The Phil Robertson Controversy Exposed Conservative Christian Hypocrisy on Freedom

999926_10152112226612489_1225957969_nI really hadn’t planned to write as much on this topic as I have, but these Phil Robertson sheep supporters have just pushed all my buttons.  I’ve seen plenty of ignorance in my day, but their reactions to this whole situation have just been incredibly, well — stupid.

And holy hell are these people hypocrites.

Let’s just be honest here: “freedom,” to many people, is extremely subjective.  Especially when it comes to conservatives, and it goes double when you talk about “Christian” conservatives.

Just look at this ridiculous notion believed by millions that Robertson’s suspension was somehow an attack on his First Amendment rights of freedom of speech and religion.

Uh, no — not even close.  Our First Amendment rights extend to protection from prosecution from the government, not an employer.  And as a public figure it’s especially something you have to be careful with, as much of what you say can easily become a public scandal.  Just ask Alec Baldwin.

Oh, by the way, where was the conservative uproar over his firing?

Or the Dixie Chicks.  Remember when they insulted Bush and conservatives went nuts?  Freedom of speech?  Sure, as long as it’s speech they agree with.

Like I said, hypocrites.

But what I wanted to address here was this mythical belief in “freedom” that these Robertson supporters seem to believe in.  It’s pure irony to me that tens of millions of people who continue to support the denial of equal rights (or freedoms, if you will) for homosexuals to marry, have the audacity to stand there on their pulpit and throw a fit because some reality TV star got suspended for making several asinine comments.  Claiming that this is somehow an attack on his freedoms — as per our First Amendment.

Well, our First Amendment also guarantees the right to freedom of religion.  And being that this definition of a “traditional marriage” these people constantly harp on about comes from religion, using that belief to support a ban on same-sex marriage is in itself unconstitutional and a violation of the First Amendment rights of every homosexual who wants to get married.

Because the truth is there are Christian churches (many of them) who support same-sex marriage.  Yet, in states that continue to deny same-sex couples marriage rights, they’re not allowed to marry gay couples.  Then let’s not forget the tens of millions of Christians themselves who support same-sex marriage as well.  So in reality, denying that particular church’s right to marry same-sex couples is also a violation of their religious beliefs.

But conservatives don’t consider people who believe in same-sex marriage Christians.  Again, a belief that when attempted to be placed into law, is unconstitutional.

Hello, freedom of religion?  As in, you can’t tell someone their religion is right or wrong — because they have the freedom to follow whatever religion they want.

Do you see why religion is supposed to stay out of government?

Oh, and don’t give me this nonsense about same-sex marriage leading to bestiality or some other ridiculous statement.  Here’s a simple way to define what legal marriage should be:

The legal union of two (and only two) consenting, unrelated adult human beings who are not currently married.

The end.  

And even if you want to step away from same-sex marriage, then we have the right-wing “Christian” conservative attempt to control what every woman does with their own body.  Which, again, is a violation of a Constitutionally-protected right.

Look, I get it — they don’t like abortion.  Well guess what?  Most “pro-choice” people don’t either.  That’s not the point.  It’s about a woman’s freedom to have control over her own body.  That’s what “pro-choice” people support.  Pro-choice does not mean pro-abortion.  It just means pro-freedom for women to have control over their own bodies.

Again, a freedom that’s been protected by our Constitution and the Supreme Court, yet it’s constantly under attack by these “freedom loving” conservative “Christians.”

Look, I really don’t believe Phil Robertson is a bad person.  Ignorant maybe — but I don’t think he holds malice toward anyone.  Maybe it’s because I live in Texas and I’ve met tons of his “kind.”  Generally decent people who were just raised to be ignorant.  Hell, I have a few relatives who fit Mr. Robertson’s description.  Nice people, giving, kind — hell, they’re engaging with homosexuals they know.  They were just raised with this backwards belief that homosexuality is a sin because a handful of Bible verses say so.

And hey, I fully support Phil Robertson’s right to believe privately however he feels.  Even if I think it’s ridiculous, backwards and wrong.  He had every right to say what he did during that GQ interview.

I fully support the First Amendment and the freedom of speech.  But A&E was also fully within its rights to suspend him for what he said.  Again, the First Amendment protects against government prosecution.  It doesn’t give people the right to say anything they want, at any time, without facing the consequences for what they said.

