The Robertson clan (courtesy

The A&E TV network has suspended Duck Dynasty “star” Phil Robertson for his opinions on homosexuality. The hammer came down after GQ magazine scribe Drew Magary asked the born-again reality TV star to define sin. “‘Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men,’ he says. Then he paraphrases Corinthians: ‘Don’t be deceived. Neither the adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlers—they won’t inherit the kingdom of God. Don’t deceive yourself. It’s not right.'” Robertson’s entitled to his opinions, and you yours. But is this brouhaha bad for gun rights? Does it reinforce the stereotype of gun guys as racist, homophobic rednecks? Or have the Robertsons won too many hearts and minds for it to matter?

Recommended For You

261 Responses to Question of the Day: Has Duck Dynasty Become Bad for Gun Rights?

  1. No way, Phil is the man!!!

    A&E needs him, he doesnt need A&E. They are the largest and most successful cable show in the history of TV. Regardless of what his contract says…if they drop him, he has a right to continue on as himself on another network. And that family is a tight one. they can not separate Phil from the rest.

    I wonder if the reaction would be the same if he was quoting a section of the Quran?

    This is just PC gone wild. The man was asked a question …and he answered it.

    • Precisely, had he been a gay man speaking out in favor of gay marriage, there would be no issue.

      What the lefties in this country hate to hear is that there are many of us out here who are patient and forbearing, but only to a point.

      And we will never be persuaded that homosexuality is nothing other than a profound moral perversion of human sexuality.

      Don’t like to hear that?

      Too bad.

      • Precisely. If gays can call some Christians small minded for not agreeing with their actions, Christians have every right to remind gays what they think of their lifestyle as well. Most primetime sitcoms have a token gay these days, you don’t hear Bible-thumpers demanding equal time.

        • I have 0 issues with anything Phil said it that interview, in fact I agree with him 100 %, he didn’t just target gays but covered the whole spectrum of sexual immortality and used the Bible as his foundation.

        • With respect to Ross and his reference to, “sexual immortality,” let me just say that I’m down with that. Unfortunately, my sexuality is likely to demonstrate its mortality before I demonstrate mine.

        • Oh but wait… those who don’t agree with the LGBT lifestyles MUST practice tolerance… that is what they want… yet, when someone states what they believe, AND it doesn’t agree with their view, watch out… they will become intolerant and hate them in a very public way. A&E was out of line.

      • You’re right. If you examine everything, he NEVER said he hated those involved in any of those lifestyles… he just stated what they’d miss out on in choosing them, according to the Bible.

      • I respect your position, Paul, though I can’t agree with it.

        I was taught the same views as yours on homosexuality growing up. Then one of my lifelong friends came out of the closet and I had to decide what that meant to me.

        For my own part, my position became one of “live and let live.” Or, if you prefer, “love your neighbor as you would love yourself.” What consenting adults do behind closed doors is their own business.

        My friends are gay, straight, Christian, Muslin, pagan, atheist from many parts of the world and many diverse backgrounds. I love them all, and would have it no other way.

        That said, to take the position that Mr. Duck Dynasty (sorry, I don’t watch the show) should be censored for speaking out against homosexuality is just as intolerant and small-minded, in my personal opinion, as shunning homosexuality is to me. It’s all too typical of the game they constantly play with all of us: divide us along whatever lines, and conquer us with our own dissent.

        So, let’s just get back to celebrating our common interest in firearms and the RKBA, shall we? 🙂

        • I’m all for live and let live, that does not mean that your “right” to live your lifestyle should ever infringe on my right to say what I think about it.

          Welcome to the First Amendment.

          As for “celebrating our common interest in RKBA” sure … that’s why TTAG should not have raised the “concern” in the first place.

        • Same here – raised conservative Catholic, never even heard of the existence of homosexuality till highschool, where, of course, the church roundly condemned it. When I became involved in music I began meeting all manner of folks, the likes of which I’d never known. This may have been an advantage – starting with fewer preconceived notions.

          I don’t watch the show either, so I got no dog in this fight. I will say one thing, though. No gay person I’ve ever encountered, old wives tails to the contrary, has ever tried to “recruit” a straight person that I’ve ever heard of. And I’ve never heard any homosexual call straights evil by their very nature, or argue that we should be “reprogrammed” or compelled to adopt a gay lifestyle. Gays, on the other hand, have been kidnapped, drugged, tortured, and been subjected to horrific forms of “therapy” by families, activists, church groups and bogus “recovery” organizations.

          Think of it like this: we (gun owners) make a point of the fact that we don’t try to compel anti-gun folks to go out and buy a gun and carry it. All we want is to be left alone. Gays may be more visible nowadays – some might say “in your face” in media and the like. Well, so are open carry advocates. Maybe they make some uncomfortable, but so what. They’re not saying anyone HAS to tote an AR every where they go as long as they have the freedom to do so. Same with the vast majority of gays – they aren’t telling you what to do – they just want the freedom to do their own thing.

        • “Don’t like what we are saying? That’s ok.

          Welcome to the First Amendment.”

          So many people have this screwy idea that they have to agree with what you say or be comfortable with what you do. If not, you shouldn’t be able to do it.

          Well guess what – lots of people say things I don’t agree with and do things that make me uncomfortable. But they have that right.
          Glad to see someone else gets that.

        • I must have missed the part where the government forced Papa Hillbilly off the show. First Amendment has as much to do with an employer canning an employee who decides to publicly make comments his/her employer doesn’t agree with or endorse as hunting has to do with the Second.

      • A Christain is a follower of Christ and as such they are commanded: “if you love me you will obey my commands” as Jesus Christ and God are one in the same a follower has a very clear idea of what God has to say about sexual sin.

      • Really Bruce? Inclusive?

        I would like to ask you a simple question and would like you to be completely intellectually honest in your reply, if that is possible.

        Why is it that this tiny minority of people has the right to be so deeply offended over ANY descent with regard to their lifestyle? And why is that this tiny, loud little group is intent on demanding that everyone around them accept what they choose to do with someone in the privacy of their own bedrooms? It’s not anyones business what we do in the privacy of our own homes and nobody has the right to demand that anyone else accept what you choose to do there.

        If I’m “intolerant” or not “inclusive” for dismissing or calling out the blatant hypocrisy of people that choose to live their lives in this way and then shove it into my face and demand that I accept it – then so be it.

        What Phil said was perhaps inarticulate and ham handed, but he has as much right to say it and to have his own opinion as you do.

        • I notice those most vocal in the GBLT community tend to get offended, intolerant, and hateful in very public ways for those who hold opposing views of their lifestyle… hypocrite fits them well.

        • I call bull. Anyone has a right to be offended when someone tries to convince the public of the bogus “sinfulness” or nonexistent “danger” of the despised minority’s lifestyle.

    • Well let’s use a non scientific pole here. Someone spun up a FaceBook page 20 hours ago to get Phil put back on the show. It went from zero likes to 700,000 in 20 hours. They are averaging 5,000 likes a minute with no signs of stopping.
      Bad for gun rights? Nah…

    • People hating on bible believing men like Phil, for being bible believing men, are either intolerant or hypocritical – maybe a nice ripe combination of both.

    • If you ask a 61 year old man who lives in backwoods of Louisiana who is also a pastor his opinion on homosexuality you should already know your answer. The question was baited to get a response like this and now a paper based magazine finally has someone talking about them.
      I support gay marriage and gay rights and dont get offended when someone’s opinion differs from mine. I’m not a liberal I just believe in basic human freedoms like two consenting adults doing whatever they want or the right to keep and bear arms.

  2. The antis and the statists WILL use this as further proof that gun owners are all a bunch of old, fat, white, racist, sexist, homophobic hillbillies with the IQ of a fence post. Whether it’s actually true or not.

    Remember, perception is 9/10 of reality.

      • Does anyone even *watch* A&E anymore?

        With all the choices available, A&E is pretty low on the radar and isn’t even on my remote control’s “favorites” list (not many channels are). I saw one episode of “Duck Dynasty” and wasn’t impressed – just didn’t pique my interest. Maybe if the series moves to a network I DO watch, my curiosity will motivate me to take another look.

        Now, since A&E chose to throw Robertson under the bus to appease the LGBT PC extremists, any time I venture through the channels and see the A&E logo, I’ll be reminded of their ‘tuck our tail and run’ decision and keep on going to the next channel.

    • for those of us intelligent enough to look at what he actually said, he made no proclamation of hate towards those in that community. Of course they will spin and have spun it as if he had said to “kill ’em all.”

    • Isn’t that why the show exists in the first place? So liberal A&E can imply that all gun owners are a “bunch of old, fat, white, racist, sexist, homophobic hillbillies with the IQ of a fence post.”?

      (Disclaimer: I have never watched DD.)

  3. no. he hasnt hurt 2a unless msm says so. he’s helped 1a. a&e is suffering a massive backlash and their twitter acct has gone silent. they just catered to angry liberals who dont even watch the show. they just destroyed their number 1 rated show which is now hemorrhaging viewers (read: ratings/revenue)

    • Both. Example:

      “Their knee jerked so hard it kicked over the damn bandwagon.”

      I may not agree with what you say but I defend your right tonsaynit, and to hold your own opinions. If you think you might not like the answer, don’t ask the question!

  4. An appropriate response to this question would have focused on the Biblical nature of what sin is, not a list of things that counted as sinful. Sin is a condition, not an act. Sin (once again, in the Biblical sense) is anything which gets between mankind and God’s intention for mankind, or to get all touchy feely, anything that prevents us from living in communion with God and fulfilling our designed purpose.

