indefinite Hiatus Following Anti-Gay Remarks

  • Thread starter Thread starter SpeakInSilence
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
vanityofvanitys said:
Ok, Sheeniac. You win. I’m wrong. Duckman did make explain himself well enough for any of us to understand what he was saying and what he meant. Good on him. I’m on his side and I retract my lament. I was a stooge thinking the media was telling it truthfully.
Click to expand...
👍 very impressive, most people, including myself, have a very hard time admitting when we are wrong. It’s a very commendable quality.
 
colmywaykurtz said:
I’m a bit confused. When you say “the interview,” are you referring to the GQ piece by Drew Magary, or is there some other interview you are referring to?
Click to expand...
sorry. I’m referring to the interview that led to the GQ article.
 
‘Duck Dynasty’s’ Phil Robertson: Five more debate-worthy quotes
“Women with women. Men with men. They committed indecent acts with one another. And they received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. They’re full of murder, envy, strife, hatred. They are insolent, arrogant God haters. They are heartless. They are faithless. They are senseless. They are ruthless. They invent ways of doing evil.” – Speaking at the 2010 Wild Game Supper in Pottstown, Pa.
Click to expand...
Oh, geez.
 
gracepoole said:
‘Duck Dynasty’s’ Phil Robertson: Five more debate-worthy quotes
Oh, geez.
Click to expand...
Really?
Epistle Of Saint Paul To The Romans
Chapter 1

[16] For I am not ashamed of the gospel. For it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth, to the Jew first, and to the Greek. [17] For the justice of God is revealed therein, from faith unto faith, as it is written: The just man liveth by faith. [18] For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and injustice of those men that detain the truth of God in injustice: [19] Because that which is known of God is manifest in them. For God hath manifested it unto them. [20] For the invisible things of him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made; his eternal power also, and divinity: so that they are inexcusable.

[21] Because that, when they knew God, they have not glorified him as God, or given thanks; but became vain in their thoughts, and their foolish heart was darkened. [22] For professing themselves to be wise, they became fools. [23] And they changed the glory of the incorruptible God into the likeness of the image of a corruptible man, and of birds, and of fourfooted beasts, and of creeping things. [24] Wherefore God gave them up to the desires of their heart, unto uncleanness, to dishonour their own bodies among themselves. [25] Who changed the truth of God into a lie; and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

[26] For this cause God delivered them up to shameful affections. For their women have changed the natural use into that use which is against nature. [27] And, in like manner, the men also, leaving the natural use of the women, have burned in their lusts one towards another, men with men working that which is filthy, and receiving in themselves the recompense which was due to their error. [28] And as they liked not to have God in their knowledge, God delivered them up to a reprobate sense, to do those things which are not convenient; [29] Being filled with all iniquity, malice, fornication, avarice, wickedness, full of envy, murder, contention, deceit, malignity, whisperers, [30] Detractors, hateful to God, contumelious, proud, haughty, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
[31] Foolish, dissolute, without affection, without fidelity, without mercy. [32] Who, having known the justice of God, did not understand that they who do such things, are worthy of death; and not only they that do them, but they also that consent to them that do them

Sounds pretty clear cut to me.

scripture from drbo.org/index.htm
 
Pulvis said:
Really?
Epistle Of Saint Paul To The Romans
Chapter 1

[16] For I am not ashamed of the gospel. For it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth, to the Jew first, and to the Greek. [17] For the justice of God is revealed therein, from faith unto faith, as it is written: The just man liveth by faith. [18] For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and injustice of those men that detain the truth of God in injustice: [19] Because that which is known of God is manifest in them. For God hath manifested it unto them. [20] For the invisible things of him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made; his eternal power also, and divinity: so that they are inexcusable.

[21] Because that, when they knew God, they have not glorified him as God, or given thanks; but became vain in their thoughts, and their foolish heart was darkened. [22] For professing themselves to be wise, they became fools. [23] And they changed the glory of the incorruptible God into the likeness of the image of a corruptible man, and of birds, and of fourfooted beasts, and of creeping things. [24] Wherefore God gave them up to the desires of their heart, unto uncleanness, to dishonour their own bodies among themselves. [25] Who changed the truth of God into a lie; and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

[26] For this cause God delivered them up to shameful affections. For their women have changed the natural use into that use which is against nature. [27] And, in like manner, the men also, leaving the natural use of the women, have burned in their lusts one towards another, men with men working that which is filthy, and receiving in themselves the recompense which was due to their error. [28] And as they liked not to have God in their knowledge, God delivered them up to a reprobate sense, to do those things which are not convenient; [29] Being filled with all iniquity, malice, fornication, avarice, wickedness, full of envy, murder, contention, deceit, malignity, whisperers, [30] Detractors, hateful to God, contumelious, proud, haughty, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
[31] Foolish, dissolute, without affection, without fidelity, without mercy. [32] Who, having known the justice of God, did not understand that they who do such things, are worthy of death; and not only they that do them, but they also that consent to them that do them