But when it comes to the blatant hypocrisy of these so-called “conservative Christians” about freedom, I just have to laugh.

It takes either sheer blind ignorance, or just unbelievable audacity, to believe in the things they do and have the nerve to freak out about First Amendment rights because a reality TV star was suspended for making bigoted comments in a public forum.

I’m honestly shocked that when you look up the word “hypocrite” in the dictionary it doesn’t just say, “See Christian conservatism.”

Because most of these people define hypocrisy.

Allen Clifton

Allen Clifton is a native Texan who now lives in the Austin area. He has a degree in Political Science from Sam Houston State University. Allen is a co-founder of Forward Progressives and creator of the popular Right Off A Cliff column and Facebook page. Be sure to follow Allen on Twitter and Facebook, and subscribe to his channel on YouTube as well.


Facebook comments

  • Jana Lenkiewicz

    Well said!

  • Why5ks

    Why are the supporters of the party that argued for and gave us Citizens United, making corporations people, now don’t want to grant A&E their right to freedom of speech? Why are Mr. Robertson’s supporters who are arguing he is being persecuted for his religious beliefs the same people who want to dictate where Muslims can build a mosque? They are also the same people who derogatorily refer to our President as a Muslim, even when that isn’t true.

    • Uuena Van Light

      To the Right Wing Pendants, Freedom means as long as Freedom agrees with them and no none else.

      Watch, Right Wing Christians are going to whine about being persecuted for their religious believes. Oops, it happening now.

  • Michael Siever

    Or what about employees who were terminated by their employers solely for having Obama bumper stickers on their cars? Did these conservative Christians come out in their support, demanding they get their jobs back? Hell no!

    • Xristianxon Jamex

      Okay, you’re STUPID…people pick and choose their battles and for you to play this game and say Phil supports should have done this or that means you want to POLICE them and make sure they save the world from all injustices…Go get an ACTUAL LOGICAL point, dude. Or stick to the merits or flaws in this story and this issue. Why don’t you pull out your track record for consistently advocating for all causes you support and all your volunteerism and financial donations to those causes and if you helped every single person in the world with those causes (sounds pretty dumb, huh? well, that’s how misplaced and dumb your point is)

      • Michael Siever

        Turn off


        Endorsed by

        It has clearly made you the STUPID person here, if you couldn’t see my point, or just decided to dodge it altogether, following their formula of name-calling/start rambling on about liars and hypocrites/completely changing the subject halfway into your comment/etc.

      • Lawrencia

        I see your ignorance wasn’t supported by many.
        Looks like the dunderheadism lies within you.
        Have a great day!

  • Laura26

    Totally agree!

  • A Liberal Pastor-OKC

    I fully believe in exactly what you said. I am however a supporter of Phil because I believe that where we all have a right to sit here and speak about his ignorance, he has a right to be ignorant in public. I don’t think that A&E has a right to fire him based on his ridiculousness because they knew the job when they took it, meaning they knew who and what they are dealing with when they signed the contract with them. My thoughts on this matter go back to what you said in your editorial about being a liberal.
    I am a true liberal who supports everybody’s rights no matter if I agree with them or not and believe me, that’s a very hard place to be while living in the capital of a NOTORIOUS Red State. To me it’s about the freedom to be who you are when you want to, we can’t say that this group has more rights then any others because then we are no better then these conservative hypocrites right? Just my opinion 🙂

    • sherry06053

      It is a matter of how much value Phil gave his job. As with anyone, when you give your opinion in a public forum, you need to use a filter or face the consequences. Personally, I think GQ set the guy up-their readership does not include people like Phil Robertson, and they are the ones that asked the loaded questions. Using your logic, Robertson knew who HE was dealing with, when answering the questions.

    • GGH

      I understand what you are saying here – either we can all say stupid things in public or none of us can. The problem is picking and choosing the way both sides seem to do. Living this way we could go on forever

      keeping score on one another while hatred and division increases. I have to keep reminding myself that God called me to love my enemy. That’s hard – really hard sometimes. But it is the gospel of Jesus Christ and I am a believer and strive to be a follower.

      • Mo Reno

        What ‘enemy?’

    • SophieCT

      It boils down to what he and A&E had in their contract. Yes, they did know who he was from the start, so this should not be surprising to them. I don’t know what was in their contract.

