namelesstavern.net

The show blows nuts, but I'm bored so I figures I'd ask. Anyone keeping up with the shit going down with it?

I think its hilarious that all these tools think his first amendment rights were violated and shit. I got a bunch of people on Facebook good and riled up the other day with it.

As far as I understand and see it, it comes down to this: without government action, you're first amendment 'rights' were not violated. I think its absolutely hilarious that everyone is all up in arms about it. All of the sudden everyone on my face books has a law degree out of the blue

And on top of it, yes the idiot grit has a right to say what he wants about people....and A&E has the right to fire his dumbass too. Hell I'd fire the orick too if he represented my company that way too. Fucking idiots..

Gaazy wrote:And on top of it, yes the idiot grit has a right to say what he wants about people....and A&E has the right to fire his dumbass too. Hell I'd fire the orick too if he represented my company that way too. Fucking idiots..

Bingo. I'm sure A&E isn't telling him he can't express his opinion, they are just holding him accountable for it.

I mean, did he really expect to be able to say things like, for example, gays are like people who practice beastiality, and not have some kind of consequences? What a fucking family of idiots.

Haha my favorite quote from ole dude was where he was like "mayn, why would you prefer a guys anus over a woman's vagina!"

The whole thing is absurd. He had no business bringin that shit up in a show about duck hunting

I don't watch Survivorman to hear his opinion about sexuality. This dude Phil dug his own grave

He didn't. He's an evangelical Christian and a GQ interviewer asked him about sin. He offered his honest opinion which I guess isn't allowed unless you tow the politically correct line. What he said was crude, but certainly not racist or different from most peoples thoughts.

The comedy here is this will hurt A&E a lot more than these guys, as they could walk elsewhere in a year or so and pick up where they left off. I'll bet the network guys cave in and find a way to back away from this.

every time i turn on the the tv i see ads for some new backwoods hillbilly reality show. i don't think A&E will have a hard time finding a new cash cow.

.

Lyion wrote:He offered his honest opinion which I guess isn't allowed unless you tow the politically correct line.

lol @ your faith-based persecution complex. WON'T ANYBODY THINK OF THE WHITE HETERONORMATIVE CHRISTIANS????

of course he's allowed to offer his opinion, just as members of the american public are allowed to offer THEIR opinions, just as A&E is allowed to fire an employee who brings them bad press. bigotry is not very popular these days, even when it hides behind faith

Lyion wrote:He didn't. He's an evangelical Christian and a GQ interviewer asked him about sin. He offered his honest opinion which I guess isn't allowed unless you tow the politically correct line. What he said was crude, but certainly not racist or different from most peoples thoughts.

The comedy here is this will hurt A&E a lot more than these guys, as they could walk elsewhere in a year or so and pick up where they left off. I'll bet the network guys cave in and find a way to back away from this.

OK, so he offered his honest opinion.

Now you're saying everyone ELSE is not allowed to give THEIR honest opinions ABOUT his opinion? He's the only one who is allowed to openly state his opinion? It's my opinion that what he said marks him to be a bigoted twat, no different than a KKK member or neo-nazi. Why can't I express MY opinion about what he said?

Note that he didn't just say he considered it to be a sin. He also equated it with bestiality. Furthermore, he went on to claim that blacks in the south were better off under Jim Crow laws. Can we say: "Bigoted" boys and girls? Good! I knew you could!

I'm sorry, but just because he claims that his opinion is based in religious belief does NOT make him immune to criticism for that belief. Religion is not some protected source of opinions that renders all claims, beliefs and statements to be immune from criticism. You can invent fake victimhood about Christianity all you want, it doesn't make it true. Gosh, such an oppressed religion, if only people that followed it could be elected to positions of political power someday...

Furthermore, in no way was his "right to free speech" abridged in the least. The right to free speech protects you from the GOVERNMENT oppressing you for your speech. He was fired by a private entity who was worried about their brand image, and that held beliefs contrary to his own. Is A&E not allowed to express ITS beliefs, by stating it disagrees so strongly with his beliefs that they fired him? After all, corporations are people now, according to the supreme court, right?

In short, he had every right under the law to state what he did. Nowhere, however, is there a guarantee that you are free from the repercussions of your speech, nor is there a guarantee to be free from OTHER people calling you a bigoted asshole when the opinions you express are, in fact, bigoted.

-Arlos

PS. You really think that "most people's thoughts" about homosexuality is that it's the same thing as bestiality? Wow, that's an extraordinarily Mindia-esque projection of your own beliefs onto the rest of the populace.

Read what he actually said.
Did he say that homosexuality is the same thing as bestiality?
No.
He said that in his eyes they are both sins.

He is not a positive person/role model.
He is also not the devil that the media has made him out to be.

He was also rich out the ass before the show and doesn't give a rats ass if A&E fired him.
He's the Patriarch of the family, that cash is still flowing to him whether he appears on TV or not.

