# A&E suspends Phil Robertson over anti-gay remarks **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 19, 2013, 6:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-e-suspends-phil-robertson-over-anti-gay-remarks/676747 "2013-12-19T18:37:29Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 27
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2013, 6:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-e-suspends-phil-robertson-over-anti-gay-remarks/676747/521 "2013-12-24T06:39:04Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Traditional Christian doctrine. Is everyone who adheres to it a bigot? Unreasonable? Probably. Why don’t you spell out the tenets of “Traditional Christian Doctrine” and we’ll let you know. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2013, 10:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-e-suspends-phil-robertson-over-anti-gay-remarks/676747/522 "2013-12-24T10:53:14Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Traditional Christian doctrine. Is everyone who adheres to it a bigot? Unreasonable? Boy does this sound familiar. They’re bigoted beliefs, regardless of why one believes them. It doesn’t matter if they think that’s what they’re supposed to believe because they’re Christians- the belief that homosexuality is morally wrong and sinful is a bigoted belief no matter what. Just like the belief that interracial marriage is morally wrong and sinful is a bigoted belief no matter what… and there are many who think that this is a “traditional Christian belief” as well. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2013, 12:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-e-suspends-phil-robertson-over-anti-gay-remarks/676747/523 "2013-12-24T12:47:08Z")
I suppose the progression will naturally flow from “Christian doctrine” to “Traditional Christian doctrine” to “True Scotsman Traditional Christian doctrine.” ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Natural](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/a9adbd/32.png) [@Mr.Natural](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Natural)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2013, 1:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-e-suspends-phil-robertson-over-anti-gay-remarks/676747/524 "2013-12-24T13:49:47Z")
You know what offends me about those goofballs on Ducky Dynasty? Those nasty looking beards. No telling what sort of vile little animals are nesting in there. To make matters worse, the show evidently has made it redneck cool for scores of other goofy guys to grow long beards. Don’t go complaining about folks with tats, or young guys with their jeans falling off their azz, if you’re wearing a nasty looking beard down to your navel. edit: I have a beard, but neat and trimmed… [http://i49.tinypic.com/2v3smu1.jpg](http://i49.tinypic.com/2v3smu1.jpg) ---
**Author:** ![Falchion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a88e57/32.png) [@Falchion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Falchion)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2013, 1:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-e-suspends-phil-robertson-over-anti-gay-remarks/676747/525 "2013-12-24T13:53:26Z")
> [@jsgoddess](#): > > I used DOMA as an example (and Debaser agreed) that it didn’t get passed because gays were being mean, but you bring up a really good point about it. > > If DOMA was, as Debaser and Falchion are claiming, basically the fault of the gays pursuing their rights, then are we to take from this not just that gays were supposed to be meek and nice but also that they were not supposed to get their rights respected? That their big mistake wasn’t in calling people bigots but in pushing for equality? > > If so, it kinda makes you wonder just what people are allowed to do, in order to conform to Debaser’s ideals of the right way of getting your civil rights. What’s all this “fault” and “allowed” nonsense? In politics and in litigation, there are a number of gambles. Taking an aggressive litigious approach invites backlash. Is it worth it? Maybe. There are a number of factors to consider. One big concern is that you get adverse precedent and lose big (that’s why Lambda Legal didn’t get involved in the _Baehr_ case, not because they’re secret homophobes who think that gays should be meek and humble). Hell, do you think that Reinhardt wrote his super-California-centric opinion in _Perry_ because he disagreed with the district court about a constitutional right to same-sex marriage? No, he was strategizing the best way to avoid 1) getting reversed and reinstituting Prop 8 and 2) (more importantly) presenting the basic issue to the Supreme Court and having them decide against the gay rights side. My point with all of that is to say that my observation that DOMA was a direct result of the decision to challenge marriage laws in court isn’t an opinion on what the gay rights side should of done (and