3 votes

Patriarch kicked off 'Duck Dynasty' after gay comments

Old Phil may not be very PC, but the A&E media owners still are.

LOS ANGELES (AP) — "Duck Dynasty" patriarch Phil Robertson is off the hit A&E reality series indefinitely after disparaging gays as sinners akin to adulterers and swindlers, the network said.

Related StoriesA&E announced Wednesday what it called a "hiatus" for Robertson, 67, after he disparaged gays in the January edition of GQ magazine. He also said that, growing up in Louisiana before the Civil Rights movement, he never saw mistreatment of blacks.

In a statement, A&E said it was extremely disappointed to see Robertson's anti-gay remarks, which it said were based on his personal beliefs and do not reflect those of A&E Networks or the show. A&E called itself a supporter of the lesbian and gay community.

The channel's move was lauded by the gay civil rights group GLAAD, which had quickly condemned Robertson's comments.


Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
bigmikedude's picture

How many more posts about this

do we need on DP?

I've never watched it either...

just my opinion on the underlying matter.

Father - Husband - Son - Spirit - Consciousness

You know what pisses me off...

my junior high and high school years were spent as a best friend to a half-Hispanic homosexual (which was never openly admitted by him until post-high school) who was the only person who gave a genuine interest in the person I was inside. He was possibly the kindest, most genuine person I've ever known. We lost contact in 2000 but I am glad he has come out and is living as he was meant to live and love.

Phil of Duck Dynasty is free to express his views and I applaud his expression, however these really aren't his views ultimately. They are views adopted by many who follow the hateful, malevolent and maniacal Lord of the worn and spiteful doctrines of the Old Testament.

At least see this God for what It is: hypocritical, murderous, abusive and a game-changer who holds free will and love as dangling carrots of appeasement for the punishments and judgments It persuades its followers to wage, imply of and provoke upon humanity.

It's laughable to state homosexuality a sin when the historical followers to present have in representation of God organized the unprecedented genocide/slander and demise of those who were/are not aligned with a book of incredible sadomasochism and order.

But this of course is my view.

Father - Husband - Son - Spirit - Consciousness

That is...

That is, unfortunately, a very flawed view. I think you'll see the logical fallacy in your last full paragraph; and it is one not to be taken lightly.

You compare the declaration of homosexuality as a sin to the actions that some followers of a religion perform. Those who commit terrible acts haven't even begun to understand the book they supposedly represent with their actions - which is why their actions do not represent the book at all. People performing terrible acts are just as guilty of their sins as are the homosexuals. And comparing these two things does not make sense - honestly, try to draw a logical comparison between the two, and you'll see why your statement collapses in an instant.

You are making the huge mistake of creating an image of a religion based on the actions of some who greatly misinterpret it. Remember, the repubs and democrats claim that all of their actions are based on and rooted in the constitution. For the true constitutionalists, like everyone here on the Daily Paul, we know they are in fact destroying the constitution, and stretching it to fit their evil desires and intentions. And I would never for a second blame the constitution for the actions of those idiots. See the logical fallacy?

Of course it's flawed as are all views of flawed men...

"It's laughable to state homosexuality a sin when the historical followers to present have in representation of God organized the unprecedented genocide/slander and demise of those who were/are not aligned with a book of incredible sadomasochism and order."

Last full paragraph...I said historical followers to present, which doesn't state ALL followers as you've outlined in your response. My comparison is that some historical and present followers believe/state homosexuality to be a sin, yet they may very well be the same followers that believe the interventionism and subsequent atrocities perpetuated by intervention not to be sinful as justified under God.

The last paragraph of your response: "For the true constitutionalists, like everyone here on the Daily Paul, we know they are in fact destroying the constitution, and stretching it to fit their evil desires and intentions. And I would never for a second blame the constitution for the actions of those idiots. See the logical fallacy?"

I was not blaming the Bible for the actions perpetuated by some of its followers, I was stating the fact that it presents much to be considered when It's oldest teachings and literature circumvent the very commandments realized within it. God Itself addresses mass cleansing by sentencing man to death for his/her wayward choices and the fact that thousands of years of war and destruction have ensued since the Almighty precedents were set is not happenstance, rather aligned with the examples within the scriptures.