    That said, a response like that coming from Phil would remind me of the Dave Chappelle skit where Lil John has sudden bursts of enlightened, articulate introspection amidst his usual outbursts of “WHAT!? OK!” on the faux Oprah interview.

    • In which Bible or Koran did you find the idea that sin is a “condition not an act?” The Holy Books of Western Civilization may condemn the condition of sin, but they sure as Hell [phrase chosen carefully] condemn the acts of sin.

      • I think what he means is that condition of sinfulness is not so much what you do, but the state of being separated from God. Once you have reconciled that separation you can engage in acts of sin, but your condition has changed (whether permanently or not is a whole ‘nother bag a theological worms).

        I think people who have experienced the salvation of Christ can still struggle with homosexual sins. I question whether those who claim salvation but refuse to admit homosexuality is sin and actively engage in it under the pretense of acceptability are actually saved. The act is the same in both cases; the condition of the heart is not.

  5. “Does it reinforce the stereotype of gun guys as racist, homophobic rednecks?”

    Why worry about it? That stereotype has been a “given” for all news media reporters/producers/talking heads/etc. since the 1960s. The media is going to stereotype us as everything eeevil that they can come up with no matter what we do, so piss on ’em.

    The issue here is censorship – it is apparently OK for a leftist news commentator to say vile, hateful things about Sarah Palin, or George Bush, or any conservative, but it is not OK for a Christian to express his personal beliefs. Hey, this is the same media that thinks Al Jezeera is a legitimate news agency,

  6. What we ought to condemn is all this rabid “us vs you” tribal indulgence motivated by politics. Urban people love to tear down high profile rural folks and rural people love to tear down high profile urban folks (Weiner, Spitzer, etc). They all do so to sucker-punch “the other side” by extension (and “the other party”). Lies, stereotypes, and exaggerations. Everyone indulging in this on both sides is scum.

    The proof that this is all this is in this case is that most media outlets won’t print this guy’s actual statements (instead implying something much worse), because then it wouldn’t serve the true goal of tearing down a high profile rural person, and therefore striking a blow at an entire group you imagine to be at odds with. In all wars, no one wins except the media. That’s why they incite them with anyone gullible enough to fight.

    The stereotypical “gun guy” notion pushed by the media is BS. All that’s going to come out of this is A&E is going to lose a lot of money by pissing off people who watch this show to appease people who probably didn’t. And also the media/political manufactured culture war will be stoked. That way we are divided against ourselves and remain occupied while the ruling class on both the left and right milks us for everything we have.

    • Well said. I don’t personally agree with Phil’s position on homosexuality, and I’ve never seen even a minute of that TV show, but I find the pattern of firing people for voicing “unpopular” opinions to be far more reprehensible and dangerous than anything Phil might have said.

      Frankly, this article isn’t much better, grasping at the “drama” to see how much might stick to gun rights discussions. For all I know, that show is about beards. And camo. And possibly ducks. That’s as much as I’ve been able to glean from the cardboard cutout and t-shirts I’ve crossed paths with. I’m not about to entertain the thought that it has much of anything to do with the 2A.

  7. Wait, I thought the whole Bill of Rights was important. Isn’t the running joke…

    “How does the ACLU count to 10…. 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10”

    And before people start making the Dick Metcalf comparison, they’re different for several reasons

    1. Duck Dynasty was never specifically “Media about guns and gun rights”, Guns and Ammo however is.
    2. Dick Metcalf was specifically talking about infringing on a natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right.
    3. Both men were allowed to speak their mind, and the company they work for is allowed to make decisions to protect their brand. However, Dick published an anti-2A article IN the magazine for the company he works for. Phil was doing an interview on personal time.

    So the two instances are different.

    Phil did not denounce anyones rights in his interview, he simply said he didn’t agree with them, but also said

    “We never, ever judge someone on who’s going to heaven, hell. That’s the Almighty’s job. We just love ’em.”

    The media is going to destroy anyone who is pro-2A. They call Colion Noir an Uncle Tom, race traitor, white man’s shill, etc. Is he bad for gun rights?

    • “We never, ever judge someone on who’s going to heaven, hell. That’s the Almighty’s job. We just love ’em.”

      Yep, pretty sure I’ve not seen that ANYWHERE in the context of the media coverage, only in the GQ interview. It would be really hard to play the “Discrimincation” or “Hate” card if they included this quote, so *poof* never happened.

    • “We never, ever judge someone on who’s going to heaven, hell. That’s the Almighty’s job. We just love ’em.” — Phil Robertson

      And there you go. Those are not the words of a rabid and violent homophobe who hates people. But that doesn’t fit the mainstream media narrative so we won’t hear about it.

    • Nah, this is fairly analogous in a legal sense. The government isn’t censoring him, his employer is. And if he’s a private contractor (and he probably would be classed that way), it’s legal in every state and has been for *years* regardless of who holds which politics. This isn’t government censorship.

      • I don’t think anyone is saying the government is censoring him. What is being said is that the media stranglehold of the culture is taking financial action against him because he excersised his free speech right. Which is their right, and the backlash they’re feeling may result in deep financial action against them.

      • Not to mention that it illustrates an egregious double standard. If A&E can break a business relationship over privately held views then the Christian bakers and photographers cannot also be forced to provide services for those whose views they find objectionable. Yet we’re being told that this kind of discrimination is unacceptable. Well you can’t have it both ways.

        • ^ THIS…. Double standards of hypocrisy… They can hate and be intolerant against opposing views without issue, yet those with them, must set them aside and be “tolerant” (OR ELSE!)

  8. I don’t think anyone is gonna be surprised that he feels that way, and I feel like the people who are going to be most offended by his comments are the ones who were never open to the gun culture in the first place. Not to say that this type of belief is common in our culture, but there definitely are some who feel the same way. There are also alot of folks outside the gun culture who feel that way too, so I don’t think it matters. Bad for gun rights? Not to a measurable degree.

    (For the record I don’t agree with his statements, I can’t bring myself to be bothered by someone else’s bedroom activities)

    • You are not able to differentiate between normal behavior from degenerate? How are you going to be of any use when comes to the Consitution?

      • Oh I can differentiate between the two just fine, and degenerate behavior does bother me on a personal level, but far be it from me to tell someone else how to live their life. Just as I expect not to be told how to live mine.

      • Much as your right to swing a fist ends at my face, and my right to shoot a gun ends at your person, one’s right to legislate actions ends at what goes on between consenting adults within the privacy of their own residence provided there are not aftereffects that affects others once they are finished, and even then we legislate the aftereffects (driving while drunk), not the action itself (drinking).

        Really, it’s not hard.

        • …unless there is a currency exchange between the consenting adults (and I’m NOT referring to sexual activity/prostitution here, though that could be included). In that case, the IRS and various other agencies are all over them if the two parties don’t pay their dues or consent to “fair” prices, etc. Hey, it’s all for the greater good of a civilized society, they say.

          I’m not for breaking down the doors on homosexuals or whatever-smokers, but the same goes for productive activities. Unfortunately, productive activities add to the GDP, so apparently rights go out the window.

  9. I love the show. I don’t agree with his views on this issue but that doesn’t change anything for me. I’m not even surprised by the comment but I am shocked at all the media attention. Much adieu about nothing as far as I’m concerned.

  10. Remember the Chick-fil-A backlash? I think that company is making more money than ever.

    I think people are getting tired of the bullying from liberals and the religious intolerance, and will flock to his defense.

  11. While he is entitled to free speech, being in the public eye and representing a TV network is part of his job. And expressing such strong views is not good for the network. You could call me a new school gun owner. I am liberal in relation to most things, and find myself defending the views of those in New England that because I enjoy shooting guns it means I embody all things Republican. As such I think this guy is bad for the gun movement.

    • Sounds like the backlash against A&E over this from actual viewers is proving your comment wrong in relation to hurting the network.

    • No movement – whether political, social, cultural, or religious – is EVER monolithic. So – are there homophobic and racist gun owners? Well – of course…but the label homophobic is ostensibly meaningless in this context.

      It’s all just the same sort of name calling. Moral disagreement via religious doctrine – isn’t fear.

      • In the eyes of the GBLT community, anyone who doesn’t tolerate their lifestyle is homophobic. Regardless if they are paranoid about it, or just don’t support it for whatever other reason.

    • since when did he work for A&E? they have a contract to film them thats all, and even if it was a employee of A&E the interview was on his personal time, i think all they did was piss off the folks that watch the show thats it. i doubt the people that love to point fingers at us gun owners really ever watched the show, and even then i doubt they would comprehend what its really about,which in my opinion is how the Roberson mange to live happily. i respect Phil for his opinion and i agree with him and certainly his statement on not judging others even though that can be very hard not to judge people. with that have a good day folks.

      • Since he’s being filmed by people who sell the show to A&E he works for A&E. If the show was bought by another network, he would work for that network instead.

    • no no. no no no. he was asked his opinion. he gave his opinion. no foul. if his opinion wasn’t wanted, the interviewer ought not to have asked for it.

  12. “Does it reinforce the stereotype of gun guys as racist, homophobic rednecks?”

    I dunno. Does it reinforce the stereotype of bloggers as infantile, hand-wringing douchbags when they navel-gaze every non-issue to death?

