That is not what he said. He was talking about sins. He just ran off a list beginning with homosexuality and bestality just happened to be next on the list. He was not directly linking them beyond that they are both sins.
GD's next crap thread: Free speach or blatant attempt to discredit gays?
- Thread starter Harambe
- Start date
That is not what he said. He was talking about sins. He just ran off a list beginning with homosexuality and bestality just happened to be next on the list. He was not directly linking them beyond that they are both sins.
The Freedom of speech concept is very clear: the guy has it. Not a big deal at all.
The consequence part has to happen. Which is happening now. Which I don't think anyone has a problem with accepting that backlash is going to happen. More just the question of what that backlash actually is.
From a moral stand point, I don't feel A&E represented itself well overall. They pay a guy to be himself, and then they suspend him for doing just that.
From a business and financial stand point, I also feel they made a mistake here trying to gain some leverage for a demographic the show likely doesn't pander to, pitting the potential gain(keeping the show going for years) against the sensitive.
The guy is paid to be a bumpkin. He kicks his bumpkinism up a notch, and he gets suspended for it.
Does that make more sense?
To be clear, I've altered my position from "meh" on the decision of A&E to "morally justified".
Morph means changing from one thing into another, similar thing. It's not just a list.
Morph means changing from one thing into another, similar thing. It's not just a list.
From a moral standpoint, they were justified.
Yes, they paid him for a certain type of "bumpkinism" (I don't like that word much), he offered a sort they didn't like, and he let them go.
Maybe I think more highly of poor, rural whites than you.
I guess the problem I have is that more and more we are linking people's personal opinions that have no impact on their professional responsibilities to their career. Cutting someone off from their profession and livelihood because they hold unrelated personal opinions is a sort of ideological coercion. I think it's a bad thing.
You are dealing with a backwoods redneck. If you want to insist that he is directly linking the two then fine. I do not believe he was.
Agreed, but there is a difference between not hiring someone because of their opinions, and telling them "you represent us now, don't say anything stupid please, ok?"
("oh, and here's the script for the next show with a bunch of stupid things we'd like you to say")
People represent an agency while on official business for that employer/egency. The employer/agency does not own that persons personal lives and as such should stay out of it as long as their personal life is not illegal and/or does not affect their performance.
In this case one could argue (I would) that the article was him acting as a Duck Dynasty rep since being popular is why he was interviewed.
Yeah and I don't think A&E is out of line or anything. I mean, even though it's called reality TV it is very scripted. They are trying to put a specific product on TV, not just whatever they happen to see while hangin' out with the DD crew. So if they don't like the product they are well within their rights to pull it from their program.
But still, the guy said homosexuality is a sin...He's 100% in line with every Christian institution I'm familiar with. He didn't make that **** up or go out on a limb, they teach that stuff in pretty much every Christian church out there.
More like love business more than i. For me, its no plainer than big business being stupid
That just happened.
I agree with you, that if such opinions have no impact on their professional responsibilities, cutting them off that way is a bad thing. I don't think that's an accurate description of this situation.