We are not born religious anymore than sinners and the fact that some followers cannot understand this is one reason why you will continue to hear people call homosexuality a sin, adultery a sin, idolatry a sin, fornication a sin and so on. The convenience of labeling us all sinners at birth is the gross summarization that even prior to conception the seeds of life are as sinful as the formation of the child by them. I have a rough time finding the Godliness in this.

So in essence the freedom of speech offers us a choice. It offers us the choice to speak freely but also reiterate the freely spoken words/messages of a former or original thinker. When someone states homosexuality is sinful, are they stating this because at birth they inherently believed this within their unformed and uninfluenced conscience or because along the way to their statement they were persuaded that another person's sexuality/preference was subhuman and ungodly?

See, the difference between the example of the Constitution and the Bible is this: we never needed the Constitution to tell of the rights we innately feel and foster and regard as ultimate to our humanity, it merely is the philosophy laid writ of man and in many ways an unparalleled philosophy. BUT, we did need the Bible to tell us that there are those in this world, historically to present, that are by their actions unworthy of salvation, exoneration and knowing the kingdom of the God by the "sins" we've been notified they choose to carry out.

Every child born into this world is free of the vices we harbor as human beings. Every child is in their innocence and trust eager and wholeheartedly awaiting the influence given them, whether for garnering attention or acceptance or love. As adults we actually teach our children such that when they are grown men and women that they were born of sin, are responsible for pinpointing and avoiding sin while all the while caught in a futile struggle to rise above it. How convenient that we also teach them about the free will they have to either love what they fear in sadomasochism or forever burn with a monstrous apparition/being in the voids of a Hell they were in many ways shackled to prior to their own conception.

It is the sadness in this that is flawed above all else and I am unable to speak about it without spilling my heart to you. Peace and Love.

Father - Husband - Son - Spirit - Consciousness

Do not care

Why is this on the Daily Paul?

allegory - ˈalɪg(ə)ri/ - noun - 1. a story, poem, or picture which can be interpreted to reveal a hidden meaning, typically a moral or political one.

Let's see if I understand this

No one can discriminate against someone based upon their sexual preference or orientation, but discrimination is permitted if someone expresses an opinion about sexual preference or orientation.

Call the thought police, I just expressed an illogical thought.

Very logical, illogical thought,

I think?

But they got rich (and famous) for making Duck Calls...

I guess old Phil isn't too worried about loosing the market share he enjoyed from all those avid Duck Hunters that have worn out and need to replace their existing Duck calls yet just so happen to be Gay, African-American, and Atheist. That sounds like every duck hunter I've never met.

Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has. - Margaret Mead

Screw A&E

and the whining crying homo's as well...

"If ever time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin."
Samuel Adams


I think it's safe to say the fundamentalists are crying pretty hard. Y'all are crying so hard you can't get air.

BTW, it's not just gay people who found his comments stupid. There are some moral people unlike yourself who love and welcome gay people.

Why I welcome the gays...

First off and most certainly important is that we are all sinners.... However we choose to sin doesn't make one bit of difference to the Big Guy upstairs. There is no scale of 1-10 or meter of severity of sin. With that being said, being gay is no worse of sinning than getting into a fist fight or lying or stealing a car or having sexual thoughts of a model. Sinning is sinning, plain and simple. When we all die, we will all be at God's mercy. Nobody should be judging anyone....sinners.

Whenever their contract

is up with A&E I hope the Duck Dynasty family goes over to a competing network and makes 10 times more than they did with A&E.

I'm tired of all this politically correct BS the media and special interest groups spew daily.

Our family's journey from the Rocket City to the Redoubt: www.suburbiatosimplicity.com

A&E has every right to

A&E has every right to suspend Phil Robertson from the show. This is no first amendment issue, it is a property rights issue. The Robertson's entered voluntarily into a contract with A&E where I am sure there was a clause which gave A&E the power to suspend people from the show if they engaged in certain behavior. A&E is a private company, and as such is not bound by the 1st Amendment.

However, this will likely lead to the Robertson's shopping the show to a new network for a more lucrative, less restrictive deal when their contract is up.

No need to get wound up, the 1st Amendment forbids the GOVERNMENT from restricting our right to free speech. A TV station or radio station is a private business and should have the power to allow or not allow any and all opinions it sees fit on its airwaves.