  13. He didn’t criticize anybody. He stated his beliefs the same as Dan Cathey did.

    It’s only perceived as hate filled bigotry by the most hate filled bigot group alive today, the LGBT community and those who support them.

    I’m headed to Chick-fil-A to have a chicken sandwich in honor of Phil Robertson.

  14. Correct me if I am wrong, seeing as I’ve never actually watched the show, but isn’t the entire show based 5 dudes looking and acting like stereotypical rednecks?

      • Well, here are some criteria, not stolen from Jeff Foxworthy, for being considered a “stereotypical redneck,” or “good ol’ boy:”

        1. White male.
        2, Blue-collar.
        3. Nonurban, in the main.
        4. Relatively contemptuous of things of the mind and “book l’arnin'”, viewing such interests as effete.
        5. Staunchly Bible-believing.
        6. Expresses, in word or deed, the belief that those who are not what passes for “white” are questionably human, or, if human, inferior examples of the species.
        7. Expresses, in word or deed, the belief that women should pretty much confine themselves to cooking, going to church, bearing/nurturing children, and providing sexual pleasure to men.
        8. Would rather be accused of child-molestation than of homosexuality; to suggest to him that you think he might be gay is to invite an attempt, at least, at a serious ass-whuppin’.
        9. Owns more than 3 fully functional firearms and ammo for same.
        10. Prefers hunting meat to buying it at the supermarket, and will hunt even if a supermarket with a meat department is conveniently near.

        This isn’t an exhaustive list of criteria for being considered to be a “sterotypical redneck,” but will do for starters.

    • I love the show. And I am aware that there is a certain amount of embellishment involved with all “reality” shows. But: Duck/Buck Commander started 40 years ago (no “over night success”) when Terry Bradshaw was playing 2nd string BEHIND Phil R at Louisiana Tech. Phil gave up an almost guaranteed NFL contract to be who he is. He speaks as he does because he was, in his early years, a “devout sinner”. Check out “Phil Robertson, I am Second” on you tube for a more complete back ground. Phil also promotes self reliance, community service, and brotherly love having taken in people of all ethnic types into his home never asking for repayment or servitude way before fame and fortune found him. He gave when he had little for himself. How many of us, regardless of political or religious beliefs can say that they have done so. This assault on the Robertson family, as they are united in their views, is an assault on traditional American values plain and simple. I hope this is an awaking for the rest of us. I think it took a lot of balls to say what he did knowing full well there would be repercussions. This country could, imho, use more Phil Robertsons, not less.

      And BTW I do not condemn alternative life styles, but I won’t promote or encourage them either.

      • Balls are not needed to speak as Phil does. Phil, as a mature man speaks his own truth as he understands it. He expressed his personal opinion based on his values, convictions and beliefs . His spoken words do not deny any person of there rights or desires to pursue their chosen path in life. When we as people are afraid to express our opinion due to the the fear of being chastised, ridiculed or singled out, we are empowering the immature nature and idiocy of our provocateurs.. Speak your minds, to hell with the politically correct B.S. I refuse to let corrupt strangers dictate my cultural behavior and direct my thoughts.

  15. Well, given that the show only rarely shows the Robertsons actually hunting, I don’t see it doing sweet FA to RKBA one way or another.

    Anyone that’s actually ever really listened to Phil shouldn’t be surprised. He’s not exactly known for keeping his religious beliefs to himself.

  16. No. At first glance they strike me as Fudds and not “gun guys.” They’re certainly not tacticool “geardos.”

    As for his comments? Who cares? Reality TV shows suck.

    I do think that this whole thing would’ve been a non-issue if he was a Muslim, though. They rank higher on the left’s victimhood hierarchy than LGBT folk.

    • And at the same time they would probably stroke out if they actually took the time to understand Islam’s view of homosexuality. Phil is pretty tame by comparison.

      • They know about it. They just ignore it.

        Look what happens when an honest left-leaning atheist brings it and other uncomfortable things up about Islam.

        They’ve done everything they can to destroy Richard Dawkins.

  17. “…Does it reinforce the stereotype of gun guys as racist, homophobic rednecks? ”

    Only to people who already think that of gun owners.

  18. I think this will blow over.
    A&E will swallow their pride and bring him back.
    Once they get off their high horse…
    Ok, enough

  19. It would seem that gays have their speech applauded, but an opposing point of view gets banned from TV.. Gays have their opinions and positions applauded bu lawmakers and leaders alike. Why is it that ANY opposing opinions get someone BANNED from TV or magazines or newspapers? ANY opposing opinions WILL BE CRUSHED from existence so the masses will all march in union to OUR message ..
    Now, lets look back at how this action has fared for those who used it .. Adolph Hitler did OK for a few years, but then he flamed out. Stalin, Lenin and the Communist crew used it and fared slightly better, but they also flamed out when they ran out of credit and other peoples money ..

    One should pay close attention to the study of history.
    Robert Seddon

    • I’m not really sure that their views on homosexuality really contributed to the downfall of any of the figures you mentioned….

      • Robert is not suggesting that tyrants evaporated because they were critical of homosexual behavior, he is suggesting that they evaporated because they tried to control the media and crush anyone who opposed them.

        • I see it now, damn reading comprehension….

          Still, tying the fall of Hitler and the Soviet Union to suppression of the media is a little thin…the running out of other people’s money, definitely.

  20. DD had the equivalant of a Paula Dean moment. Someone who was born, raised, and lives in the South opened their mouth and talked about what everyone born, raised, and lives in the South already knows and/or believes. It’s is cultural. It’s regional. Right or Wrong it is what it is. Nothing to see here folks, move along.

  21. Not having watched the show, I just have to ask:
    Since when did this guy come out on TV as part of the Gun Rights Movement?

    He strikes me as just another country boy with a gun. Who happens to have buckets of money and is on TV.

    • Yeah, when I read the question, my first thought was, “Was Duck Dynasty ever actually *good* for gun rights?” They’ve built an empire on acting like a bunch of Hollywood hillbillies for the cameras. Now, what’s changed?

      • I think the “Hollywood Hillbilly” bits are at the insistence of the producers looking to make what is considered “good” (read: highly profitable) TV. Sometimes Willie looks uncomfortable with what is going on and what he has to say and do in a scene…. Just like many movies contain modifications instead of verbatim from a book or real event… it gets scripted to improve saleability because they feel the original doesn’t have just the right oomph to make the money they want it to.

  22. I think more than anything it’s a reminder to the left and the media that #1 a lot of people still connect with the Bible and the moral code set forth in it and #2 they can never reframe the text of the Bible to fit the self indulgent lifestyle that they work so hard to promote.

    I have no idea what’s going to happen, but A&E can’t win. They’re going to lose their meal ticket show, more than likely, or they’re going to be the target of such vitriol from such “open minded and accepting” people calling all of their sponsors and telling them to pull support, hey really can’t win.

  23. at first I was like, “Oh man this is gonna paint everybody as an OFWG, even us gay people!”

    Then I realised that the show itself is a bunch of OFWG’s being OFWG’s and this is actually not surprising. Though the MSM will probably run with it anyways because, you know, ANYTHING to suppress gun rights is a win in their book.

  24. Isn’t A&E’s reaction to this heterophobic and intolerant? How many of you are fed up with the gay lobby acting like a bunch of damn bullies. They say all they want is “tolerance ” when what they’re really after is forced acceptance and forced affirmation. I don’t care what they do in their bedroom but I don’t have to agree with it or pay for it.

    • “There’s only two things I hate in this world. People who are intolerant of other people’s cultures and the Dutch.”

  25. When it comes right down to it, shouldn’t we be able to agree to disagree? I don’t watch the Robertson’s for moral enlightenment, but for entertainment, at which they tend to deliver.

    I am the very proud father of a gay son and I support him in every possible way. I get it, but come one, so he thinks homosexuality is wrong. I don’t agree. I would rather let the viewers decide where they stand on the issue by either watching the show or turning it off – isn’t that what a free people in a free market ought to be able to do? Trying to enforce political correctness at every instance is a fringe effort that is unfortunately enabled by a dumb-as-a-post media.

    I think the media is just pissed that he stood up Babwa Wawa because he’d rather be duck hunting. They must punish his insolence or dissing the media overlords might become a trend.

    • There you go. I got nothing against Phil, he seems like a good guy and I agree with his outlooks on a lot of things, but this ain’t one of ’em. Neither is smartphones. This isn’t exactly “new” news anyway, just new because they’re running out of Obamacare stories.
      So, just like Chik-fil-A, I’ll still enjoy what they do, I just…hell, I dunno….won’t subscribe to the news letter?

    • “I would rather let the viewers decide where they stand on the issue”

      There are a good number of people in this country that don’t want to be able to make that decision. They are happy making no decisions and would much rather prefer other people do it for them. That’s why these non-events gain traction in the first place.

    • I want to add this from Bobby Jindal, governor of LA (on this he and I agree, but maybe not on much else, which is perfectly OK in my book):

      “Phil Robertson and his family are great citizens of the State of Louisiana. The politically correct crowd is tolerant of all viewpoints, except those they disagree with. I don’t agree with quite a bit of stuff I read in magazine interviews or see on TV. In fact, come to think of it, I find a good bit of it offensive. But I also acknowledge that this is a free country and everyone is entitled to express their views. In fact, I remember when TV networks believed in the First Amendment. It is a messed up situation when Miley Cyrus gets a laugh, and Phil Robertson gets suspended,”


  26. The Robertson’s are foundational. They are good folks with great values and beliefs. They are perfectly suited as an example for 2A, because they are “basic, no-compromise Americans”.

