LGBT News Yet Another Bigoted Phil Robertson Video

I don't understand what the far right so called Christians like Robertson have against the extremist Muslims, they have so much in common with their beliefs.

 

Phil Robertson's case is relatively mild IMO. "Love the sinner, hate the sin" types are usually the types who become more tolerant with time and understanding.
I'm right wing, but I belong to the conservative libertarian faction, not the religious faction.
I think I can answer this one.

The difference between extremist Muslims and extremist Christians is their methods.
Unfortunately for the vast majority of Muslims, extremist Muslims came onto the radar with events such as... 9/11.
"Retarded right" Christian fundies, on the other hand, haven't done anything to that scale (yet).
(Unless you count the holy crusades...). The worst thing on their track record is homicide. While homicide is horrible and most murderers deserve capital punishment, it isn't quite on the scale of the events of 9/11, which had negative effects on pretty much everyone involved.

TL;Dr, The "retarded right" is infamous for being xenophobic and wary of foreign cultures, and some of them even think that all Muslims are terrorists. And that's terrible.

 

I agree totally about the methods being different. When my Dad reminded my Mom that she should hate the sin but love the sinner, she yelled at him and said, "Don't give me any of that claptrap," whatever that means. Never personally seen a claptrap, but it's pretty popular phrase in the deep south. I used to think I had it hard when my Mom disowned me, until I met a Muslim woman who told me that her parents had arranged for her to be married when she was a teenager to an man about a decade older. If she divorces him or particulary if she comes out to her parents she thinks she'll be whipped or honor killed. This despite the fact that she lives in the USA and this would be illegal. They don't care about that, or at least they got her believing this.

 

Red Forman is right some people do need a swift kick in the ass

 

Technically, Christianity has already shown what it's capable of back when Europe was a theocracy. Besides the Crusades (along with Manifest Destiny in the US, both of which are basically Jihads), the Inquisition, witch trials (while often cited as examples of paranoia leading to people being wrongly accused and condemned, ultimately, they're also a form of religious persecution), and burning Jews at the stake for fun were common place back then. Heck, people hailed today by Catholics as "saints" have theorized and wrote works on how torture (a common practice back then) is beneficial for people and how women are nothing more than a walking pile of excrement.

 

Can I ask why this matters? Can I wonder are people so thin skinned that the fact that other people just might not like us is unbearable? I mean really I think he is a religious man that is just settled in his ways and preaches to like minded people. Who in the flying frack cares?! I didnt serve my country for six years and watch a friend go home in a body bag to have people censored because of thin skinned sissy's. I dont like what he has to say, I dont support his message,but ill fight tooth and nail for his right to say what he wants and not have people calling for his blood afterwards.

 

Using sissy as a insult on a LGBT site... well then.

Either way this is more than just "one guy says something homophobic", this is a big chain of events starting with him as a media celebrity stating his homophobia which cost him his job, but then he got it back due to other homophobic individuals supporting him and since then he have apparently worked extra hard on his gay bashing. I don't think it's that odd that a LGBT site would be interested in following this topic and seeing where this is going.

Also free speech goes both ways... he can say we are unhgodly scum, okay, but we can also say he is a bigoted asshole with shits for brains.

 

I was trying to figure out why Phil Robertson being an awful person was affecting me so much more than bigots tend to, but seeing other people say he sounds like a southern baptist preacher made it clear. Sounds like the southern baptists around here, spewing racism and homophobia in the name of God. (Doesn't sound anything like the love of God to me, but a lot of people I know would probably agree with Phil, ew. I can't go on twitter anymore because the last couple times I did everyone was talking about "standing up for him")

 

Because when enough people don't "like" you (and by you, I mean you as a member of a minority group), you end up with a situation like modern-day Russia (or worse). Dunno how useful "thick skin" is gonna be when neo-Nazis beat the crap out of you in the middle of the street (or when the Government hangs or chemically castrates you, enacting laws passed thanks to people who didn't "like" you).

I also don't know what "rights" you think fought for while in the army, but there's no such thing as a right to be free from public scrutiny. It's very important for views like this douche's to be openly criticized. Most people are indifferent towards the plights of minorities and can easily be swayed whichever way the "public opinion" pendulum swings.