  • rasslor56

    There’s only one thing I disagree with here–Phil is NOT a good person–he’s a 67 year-old alcoholic, drug-abusing wife beating millionaire with anger issues who uses The Bible to hide his bigotry. There is no good in that phony yuppie breeder.

    • GGH

      Do you know this for sure about him? Not asking because I like/watch this show (I don’t). Just asking because I don’t want to base any opinion on this on trumped up facts or half-baked rumors. Doing so would be like a tea-partier espousing our President is a muslim or wasn’t born in the USA. So I’m trying to fact check here.

      • rasslor56

        That such a man sees himself in”recovery” tells me that he’s just hiding his real abominable self behind the Bible and fans.

      • Jerry Briardy

        He did some terrible things in the 70s but he appears to have reformed as far as I know, which I admit, is not very far. (I had never heard of him prior to this controversy)

      • Sue Roediger

        I have watched the show … with the same feeling as when you turn over a rock and are amazed at what you find there. Phil and his brother Si are backwoods guys stuck in a 1950’s mentality. Their thoughts on many things are appalling. They should have asked him about “a woman’s place” , and isn’t interesting – they have no black friends or employees?

      • Lawrencia

        Yes it’s all true.

    • Xristianxon Jamex

      So, you are a HYPOCRITE and you should be talked about in this article…you don’t know the dude, YET you’re judging what’s going on in his heart. And the attack on Phil is attacking him for being judgmental. Gay advocates are some of the biggest hypocrites in the world. This always astonishes me that they aren’t embarassed at themselves.

      I grew up in an alcoholic home. My dad has been clean and sober for decades…he’s NOT a Christian and he’s an ENTIRELY DIFFERENT person. That’s possible with Phil. But, YOUR hypocritical hate-filled BIGOTRY against southerners won’t allow you to give him the benefit of the doubt…Young people today call you a “haaaaaterrrr”. I call you a hypocrite, with a typical illogical, emotional, drama queen, thin-skinned reaction the gay community typically gives.

      • Anthony L. Hayes

        Snarf! This guy ^

    • Lawrencia

      Don’t forget promotes white men to find young girls to marry and train well.

  • Jason Hartwick

    So hang on. If someone says at work “I support homosexuals in their struggle”, and they are laid off, that, YOU SAY, is a violation of their first amendment rights, but if someone says they do NOT support it, and they are laid off, that, YOU SAY, it is ridiculous to think of as a first amendment violation? conservatives are not the ONLY hypocrites here…..
    If you are going to claim that corporations and the government are so interchangeable, and that corporations control the government, you HAVE to concede that actions taken by corporations are coming from the people who control the government and therefore are coming from the government. Conservatives are oppressive, it is what they are all about: control of the people. I don’t know how to make it clear to you, but liberals are getting to be just as bad.

    • Joan Brown

      Whether or not a person a person gets fired for what they say would depend on where they worked. If their job was a job where they were in the public eye and they made the statement to the press, then, if the employer didn’t want the back lash from the comment then yes, they do have the right to fire/suspend the employee. That being said the “duck dude” wasn’t fired, he was suspended, and suspension is only temporary. Maybe this will give him to reflect on what he said and make him realize he has to watch what comes out of his mouth in certain circumstances.

      • Jason Hartwick

        Why? Again, it is his right to say what he thinks. That is, RIGHT. It is not a privilege to only be given when it is convenient, and taken away when someone else may not like it.
        So let’s see if we can apply your logic to other rights: If you are running for office, and the local constabulary does not like the idea that you may win because he feels you may be dangerous to his people, he can tie you up in his basement so that nobody hears your message, as long as he has every intention of letting you back out afterwards? It’s only temporary, after all, so shouldn’t he have every right to do his job and protect his people? NO, because you have a RIGHT to liberty. Yeah, it is a rather extreme example, but it IS the same thing. A Right being taken away by someone who feels they are doing the right thing because of an opinion.

      • Jerry Briardy

        No one on the left is trying to deny him his rights. They are pointing out the hypocrisy of the conservatives. When Bill Maher made comments about the 911 perps not being cowards, the right was screaming for his blood and he was fired. Which was the right of of the corporation he worked for. When the Dixie Chixks made anti-Bush statements the Right called for a boycott. Where was conservative support for THEIR 1st amendment rights?

      • Jason Hartwick

        Good question.