  27. I don’t watch DD or have any knowledge of these guys from a personal standpoint. The only thing I can comment on is how stupid this backlash is as the reporter asked him the question and he stated his opinion as part of an interview he was doing. It was not like he went out on his own and made this statement. This whole situation is beyond stupid.

    Just another point that proves how idiotic the media is.

    • You bring up a good point. A&E makes an empire about these people and who they are. Then when they can’t control the editing, and these people be who they are in a different medium, then it is an outrage.

      I would say Phil’s stance on moral issues is fairly predictable. Poor word choice aside, I think the outrage is over the fact that he holds the beliefs in the first place, not how he articulated them.

  28. People have the right to their own opinions.

    The minute we start monitoring and metering other people’s opinions based on our level of offense, we have lost our collective rights to free speech.

    The Agenda is working really hard not only to roll back our 2nd amendment rights but our 1st amendment rights as well.

    Slippery slope. We would be wise to steer clear of it.

    • I disagree with you on one thing: there is no collective free speech right. It is an individual right, just like all the others in the Bill of Rights.

      Also, A&E is a private corporation. They can fire him for hurting their business or for any other legal reason just like Guns & Ammo fired that one idiotic quisling a while back.

      People can say whatever they want but if an employee hurts my business by staying something stupid they’re getting the axe. That is not infringing on their right to free speech.

      If I were the government and arresting them for their speech, then that would be infringing on their right to free speech.

        • It doesn’t matter. The first amendment only prohibits the government from punishing people for their free speech.

          People have been ostracized by society at large (rightly and wrongly) all throughout America’s history for some of the beliefs they’ve held and things they’ve said or written.

          Thomas Paine, for instance.

          This whining about free speech makes no sense in this context.

          Call me when they’re arresting Robertson for his religious views.

        • so what you are saying is you are not at all worried about the creeping crud of suppression of “other views” by the Liberal media?

          That you don’t really think, at any level, this suppression of other views (read as: offensive views) by the Liberal media is not bringing us closer to infringement of our rights?

          Sure. Then I can assume you are also all for universal background checks and gun registration.

      • What Phil said, did it *really* hurt A&E? Or was A&E trying to make a political statement and an argument for more control over the show?

    • so what you are saying is you are not at all worried about the creeping crud of suppression of “other views” by the Liberal media?

      I’ve stopped worrying about it because there’s nothing you can do but use alternative media and boycott their corporations.

      FOX News is pretty popular and the internet, so far, is free and decently utilized by conservatives.

      That you don’t really think, at any level, this suppression of other views (read as: offensive views) by the Liberal media is not bringing us closer to infringement of our rights?

      The corporations that make up the liberal media can hire and fire whomever they want and guess what? You don’t have to watch them or support them. I definitely try not to.

      Liberals at large have culturally (not legally) made Robertson’s views unacceptable among certain segments of society, but instead of whining about fictional infringements on free speech, the people that agree with him should push back. They successfully did so when the LGBT crowd tried to boycott Chick-fil-A.

      I do not think their attempts to change the culture will lead to things like hate speech laws in this country because they’re too much of a double-edged sword and they know that.

      Sure. Then I can assume you are also all for universal background checks and gun registration.

      That makes no sense.

      • Sure it does. Because gun registration and full background checks don’t infringe on your 2nd amendment rights, just like suppression of offensive opinions don’t infringe on someone else’s 1st amendment rights.

        • Yes, they do, because universal background checks and registration are imposed by governments to control citizens. Clearly an infringement of protected rights. If the government had fined Robertson for saying what he did, that would also be an infringement.

          However, the Constitution doesn’t provide any protection from private actors. If my employer bans guns in their building, then I can be fired if I violate that policy and the Second Amendment doesn’t come into it at all. If I make statements publicly that my employer thinks hurt their business interests, I can be fired for that and the First Amendment is irrelevant.

    • So, you must’ve been really pissed off when Clear Channel started pulling Dixie Chicks tracks off the air when they started voicing opposition to Operation Iraqi Freedom, huh?

  29. I don’t understand why this is all shocking news. I’ve never watched the show, but I’ve heard that the cast’s religious views plays a big part in the show. Some people like it, some people laugh at it, some people hate it. But at the end of the day the guys are all very blunt rednecks. It shouldn’t be shocking that they would say something others will be offended by. Did he advocate queer bashing? No. Did he tell people to bully gays? No. Did he call for a “fag-drag” ? No. But should people condemn him for his views? Ehhh. I think people should close their laptops and stop reading gossip columns. I used to get bullied a little by people for being vaguely effeminate. I did drama, had pink hair, and a lisp. Now I’m a stocky fellow with a lumberjack beard. I have my own views on homosexuality, but I really only give a hoot about people advocating harm.

    I get that A&E banned him. End of the day, they care about dollars and if they didn’t do anything they might lose dollars. They are in damage control mode right now. They have bigger things to worry about.

    But gun-wise, who cares? We are the real face of armed Americans. I typically don’t tell people I carry, but I don’t deny it. Most of my friends know I like guns, and some people are shocked because I’m not a buck tooth hillbilly from Duck Dynasty. We should only concern ourselves with our own actions, continue to be models, and just keep on trucking.

  30. I don’t think this is bad for gun rights. First of all, Phil quoted the Bible. He simply observed that the Bible condemns homosexual behavior and that homosexual behavior is not appealing to him.

    Second and most importantly, Phil did not advocate shunning nor harming people who engage in homosexual behavior. The irony: lots of people are shunning Phil for speaking about it.

    • This quotation from 2010 does sound a bit more offensive and less Biblical: “They’re full of murder, envy, strife, hatred. They are insolent, arrogant, god haters, they are heartless, they are faithless, they are senseless, they are ruthless, they invent ways of doing evil.”

  31. No. Phil’s right on here. He’s not the face of gun rights either. We’re trying to get people to understand that guns have always been normal. Well, the truths he’s stating in that article have always been just as normal. The America we’re trying to conserve is worth conserving as a whole. If we want to keep the 2nd Amendment, we ought to be of a clear enough mindset that we want to keep sound moral principle as well.

    America was founded with fear of and reverence for God just the same as America was founded with a love of and respect for firearms. To the majority of America, Phil is still in good shape.

    • Amen, David. I have a high level of respect for Phil Robertson.

      TTAG, don’t be so melodramatic. “EVERYBODY AND THEIR MOM IS DAMAGING THE CREDENTIALS OF GUN OWNERSHIP” isn’t a good-looking outfit for you. The Robertson family owns guns, but they use them carefully and responsibly. They’re a good family to have on our side. With articles like this, you sound like a fair-weather friend. “Oh, we’re glad to have Phil with a gun, but as soon as he says something off-topic that some people get bothered about, we’ll be upset that Phil has the audacity to own a gun.” -TTAG

  32. So A&E is demonstrating tolerance by being intolerant. I can’t think of a better way to demonstrate tolerance than to show it toward people you don’t agree with, but then they aren’t really interested in tolerance as much as they are in promoting cultural groupthink.

    The main issue here is censorship. I’ve never got into the whole Duck Dynasty fan craze and I think they jumped the shark when I saw the commercial for the Chia Willie and Chia Uncle Si. There’s actually nothing else on A&E worth the time out of my life. A&E and the LGBT thought police are not interested in tolerance, they basically fired a guy for expressing an opinion, not even on the TV program, that challenged their world view. I am sick of this politically correct bull and I hope this bites A&E in the ass.

  33. I don’t get why people are surprised. That being said who cares? I have a gay buddy who is married and he still watches the show, he wasn’t surprised either. Look at what your watching, then understand why his views on homosexuality are not a surprise.

  34. Opportunity Outrage of the day….Really….Gay, homo, transgenbend, and a host of others are outraged by a man with more beard than brains, lives in swamp, shoots ducks, has limited sense of biology…made an off the cuff remark about a guy knocking the bottom of a girl thang is way better than a man’s ass…on his own time….to be taken seriously….oooofends…..Really? I suppose he’s required hand out checks for pretty boy ass tucks .

  35. Lets make something clear; the only thing more odious that his statements are some of the responses I am reading in this thread. Part of the fight for gun-rights and undoing the years of sinister oppression like the NFA and GCA 68′ involves winning over new allies and lifting the veil of lies the civil disarmament crowd has and continues to push.

    While it is completely in his and your right to believe in whatever religious morality system you were raised in, it becomes another matter when you use that belief system to publicly condemn and dehumanize other people in your society. It is often considered rude, and if you’re a TV star it can cause a rift if the network you work with does not share that opinion. If A&E wants to can the show, that is their decision to make as a business.

    Of course, a lot of the civil disarmament crowd often paints gun-owners are horrible racist rednecks with horribly offensive opinions, and so his statements do a disservice to gun rights by providing them with ammunition to say “See! We were right, they are crude – obviously our other lies are true.” Defending his statements, which seemed to be phrased for maximum outrage, with “You can’t tell normal behavior from degenerate?” and ‘hate filled bigot group alive today [the GLBT groups]’ doesn’t help either because that ownership just furthers the unflattering portrayal of gun owners.

    Its also pretty off-putting for recruiting new allies and converting the unaligned ‘Average Joe’ to a pro gun rights stance. When presented with ‘Weeping moms that love kids’ and ‘racist redneck bible-thumpers that hate gays and love guns’ they’ll go with the moms every time. It also harms your existing allies, who might not want to be associated with you, thus fracturing the organization and hampering the movement as a whole.