I am a Christian and a huge Duck Dynasty fan. I agree with Phil's comments, because as a Christian I know there was only one who came and died without sin and that was Christ, so to me it isn't controversial to say gays are sinners because all humans are. The Bible also says Christians will suffer and be persecuted for believing in Jesus. But this will all turn out for the better in the end. I predict Duck Dynasty will move to a new channel, the Robertson's will make more money, have more freedom and A&E will have lost its most popular and profitable program.

I disagree with you on the 1st Amendment issue

I own a business, a private business, so if one of my employees happen to have an interview with a local mag and made those comments like Phil, I can't just fire them for it. IT IS A FIRST AMENDMENT ISSUE.

I don't know where this stupid idea comes from that its just the government can't trample your 1st amendment (which it does all the time).

If one of my employees did the opposite, talked about being gay and so forth, I still can't fire them for their sexual orientation or speaking about it. I can tell them that I didn't care for it, but they do have the right to talk about it.

What I do hate is the gay agenda has been shoved down our throats until I am inclined to think it as sexual harassment. They have no more rights than I do, yet the propaganda machine keeps trying to insist they do.

There is obviously a huge

There is obviously a huge difference between the way the Constitution and rule of law are enforced and the way they were intended to be enforced. But the Constitution of the United States is a legal document for the formation and function of a confederated union of sovereign States. It has ZERO binding effect on private businesses and individuals. Therefore, the 1st Amendment, which guarantees right to free speech and exercise of religion, is not binding to an employer, as it shouldn't be. If that had been tried, the Constitution likely wouldn't have gotten a single vote for ratification.

If, for example, a Jew wants to fire a Muslim because the Muslim said he wants to harm Jews, that employer has every right to, even though some could argue it has religious undertones. I am not saying this is the case, I am saying this is the way it should work. Employers should have the right to fire whom they chose and serve whom they chose if we are to properly protect private property rights.

If we want people to take us seriously when we preach to them the importance of understanding the Constitution, we had better understand it ourselves.

Yes, yes you can fire them.

Yes, yes you can fire them. They have their speech and you have yours. Your speech is to not employ someone who says or believes things you don't want to be associated with. Not saying it's the best solution, but it's your RIGHT because it's YOUR BUSINESS.

Some of you seem to think that the moment you become an employer you can't have liberty.



“Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it’s realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy.”
― Ron Paul

Political Correctness Is Cultural Marxism

The excellent AT article "Conservatives Pushing Back" by Bruce Walker explored what we conservative thinkers (We are, after all, American Thinkers) have known for quite some time: political correctness (PC) is to culture what Marxism is to economics. To recognize that fact arms us with what we need in order to push back. As Walker says (emphasis added), "[t]hese marketplace ballots are the key not only to the survival of a non-totalitarian America, but also to the final defeat of those whose minds and wills are chained with hard, cold manacles of leftism."

Walker's article is (pardon the pun) right on the money. So, in an effort to further understand PC, exploration of its similarities to Marxism is in order.

Karl Heinrich Marx (1818-1883) was a German socialist. Marx's social, economic, and political theories proclaimed that societies progress through class struggle. His focus was upon economics, so Marx concentrated on the conflict between an ownership class that controlled production and a proletariat that provided the labor for production. He referred to capitalism as the "dictatorship of the bourgeoisie." The proletariat, the oppressed workers, were supposed to be the beneficiaries of a social revolution that would place them on top of the power structure.

Marx's key concept was "class struggle." That's where PC comes in. PC seeks to impose a uniformity of thought and behavior, just like Marxism, on all Americans and is, therefore, quite totalitarian in nature. PC is, in concept, similar to Marxism, but its focus is upon culture, rather than economics, as the class struggle environment.

PC, just like Marxism, forces people to live a lie by denying reality. PC takes a political philosophy and says that on the basis of the chosen philosophy, certain things must be true, and reality that contradicts its "truth" must be forbidden -- eradicated since it disputes PC, exposes as untrue what PC says is true. People are reluctant to live a lie, so they use their eyes and ears to see reality, to say, "Wait a minute. This isn't true. I can see it isn't true; the power of the state [PC] must be put behind the demand to live a lie." Marxism, by denying economic reality, did exactly the same thing.