        Problem is, you’re incorrect. There is not a cry of “hypocrisy!” going out, there is a cry of “this guy is wrong, so there’s nothing wrong with this!”. If you can point out that many other situations like this, obviously you feel their rights were violated, which they were. So why is THIS guy so different? Where is your support for HIS rights? Where is YOUR outrage about this? Oh, right, it doesn’t meet YOUR opinion, so his rights are inconsequential. My point is, ALL those situations are WRONG, including Robertson’s case. Hypocrisy does not only belong to the right, as much as the left likes to think so.

      • Blu

        No it’s really not the same thing at all. The scenario you’re describing is called “kidnapping.” Robertson has every right preach his message if he wants, just not on a network with a lot of gay employees. If one employee goes around shouting ugly things about other employees it creates a hostile work environment, just like if I went to work and started telling everyone that Christianity is a bunch of made-up crap and they are idiots for believing it, I’d get fired.

        I wonder if you cried “free speech” when the guy got fired for saying something incredibly nasty about Sarah Palin or when Alec Baldwin got fired for his homophobic words? Or does free speech only apply to Christians?

      • Just Sayin

        Nothing your saying makes any sense what so ever.

      • Jason Hartwick

        Perhaps you could understand it if you had stayed in school long enough to know proper usage of “you’re” and “your”, and that whatsoever is one word. Your lack of knowledge is in no way my responsibility.

  • Jimmy Conway

    you were right, you should not have wrote this much about this. you sound really stupid. I would love to be there when you die and go before God and use this idiotic mentality to defend yourself. I hope you get into Heaven, but thinking like yours will prevent it. Sorry

  • Kristy Sinsara

    Thank you for this well written article, although this conversation is starting to bore me. I am truly perplexed at the blind ignorance of others in this country but feel hopeful that we are truly working towards a new, more honest and freer nation, socially. “Religious” people are crazy and you can’t ever convince someone that’s crazy that they’re crazy. I would like to see a more spiritual enlightenment come from this age and be remembered for this more than anything. We are after all only spiritual beings having a human experience. Having said that, most humans suck ; ).

    • Xristianxon Jamex

      So, what do you think about GLAAD wanting to MAKE Phil go and sit down with gay folks and listen to what they want him to believe? Is THAT a “freer nation”? What do you think about them wanting to pass laws to LOCK UP anyone who disagrees with or doesn’t particularly care for gay lifestyle? Is that a freer nation? You make no specific point, only vague, ambiguous off into la la land generalities and hoping for some weird utopia that we’ll never see…I am hoping from some common sense and LOGIC and then end of the “dumbing down of America” like this..

      • Kristy Sinsara

        I’m assuming you’re religious, and as a “religious” person, you’re not allowed to talk to me as if you’re “sane”. There’s no sanity in religion. No great thinkers were religious for a reason! You can be one or the other, religious or intelligent, you can’t be both! Having said that, I actually disagree with GLAAD or anyone trying to change Phil’s mind. I personally believe he has the right to feel how he feels and so does anyone and everyone else in this country. We shouldn’t be trying to force our opinions onto others. Of course what he said was only to cater to his “following” and his “small minded followers” fed right into it. He’s a redneck that made redneck comments. HOW UN-SHOCKING. HOW NOT THOUGHT PROVOKING. HAVING said THAT, let me move on to say that if you were truly a Christian and a TRUE follower of Christ you will realize how hateful his comments were. Let’s be honest here. The Bible speaks more against divorce and overeating than it does homosexuality, two sins more commonly indulged by your every day “Christian”. These sins are equal to having gay sex but most Christians “just can’t help themselves”. They MUST eat more and they must leave their worthless spouses. And they’ll justify both. But being gay lolol EW that’s just so unjustifiably awful that we must point it out. Why is homosexuality always put on a pedestal as the sin of all sins? LOLOL because it’s all coming from a true place of homophobia. This has NOTHING to do with religion and everything to do with the fact that that backwoods, worthless redneck felt like catering to his very small minded group of followers…and again, you all just fed right into it. A true spiritual warrior would have been disappointed and realized instantly this has NOTHING to do with religion or freedom of speech…and everything to do with someone attempting to cause more dissension in a world already divided. I call BS.

      • jfry

        Very ignorant post. First off saying that a religious person is not intelligent. Honestly go through great minds, philanthropists, humanitarians of history, alot of them had religion. And he didn’t name homosexuality as the sin of sins, he equated it to Adultery and Bestiality, all three defined as sins in his religion. Did you know the great Bob Marley was very vehemently against homosexuality? Where’s his hate article I wonder? Honestly what you said was literally way more offensive than what Phil said lol funny funny world.

