And it's okay to compare homosexuals with people who have sex with animals?

I think that sells Christianity a little short. If someone is devoutly Christian I should assume that they will have long-winded opinions on the blight of homosexuality, blacks and welfare, or revisionist history about Nazism, rather than, say, love for humanity or grace?

Don't forget the "murder record" of Islam.

And it's okay to compare homosexuals with people who have sex with animals?

I don't think people are reading the article.

According the GQ article I believe all of them have recently "wrote" a book.

 

I asked because I was thinking surely to goodness there was stuff in the book that A&E wouldn't have agreed with either.

This is valid.

 

Like I said earlier this is a private company so they can do what they want. But after researching some employment laws if he was fired for his christian beliefs he may have a case against them. I think where his case gets weak is the colorful language he uses. If he stuck to scripture he probably has a case against A&E. While it isn't the government. No private business has the right to discriminate either based on ones religion as far as I know.

 

A&E shouldn't have suspended him. I think they reacted too quickly after reading the text of the interview. Taken all at once, it's a bit overwhelming and I can see how a PR rep, sitting in Hearst Tower in New York, would think his work was coming down when he read about how black people were happy before the civil rights movement and how Phil can't understand that an anus could be appealing.

 

In the end, I also agree with those that say A&E knew what they were getting into with the Robertson's. At the risk of sounding like... well, whatever it is I'll sound like... the guy lives in the middle of nowhere and makes duck whistles for a living. Who'd they think he was going to be, Gore Vidal?

I'm not shocked he was suspended because that is the world we live in today where you can't say anything controversial. I wish the entire family would back Phil and boycott until his return. The family made millions before the show and should stick by their belief and family member.

 

The most amazing thing as I have read these four pages is that I agree with Hellbird and I'm having a hard time coming to grips with that. :lol2:

And it's okay to compare homosexuals with people who have sex with animals?

 

But he also lumped them in with people who sleep with "this woman and that woman."

 

I don't know what his intent was, but I took it as though he was talking about different sexual acts that he perceives to be sinful.

So everyone is going to gloss over his comments of pre-entitlement, pre-welfare statements about blacks?

 

That's the one that really jumped out at me too. But since that apparently isn't the reason he was suspended, I let that one go for a while...

You missed it. He wasn't fired.

 

OK, suspended, semantics.

I asked because I was thinking surely to goodness there was stuff in the book that A&E wouldn't have agreed with either.

The GQ article alludes that the Robertsons' themselves may not have had much to do with the actual writing of the books.

 

According to Phil’s autobiography—a ghostwritten book he says he has never read

 

In 2013 four books written (kind of!) by Robertson family members made the top ten on the New York Times nonfiction best-seller list.

I don't think people are reading the article.

 

Me either. While I don't agree with the suspension I definitely understand why he was. Especially after reading the article.

The GQ article alludes that the Robertsons' themselves may not have had much to do with the actual writing of the books.

 

I figured that was the case, but wouldn't a book like that still need the approval of the person it's been written about?

That's the one that really jumped out at me too. But since that apparently isn't the reason he was suspended, I let that one go for a while...

 

That one bothered me more than his comments about homosexuality. I guess offending homosexuals carries more weight than offending blacks nowadays.

I think that sells Christianity a little short. If someone is devoutly Christian I should assume that they will have long-winded opinions on the blight of homosexuality, blacks and welfare, or revisionist history about Nazism, rather than, say, love for humanity or grace?

 

I have no idea what you were going for here. :lol2: I am cool with A&E's decision, just saying that 95% of people knew where Phil stood on homosexuality, including A&E, but then want to act offended.

 

When it comes down to it, it is all in how he stated his beliefs. Had he just said, "I do not believe ...." and be done with it he probably would not have suffered any repercussions. I am all for gay equality, marriage, etc. but the comments made me pause for a second. I just think many go out of their way to find offense. Then again I get offended by very little.

And it's okay to compare homosexuals with people who have sex with animals?

 

I don't think he did compare them. He mentioned different things he found to be sins. Like sleeping with multiple partners as well.