Sounds pretty clear cut to me.

scripture from drbo.org/index.htm
Click to expand...
One of the many reasons I’m no fan of St. Paul. :rolleyes:
 
I am going to join in and block A&E, but I am keeping my fingers crossed this will be resolved before Longmire returns. I can ditch Bonnie and Clyde with no great loss.
 
pnewton said:
How about the Holy Spirit that inspired his writings, being the most prolific author of the Bible. Don’t hate on the messenger. It is God’s message.
Click to expand...
Paul’s writings have also long been used to support antisemitism and I surely don’t think the Holy Spirit champions that brand of hatred.
 
gracepoole said:
Paul’s writings have also long been used to support antisemitism and I surely don’t think the Holy Spirit champions that brand of hatred.
Click to expand...
That individuals have taken Sacred Scripture out of context to rationalize all sorts of heinous acts is indisputable. But, when you give Scripture in full context, and still wish to refuse to accept it’s teaching, you are lying to yourself.
 
gracepoole said:
Paul’s writings have also long been used to support antisemitism and I surely don’t think the Holy Spirit champions that brand of hatred.
Click to expand...
And if that was the topic or he was an anti-Semite, you’d have a point. He wasn’t eloquent, but he talked about sins and their impact on us eternally. If you disagree specifically, say what you disagree with in his quote.
fontgoddess said:
I’ve never seen the show, don’t care to read the interview, but would like to ask why as Christians we are so thin-skinned? Didn’t Jesus say we’d be insulted and persecuted for following Him? And considering that Christians around the world are actually being killed in significant numbers, I think we should be grateful that we are free to worship in peace, and speak out about our faith without being killed or imprisoned. This guy is not suffering at all, unless it makes him sad that he can’t be on the show. He was a millionaire before the show happened and he’ll be a millionaire if he never gets in front of the camera again. If anything, he’s better known now than he was before, and mostly in a positive way. The people who were offended by what he said weren’t fans and probably never would be, regardless.
Click to expand...
True, but unless you stand up against your persecutors, you will ultimately end up dead. People didn’t start getting killed over night in most cases. America has seen a slide towards silencing any mention of God or Christian beliefs, and towards promoting active homosexuality as some badge of honor. I’d rather we not say “well, it could be worse” and wait for it to get worse.

I also do agree A&E is well within their rights to suspend or fire him if they choose to. He works for them.

Likewise, I hope people who recognize that also recognize the rights of any employer to do the same if they find someone’s beliefs or statements offensive. Of course defining offensive is dicey and vague, but for example, I am offended by people who do not pray. I also own my own company. Are we in agreement that I am within my right to fire people who reveal they do not pray, as it is offensive to me, the employer?

Just want to be sure we are consistent. I se a ton of defenders of homosexual teachers who get fired from Catholic schools, when in reality, the employer can o whatever they want, within that state’s laws.
 
HappyCatholic01 said:
I also do agree A&E is well within their rights to suspend or fire him if they choose to. He works for them.

Likewise, I hope people who recognize that also recognize the rights of any employer to do the same if they find someone’s beliefs or statements offensive.
Click to expand...
That is an interesting point. At first, I thought they were in their right to fire him. However, if a company can not also fire someone for speaking out supporting homosexuality or gay marriage, then there is a double standard, as those are mirrors of each other.

GLAAD wants freedom from consequence? Then will they also respect the rights of people to fire those for standing up against the promoters of homosexuality? Do homosexuals also need to face consequences for their statements?
 
I believe Phil Robertson has had a target on his back since they took a stand on the editing of the show. They stood up for Jesus and objected to the phony beeping. They took a stand for their faith which drew the ire of liberals everywhere. My most outspoken liberal friends all commented negatively about the Jesus editing, throwing fits that the star of a show they had never even watched stood up for his right to utter the name of God without having it censored. We don’t watch the show but when that story hit I told her it was just a matter of time before some dug up or fabricated some dirt about him in order to try to shut the show down.
 
pnewton said:
That is an interesting point. At first, I thought they were in their right to fire him. However, if a company can not also fire someone for speaking out supporting homosexuality or gay marriage, then there is a double standard, as those are mirrors of each other.

GLAAD wants freedom from consequence? Then will they also respect the rights of people to fire those for standing up against the promoters of homosexuality? Do homosexuals also need to face consequences for their statements?
Click to expand...
I am sure GLAAD would not support my right to fire someone who offends me by support active homosexuality. They are hypocrites, and motivated by Satan, even though they don’t realize it.

I have higher hopes for my fellow posters on Catholic Answers. I hope they respect any employer’s right to fire anyone who offends them from a Christian viewpoint as well. It may be a bad business decision, but it is their right. Agreed?
 
HappyCatholic01 said:
I am sure GLAAD would not support my right to fire someone who offends me by support active homosexuality. They are hypocrites, and motivated by Satan, even though they don’t realize it.

