Duck Dynasty Might Be Over

I read that post before I answered you and my answer is still the same.


The flaw in your reasoning is that he was employed by a company that has a standard that he ignored. They then terminated him. That is their right.

He is not being censored as he is still being vocal about what he said. They have disassociated themselves from his statement. This is not new. In recent history Tom Cruise went through the same thing when he jumped all over Oprah's couch, I do not recall the uproar when his backers dropped him for erratic behaviour. I guess because it was not able to be made into a gay issue?

It comes down to a simple employment rule, do not breech the policies of those who pay you.

 

Yup. The shit happens all the time.

 

actually, I think I would be very comfortable with the fast food worker telling me to fuck off and die of a stroke.. Instead of smiling that fake ass have a nice day shit..

 

Not Duck Dynasty! NOOOOO! NOOOOOOO!!!! Duck Dynasty!!!!

 

After they spit on your hamburger.

Geez...I hope not though.

 

In that post, I made a comparison to the way gay people/supporters of gay rights were treated (for example) in 1950's America.

Let's say it's the 1950's, and the star of popular show on network tv is asked what their views are on homosexuality during a magazine interview. The star answers that they are in favor of gay rights.

The network responds by firing the star, on the grounds that such views are contrary to the family values promoted by the network.

No other network, and indeed, no other employer is willing to hire the former star now that they have been labeled as pro gay.

Is that censorship, or is that not censorship?

 

No.

 

Without putting in any effort to what the story is about or who said what, I know that its likley all the fuss most likley came from the owners of the show stressing about adverstising revenue, or the do-gooders stepping in on our behalf......or some backdoor way of getting the show publicity

So we aint got really nothing to do with, like a headless beast that just takes off nowadays, much like this now 11 page thread, what dafuq?

Anyway, it only hurts when hot guys say gay is wrong , and even then thats only cos they are fed up with being hit on by more guys than girls all the time....and we'll eventually wear them down, turn to the dark side will he

 

No it is not. They made a remark that they knew would probably lead to termination. Given that, they still made it.

That no other company wants to hire them then is due to their actions not their previous employers actions. No other company hiring them means that they have crossed a line and are a risk or loose cannon.

Freedom of speech does not mean you are still not accountable for what you say. Censorship would mean that they were not allowed to say it or it was edited out.

There is accountability for what we say and do. Being held accountable as in terminated is part of life. There is no company that is going to allow an employee to reflect badly on them. Companies are also answerable to revenue makers and that is simply business. Like it or not.

The example you use is skewed as during the 50's it was simply not a topic of discussion for that very reason as rights were not in place to protect those who were gay from discrimination. That is not the case today and your using the 50's as a correlation point or parallel example is a red herring.

 

that practice would be illegal.. :afro:

 

I would say that to the contrary, that my comparison to the 1950's cuts to the heart of the matter.

In the 1950's, gay people were not free, and gay people did not have free speech rights in any real sense, because if they (or anyone) spoke in favor of gay rights, they could expect to be fired (or otherwise retaliated against).

Pro-gay sentiments could not be expressed, because those who controlled the media companies did not support gay rights, and because enough of the population was opposed to gay rights that the anti-gay position had coercive force.

Today, the shoe is on the other foot. I don't think that conservative christians are nearly as marginalized as gay people were then, but their views are now the marginalized views.

Anti-gay rights sentiments can not be expressed, because those who control the media support gay rights, and enough of the population supports gay rights that the pro-gay rights position has coercive force.

I don't argue that the position of gay people in the 1950's is precisely the same as conservative christians today, but I do believe that it is analagous in so far as they are now the group marginalized in the mainstream media.

If you would like to argue that gay people and gay rights supporters had the freedom to speak up for themselves in the 1950's, be my guest.

How odd though, that so few of them did.

 

you're talking about phil, right? :sunny:

 

In the 50's actors would not even admit to being gay, studios made phoney profiles to say they had been married, in relationships to protect them. There were no laws to protect them and the hate groups were able to not only discriminate but to harm them without consequences. That is why they did not speak up.



It is a red herring as it does not apply to this situation. He is free to say what ever he wishes but does not like the ramifications of doing so. He ,for lack of a better term, is a public figure and as such is being paid to present a domineer that is required by his employer. If he chooses not to then that is his right but it is also theirs to draw a line and terminate him.

It is not a matter of who controls the media what he said would be found to be offensive by a majority of people. Being "famous" does not give one a pass on foot in the mouth disease.


This is not a gay issue this is an issue of someone making a public statement that was not acceptable to their employer. Their right to terminate. His right to sue if he does not agree.

 

jim nabors would of changed the face of ..

oh never mind...

 

Ill bet these guys eat at Chick-fil-A..


damn ,, you used that joke already. this is an outrage..

we done?.

 

Phil who?

As i said, I didnt read any of this

 

Yes, in other words, they did not have free speech, because general public opinion and those who controlled the media were against them.

He is only about as "free" to say what he wishes as gay people were in the 50's

Ok, a majority of people in the 50's would have found it offensive if someone said they were for gay rights or gay marriage. Whether it is censorship from the majority audience, censorship from those who control the media, or both, it's still censorship.

...and is this not exactly what one might say if a gay person were fired for publicly supporting gay rights in the 50's?

 

The past 3 or 4 Republican presidential candidates/presidents. Lots of others too, it's just not newsworthy when someone makes statements which don't offend people.

What is news is when someone says something ridiculously stupid and offensive about certain groups which are widely marginalized. Which is pretty stupid itself, I'll give you that. "Extra Extra, guy who hosts duck hunting show is a racist homophobe!"

We live in a pretty stupid society.

 

Marginalized? I think where I am about 1/3 of the radio stations are conservative Christians or Christian rock. I don't know how you can be in the overwhelming majority and play the persecution card.

 

Perhaps a ban on Duck Dynasty merchandise would be a step in the right direction.

People will have to hide their shirts and coffee mugs. Give cops a new victim to target.