Over the course of the past few days I’ve been listening to all the different arguments concerning the Duck Dynasty personality Phil Robertson and his indefinite suspension from A&E. I’ve listened to pundits, family, friends, Facebook, and Twitter. People have quoted everything from the First Amendment to the Bible in asserting their point of view with his paraphrasing of Christian philosophy. So, I wonder: Is hiding behind theology to assert a controversial religious opinion “duck call politics”?
His “freedom of speech” wasn’t violated by being suspended.
Freedom of Speech is a guarantee that government will not infringe your ability to state fringe, crazy things. Well, most crazy things. If his employer wants to say, “That out of line. Go sit in time-out.” they can. It’s their network.
The controversy isn’t really about Robertson saying what he said. It’s because A&E indefinitely suspended him.
They’re a private company who knew exactly who they had hired, but still had to take a stand on the issue. Part of it was a moral position, part of it was public relations, and I wouldn’t be surprised if was partially a publicity stunt.
The “he was just quoting scripture” or “it’s his religion” is moot because: bestiality.
A lot of people have a lot of religious beliefs and good for them. However, you can’t just go and compare something to raping an animal and not expect the people who are being compared to be just the tiniest bit offended.
Referring to this as “hate speech” in a mocking tone.
Let’s say it’s not hate speech. Would you like it if you were compared to a goat fucker? Is that slightly offensive? What about if the person you loved was called a goat fucker? Your brother? Sister? Aunt, uncle, best friend, MOM or DAD.
Saying liberals or anyone who is criticizing him is intolerant.
Is being intolerant of intolerant speech redundant, repetitive, ironic, or just a lousy observation? The entire idea or statement that being ridiculed for saying something ridiculous is showing “intolerance” is purely a simple answer or tagline for people who think “critical thinking skills” are what’s used to fill out a 1040EZ form on April 14th.
The arguments become more specious and ludicrous the further they span out from the actual heart of the story. While we realize that this country and this world views LGBT as some monolithic group with the same set of values, proclivities, and tastes it couldn’t be farther from the truth. What Phil Robertson said, the patriarch–a title that is almost implied to mean he has no ability to comprehend feminism–of the duck dynasty, is a common sentiment among a wide swath of Americans who view homosexuality as immoral and curable, however, it overlooks the individuality of each member of both communities by forcing the same stupid tribalism that has haunted every single social movement in the history of our nation.
Finally: Nobody cares about your thoughts on the morality of homosexuality or if you “agree with that lifestyle”. It’s a social issue and it’s not just one lifestyle.
Lifestyles you are allowed to disagree with:
- Violent criminals
- Sex offenders
- Men who grow beards they choose not to trim
Lifestyles you cannot disagree with:
- Watching all of “Sherlock” in one day on Netflix
- Eating a box of cereal in one sitting, especially Fruity Pebbles