      • objectivefactsmatter

        “No great thinkers were religious for a reason!”


        “The Bible speaks more against divorce and overeating than it does homosexuality, two sins more commonly indulged by your every day “Christian”. These sins are equal to having gay sex but most Christians “just can’t help themselves”.”

        Most Christians don’t go around promoting divorce as being not sinful. Whether or not he mentioned divorce, it does seem rational to talk about the normalization of gay marriage where kids are forced to confront these issues in school by “progressive” social engineers who’ve already decided for parents the “morality” they want to inject in to every kid specifically contrary to their beliefs.

        If “progressive” social engineers told you that we should ban marriage altogether no doubt you’d be quoting “science” that shows them to be correct.

        Parting question: What’s your position on polygamy?

  • Xristianxon Jamex

    Allen Clifton is desperate here. He’s ATTACKING novice, non-lawyers for throwing out “free speech” JUST LIKE everyone does when there’s any controversy about what someone says. Since he’s got little to PIN on Phil, in a typical attack on “homophobes” (a misnomer), he’s desperate to vilify Phil’s support, instead of point out the MERITS of G.L.A.A.D.’s drama queen, thin-skinned, over the top, histrionic cry for help.

    (1) I don’t know why this is solely pinned on “conservative christians” as I see all kind of folks running to Phil’s support online in discussions.

    (2) Novice folks’ sloppy citation of the law is pretty much just that and the Average Joe is pretty sloppy about it in general. You often hear anyone crying “free speech” when someone says something controversial, comes under attack, then has a slew of supporters.

    (3) GLAAD in particular has OFFICIALLY announced that they want folks like Phil NOT TO TALK about what they believe…through intimidation, firings and undercutting incomes, they want to eliminate words in the public square–that’s undebatable…and to me it means they have NO MERIT to their causes so they want to disparage, villify and silence the “opposition” so they never say anything. MANY folks (not just conservative christians feel like they can’t say what they really feel…so it’s working…and then novices DON’T know what to call that so they call it stifling speech or”free speech rights”.

    (4) The author here complains about the hypocrisy “on a technicality”, which is putting a desperate spin on this I think. This is obviously a popularity
    contest to some. Folks like Phil support him after the attack on his words.
    NOTHING wrong with that. But, if someone DARE say he has a right to say what he wants and throws in the Constitution, then all of a sudden those folks are evil and their thunder gets stolen. And for others they know there is a culture war.

    (5) The hard core hypocrisy is with GLAAD. They are putting public pressure on Phil to go and visit gay families in Louisiana and sit down and listen to them, how they feel and basically (and obviously) indoctrinate him and proselatize to him (ummm, doesn’t GLAAD hate when folks wanna tell them what to do–oh yeah, gay rights activist have sought to JAIL preachers for preaching on sexual sin that includes homosexuality)…that’s where you actually get REAL hypocrisy.

    • SophieCT

      “But, if someone DARE say he has a right to say what he wants and throws in the Constitution, then all of a sudden those folks are evil and their thunder gets stolen”

      Wrong. When you “throw in the Constitution,” you need to read it first, otherwise you are not evil–just ignorant. Last I checked, A&E was not the government so Phil’s Constitutional rights were not violated. Did he get thrown in jail for his statements? No. Lose his right to vote over his statements? No. So I’m going to say this in a way that you can understand it: THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE CONSTITUTION.

      NOW that you know the FACTS, if you continue to “throw in the Constitution,” then you are evil because you are deliberately intending to mislead people.

      • Jason Hartwick

        So, just to make entirely sure that you are saying what you mean to say: You have never complained that corporations have too much control over the government, right? Because if they do, then this CORPORATION making this decision might as well be the government making it, since corporations control the government, no? AND: if it is ok to fire someone for an unconstitutional reason, why is it not ok to fire someone for being black or gay or non-christian? THOSE are constitutional issues, NOT private business issues – at least that is what YOU just said. Make up your mind here, because something is not right about the double standard being applied.