I have higher hopes for my fellow posters on Catholic Answers. I hope they respect any employer’s right to fire anyone who offends them from a Christian viewpoint as well. It may be a bad business decision, but it is their right. Agreed?
Click to expand...
Just like the Christian baker who did not wish to bake a wedding cake for the homosexual couple? Or the Christian florist who did not wish to do the arrangements for the same sex wedding? Or the Christian school that wished to remove an employee who was living in direct opposition to the Tenants of the Faith? You are ignoring the double standard which is applied in the courts of this now pagan land. This is a battle for Souls, and we are losing. Silence is acceptance.
 
gracepoole said:
‘Duck Dynasty’s’ Phil Robertson: Five more debate-worthy quotes

Oh, geez.
Click to expand...
Yeah, you get it, too. The implication seems to be that homosexuality is the “mother of all sins,” and therefore the worst one, the “unforgivable” one.

I know elsewhere in the GQ interview (and possibly elsewhere), he’s quoted as saying that a person’s salvation is something that can only be known to God, but I fear that THIS quote (“Start with homosexuality and morph out from there…”) will be the take-away, the one most-remembered by his huge, devoted audience. I hope I’m wrong, and I fear I’m right.
 
colmywaykurtz said:
Yeah, you get it, too. The implication seems to be that homosexuality is the “mother of all sins,” and therefore the worst one, the “unforgivable” one.

I know elsewhere in the GQ interview (and possibly elsewhere), he’s quoted as saying that a person’s salvation is something that can only be known to God, but I fear that THIS quote (“Start with homosexuality and morph out from there…”) will be the take-away, the one most-remembered by his huge, devoted audience. I hope I’m wrong, and I fear I’m right.
Click to expand...
Sadly, I also fear you’re right.

To others here, just out of curiosity, were the Bible to offer a description of Jews or blacks as described in this way (“full of murder, envy, strife, hatred. They are insolent, arrogant God haters. They are heartless. They are faithless. They are senseless. They are ruthless. They invent ways of doing evil”), would you feel bound to champion the same view? (I’m going to politely ask that someone answer the question as stated rather than explaining that being Jewish or black is not prohibited by God or described as evil in the Bible – or that being Jewish or black isn’t “unnatural” – thereby not answering the question at all.)
 
Pulvis said:
Just like the Christian baker who did not wish to bake a wedding cake for the homosexual couple? Or the Christian florist who did not wish to do the arrangements for the same sex wedding? Or the Christian school that wished to remove an employee who was living in direct opposition to the Tenants of the Faith? You are ignoring the double standard which is applied in the courts of this now pagan land. This is a battle for Souls, and we are losing. Silence is acceptance.
Click to expand...
FYI, I was being facetious.

Those on the progressive left demand respect for the homosexual community, but would just as soon see the rights of a Christian trampled under foot.

As a small business owner, I should be able to fire my employees (depending on my state) for finding them offensive, just like A&E did.

I doubt I’d get a lot of support around here if I did.
 
HappyCatholic01 said:
As a small business owner, I should be able to fire my employees (depending on my state) for finding them offensive, just like A&E did.
Click to expand...
I don’t think A&E fired Robertson, but setting that aside, the right of businesses to fire employees for damaging the company’s public image is well-established in the US. Instances often do not make it to the level of widespread public knowledge, unless the misbehavior became notorious. For example:

Arizona CFO fired after berating Chik-fil-A drive-through employee
nydailynews.com/news/national/arizona-cfo-fired-berating-chik-fil-a-drive-through-employee-company-policy-gay-article-1.1128386

’Fountain Mom’ was fired after incident at KC stadium
kcci.com/news/central-iowa/fountain-mom-granted-unemployment-benefits/-/9357080/22807434/-/4tchicz/-/index.html
 
40.png
Coatimundi:
Quote:

Originally Posted by HappyCatholic01

As a small business owner, I should be able to fire my employees (depending on my state) for finding them offensive, just like A&E did.

I don’t think A&E fired Robertson, but setting that aside, the right of businesses to fire employees for damaging the company’s public image is well-established in the US. Instances often do not make it to the level of widespread public knowledge, unless the misbehavior became notorious. For example:

Arizona CFO fired after berating Chik-fil-A drive-through employee
nydailynews.com/news/nat…icle-1.1128386

‘Fountain Mom’ was fired after incident at KC stadium
kcci.com/news/central-iow…z/-/index.html
Click to expand...
If he is suspended without pay, and then subsequently not brought back to the show and the show is taken off the air that’s the equivalent of being fired.

Regardless, you don’t even have to show that they’re damaging the reputation of the company. A&E didn’t claim that; they just said they found what he said offensive and suspended him. As long as everything more business owner in America can suspend or fire an employee they find offensive, I don’t see a problem with it.

Posted from Catholic.com App for Android
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top