Backwoods Hillbilly Removed From Show About Backwoods Hillbillies For Being A Backwoods Hillbilly.

[Uncle Sparky]

Do you think that some of the hillbillies that engage in bestiality might also resent being lumped together with homosexuals?

[SlowwHand]

He was asked his personal opinion and gave it. He didn't say this A&E's opinion. Why it's so much worse for him to give his opinion than for Mr Fun to give his, I have no idea.
Why Guy thinks burning the flag that's supposed to insure that right is OK, I also have no idea. It can't be ignorance, so it must be stupidity.

[The Mad Monk]

It appears that there's a lot of people running from Duck Dynasty (the A&E property), and towards Duck Commander (the Robertson property).

[MrFun]

I'm not sure I like your world of conformity of thought.

Crimethink is the Newspeak word for thoughtcrime (thoughts that are unorthodox or outside the official government platform), as well as the verb meaning "to commit thoughtcrime."

While I do not agree with his line of thinking, I certainly support his right to think it and I support his right to say that which he believes. He is not, as far as I have seen, guilty of any discrimination based on his thinking. He did not speak to his beliefs on his job.

It is hard to believe that any freedom loving person would want to punish someone merely for what they think.

The First Amendment protects us from the government suppressing our free speech.

It does not protect us from other citizens taking action on their own, that results in suppression of our free speech. We are free to speak whatever we want, but there will always be consequences.

[MrFun]

Freedom of speech means freedom from GOVERNMENT, not PRIVATE ENTERPRISE.

exactly

[MrFun]

A&E can not restrict his freedom of speech. Literally. They are INCAPABLE OF DOING SO. Can A&E throw him in prison? No? THEN THEY CAN'T RESTRICT HIS FREEDOM OF SPEECH. He continue to say whatever the **** he wants all the live-long day.

But doing so has consequences, consequences which have sweet-****-all to do with restricting his freedom of speech.

[SlowwHand]

Let's see about the consequences. A&E, despite the rantings here of the flamboyantly liberal, will be the one that backs up.

[kentonio]

This thread is downright hilarious. The same people who not long ago were declaring that business should be able to hire/serve any customers it wanted, are now up in arms at a business doing basically exactly that.

Good game sirs, good game.

[Guynemer]

Why Guy thinks burning the flag that's supposed to insure that right is OK, I also have no idea. It can't be ignorance, so it must be stupidity.

I STILL HAVE NO IDEA WHAT THE **** YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT

[Guynemer]

He was asked his personal opinion and gave it. He didn't say this A&E's opinion. Why it's so much worse for him to give his opinion than for Mr Fun to give his, I have no idea.

Tell you what, Tex.

Find out what magazine or newspaper your boss likes to read.

Go stand out in front of that building, making all kinds of ruckus about something, anything, doesn't matter.

Say something clearly nuts, like homosexuality leads to bestiality, or all Muslims are terrorists and should be deported, or the government is listening to our thoughts via toaster ovens or something. The point is, be NUTS. Nuts enough that they interview you.

Make sure to state your employer's name/business clearly in the interview. Spell it for them. Give the address and phone number. Conclude the interview with a "Hail Satan!" or three.

Make sure a copy of that interview ends up on the top of your boss' desk, next to his morning coffee.

And then tell us how it goes with him.

[molly bloom]

Yeah, Molly, go read your bible - that passage is right in there. Corinthians.

Yet the passage about Yeshua being in favour of carrying firearms (or any other weapons) doesn't seem to be. So when you claim that a right to bear arms is sanctioned implicitly by Yeshua not forbidding it, that's just your interpretation, isn't it ?

If sexual contact between members of the same sex were so horrendous to the person you claim as the Son of God, I can't help feeling he might have taken time out to mention it himself- rather than say leave it to someone he never met.

He also seems not to have forbidden slavery or child trafficking or child sex abuse. Perhaps that explains the Vatican's lackadaisical attitude in recent decades, eh ?

[Berzerker]

a business practice can be both legal and deserving of criticism

and the freedom of speech can be restricted by people outside of government, like a private employer in this case

[molly bloom]

I'd say you were the target audience of GLAAD,

Hardly. I've been dealing with disinformation, prejudice and religious bigotry for quite some time- without the help of an organisation.

except for the fact that you shill for them.

Ah, there's Sister Bendy of the Erroneous Accusation, hello ! Not a member, not interested in joining, don't proselytize for them. Wrong again.

Given your earlier post in this thread?

The one quoting various bits of Leviticus frequently ignored by those ardent Christians so against same sex realtionships because they're supposedly forbidden by the Bible ?

Hope you've not been eating any seafood, Sister B. . And aren't the disabled and disfigured forbidden from attending religious worship ?

17 Speak unto Aaron, saying, Whosoever he be of thy seed in their generations that hath any blemish, let him not approach to offer the bread of his God.