And quite frankly Arlos, your post was more "Mindia" ish than Lyions was. Yours is just coming from the other side...

It's Mindia-esque to state that someone should expect to face consequences for their speech, regardless of if they claim what they said comes from religion or not?

Ohhhhhhhh kayyyyyy... Interesting opinion. I disagree with you, of course, but hey, like we've been discussing, you're free to have whatever opinion you like.

-Arlos

A few things that I think need clarifying. Generally no one cares about generic religious beliefs. If he said praise Jesus and all that, no one would care. It has nothing to do with the fact that he's religious. Can people stop pretending the world is against Christianity when it is one of the most dominant demographics?

Also, why do religious people continue to associate with being against homosexuality? It's just silly. It's such a vague part of the bible along with dozens of other tenants and edicts that have since been ignored in favor of pragmatism. Why is this one so important? That is the root of why I don't like these comments. There is an inherent bigotry that goes beyond the shield they hide behind, belief. If this was simply an issue of faith than two conflicting core tenants would wash each other out (acceptance vs homosexuality) and they would simply stop caring. There is always more to it, and I think if you look at his comments it's obvious here.

It seems to me the church and the right have created this issue of Homosexuality to ingratiate bigots to their cause, simply to line their pockets. The more they push the issue, the more people get intrenched in their beliefs and the more they support their poles. Pretty basic tactic, but shouldn't the reasonable Christians fight back against it?

People who believe in Christianity tend to believe homosexuality is a sin. That is not bigoted.

I have no problem with what he said. I have no problem with Glaad saying they disagree with what he said and that it's wrong.. I have a problem with labeling him a bigot or attacking and saying his opinion which mirrors most evangelical Christians should never be allowed, or labeled maliciously, or silenced which is what many are doing.

Anyways, if he was a bigot he'd fit right in with the judgmental hyper religious bigots on this board, who obviously do not quite grasp the meaning of the word.

Why is this sin so important though, when so many others are ignored?

Zanchief wrote:shouldn't the reasonable Christians fight back against it?

some of us are

Here's a fun list.

http://www.wogim.org/sinlist.htm

How many of these basically say shut your mouth and stop talking smack about others, and how many say don't have sex in the bum?

Disproportionately large say shut your mouth already.

Seems like God is the one trying to get at peoples freedom of speech.

You know, I have no problem with what he said regarding sin and the bible and homosexuality being considered taboo. It's what Christianity <and Islam, and Judaism, etc> pretty much agree on as common law. What I do have a problem with is where he equated segregation era blacks as 'happy negros'. Holy fuck....

In regards to sin, I prefer to reference the golden rule, but also not to ignore the Letter to the Galatians. The whole idea of that is to make one a better person, and the community a better place. I think most people, regardless of believe, think the place to start is to look in the mirror but that doesn't mean not discussing things or having an opinion.

I consider attacking homosexual people for what they are to be just as much bigotry as people who hate black people for being black, Jews for being Jewish, etc. It's who they are, and most of them are just born that way. Sure, some can change, just like someone born left-handed can be forced into doing everything right-handed.

Besides, aren't there enough real problems in the world, with poverty, violence, etc. going on that it's necessary to put down people for who they love? Shouldn't love between consenting adults be CELEBRATED, no matter what form it takes? Why are some types of love and caring stigmatized and others not? It makes no sense to me.

So, when he is saying that when people are just loving who they chose to love, because nature made them that way are lesser people, YES it's bigoted. It's the denigration of a class of people for who they are. That's bigotry, and I don't care what the source of it is, whether that be personal belief or religious. It's still bigotry, and will be called as such. Given that the last time it was polled nationally, 56% of the populace was in favor of gay marriage, and only 36% opposed, it would seem the balance of opinion is on my side on this issue. I can understand you don't want to think of yourself as bigoted, but on this issue, you meet the absolute textbook definition of bigotry.

In any case, as you noted, his comments about blacks in the Jim Crow era was out there enough for him to get his ass shitcanned anyway. I mean, if Paula Deen can get tossed off the Food network for what she said, which was much milder, he sure as hell deserved to get dumped for that part of the interview if nothing else.

-Arlos

.

Such hypocrisy in this thread. The same people who were seeing nothing wrong in smearing a holy book of religious people and were laughing at it, now upset that a redneck was smearing gay people. Reality check you can't have it both ways, if you want freedom of expression that allows to offend people, then learn to take is as well as dishing it out.

Ganzo wrote:Such hypocrisy in this thread. The same people who were seeing nothing wrong in smearing a holy book of religious people and were laughing at it, now upset that a redneck was smearing gay people. Reality check you can't have it both ways, if you want freedom of expression that allows to offend people, then learn to take is as well as dishing it out.

Really?

.

I'm so happy hyper-religiousness is on the decline