  • jfry

    You’re wrong in saying its about the first amendment its about civil rights. A business can’t punish you for your faith, legally. He was asked a question and answered with nothing but his faith. It is inarguable that homosexuality is a “sin” as defined by Christian belief, really his statements are only offensive if you believe in Christianity and sin. I have cheated on girlfriends in the past, so him calling Adultery a “sin” could be considered just as offensive, of course only if you believe in The Bible and Christianity if not its just a guy quoting an old ass book.

    • Sue Roediger

      So can a business fire a person for being openly gay or making comments in a newspaper article or TV interview about how they think gays deserve to be allowed to marry and to adopt kids?

      • jfry

        Legally speaking no, race, creed, sex and religion are all protected by the civil rights act. And honestly if this were the case you would be against the company firing someone for their lifestyle and beliefs,as I would, yet when the situation is in reverse you flip the script, explain to me how that is not hypocritical?

      • Sue Roediger

        I have said in many comments on this issue – that I think it was a mistake to suspend or fire Phil. They should have just said “His opinions are his own”. I do know that. in the mid 90’s, when I worked at a social work agency run by the Methodist church I would have been fired if I had made any comment in the paper or on TV in favor of gay rights. People have the right to speak, but when they speak on a public platform their may be consequences. Gays who work in Catholic places lose their jobs when they “come out”. If Phil had a clause in his contract …. then A&E had the right to fire him. I am not happy that they did — it makes him a kind of martyr. Every family has an oldster like Phil .. we let them rant and don’t take them seriously. I have an Aunt who thinks nothing of reminding us that gays are ruining America…and there are two of us at the table…we just smile and say “pass the potatoes please”

  • gaychristianbusinessowner

    I have three viewpoints on this subject.

    First, As a christian i was offended that he used his faith to justify his abhorrent comments.

    I am a follower of Jesus Christ. I believe Jesus, during his time on earth, set a shining example for how we should treat each other.
    I know for fact that the bible was written a very long time ago, and must be viewed in context with the understanding of society and customs of that era. Personal Freedom…was completely non-existent 2000 some odd years ago.

    Seccond: I am also a gay man. I was born that way, god made me that way, I am proud of how god made me.

    I support freedom of speech and religion in the context that we cannot be arrested or legally culpable for our beliefs or expression of ourselves.

    Third viewpoint:
    Here is the real Issue here:
    As a business owner, I support the freedom of a company to fire people who offend and alienate some or all of their customers. As a small business, we cannot afford to lose customers because one employees’ personal conduct may be offensive.

    If i mistakenly hired someone who later decided to make a mockery of my christian faith and offend my customers…I would most definitely want the right to fire them so I could continue to pay my other employees and put food on the table for my family.

    While I agree with a person’s right to express their opinions…I also agree with the right of others to break ties with them to avoid the backlash from those statements.

    It is a thin line I walk as a gay christian, and a thinner one as a supporter of freedom of speech, and yet a business owner who must protect the business from any offensive actions of my employees.

    Bottom line…if a large percentage of my customers don’t like dealing with one of my employees because they are offended by them on a personal level…I cannot continue to employ them and stay in business.

    I realize this post is long, but i wanted to share the unique viewpoint i have as a gay christian business owner.

    • Jason Hartwick

      Just a point here. In the time that Christ walked the earth, the Roman Empire was in power. The Roman Empire, at that time, was struggling with the EXACT SAME freedom issues america is right now. To say “Personal Freedom…was completely non-existent 2000 some odd years ago.” is completely incorrect. Homosexuals had the same rights in the Roman Empire as any other Roman Citizen. Anyone of any race, religion, whatever, had the same protections as long as they were a Roman Citizen. They were working on abolishing slavery, and in fact had abolished and reinstated the practice many many times by then. We are not, as we like to think, living in any sort of advanced moral society. We are, in fact, rehashing 2500-year-old arguments that simply have never been solved to everyone’s satisfaction. There are some who say the Ancient Egyptians wrestled with these very same issues. To think that we are the first humans to struggle with the problems of equality in a melting-pot society is hubris, plain and simple.

  • truth

    Since homosexuals cannot breed new homosexuals, they will all die out soon.

    • Rue

      Wow, that was a joke right? Cause if not I just feel bad for you.

    • Sue Roediger

      I hope that was sarcasm…………….if not it was abysmal ignorance. It is the same as handedness. People don’t become left handed or chose to be. It is a part of how they are born. A person can pretend to be right handed but it will feel awkward and strange to them. Being “homosexual” is like that – a pert of how a person IS. Nearly every homosexual alive today was born of two heterosexual parents.