certainly isn’t an opinion on what they’re “allowed” to do). Given the result of the _Baehr_ case, and the fact that you singled DOMA out as a particularly egregious problem, maybe you don’t think the suit was a good idea. Obviously, if there had been recognized some federal right to same-sex marriage, you’d be more pleased. But I don’t know what you’re babbling about that I’m suggesting that gays should meek, nice and disrespected. Going through the legislative process is going to be slower and may never be successful, but building a consensus and changing minds is going to result in less backlash. If you go through litigation, both the victories and the defeats are going to be more pronounced and the “losing” side is going to react, especially if they’re in the majority. You weigh your options and take your chances. That’s not a partisan observation, that’s just the way it is. ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2013, 2:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-e-suspends-phil-robertson-over-anti-gay-remarks/676747/526 "2013-12-24T14:23:01Z")
> [@Falchion](#): > > My point with all of that is to say that my observation that DOMA was a direct result of the decision to challenge marriage laws in court isn’t an opinion on what the gay rights side should of done Then you aren’t a part of the conversation I was having. ---
**Author:** ![bobot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bobot/32/21622_2.png) [@bobot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bobot)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2013, 2:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-e-suspends-phil-robertson-over-anti-gay-remarks/676747/527 "2013-12-24T14:25:48Z")
> [@Mr.Natural](#): > > You know what offends me about those goofballs on Ducky Dynasty? Those nasty looking beards. No telling what sort of vile little animals are nesting in there. To make matters worse, the show evidently has made it redneck cool for scores of other goofy guys to grow long beards. Don’t go complaining about folks with tats, or young guys with their jeans falling off their azz, if you’re wearing a nasty looking beard down to your navel. > > edit: I have a beard, but neat and trimmed… > > [http://i49.tinypic.com/2v3smu1.jpg](http://i49.tinypic.com/2v3smu1.jpg) I was expecting a beard more along the lines of: [![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/57/Mr_Natural.jpg) ](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/57/Mr_Natural.jpg) As for Phil Robertson, he can say whatever ignorant hateful things he wants. It’s a free country. And, he’s free to take his lumps, too. If, in doing so, he outs himself as a fairy tale believing bigot, at least that’s out in the open now. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Natural](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/a9adbd/32.png) [@Mr.Natural](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Natural)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2013, 2:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-e-suspends-phil-robertson-over-anti-gay-remarks/676747/528 "2013-12-24T14:34:20Z")
> [@bobot](#): > > I was expecting a beard more along the lines of: > [http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/57/Mr\_Natural.jpg](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/57/Mr_Natural.jpg) > > As for Phil Robertson, he can say whatever ignorant hateful things he wants. It’s a free country. And, he’s free to take his lumps, too. If, in doing so, he outs himself as a fairy tale believing bigot, at least that’s out in the open now. ehheh. That was back in the day, man. Yeah. Old hippies never die. We just cut our hair, and…errrr… our beards. [http://www.comicartcommunity.com/gallery/data/media/122/NATURAL2.jpg](http://www.comicartcommunity.com/gallery/data/media/122/NATURAL2.jpg) ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Natural](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/a9adbd/32.png) [@Mr.Natural](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Natural)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2013, 2:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-e-suspends-phil-robertson-over-anti-gay-remarks/676747/529 "2013-12-24T14:41:37Z")