 

DayDream Harp how in the heck is sissy particularly bad on an lgbtq ( wait seriously is q supposed to be added now. Not trying to sound too much more like a jerk but I frankly cant keep up with what is politically correct) website? People in this community are just like any one else there are jerks, good people, and yes thin skinned sissy's that have the habit of taking every thing waaaay to personally.

Now on to Adi Look I did say I dont support what he says or does did I not? What my issue is, is that people are calling for his censorship. You see its one thing to say I dont like him and he is a bigot that is fine and frankly I might even agree to an extent. However to All I see are people calling for his being fired or censored and THAT isnt right. If we want people to leave us in peace when they dont agree with what we say or our lifestyle as they put it then we HAVE to extend the same courtesy to them. Or we are just as bad as they are. Also do you really think allowing this idiot to have his say will lead to violence and if so why. As far as how the rights I fought to protect in the NAVY not Army ( not your fault how would ya know lol) wold help well both me and my boyfriend are former military, martial artists and firearms owners. Anyone that wants to harm us because we love each other is going to have a really bad day. And that is because of the freedoms each military member sacrifices a lot for and swears and oath to defend.

 

I second this what else you got for us Phil Robertson :roflmao:

 

Adi tried very hard to make a very valid point to you, but it went over your head. Your attitude is a luxury. It's the luxury fought for and won by other people who died so you could have it. I'm not talking about the military, I'm talking about the history of civil rights. Civilians. You think people should just be able to say and do whatever they want. You think reacting against bigotry is being a "thin-skinned sissy". You think demanding that all people have equal rights is asking too much, too fast. But human rights aren't on a time table. They don't swing into existence with the pendulum of public opinion. These rights, and acceptance of all people will be realized in our lifetimes, and it won't be because we defended the bigot's hatred. It will be because we eradicated the bigot with love. You don't grasp the danger of hate speech. You underestimate the power of words. These beliefs, they have no place in the modern world. You think you are such a badass with your former military experience and your guns and your martial arts, but you won't be so cocky with the boot your neck. Bigotry is like a cancer. Ignore it and it's a killer.

 

My entire post went clean over your head didnt it. I NEVER said that we cannot react against bigots by calling them what they are, by calling them wrong, by boycotting their business or the like. Making it illegal is what is wrong, calling for GOVERNMENTAL force against a nonviolent action is wrong. You want freedom to live and say what you wish without fear of loosing your job or being attacked dont you? Well guess what some people dont agree with what we say and do just as we dont agree with Phil. If you fail to protect speech and behavior with which you disagree with you set the stage for them to come for you next if your view or life style becomes unpopular as tides change. So long as a person is not acting to harm you or violate your ability to live as you wish then you have NO right to seek legal force against them, even more cowardly is that you seek others to do it rather then having the spine to at least own the action yourself.
As for not being cocky when the boot is on my neck. My response to that is go ahead and let anyone try to put it there. I might lose I might win but they will NOT be happy either way. I am not all powerful I just know that most bullies are cowards when faced with someone willing to fight back.

 

Name a single person on this site or elsewhere calling for Governmental or Legal force to be used against Phil Robertson. Name them and quote them directly.

 

Both Beware of you and Dano218 have said he shouldnt be allowed on TV (so tell me what you would call that) and go to the site for LGBTQ nation or its facebook page and you will see all sorts of calls for hate crime law to be used on him or him to be censored or even violence against his person. I forget the other LGBT pages I saw the same crap at but its been all over just not as prevalent here. Though I am betting not a single person here would call for his defense if arrested for his speech. I am willing to bet that the majority would cheer it with no idea of the long term implications of such things.

 

Yes, I called for social consequences for his actions. That means boycotting, protesting, and ultimately the goal of that would be for A&E to fire him. That's not using the government to silence him. I'd do the same thing if a television personality went on a sexist or racist rant, and so would most of the people defending Phil Robertson right now.

And before you declare this some one-sided Jihad, I'd point to two recent examples of people getting canned for inappropriate things they said: Alec Baldwin and Martin Bashir.

Alec Baldwin had his show on MSNBC called "Up Late" canceled after GLAAD and other LGBT groups and leaders pushed for it because he used a homophobic slur. He called a photographer a "cocksucking faggot".