    Finally, I need to confess to something. I’m gay, and a gun owner and I fight the good fight for gun rights. I do it partly because preserving human rights is the moral thing to do, and partly because it is my duty as an American to fight for liberty. The main, driving reason for my CCW and my political activism is something different, though. A few years ago I almost got killed because I had the gall to be a degenerate, sinful oxygen-thieving hate-filled bigot of a man that went to dinner with his boyfriend. For the crime of being gay in public, a few good ole boys that were spoon-fed this kind of rhetoric thought I deserved to die. To them beating a man to death was the right, moral, Christian thing to do – and all because of the way God made him.

    • Sorry you went through that and I agree that some of the comments on this post are stupid. It’s to be expected.

      I also think it should’ve never been posted. It’s sensationalistic dreck and cilckbait. Sorry, Robert, but this guy has nothing to do with the gun rights movement AFAIK but I’m sure the Mothers Who Can’t Get Action will now run with the idea you’ve laid out on a silver platter for them.

    • First, I’m truly sorry for what you have been through. It’s abominable.

      Second, please try to separate what you perceive to be “Christian’ behavior exhibited by “Christians” with what is actually taught by Christianity. The teachings of Christianity do not set up a hierarchy of sin. It’s analog, all sinners are in the same boat, hence the “good news”.

    • So because you were gay-bashed by a bunch of assh0les, Christian dogma and by extension Christians are reprehensible? What utter nonsense.

      I like gay people and wish them the best. You, on the other hand, are as misguided as gunhaters who blame the guns and not the crazy bastards who misuse them.

    • Sab wrote, “… it becomes another matter when you use that belief system to publicly condemn and dehumanize other people in your society. It is often considered rude, and if you’re a TV star it can cause a rift if the network you work with does not share that opinion.”

      You are seriously in error. First of all, Phil did not condemn or dehumanize anyone. He did mention that the Bible condemns homosexual behavior and that homosexual behavior does not appeal to him. He also stated that he loves people regardless of their behavior.

      Second, droves of prominent people in media, entertainment, and government applaud anyone (“famous” or otherwise) who condemns and dehumanizes men, Christians, and gun owners.

      Finally, Phil did not say anything to the effect that owning a firearm is exclusive to white heterosexual men.

    • “While it is completely in his and your right to believe in whatever religious morality system you were raised in, it becomes another matter when you use that belief system to publicly condemn and dehumanize other people in your society.”

      You mean kind of like what your post is doing for people who hold strong religious beliefs? What you are basically saying is that you should have the right to express your beliefs publicly, but he should not. What it amounts to, in effect, is that he should have the right to believe whatever he wants, but as soon as he talks about it, it somehow crosses a line. I have never watched the show, nor do I have an opinion one way or the other over what happens to him, the show, or A&E, but based on what I have read in terms of his comments, nothing would qualify as hate speech. People may not like what he has to say, it may make them uncomfortable, but at no point does he suggest that gays are inhuman, or don’t deserve rights, or anything else. He is expressing his view that he thinks the action is wrong. That is not hate. Hate is what you describe at the end of your post, where you seem to have been attacked. When the mentality changes from being opposed to the action, to being opposed to the person, that is where the line is drawn for what constitutes hate.

      We live in a country that has enshrined freedom of speech as a human right. If you yourself want to keep that right, you cannot claim that someone else shouldn’t have it just because you don’t like what they had to say. That kind of mentality is exactly the reason why the defense of marriage act went into place; some people thought they could and should impose their personal beliefs on somebody else. Yet here you want to do the same thing to someone else. If you believe you should be able to take away someone’s civil rights because you don’t like them or their ideas, don’t be surprised when that same thinking comes back to bite you.

    • +1. America has at various times in history relegated groups of people–Women, Blacks, Native Americans, Jews, Japanese Americans, Irish Americans and others–to less-than-equal status, in many cases based on “biblical principles.” Today, it is generally not socially acceptable to openly express prejudice against any group except homosexuals. We need to stamp out the last remaining socially acceptable prejudice, and criticizing statements like this Duck Dynasty guy made is a good place to start.

      • We need to stamp out the last remaining socially acceptable prejudice

        Uh, no. People are entitled to believe whatever they choose, and you are not entitled to stamp them out or stamp out their beliefs.

        Prejudice is not illegal. No thought process is illegal, although people like you would like to make thought control a national priority.

      • That’s a bit of a revisitionist history/selective memory. “Christian” principles ended the practice of chattel slavery.

        Humans divide into tribes. One tribe typically likes to lord it over the others, whether it’s politically or socially. it has nothing to do with what dogma you ascribe to generally, it’s just our nature as social creatures.

  36. This just goes to show how great the Constitution is and what a red herring all this separation of church and state crap is. Our right to keep and bear has nothing to do with any body’s religious belief. Even though he’s free to share his belief that doesn’t prevent one disk licker from owning a gun.

  37. Nothing this guy says will hurt the image of the typical gun owner any more than a mass shooter or conspiracy theorist wannabe mall ninja.

    If he is bad for gun rights, it’s because he reenforces the idea that “hunters only need bolt actions and shotguns” and that there is no reason for civilians to have “military style guns.” While he’s never expressed any anti-second amendment sentiments, portraying “normal” gun owners as just being camo-clad hunters is more dangerous than any anti-gay tirade.

    • I wouldn’t say these guys are just “camo clad hunters.” I seem to remember an episode where Phil was pumping rounds from an AR-15 (with jungle-clipped 30 round mags) into a beaver dam…

      • Huh. I stand corrected about that. I’ve just never seen an episode where they shoot anything other than a bow or a shotgun.

        Still, point being, Duck Dynasty has changed how people look at shooting in general, I think. A little while back, I met a girl in Portland who was “excited to embrace her inner redneck” by going shooting for the first time. She was really enthusiastic, and I was thrilled that somebody was actually taking an interest in shooting sports, but I was (and still am) uneasy about her connecting “being a redneck” with “having a gun.”

        • I’ve seen them use explosives on beaver dams as well. One of the things that got me hooked.

  38. Maybe it makes Fudds look bad if you were narrow minded enough to think that an individual giving his opinion on a thing could make any group look bad.

  39. I’ve never watched the show, but from what I can see A&E knew exactly where their cast was coming from right from the start. There was no surprise here, but suddenly the network is trying to distance themselves from a non-PC comment, despite the fact that they are happily raking in money from the show. This is just another case of a media company talking out of both sides of their mouth. If they really had that much of an issue with his personal beliefs they wouldn’t have run the show in the first place, but they’re trying to have their cake and eat it too.

    • “If they really had that much of an issue with his personal beliefs they wouldn’t have run the show in the first place, but they’re trying to have their cake and eat it too.”

      + 1000 !!!!!!!

  40. I don’t think it has anything whatsoever to do with gun rights. The only impact I think they’ve had regarding that is the extreme interest I see and hear regarding people wanting to start duck hunting.

    A&E used this as a means of scoring political points, plain and simple. They’re probably embarrassed by this show like CBS used to hang their heads over Dukes of Hazzard and Beverly Hillbillies, and this helps even it up with pinko yuppy commie segment of their audience.

    As for the comments themselves, anytime you throw homosexuality and bestiality anywhere near each other, the gay rights crowd spontaneously combusts. Calling it sin is bad enough for them…if he’d mentioned NAMBLA in the same comment they’d put a hit out on him.

    But he never equated the terms, aside from calling it sin, just like he did the rest of those things he quoted from the Bible. It’s not controversial. It’s all manufactured to further a political agenda.

  41. What Phil Robertson said isn’t homophobic. He disagrees with lifestyle choices that are contrary to the design by the Creator of the universe. He doesn’t hate anyone and isn’t showing hate. Just because someone disagrees with you doesn’t mean they hate you. I’m a Christian, a gun nut, and an American and I’m not ashamed of any of that.

  42. I’m certain the folks that are whining about Phil don’t watch his show. I think the anti gun folks have already and will continue to tie white racism to gun ownership. Give it a day or so and someone from MSNBC will say something stupid like that again.

    • Sons of Guns, almost forgot about them. Why oh why did you need to remind me of the worse show in television history? Yes, I remember Cop Rock. Sons is worse. FortWorthColtGuy please Sir in the name of all that is right and good in this World please do not mention these morons again. Ever. Please. Thank You. Lol.

  43. All I know is: even [expletive deleted] Andrew Sullivan thinks the whole PC thing has gone a bit far in this case.

    ” Robertson is a character in a reality show. He’s not a spokesman for A&E any more than some soul-sucking social x-ray from the Real Housewives series is a spokeswoman for Bravo. Is he being fired for being out of character? Nah. He’s being fired for staying in character – a character A&E have nurtured and promoted and benefited from. Turning around and demanding a Duck Dynasty star suddenly become the equivalent of a Rachel Maddow guest is preposterous and unfair.

    What Phil Robertson has given A&E is a dose of redneck reality. Why on earth would they fire him for giving some more? “

  44. Why do so many of us who believe government should stay out of regulating firearms believe government should strongly regulate activities like marriage and abortion? Isn’t it the nature of a free society that adults should be able to live life as they choose as long as they don’t hurt anyone else? Doesn’t that extend to sex?

    • That’s because a lot of people who oppose statism still fear in all-powerful ghosts that probably don’t exist, and certainly pose a much lesser threat than any state. Of course, they’re free to believe that, so I won’t judge too much.