to clarify- The long beard was back in the day. The picture I posted is a current one. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2013, 4:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-e-suspends-phil-robertson-over-anti-gay-remarks/676747/530 "2013-12-24T16:50:26Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Question—if you don’t think it’s completely on point, consider it a hypothetical: If someone merely relays a bit of Christian doctrine as it applies to homosexuals, does that in and of itself make them bigoted? Or unreasonable? And if you answer the latter in the affirmative, are all Christians unreasonable people? Well, “merely relaying” it wouldn’t make one a bigot. If I say, “It’s the doctrine of the Catholic Church that homosexuality is a son,” I don’t think that makes _me_ a bigot. But I assume you mean something more akin to “professing.” If a Catholic says, “It’s the position of the Catholic Church that homosexuality is a sin, and I agree with the church,” then yes, they’re bigoted. However, not all Cnristians believe homosexuality is a sin, regardless of what doctrine their church teaches, so no, I wouldn’t say that applies to all Christians. ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2013, 4:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-e-suspends-phil-robertson-over-anti-gay-remarks/676747/531 "2013-12-24T16:52:00Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > Well, “merely relaying” it wouldn’t make one a bigot. If I say, “It’s the doctrine of the Catholic Church that homosexuality is a son,” I don’t think that makes _me_ a bigot. Possibly crazy, though. ---
**Author:** ![Karrius](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/71c47a/32.png) [@Karrius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Karrius)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2013, 5:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-e-suspends-phil-robertson-over-anti-gay-remarks/676747/532 "2013-12-24T17:58:40Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Traditional Christian doctrine. Is everyone who adheres to it a bigot? Unreasonable? magellan, in your opinion, does everyone who adheres to a “traditional religious doctrine” get a free pass on their opinions, or is it just Christians? ---
**Author:** ![Typo\_Negative](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/typo_negative/32/484_2.png) [@Typo\_Negative](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Typo_Negative)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2013, 7:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-e-suspends-phil-robertson-over-anti-gay-remarks/676747/533 "2013-12-24T19:00:06Z")
And can it be a doctrine that Christians follow all facets of, not just the ones that apply to ‘other people’? For my own education, can someone quote chapter and verse in the New Testament that says being gay is wrong? I admit that I ain’t up on that text. And I’m talking about NEW Testament. If you quote OLD testament, I will quote Jed Bartlett. Ya know what this kinda thing reminds me of? Remember that story line the Sopranos, when they found out of their own was gay? And one of them had the balls to complain to Tony and say ‘It’s a sin!’. Really?? You steal, extort, run gambling, whores and drugs, beat people and even kill people. But a guy sucking dick…THAT’s what’s out of line?? ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2013, 7:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-e-suspends-phil-robertson-over-anti-gay-remarks/676747/534 "2013-12-24T19:02:46Z")
I’d say any generally accepted religion. It’s not so much a free pass as it is ascribing to a doctrine that states that certain things are sinful. I practice no religion, but I don’t think that anyone says, for instance, “I am a Christian”, is automatically bigoted. Even if there denomination holds that homosexuality is a sin. A single adherent does not dictate church doctrine. In the Christian religion, there are plenty of things that are considered sinful. And no person in any church is without sin. So one person’s sin might be having had an abortion, another, adultery, another cheating on his taxes, another, homosexual acts, etc. Yet, they can all be embraced as children of God, flawed, but all equally deserving of his love and forgiveness. Now, if there is a religion that sprouts up around a central notion that homosexuals are evil, then I’d agree that an adherent to the religion would safely be called a bigot. ---
**Author:** ![PigArcher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/bcef8e/32.png) [@PigArcher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PigArcher)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2013, 7:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-e-suspends-phil-robertson-over-anti-gay-remarks/676747/535 "2013-12-24T19:42:53Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > I’d say any generally accepted religion. It’s not so much a free pass as it is ascribing to a doctrine that states that certain things are sinful. I practice no religion, but I don’t think that anyone says, for instance, “I am a Christian”, is automatically bigoted. Even if there denomination holds that homosexuality is a sin. A single adherent does not dictate church doctrine. In the Christian religion, there are plenty of things that are considered sinful. And no person in any church is without sin. So one person’s sin might be having had an abortion, another, adultery, another cheating on his taxes, another, homosexual acts, etc. Yet, they can all be embraced as children of God, flawed, but all equally deserving of his love and forgiveness. > > Now, if there is a religion that sprouts up around a central notion that homosexuals are evil, then I’d agree that an adherent to the religion would safely be called a bigot. You don’t seem to be paying attention. No one here is calling anyone a bigot simply because they are Christian or adherents of some other religion. It’s because of the bigoted beliefs they are expressing. Whether or not they belong to a religious group that condemns homosexuality is irrelevant. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2013, 8:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-e-suspends-phil-robertson-over-anti-gay-remarks/676747/536 "2013-12-24T20:29:17Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > I’d say any generally accepted religion. It’s not so much a free pass as it is ascribing to a doctrine that states that certain things are sinful. I practice no religion, but I don’t think that anyone says, for instance, “I am a Christian”, is automatically bigoted. That’s great. Neither does anyone else. Wait. Has **Der Trihs** posted in this thread? No? Okay. That’s great. Neither does anyone else. > [@](#): > > Even if there denomination holds that homosexuality is a sin. A single adherent does not dictate church doctrine. In the Christian religion, there are plenty of things that are considered sinful. Yes, there are. And if you think homosexuality is one of those things, you’re a bigot. Luckily, not everyone who is a Christian thinks homosexuality is a sin, so we can safely dispense with the idea that all Christians are inherently prejudiced. Which, again, is not something that anyone in this thread has claimed. > [@](#): > > And no person in any church is without sin. So one person’s sin might be having had an abortion, another, adultery, another cheating on his taxes, another, homosexual acts, etc. Yet, they can all be embraced as children of God, flawed, but all equally deserving of his love and forgiveness. I’m always amused when people defend religious bigotry by explicitly comparing homosexuality to lying, unfaithfulness, deceit, and (given the standard evangelical stance on abortion) murder. That’s not a defense against being a bigot, that’s a confession. > [@](#): > > Now, if there is a religion that sprouts up around a central notion that homosexuals are evil, then I’d agree that an adherent to the religion would safely be called a bigot. I’m not sure what your point is. If there were a church that literally existed for no other reason than to hate gay people, then we probably would not have to quiz the parish before we wrote them off as homophobes. But, as you noted, hating gay people is not a central tenet of Christianity, as can be demonstrated by the large number of Christians who do not consider homosexuality a sin. So, while it means we have to make a little more effort to find out if someone is a bigot than just learning their religious denomination, it also removes the “it’s what my religion teaches” defense. Lots and lots of people can be Christians without being homophobes. So what’s Phil Robertson’s excuse? ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2013, 8:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-e-suspends-phil-robertson-over-anti-gay-remarks/676747/537 "2013-12-24T20:35:05Z")
Indeed, this defense of Robertson is proving exactly what his critics are saying. There is nothing that says if you’re a Christian you must be a bigot. There is nothing that says if you’re a bigot you must be Christian. But there is nothing that says if you are a Christian you cannot be a bigot. And there is nothing that says if you are a Christian, nothing you ascribe to your religion can be bigoted. And there is nothing that says if you are a Christian, you get a pass for being a bigot. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2013, 9:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-e-suspends-phil-robertson-over-anti-gay-remarks/676747/538 "2013-12-24T21:39:30Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > I’m not sure what your point is. If there were a church that literally existed for no other reason than to hate gay people, then we probably would not have to quiz the parish before we wrote them off as homophobes. But, as you noted, hating gay people is not a central tenet of Christianity, as can be demonstrated by the large number of Christians who do not consider homosexuality a sin. So, while it means we have to make a little more effort to find out if someone is a bigot than just learning their religious denomination, it also removes the “it’s what my religion teaches” defense. Replace with, “It’s what my religion says. It is part of the doctrine.” > [@Miller](#): > > Lots and lots of people can be Christians without being homophobes. And this is where the misuse of language serves your purposes niftily. Sorry, if a person belongs to a church that holds that homosexual