Suspended Duck Dynasty Dude Unsuspended.

The best part of the whole "controversy" is all the big voices from the GOP defending Robertson in the midst of the their "outreach program" to diversify the base. Stephen Colbert is suppossed to be a satirical character but he is continually one-uped by real Republicans.
Quote

Originally posted by: drmilled
Rationalize Phil's statements any way you want, it does not change the underlying truth of his words.


What a surprise - the doc shows up to defend underlying hatred as "underlying truth."
democrats will rule until the GOP stops worrying about what people do in their bedrooms.
Quote

Originally posted by: jillyf
Quote

Originally posted by: Chilcoot
There's no First Amendment issue here with the Duck Dynasty Dope. Why are you even bringing up the First Amendment? It has nothing to do with anything here.
OK, you win. Magazine interviews, television broadcasts, and religious expression have nothing to do with the 1st Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Silly me.

Quote

Originally posted by: BobOrme I agree this isn't and wasn't a 1st Amendment issue. If he had been inclined to file suit, he had an actionable case of religious discrimination against A&E.


There I go again, thinking that the 14th Amendment and its progeny, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, are somehow related to the 1st Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Again, silly me.

We should just get rid of the damn thing, so us simple folk aren't always a gettin so confused.
What has government proposed to do against the Duck Dynasty Dope? Nothing, right?

So there's no need to reference the First Amendment. That law only limits the government. Robertson isn't limited by the First Amendment. Nor is A&E. Or the hordes of Americans who've chimed in with their thoughts.

No First Amendment issue here, and talking as if there is one is silly.

Quote

Originally posted by: BobOrme
Finding unnatural behavior to be unnatural behavior does not take scripture, nor is recognizing it to be unnatural bigoted.
I feel sorry for Bob.

Plainly, his wife has told him that sexual activity that won't result in pregnancy is somehow "unnatural" and therefore wrong. That only sexual activity directed at making baby Bobs is "natural" and permissible. (And even then just so long as Huckabee isn't on.)

Poor, poor Bob.
Glad to finally see some heavy activity on this forum!

Quote

Originally posted by: Chilcoot So there's no need to reference the First Amendment. That law only limits the government. Robertson isn't limited by the First Amendment. Nor is A&E. Or the hordes of Americans who've chimed in with their thoughts.

No First Amendment issue here, and talking as if there is one is silly.
Completely incorrect. Various legislation requires us as citizens to respect the 1st Amendment rights of other citizens, and punishes us if we don't. This would become apparent to you if you did a bit of research, rather than making off-hand remarks about unfamiliar subjects.

Understanding and enforcement of those statutes requires REFERENCE to the 1st Amendment, and thus there is always a 1st Amendment issue. By interpreting the 1st Amendment, the Supremes, by default, change the meaning of those statutes.

Quote

Originally posted by: jillyf
Completely incorrect. Various legislation requires us as citizens to respect the 1st Amendment rights of other citizens, and punishes us if we don't.
For example?

Give one example of a law in the US directing citizens to "respect" someone else's First Amendment rights?

Only a government entity can violate the First Amendment.
Quote

Originally posted by: forkushV
Quote

Originally posted by: BobOrme
...He [Phil Robertson] is not a "dope" by any definition of the word...
But he is ignorant. Because when he cites Leviticus to condemn homosexuality, he should also know that it condemns shellfish, bacon, haircuts, blended fabrics, and so on. And it's cool with slavery, human and animal sacrifices, and the death penalty for adultery.

Phil is entitled to his own bigotry, but unless he's ready to criticize Red Lobster and especially their cotton/polyester uniforms, he needs to leave the Bible out of it.


Forkie I am afraid you are wrong on this one. Many beliefs that fell under Mosaic law were tossed out in the New Testament when James took over the church after Jesus's death. The shellfish thing was tossed, the homosexuality thing stayed. Read Acts or do a search. It has a lot to do with the fact that the early church was all Jews and then through evangelism more Gentiles were converted and then finally the Apostles came up with a clarification and gave Paul and Barnabas a letter explaining it.

Is the Kingdom of Heaven open to perverts who chase after 15 year old girls?

More of Uncle Phil's greatest hits

....anxiously awaiting Sarah Palin and Bobby Jindall to praise free speech.
Already a LVA subscriber?
To continue reading, choose an option below:
Diamond Membership
$3 per month
Unlimited access to LVA website
Exclusive subscriber-only content
Limited Member Rewards Online
Join Now
or
Platinum Membership
$50 per year
Unlimited access to LVA website
Exclusive subscriber-only content
Exclusive Member Rewards Book
Join Now