    • I agree and it does.

      Robert should’ve just asked whether or not religious conservatives hurt the gun rights movement instead of trying to link it to some random reality TV hillbilly.

      I would say that they don’t, mostly, but sometimes they really don’t do themselves any favors. They often come down with foot-in-mouth disease.

      See above: Paul McCain

      He’s an ignorant fundie blowhard but as long as he keeps funneling money to gun rights orgs and opposing gun control I don’t give much of a **** what he thinks about gays.

      We don’t have to be friends with people we agree with on just one or two issues. We just need to be united where and when it counts on gun rights.

    • Gov’t has no business in the marriage business…it shouldn’t impact taxes or anything…let two people file together…ANY two people…who cares! Let four file together if they want! As far as abortion that’s defending the defenseless. Gov’t made murder illegal, they need to apply it regardless of age!

    • Those who oppose abortion are trying to protect the innocent. YOU may believe that a fetus is part of a woman’s body but they do not. They believe that a fetus is the start of a new human being and simply because it’s in a stage of development that puts it still inside it’s mother does not mean it is not deserving of basic human rights.

      It’s silly to acknowledge that they disagree with others on an issue but in teh same breath imply an assumption that they must acknowledge a fetus is part of a woman’s body as well. It’s these discrepancies that allow them to be wrongly pegged (ok, sure there are some crazies, but most folks who oppose abortion that I have met are well spoken and tend to have more well though out arguments that the pro “choice” folks.) as irrational loons who refuse to think for themselves. If you understand the premise behind their opposition to abortion you would understand that they would have to be monsters to support it’s continuation. You can’t believe that someone/something is a human being and be OK with it’s termination, certainly not at the start of it’s life. You can continue to disagree and support the choice of abortion, but in order to be intellectually honest you need to accept that you are disagreeing with the anti abortion folks on the nature of a fetus, because that is the question that determines whether nor not abortion is about a woman’s choice or if it is about something more.

      As far as same sex marriage, it’s about the definition of marriage. Marriage has always been between a man and a woman and it is part of what defines it. Whether you like that or not, it is true. The same sex marriage movement has been about changing the definition of marriage, not about extending rights to individuals who have been denied those rights. Rock Hudson was married, and gay. There have been many gay men who have married women. Whether there was societal pressure that forced them to be “untrue” to themselves is not relevant to this discussion. The point is that a man was gay and entered into marriage with no test to determine his orientation before hand, no questions to make sure he was straight. In short many gay men have gotten married with no attempt on the part of anyone to deny them this right.

      The definition of marriage as heterosexual is based on the biology or procreation. When two people get married we generally expect them to have kids afterward. Sure some married couples do not have kids but we tend to think of such couples as anomalous, as if they weren’t using the institution of marriage for it’s intended purpose. Even if we are totally OK with them doing so we still understand that it’s not usual. If marriage is defined in part by the biology of procreation, how can a same sex couple be married to each other? Well, by changing the definition of marriage.

      You may be in favor of changing the definition of marriage to include same sex unions, but lets not kid ourselves that it has anything to do with the rights of individuals, as those individuals have always had the right to get married but have preferred a different type of union. To do so would be akin to claiming that an individual is being denied their right to skydive because they refuse to go up in the plane. Sure the vertical wind tunnel thingy is similar, but it is different as well, and changing the definition of “skydiving” to include the giant blower only works if you’re not being rigorous with the language.

      • Do we have to redefine marriage if one of the partners in a heterosexual marriage is incapable of reproducing? What if the woman is post-menopausal?

    • Sorry, forgot my main thesis: The folks who oppose abortion and support traditional marriage generally see it as preventing control. They see abortion as control over a defenseless human that results in it’s death, and they see support of traditional marriage as a resistance against a coercive change in the definition of marriage.

      • I see opposing a woman’s right to choose to terminate a pregnancy as controlling. Too many right to life types will tell you that even if carrying the pregnancy to term will likely prove fatal for both mother and child, abortion should still be forbidden. And the subject of gay marriage has more to do with access to the legal, tax, financial, and social security advantages Uncle Sugar has bestowed upon straight married couples. I agree with Rich Grise on this one. Treat everyone the same, single, married, straight, gay, whatever. Any tax advantages (or extra costs) or the like should be tied only to an acknowledged or adjudicated case of parenthood, for the purpose of supporting education or the like.

  45. I’ve never seen the show, and I couldn’t care less about it, but I do think the critics need to harden the fuck up and move onto real threats to their freedoms, not some OFWG running his mouth. That said, anything smacking of homophobia doesn’t make him or A&E look good either. At the end of the day, it’s the antibully crowd working the bully pulpit again.

    Also, I have a friend who works for one of the Robertsons’competitors, and he HATES being asked about the show or if he’s anything like the Robertsons, so I get a good laugh at his expense.

  46. aw f**king please…BLACKS state all kinds of racial stuff and that’s okay but a christian CANNOT state scripture??
    AND of that…you say it blows gun rights up?? what leftist short dick stepped into your office??
    you all better let junior here stop posting this crap

  47. Calling or accusing any of the Duck Dynasty family of being “homophobic” is ridiculous.

    None of them have given any indications being afraid of homosexuals.

  48. 2nd Amendment is what protects the 1st Amendment…. and I have no problem with people speaking their minds… where I have a problem is with people that try to quiet people that say what they think. If you don’t want to hear it, turn it off. If you want to boycott… BOYCOTT!!!

    As for me, they got my business.

  49. The only thing dumber than religious homophobia is our culture’s embarrassing attitude toward unpopular opinions. I can’t stand the former, but the latter makes me want to bite my own face.

    Let the old guy feel however he wants, it’s not like he’s calling for everyone to hurt gay people. No sane person on earth looks to a bunch of insufferable rednecks on TV for their social direction, so I really don’t think he’s doing any harm. He only embarrassed himself; not the TV network or the gun culture in general.

    Facing discipline at your job or wherever else for saying something a lot of people don’t agree with is utterly insane and will definitely serve the future of expression very well. I’m glad we’re going in a great direction there. Can’t wait to see how we interact in another 5 years.

    “Do NOT disagree with the mainstream, comrade! The gulag awaits the brave!”

  50. I support Phil’s beliefs and rights. I’m so happy happy happy that somebody had the guts to speak his mind regardless of the media backlash. I hope doesn’t retract. Now that the die is cast, look for the hit-pieces to come out, degrading the family. Support them as people for not compromising their beliefs. Support free-speech and the second amendment will survive. Phil should, with his approval, be a figure of not only the 2A, but individuality, family, independence and a model man. “Where I live, I am 911.” We’ll said.

  51. The bible clearly says in multiple places that homosexuality is a sin. This is pretty cut and dry from a bible point of view. If you disagree, that’s fine, but you have to take the position that you don’t believe what the bible says is true.

    Phil was just stating what the bible states and tried to explain that when someone gets caught up into sin it can lead to other sins. He wasn’t saying that every gay man commits bestiality. In the bible bestiality is a sin just as much as adultery. In the bible There are no bigger sins than others, all sin will disqualify you from eternal life.

    Phil is great for guns. He isn’t a radical. He’s a Jesus loving, bible believing, family man, who could teach us all a few things about what’s really important in this life.

    • He does not seem to care about Jesus’ comments on being rich. Nice to pick and choose what to believe in the Bible. If he can find one comment Christ made about homosexuality, I’ll start watching his show.

      • Uh, what Biblical statements about being rich? You mean the ones taken out of context?

        The arguments that a Christian has to be poor are really non-existent. Otherwise, you better sell everything you have, including your computer, and turn all your money over to the church or charity, other than what you need to feed yourself… and that better be dirt cheap food. After all, Jesus owned no transportation other than his feet, and had no roof over his head that he owned.

        That fallacy of the belief that one must not be wealthy or rich flies in the face of Biblical teaching. Look at Job for a second. He was a rich man, and loved God with his whole being, even when relieved of everything he had: family, money, and to a degree, friends. He didn’t give up on God, although he was urged to. In the end he got DOUBLE his possessions, and his family back (well, new family) Riches are not the problem, being rich or wealthy isn’t either… it’s your heart that does matter. Having wealth is a super way to be able to help others. After all, you can’t give what you don’t have. The fallacy of being not being wealthy is just as PC corrupt as the rest of PC is corrupt about guns and everything else.

        • You do underSand the difference between the Old Testement and the New Testement, right?
          Matthew 19:16 Now a man came up to Jesus and asked, “Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?” 17 “Why do you ask me about what is good?” Jesus replied. “There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, obey the commandments.” 18 “Which ones?” the man inquired. Jesus replied, ” ‘Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony, 19 honor your father and mother,’ and ‘love your neighbor as yourself.’ ” 20 “All these I have kept,” the young man said. “What do I still lack?” 21 Jesus answered, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.” 22 When the young man heard this, he went away sad, because he had great wealth. 23 Then Jesus said to his disciples, “I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. 24 Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.” 25 When the disciples heard this, they were greatly astonished and asked, “Who then can be saved?” 26 Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.” 27 Peter answered him, “We have left everything to follow you! What then will there be for us?” 28 Jesus said to them, “I tell you the truth, at the renewal of all things, when the Son of Man sits on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.”
          I am not sure about my being PC in my reading of the Bible. I just happen to not buy a whole bunch of the Old Testament strictures.