acts are sinful, that does not—in and of itself—make him a bigot. A Christian, take someone like Mike Huckabee, believes that people sin in myriad ways, and just _one_ of them is to engage in homosexual acts. He doesn’t _fear_ them more than adulterers. He doesn’t hate them more than abortionists. He doesn’t revile them more than embezzlers. He doesn’t despise them more than lying Presidents named Obama. He doesn’t think less of them than the greedy. His religion teaches him to love every one of them—inspire of them engaging in acts that his church says are sinful. Shall we craft more “handy” terms like adulteraphobia, embezzlerphobia, so you can have other ways to make Christians seem like bad people? “Oh no, I wouldn’t say their _bad_ people, they’re just \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_aphobes”. Of course, first you might have to engage in a prolonged campaign to get people to accept your bastardized term so the use broadly triggers emotion rather than accuracy, sense, or fairness. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2013, 9:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-e-suspends-phil-robertson-over-anti-gay-remarks/676747/539 "2013-12-24T21:42:52Z")
> [@kenetic](#): > > You don’t seem to be paying attention. No one here is calling anyone a bigot simply because they are Christian or adherents of some other religion. It’s because of the bigoted beliefs they are expressing. Whether or not they belong to a religious group that condemns homosexuality is irrelevant. Oh? I think _you_ are not paying attention? I have no problem calling someone a bigot when he expresses bigoted beliefs. I’m arguing against someone adhering to traditional church doctrine—and his stating so—being classified as bigoted speech. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2013, 10:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-e-suspends-phil-robertson-over-anti-gay-remarks/676747/540 "2013-12-24T22:01:31Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > And this is where the misuse of language serves your purposes niftily. Sorry, if a person belongs to a church that holds that homosexual acts are sinful, that does not—in and of itself—make him a bigot. Again, no one has claimed that it does. > [@](#): > > A Christian, take someone like Mike Huckabee, believes that people sin in myriad ways, and just _one_ of them is to engage in homosexual acts. You keep saying this like it makes some sort of difference. We get that Christians think a lot of things are sins. That’s the problem. They keep saying that being gay is like being a thief, or a liar, or a murderer. In fact, they keep insisting that it’s _exactly as bad as those things._ That’s a bigoted position. Also, a deeply insulting one. The fact that they derive those beliefs from their religion does not excuse those beliefs, because. _again_, one does not have to be a homophobe to be a Christian. > [@](#): > > He doesn’t _fear_ them more than adulterers. He doesn’t hate them more than abortionists. He doesn’t revile them more than embezzlers. He doesn’t despise them more than lying Presidents named Obama. He doesn’t think less of them than the greedy. Yeah, I know. _That’s why he’s a bigot_ - because he thinks being gay is morally equivalent to being a thief and a liar. That’s an inherently bigoted position. > [@](#): > > His religion teaches him to love every one of them—inspire of them engaging in acts that his church says are sinful. If that’s what his church teaches, he really, really sucks at it. > [@](#): > > Shall we craft more “handy” terms like adulteraphobia, embezzlerphobia, so you can have other ways to make Christians seem like bad people? I’m not trying to make Christians look like bad people. I have, at no point in this thread, said anything at all negative about Christianity. I have, in fact, been defending it - by pointing out that Christianity is not inherently homophobic, and repeatedly emphasizing that one can be a Christian, and not be a homophobe. > [@](#): > > “Oh no, I wouldn’t say their _bad_ people, they’re just \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_aphobes”. On the other hand, where have I said that homophobes aren’t bad people? > [@](#): > > Of course, first you might have to engage in a prolonged campaign to get people to accept your bastardized term so the use broadly triggers emotion rather than accuracy, sense, or fairness. The definition of homophobia was set long before I was even born. I’m just using the standard, accepted definition of the term. I’m sorry the word doesn’t mean what you want it to mean. But then, that’s hardly the first time that’s been a bone of contention between us, is it? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-e-suspends-phil-robertson-over-anti-gay-remarks/676747.md?page=26) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-e-suspends-phil-robertson-over-anti-gay-remarks/676747.md?page=28)