PC, just like Marxism, has a method of analysis that always provides the answer it wants. For PC, the "answer" is found through deconstruction, which takes any situation, removes all meaning from it, and replaces it with PC's desired meaning. Walker references this point when he says, "[T]hat her [Paula Deen's] devout Christian faith is more the real target than past use of an unhappy word which did not keep Robert Byrd from remaining, by election of his fellow Senate Democrats, the most powerful Democrat politician in America."

Continue reading here:

"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

Lamb of God - As the Palaces Burn

Stand With Phil


Join the

It is time for straight people to reaffirm our rights also.
I am tired of being vilified for not personally approving of a homosexual lesbian lifestyle. I am tired of it being forced on people who do not like it, and find it disgusting.

Time for heterosexuals to be proud of ourselves, and say no more to having that other lifestyle forced on us, and our children.


There's not any "one single homosexual lifestyle" so that's a completely meaningless phrase. It's not as if EVERY homosexual is sexually active. Use your brain first, then comment.

And MOST of those who are offended by Robertson's comments are probably straight and are just friends of family members of gay people and do not find them "disgusting" as you do.

I did not choose to be gay, but you choose to not know a damn thing about homosexuality before you judge it. Please turn away from your sinful embrace of ignorance!

Phil has rights, but right to

Phil has rights, but right to television time isn't one of them


contracts contain all kinds of complex stipulations; i.e., most contracts ask individuals to sign away their privacy rights, have confidentiality agreements with stiff penalties, defamation waivers - even down to very specifics on one's appearance. You can't gain a lot weight, drastically change your hair color/style, etc.

A & E most likely had cause to dismiss Duck Dude. But Duck Dynasty's sponsors and legions of fans also have the right to boycott the network. I hope they do.

When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign: that the dunces are all in confederacy against him. ~J. Swift

ask a Christian what they think about gays

and then gets mad when they give you the text book answer.

I hope someone asks the rest of the family what they think about gays in the next day or 2 so that A&E can cancel the show.

Probably 90 to 95% of the people watching the show agree with phil, so for A&E to make this decision based on what people who do not watch the show think is retarded. For A&E to act like they are surprised he feels this way when he is a Christian is again retarded. For A&E to act like these people do not speak their mind is again retarded. Something tells me the executives of A&E have never actually watched their own show, which again is retarded.

I look forward to how this escalates.

I was thinking the same thing. I never thought A&E would have

the guts to pull the show though--seeing how the ratings are through the roof. Maybe I'm wrong.

Christians should not be warmongers! http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance87.html


It's not politically correct for heterosexuals to discriminate against homosexuals, but it is politically correct for homosexuals to discriminate against heterosexuals.

No faith in political correctness. Equates to censorship, black ball and black mail.

All rights reserved and no rights waived.

He said homosexuality was

He said homosexuality was "ILLOGICAL" Most people would agree. If you use all the information available (the parts and difference between male and female) and the definition of homosexuality.....then the obvious conclusion is that it goes against logic/commonsense. But hell...there is no more common sense.

Truth before all else.....it is what will allow us to emerge with dignity and honor.

Our local station (WGN)

Implied Phil used the terms beastiality and terrorism. Can anyone confirm or debunk this?

To my Liberal Trolls:
"Really Don't mind if you sit this one out. Your words but a whisper, your deafness a shout. I may make you feel, but I can't make you think."
Ian Anderson 1972

Ok, I read the article from CQ

This morning on WGNTV movie critic Dean Richards implied Phil associated Homosexuals with Terrorists. Here's the email I fired off to WGN.
This morning Dean implied Phil Robertson associated Gays with Terrorists. Here is Phil's quote from the GQ interview. "We never, ever judge someone on who’s going to heaven, hell. That’s the Almighty’s job. We just love ’em, give ’em the good news about Jesus—whether they’re homosexuals, drunks, terrorists. We let God sort ’em out later, you see what I’m saying?” Deans despicable comment proves how much of a Establishment, Hollywood, Lackey he really is. I'm done with Dean.

To my Liberal Trolls:
"Really Don't mind if you sit this one out. Your words but a whisper, your deafness a shout. I may make you feel, but I can't make you think."
Ian Anderson 1972