        • I do understand the difference. Jesus also said he came to fulfill the law, not abolish it. IF you look at the verses you so graciously posted, it is Jesus pointing out, THE ONLY WAY anybody gets into heaven is through him. The rich young ruler valued wealth more than anything. It’s the love of money that is the problem. It is the priority of wealth that can be a problem. The Good Samaritan had to have money in order to help the poor half-dead traveler. You can’t give or provide out of your lacking.

          I see you still have your computer, home, and car… You haven’t sold enough yet to be truly poor… oh dear… you still have wealth. Remember Jesus owned NOTHING but the clothes on his back.

          But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.” – Matthew 6:33 (KJV) – Seek God first, and he’ll give you everything you need and, within reason, want. Seek Him for him, and not for the benefits.

          “Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.” – Hebrews 13:8 (KJV) – You believe Jesus IS God, right? Well, If God doesn’t change, his view on wealth hasn’t changed either.

  52. How much support and tolerance for Islam have we seen in the media? A crap ton. Islam takes an even harsher unapologetic view on homosexuality. Here we have a double standard.

  53. Didn’t we just have the whole “gays r OK with guns” discussion a few days ago? Apparently no one told GLAD. This is a great opportunity for gay shooters to speak out.

  54. But is this brouhaha bad for gun rights?

    It’s well past the time that we stop linking people’s opinions and thoughts about other things to their opinions and thoughts about the right to keep and bear arms. If he’s not advocating government violating the Constitution then it ought to be a non-issue for us. One doesn’t have to be sharply groomed, have a coveted career, be well spoken, or fit a certain desired mold to be an individual with rights. We need as many as we can get understanding real freedom and why the 2A is vital to the security of our free Nation. There is no political ‘messiah’ coming. We’re the answer to our own needs and we need to stop trying to cull our own ranks. You believe in true Liberty? Then I care not if you’re a LGBT advocate or a Southern Baptist Bible thumper. It matters not the color of your skin or the thickness of your wallet. Desire to be free and acceptance that others must be free as well and you’re needed in the fight against tyranny.

    • Exactly. This is just another example of how the battle for gun rights is getting swept up into the larger culture war, when it shouldn’t be. And the pro crowd is just as guilty of doing this as the anti-gunners.

      • Yep. We often ‘eat our own’ out of a delusional desire to appear a certain way to a mass of people that really don’t give a damn about Liberty. We won’t secure freedom by persuasion of ‘image’. We’ll only be successful by insisting that government follow the letter of the contract by which the People agreed to be governed while enlightening as many to the true nature of Liberty along the way. While many are scrambling to protect an ‘image’, government infringes with glee; taking advantage of the distractions. Those who obsess over the ‘image’ of gun owners in America are arranging deck chairs on the Titanic; all the while convincing themselves that they are ‘winning the hearts and minds’ of antis and those ‘on the fence’. It’s foolishness.

  55. Absolutely it matters, to the extext he spoke for us. I know he never spoke for me, nor do I think he was a gun-rights advocate in any professional or formal manner.

    He is absolutely entitled to his own opinion, bigoted, small-minded, and ignorant though it may be. That being said, A&E absolutely has the right to suspend him, and I personally lost all respect for him, as I do for all homophobes or others who seek to judge others by their own mythology.

    • You really lost respect for him? For being a Christian who believes in what the bible says?

      Calling him a homophobe is completely out of line. I think you missed the rest of his statement: “We never, ever judge someone on who’s going to heaven, hell. That’s the Almighty’s job. We just love ’em.”

      Labeling him wrongfully is just as small minded and bigoted as you claim him to be. But your allowed to do that because you think differently than him. Let’s just call everyone who has a different opinion than us hurtful untrue names. No let’s not. Learn your lesson.

    • If this is your twitter

      “Liberal” and “athiest” describing yourself in the about section leave me unsurprised about your intolerant speech toward Christians. While being liberal does not mean you’re against the 2a, I question your intentions posting here. You certainly use similar tone and name calling used by the same liberal left to defame the 2a community.

      • Just as Phil is entitled to his opinion about homosexuals, Mr. Absood is entitled to his opinion that Phil may be bigoted and small-minded.

        In any case, I don’t question his posting here. I invite him to post here and discuss anything RKBA related with me or anyone else just as much as he desires. This site isn’t called The Truth About Homosexuality, Atheists, and Religion. It’s called The Truth About Guns.
        And the truth about guns includes input from people like me, people like you, and people like Mr. Absood.

        • Calling a Christian derogatory names for believing in the bible does no help for our discussion about firearm rights. Hence why I choose to say something about it, and question the motives of a 2A supporter who can’t even respect someone’s religious believes without throwing insults.

        • If you think someone is small-minded, whether you’re a Second Amendment supporter or not, don’t you have the right to say that?
          Just like if Phil thinks homosexuals are on a fast track to hell, he has the right to say that.

          To homosexuals, telling them that they’re going to hell because they love who they love is as insulting to Christians as whats-his-name’s statements about Phil being a bigot.

          It’s an edge that cuts both ways and like the rest of our rights, it’s not clean and tidy.

  56. “Does it reinforce the stereotype of gun guys as racist, homophobic rednecks?”

    Yes. But being a liberal, atheist gun owner that doesn’t care at all about hunting, I basically deal with stereotypes and assumptions about who I am and what my beliefs are assumed to be every time I go to a gun shop, read a gun forum, or go to the range. I get to hear plenty of derp from people that think I am one of them, just because I’m into guns.

    Don’t kid yourself that the anti-gunners are the only ones enforcing stereotypes about gun owners.

  57. What’s bad for “gun rights” is when people who claim to support the Second Amendment do not speak up and support a man’s First Amendment rights, but rather, whine about whether or not they are bad for gun rights.

    • A&E didn’t violate his first amendment rights, genius.

      You have the right to say whatever you want but you don’t have the right to employment.

      If you ran a church and one of your workers went on local TV espousing a pro-gay marriage opinion that outraged your congregation, and you fired him for that, would you consider yourself to be infringing on his first amendment rights?

      • You are missing the point, you vain rude-growing blind-worm!

        I’m objecting to TTAG even raising this as an issue that has anything to do with gun rights, or the Second Amendment, or what’s “good” for gun rights.

        • TTAG is privately owned and administrated. They have the right to do anything on this blog that they wish. If anyone doesn’t like the topic of discussion, he or she is free to not participate.

          And their asking this question underscores RKBA’s association with the conservative right. Maybe it’s something we need to consider.

        • H.R: if the 2A community distances it self and cuts off the conservative right, your rights will be as good as gone. Taken away by the left to a UK level In a few years. The moderates in this era are not keeping any 2A rights alive – they are letting them slowly erode away (i.e California)

        • TJ – the old-school conservative type of thinking is bound to die out. It’s inevitable. The population of this country is behind things like legalizing marijuana and equality for homosexuals. I am too.
          But I’m just as solid of a supporter of the RKBA as anyone else. Probably even a lot more than some of the “conservatives” you have in mind. Where some of them are more concerned with being a “Fudd” and protecting their ability to go shoot at a deer once a year, I’m more concerned with the Second Amendment as an assurance of our rights to protect ourselves and even to keep the power of government in check in extreme circumstances.

          I’m not saying we should alienate conservatives. What I am saying is that we can’t count on them exclusively. If you do, and they lose the presidency and both houses in the same election, what do you protect the RKBA with then?

        • H. R: I’m with you, we need more than conservatives to keep our 2A rights strong, and we should be trying to win over those in the middle and left.

        • TR – good to make your acquaintance amigo.
          I’m sure that a lot of us disagree about a lot of small things, but at the end of the day, I’m sure there’s a lot of common ground on this site too.

  58. As Phil might say “Good God A’Mighty.” The interviewer asked him a question and he answered it. The Left wants us to tolerate all life styles, except the ones they don’t like.

    I will tell you a little story, though. Forty five years after coming home from Vietnam and not touching a gun during those years, I decided to change that. Phil Robertson and his family demonstrated guns as part of normal life. Shotgun on the kitchen counter, teaching the granddaughters to shoot duck targets with a BB gun, Uncle Si blasting snakes with his pistol, treating golf balls as skeet targets, deconstruction a beaver dam with a modern sporting rifle, taking the boyfriend into the field with everyone toting a firearm and other numerous examples. This pretty much swayed the spousal unit as she enjoys the show more that I do. There is still a feeling with other members of my family that the old man is depressed (easier suicide), careless (someone in here is going to get shot), stupid (why would anyone want one) or a mental case (see previous reasons). A 91/30 and Zastava M70A do not exactly constitute an arsenal but if I add the Maverick 88 that should just about cover it. (You can imagine the budget involved here.)

    Thanks Phil, Miss Kay, Willie, Jase et al. You have furthered the gun rights of at least one American.

  59. As I have said before they want to take away our whole Bill of Rights: We need to wake up fast this is a war to destroy the American way of life…. we need to WAKE UP fast or end up total SLAVES and no country… and yes he is right a people of no moral values will not stand ever…God says so and that ends it……

  60. No. Tthere are 100 million of us in this country, why would anyone think that we have common views on other issues. A non issue for the media to fill airtime with.

  61. What is bad for gun rights is having our point of view associated with any one ideology or political party.
    You can be a howling liberal with three lovers of the same sex for all the more I care – you still have the same protections under the Constitution that anyone else has. And that includes the Second Amendment.

    Or you can be an arch-conservative who lights a candle for Reagan every night before you go to bed. All the rights in the Bill of Rights, including the RKBA, belong to you (as well as a bunch of rights that were never enumerated).