    • Aimee Barfield

      Not as long as humans keep breeding.

    • Markmywords

      I’m guessing you went to church today – just sayin.

  • Edward Krebbs

    Wonder how those supporting a state religion and a radicalized freedom of speech would react to the Westboro Bapt protesters.

    • Aimee Barfield

      Westbro came out in support of Duck Dynasty’s Phil.

  • Jim Berryhill

    Fuck Duck Dynasty, Fuck conservative Christian Nazis, Fuck morons who cannot/will not learn to practice what they preach, and double Fuck the politicians supported by them.

    • Jason Hartwick

      “Fuck morons who cannot/will not learn to practice what they preach”

      Do you mean the ones who only use free speech to their advantage to further conservative viewpoints or the ones who feel it is important to make it illegal to fire someone for being gay or black or whatever because it is unconstitutional, but figure it’s ok to fire someone for something like this, despite its being unconstitutional? Just wondering who your little hate-rant is aimed at, is all, since there’s enough hypocrisy in this to sink a ship on both sides of the aisle.

  • Ed Rudy

    Current good law in the US: Speech that poses an imminent danger of unlawful action, where the speaker has the intention to incite such action and there is the likelihood that this will be the consequence of his or her speech, may be restricted and punished by that law.

  • PatChris

    As the author notes their definition of marriage;

    “The legal union of two (and only two) consenting, unrelated adult human
    beings who are not currently married.”

    Seems a little skewed and preachy to me. Who the heck is this person to tell me who and how many I can marry?!?!
    What a load of ignorant BS shoved in what is supposed to be a progressive essay.

  • MLR

    I lost track of how many times I have posted here and elsewhere that the lunatic right-wing nut cases are hypocrites! When they say they want freedom they mean they want it for themselves, not for the rest of us. They want to be free to discriminate and deny others equal rights under the law, but want their rights protected. They want to ram their religion down everyone’s throats all while they scream they are the ones being discriminated against and persecuted. I have to hand it to them though. They do a much better job at raising hell than sane people do and they might just succeed in getting their way. Cracker Barrel reversed their decision to stop carrying their stuff and Wal-Mart old out of their stuff too. That’s why I’m always emphasizing how important it is to speak up just as loud or louder than the crazy right-wing lunatics. To dismiss them is a big mistake. Look at how much damage they’ve done to a woman’s right to choose even though it’s a constitutionally protected right and yes, look at what they did to the Dixie Chicks, yet Ted Nugent can spew venom about Hillary Clinton and PBO and basically get away with it. And why? Because we over on the left and center don’t raise hell the same way they do. We (speaking in general terms) just sit back and laugh because we don’t take these lunatics seriously but we should, especially at the local level.

    • wtf chuck

      Dude it happens on both sides… Everyone freaks and says liberals this and conservatives that….they are the same fucking shit …. our politicians in general are fucked…. the whole thing with phil is pointless… it just allows more assholes to bicker about more pointless shit… Like the dude who wrote this stupid post…why not talk about the fact that people are being slaughtered in mass in central africa right now by canadian and french militias… nope sorry the duck guy is more important.

  • Kyle Roach

    What did A&E lose by his comments If anything they got more viewers They have alot of border line shows. And their worried about a few words he said in magazine article that reporter is probably the happiest guy alive.

  • dddd

    Nice to know that freedom of speech and accuracy can occur on the internet as well. There seems to be a lot of name calling that clouds and distorts some peoples’ arguments. Instead of the merits of a good discussion; let’s call people names and berate some beliefs and groups.

  • Mary

    First of all I believe that Phil has the right to believe and say whatever he wants but sometimes things we do and say have negative consequences. Phil described a same sex union as being “unnatural.” I see nothing unnatural about two people loving each other. I find it unnatural that Phil looks at couples and thinks about their sex lives. And then some how those thoughts of people having sex lead him to think about beastiality. I am a sinner and a Christian and because I believe in the teachings of Jesus Christ I believe it is wrong for me to judge others. When the crowd wanted to stone the the woman accused of adultry according to the “law of Moses” they asked Jesus what He had to say. Jesus said (John 8:7) ” If any of you are without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her.” The bible teaches me that judging others is God’s right because He is the only one who knows what is in our hearts. I am not judging Phil I am just exercising my right to express my Christian beliefs.