18 For whatsoever man he be that hath a blemish, he shall not approach: a blind man, or a lame, or he that hath a flat nose, or any thing superfluous,

19 Or a man that is brokenfooted, or brokenhanded,

20 Or crookbackt, or a dwarf, or that hath a blemish in his eye, or be scurvy, or scabbed, or hath his stones broken;

21 No man that hath a blemish of the seed of Aaron the priest shall come nigh to offer the offerings of the Lord made by fire: he hath a blemish; he shall not come nigh to offer the bread of his God.

22 He shall eat the bread of his God, both of the most holy, and of the holy.

23 Only he shall not go in unto the vail, nor come nigh unto the altar, because he hath a blemish; that he profane not my sanctuaries: for I the Lord do sanctify them.

You know how the Hebrews felt about disabilities, don't you ?

[molly bloom]

Right here he's defending censorship of unpopular opinions in America

Where did I do that ? You mean the part where I pointed out the hypocrisy of fishing for Bible verses that chime with your particular brand of bigotry and ignoring the ones you find inconvenient ?

Err, sorry, but that's not support for censorship. You should know- you're the one who joined the organisation which silenced Roman Catholic theologians (like Hans Kung and Teilhard de Chardin) and had an index of proscribed books. And you're the one who thought the apartheid regime in South Africa was simply misunderstood or had a bad press- they had quite a zealous attitude when it came to banning books, speech and people.

I'm in favour of Milton's approach to free speech and against censorship- you might want to read his 'Areopagitica'- but I should warn you- he wasn't a Roman Catholic :

If ye be thus resolv'd, as it were injury to think ye were not; I know not what should withhold me from presenting ye with fit instance wherein to shew both that love of truth which ye eminently professe, and that uprightnesse of your judgement which is not wont to be partiall to your selves; by judging over again that Order which ye have ordain'd to regulate Printing, That no Book, pamphlet, or paper shall be henceforth Printed, unlesse the same be first approv'd and licenc't by such, or at least one of such as shall be thereto appointed. For that part which preserves justly every mans Copy to himselfe, or provides for the poor, I touch not, only wish they be not made pretenses to abuse and persecute honest and painfull Men, who offend not in either of these particulars. But that other clause of Licencing Books, which we thought had dy'd with his brother quadragesimal and matrimonial when the Prelats expir'd, I shall now attend with such a Homily, as shall lay before ye, first the inventors of it to bee those whom ye will be loath to own; next what is to be thought in generall of reading, what ever sort the Books be; and that this Order avails nothing to the suppressing of scandalous, seditious, and libellous Books, which were mainly intended to be supprest. Last, that it will be primely to the discouragement of all learning, and the stop of Truth, not only by disexercising and blunting our abilities in what we know already, but by hindring and cropping the discovery that might bee yet further made both in religious and civill Wisdome.

I deny not, but that it is of greatest concernment in the Church and Commonwealth, to have a vigilant eye how Bookes demeane themselves as well as men; and thereafter to confine, imprison, and do sharpest justice on them as malefactors: For Books are not absolutely dead things, but doe contain a potencie of life in them to be as active as that soule was whose progeny they are; nay they do preserve as in a violl the purest efficacie and extraction of that living intellect that bred them. I know they are as lively, and as vigorously productive, as those fabulous Dragons teeth; and being sown up and down, may chance to spring up armed men. And yet on the other hand, unlesse warinesse be us'd, as good almost kill a Man as kill a good Book; who kills a Man kills a reasonable creature, Gods Image; but hee who destroyes a good Booke, kills reason it selfe, kills the Image of God, as it were in the eye.

http://www.dartmouth.edu/~milton/reading_room/areopagitica/

[molly bloom]

If you don't believe me, why don't you write Francis and explain to him your position on various topics and see what he says?

You first :

Speaking to an Italian newspaper today, the pope described Marxism as “wrong”, but refused to condemn people who hold left-wing views.

The comments came after the Pontiff railed against the “new tyranny” of unfettered capitalism in an 84-page document published last month.

The “apostolic exhortation” sets out the terms by which a pope intends to run the Catholic Church – yet it was slammed by the outspoken conservative US talk show host Rush Limbaugh.

Mr Limbaugh, who is not a member of the church, said the comments went “beyond Catholicism” and were “purely political”. He claimed parts of the document were “pure Marxism coming out of the mouth of the pope”, and suggested that someone else must have written the papal document for him.

Today, Pope Francis said: “Marxist ideology is wrong. But in my life I have known many Marxists who are good people, so I don't feel offended.”

In his response to the critics, the pope said he was not speaking “as a technician but according to the social doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church, and this does not mean being Marxist”. He said he was just trying to present a “snapshot of what is happening” in the world today.

In another document last week, he said huge salaries and bonuses were symptoms of an economy based on greed and called again for nations to narrow the wealth gap.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/news/pope-francis-says-hes-not-a-marxist--but-knows-lots-of-good-people-who-are-9006235.html