Martin Bashir was forced to resign after he said that someone should treat Sarah Palin like a slave, and to specifically take a shit and piss in her mouth.

You see? This is what happens when you say offensive things like this: you get fired.

Just because you have the legal right to say something, and the government isn't going to beat down your door; doesn't mean you deserve a TV or media platform to spread your message. Especially when that media platform is privately owned.

Phil Robertson has said gay people are the source of all sin, that we are filled with murder, and has compared gay relationships to fucking animals. He's also not-so-subtly said that black Americans were better off in the Jim Crow south, and that post-Jim Crow black Americans are entitled and only want to live off welfare. Then of course he's gone on to attack numerous other religious faiths, and even people based on their nationality. And if that wasn't bad enough, he's said that men should marry women when they're around 15 years old because after that they are gold diggers.

So, why exactly are we living in a world with a double standard? All of Phil's other comments are being ignored, of course, because they would offend a large portion of the country. Instead, the focus is on his anti-gay comments, because it's more socially acceptable to be anti-gay.

No one that I have seen has called for the government to intervene. No one has called for legal action to be taken of any sort, and no one believes that he doesn't have the right to say what he said. Everyone has the right to speak their mind and say awful things. However, that doesn't mean that we as a society have to sit back and allow it without consequences.

I am a staunch civil libertarian. I believe that people have the right to free speech, but just because you have the freedom to say something doesn't mean that other people aren't equally free to react to it. People have a right to react to it, condemn it, and deny them a private platform to spread it. That's THEIR free speech rights. That's how a democratic and free society functions, and to take that out of the equation is to cause the entire system to collapse. It gives all the power to those who offend, while actively stripping it from those who are offended.

The legal right to do something and having it socially accepted are two very separate things. What you are calling for is at best social indifference or apathy, and at worst social tolerance of anti-gay bigotry.

 

I misread your post, when you said "Beware of you and Dano218" I read it as, "Beware and you and Dano218".

First of all, I want to take objection to a few things: You describe him as being "treated poorly" - that implies that he is somehow a victim. He has in no way been mistreated, unless you count the criticism and backlash for his offensive comments as being "treated poorly". However, I believe most of us understand that if you say offensive things then people will be offended and will react accordingly.

You are placing the blame on those who were offended, when it's the person who made the bigoted statements who is responsible for their own treatment. He's not a victim. He's not being unjustly targeted. He really did say the things he's being accused of saying, and he's standing by them.

Being gay is not a form of freedom of speech. That's just silly. It's like saying being a woman or being black is a form of free speech. Being LGBT is a character trait, just like race and gender.

A better example would be to use me as an atheist. If I went into a place of employment, and actively attacked Christianity and Christians, then yes - I deserve to be canned for creating an unsuitable work environment. Just as Christians who go to work and actively attack atheists or try to actively convert co-workers to their religion.

Outside of work, they're entitled to practice their faith however they see fit. Once at the job, however, you are expected to follow the rules of your employer. This is part of the agreement you make when you take the job.

Similarly, Phil made an agreement with A&E when he signed up. A&E has the right to terminate that agreement if they deem it necessary.

 

Aldrick What I am trying to get at here is that people have called for his physical harm, called for him to lose his job and never be able to make a penny, called for him to be censored and worse by the govenment all over the internet and frankly if it happened let us be real most people here would be overjoyed. The issue is the minute we allow a company to fire someone for speaking freely OFF work hours (it was in an interview with GQ and this was a sermon at a religious gathering) we set our selves up for the same treatment. I am an atheist as well and have a regular feed on my facebook page from the Church of Satan and from several Atheist groups that mock religion. Its my personal page but possibly can be viewed by the public. So should I always be in danger for it. Or a better example if in an interview should I have to LIE if asked a potentially non pc question because I might get fired for an unpopular answer? What line do we draw?
IF you do not protect that speech which is unpopular you set yourself up for your own demise should your views become the minority. Can you not see how dangerous and how ugly this double edged sword can be?

 

This is all well and good, and I totally get what you are saying. However, when these stars are hired, they sign a morality clause. If that is broken, then that can be fired. There are also companies that check people's Facebook page see what they are posting. The company that I work at has long social media agreement that you have to follow. If you break it, you first get a warning. If you break it again, you are fired.