Paglia on Duck Dynasty

The thing to consider is that 40 years ago endorsing homosexual rights would have got you fired. Nowadays it is the reverse. Be careful about who you suspend for talking out because political correctness changes.

archer wrote: It's hard to understand exactly what people are complaining about, at least for me. If conservatives believe that A&E has the legal right to fire Phil, why then accuse the station, and by extension liberals, of not being supportive of free speech. I haven't heard any liberal claim that Phil didn't have the right to say what he did. And certainly liberals, or anyone else including A&E, have the right to disagree. So why the furor over this? Or is it the same with any popular TV show that gets canceled, or changed. We want what we want and don't anyone dare mess with it?

You just can not see it can you?. Call me chicken little.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nineteen_Eighty-Four

BlazerBob wrote:

archer wrote: It's hard to understand exactly what people are complaining about, at least for me. If conservatives believe that A&E has the legal right to fire Phil, why then accuse the station, and by extension liberals, of not being supportive of free speech. I haven't heard any liberal claim that Phil didn't have the right to say what he did. And certainly liberals, or anyone else including A&E, have the right to disagree. So why the furor over this? Or is it the same with any popular TV show that gets canceled, or changed. We want what we want and don't anyone dare mess with it?

You just can not see it can you?. Call me chicken little.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nineteen_Eighty-Four

OK..... You're chicken little
tongue:

LadyJazzer wrote:

Perhaps the TeaBillies should go back to TeaBaghistan and contemplate Leviticus in the light of shellfish, and wearing blended fabrics, instead of cherry-picking the parts they like to use to bash others.

You left out that one slaughtered thousands of innocents. The other has (or had) a popular TV show. U guess which...

But as an employer, the station has the right to decide what they will allow to be seen by advertisers and viewers.

Yes - I think that's what freedom is about

---

a person or business managing its image. And I'm enough of a free-market supporter that I understand a network caving into political correctness. Political correctness is usually good for business. I support their right to make decisions like that.

Yet - if a business did not wish to have an image that supported same-sex marriage ---- they get attacked by the ACLU ---- which is I feel is a social inconsistency. If it's NOT a social inconsistency - the only reasonable conclusion we might draw is that society is increasingly anti-religion.

1) Phil has the right to say what he believes
2) A&E has the right to fire him (he probably has a "morals" clause in his contract, standard practice)
3) Osama had arranged the death of thousands of people
4) Christians haven't been in the mass killing business since the Inquisition
5) LJ - are you suggesting that we have Phil killed?
6) LJ is still a hypocritical tool who would probably be fired if she had a job and the nerve to say the things she says here... among her coworkers.
7) At least Phil had the balls to say what he believes it in public

bailey bud wrote:

But as an employer, the station has the right to decide what they will allow to be seen by advertisers and viewers.

Yes - I think that's what freedom is about

---

a person or business managing its image. And I'm enough of a free-market supporter that I understand a network caving into political correctness. Political correctness is usually good for business. I support their right to make decisions like that.

Yet - if a business did not wish to have an image that supported same-sex marriage ---- they get attacked by the ACLU ---- which is I feel is a social inconsistency. If it's NOT a social inconsistency - the only reasonable conclusion we might draw is that society is increasingly anti-religion.

I don't think society is anti - religion, I see a trend towards keeping religion as a personal belief and not imposing those beliefs on others, or judging others based upon those beliefs.

archer wrote:

bailey bud wrote:

But as an employer, the station has the right to decide what they will allow to be seen by advertisers and viewers.

Yes - I think that's what freedom is about

---

a person or business managing its image. And I'm enough of a free-market supporter that I understand a network caving into political correctness. Political correctness is usually good for business. I support their right to make decisions like that.

Yet - if a business did not wish to have an image that supported same-sex marriage ---- they get attacked by the ACLU ---- which is I feel is a social inconsistency. If it's NOT a social inconsistency - the only reasonable conclusion we might draw is that society is increasingly anti-religion.

I don't think society is anti - religion, I see a trend towards keeping religion as a personal belief and not imposing those beliefs on others, or judging others based upon those beliefs.

One of the earliest law codes we have is in Deuteronomy (and a bit earlier there's the Hammurabi code).

"Thou shall not kill"

I guess we shouldn't let that early Judeo-Christian belief impose on our post-modern, morally relativistic society.

Good point Archer.

Really, morality is not the exclusive purview of Christianity, Judaism, or any other religion,

Right, the only reason we don't go around killing people is because some dusty old book tells us not to.