    The RKBA movement needs to branch out and seek friends in unlikely places. We need to stop being myopic.

  62. Sounds like he agrees with the Pope. I don’t necessarily agree with either one, definitely not about everything, but I respect the depth of their convictions. I hope the family rallies around and tells A&E to FOAD if A&E stands their ground.

    • That’s funny when you think about the Pope being made Time’s most important person of the year and Phil getting canned. Both believe the same thing.

  63. Damn sure he hurt the cause. I’m even surprised it took so long for Phil to get ensnared by the LBTG PC agitprop machine. The cast of Duck Dynasty are a prime target of the left wing loons, as a successful cable TV show showing good clean fun, family values, 2A, Christian values, etc. The left hates this and tries to derail this and now they did.
    This reflects badly on the 2A community. Of course people within the 2A community couldn’t care less, the left loons are beyond repair, but it’s the people in the middle who would be fertile ground to convince to come to our side. Exactly those are the ones alienated by Phil’s comments.
    How many more of these bat shit crazy views on women/gays/minorities do we have to suffer? The media are in the can for the Bloomberg gnome and try to entice us to say these kinds of things. Even if you don’t say something offensive, the paid liars of the MSM might still cut and paste the sound bites in a way that’s offensive.
    Can someone please, please draft some talking points on how to respond to these loaded questions about the hot button issues? The questions that so called journalists ask to entice crazy comments that get people on the right fired. This will help people on our side of the spectrum to avoid the trouble that Phil is in. The talking points should make the point in a graceful and non offensive way. And if the question is too stupid you might also evade and just say to the GQ “journalist”: “look, you can’t tell me with a straight face that you are truly interested in a theological discussion about sin. If you are looking for an offensive comment that will get me fired, you will have no such luck. But I can offer you some great stories on duck hunting.”

    • The Bill of Rights is THE LAW OF THE LAND…….anyone who can not or will not accept that is in the wrong country for the wrong reason…DUCK D. has the right to say what they think… I don’t care what the issues are… THE LAW IS THE LAW.. and support all rights ……..that helps 2A as we are saying this is the area that NO ONE is above ……

  64. @Ralph–two comments BELOW this. (how did that happen?)

    You’re thinking of the galaxy, not the universe. (As a side note it’s amazing that they can watch, in infrared, stars orbiting the thing. Can’t be done in visible light because there’s too much light-blocking crud between here and there. So you need NVDs to see it, basically.)

  65. We can’t have it both ways. We can’t complain about having our rights to express our opinions infringed by trying to infringe on someone else. In this case the someone else is A&E. They feel his comments will adversely affect their network by turning off a whole demographic that has a lot of spending power. That’s entirely their right as owners of the show. If it wasn’t for A&E we wouldn’t even be having this discussion because Mr. Robertson would not have been interviewed in GQ Magazine.

    Mr. Robertson certainly has the right to not only have his opinion but to express it in an interview. Just as A&E has the right to determine whether or not an employee of theirs is saying something that can affect their money from advertisers. The problem is not that he has been suspended by the network; the problem is that people have a false idea of what the First Amendment actually is about. Which helps explain why there is so much issue with the Second Amendment. If the country doesn’t even know what the First one really means, how can they be expected to understand any of the rest?

    • Yes, the pedants are correct that the First Amendment prohibits government interference with speech, press, religion and association. HOWEVER the principle of free speech enshrined in that amendment should arguably be observed by nongovernmental parties. Voltaires’ “I do not agree with what you have to say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it.” used to be widely accepted in the US (contra the rest of the world). This, sadly, is no longer the case.

      Did all parties act within their “rights”? With the possible exception of a possible contract violation (doubtful) the answer is yes. Did all parties do the “right” thing? Having read Mr. Robertson’s interview in full, I suggest that A&E did not.

  66. It is sad that the MSM requires us to not only love the sinner but also the sin. If not your a neo-nazi, feminist hating, right wing homophobic.

  67. No, “gay rights” are extremely dangerous to freedom of speech and religion. People are entitled to an opinion, even if GLAAD disagrees with it.

    • And he expressed it. A&E is also entitled, as an entity, to decide who they want to do business with and who best serves their interests. If they think continuing the association with Robertson doesn’t further those interests, they are free to break ties.

      • “A&E is also entitled, as an entity, to decide who they want to do business with and who best serves their interests.”

        While Christian bakers and photographers, as an entity, are not allowed to decide who they want to do business with and who best serves their interests.

        What’s good for the goose is good for the gander, except when it comes to gay right standards.

        • A 180 degree spin on their logic they can’t defend without disagreeing with themself.

          “If they think continuing the association with Robertson doesn’t further those interests, they are free to break ties.”

          If Christians think continuing the association with gays doesn’t further their interests, they are free to break ties, unless you bake pies and a liberal judge rules you must comply.

  68. Does this reinforce the stereotypes associated with the gun owners? Absolutely yes.

    Remember that we are talking about the people who are already against guns and gun owners, and not about people of the gun. To the people of the gun, Phil’s comments won’t matter with respect to their gun ownership because they know that one thing isn’t related to another. However, to a person and the vast majority of the population who thinks of gun owners as old white, racist type southerners, yes, this does wonders to reinforce that stereotype. It helps to formulate a public opinion that all gun owners are staunch homophobic people. You can say “had this been a gay talking about guns or a muslim talking about something, the reaction would be different” but the fact is that this wasn’t a gay dude talking about something.

    I, for one, truly believe in live and let live. And I truly believe in armed citizens. And I am an atheist (not the one who goes around preaching atheism). These beliefs are not at all mutually exclusive. So why help reinforce them?

    As gun owners and thereby arguably more responsible people who are in touch with reality, shouldn’t we be more accepting of everybody? You believe in bible, fine. I got no issue with that. You like guys, okay. I don’t have an issue. But more often than not, I hear religion mixed with gun ownership and somehow this mix has become a necessity of the sorts.

    Believe it or not, but being more inclusive will only do good for gun ownership in this country.

  69. The Jackwagons that post videos on youtube acting belligerent towards cops while open carrying do FAR more damage than this tv show ever will

  70. I guess he won’t be calling Chris Cheng back about that interview…

    I don’t understand why him being otracized is a surprise. It’s the same story as 50 years ago when the civil rights movement gained media attention- American citizens are being discriminated against. Calling a black person a nigger that loves watermelon isn’t going to gain you many PC points which are important in todays society. There is so much hate out there for gay folks, you think that the vitriol doesn’t work both ways?

    Claiming that you can’t see what a male anus holds for a person over a vagina is akin to someone asking you I can’t see why a semi-auto holds your favor over a black powder- some people like different shit. Get over it.

    The real loser here is America for caring enough about Phil to give him the opportunity and the means to publish his thoughts in GQ (who reads this anyway?)

    TLDR: You gotta try everything once right?

  71. Mr. Robertson’s comments were hateful and disgusting and I am glad that the company that was paying for his soapbox took it away from him– that’s not a violation of his First Amendment rights, that’s A&E exercising *their* rights as a business entity to choose who represents them.

    I have to say, that until I found this link… it never occurred to me that, as a gun owner, his comments might reflect poorly on me. And now that I’ve considered it, I’ve rejected it– I’m nearly as outspoken in my defense of gay rights as I am in defense of gun rights, and anyone who wants to judge me for something someone else has said will find they’ve only made a fool of themselves.

    • You must understand. Mr. Robertson did not judge you. God does! That is his opinion and mine.

      If you heard or read the complete interview and have a problem with it, that is YOUR problem!

      IMHO 90% of Americans COMPLETELY agree with him!

      This will catapult him and DD to new unknown heights! A&E just screwed the pooch!…oh…can I say that?

    • What part of his comment was hateful and disgusting?

      This is yet another example of the warped logic used by gays and those who support them.

      Dan Cathy states he supports traditional marriage between a man and woman and the gays come unhinged calling him a hate filled bigot.

      Phil Robertson makes a similar statement and is also called a hate filled bigot.
      Neither of their comments criticized or caused harm to anyone, they merely stated their beliefs.

      “that’s A&E exercising *their* rights as a business entity to choose who represents them.”
      While Christians bakers and photographers aren’t allowed to exercise *their* rights as a business entity to choose who represents them.”
      You can’t have it both ways and call it equal rights.

      It’s your choice to support 2A guns rights which is fine.
      When you support a group with skewed and warped logic that wants special rights above and beyond the rights of others that’s not fine.
      That’s the Merriam Webster dictionary definition of a bigot.

      Now who makes a fool of themselves?

      What’s good for the goose is good for the gander, except when it comes to gay rights standards.

  72. A few days ago, a handful of folks here fell all over themselves to say that Chris Cheng’s “coming out” was **not a big deal** and that they didn’t care what a person did in the bedroom. Cool.

    Here we have probably more than 200 comments that are supportive of the very bigotry that in fact made Chris’ coming out a big deal.

    So MOST shooters appear to be non-accepting of people who are homosexuals. That is what it is and there’s no point in folks here pretending it doesn’t exist; that’s merely self-delusional.

    • A good portion of the idiots in this blog post’s comments section didn’t comment on the post about Chris Cheng.

  73. Phil said nothing wrong at all. As a matter of fact he stated his POV based on his religious beliefs. He has a right to do that. Perhaps it ruffled those who advocate homosexuality and seek censorship with anyone who doesn’t promote that lifestyle.

    Some folks are trying to eliminate liberty and replace it with license.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *