Pretty sure Robertson also says adultery is sinful. Does that make him vagaphobic?
He wasn’t asked about signs, now was he, oh most brilliant and insightful one? So you’re knocking the guy for things he didn’t say, aren’t you? That’s not very nice.
Because racism is not a political opinion, nor is it in any way equivalent to wealth redistribution or big government. Right?
No, because adultery is not gender specific.
If you genuinely think that then you desperately need to work on your reading comprehension skills because yeah, that’s what he said in sheep’s clothing.
First, the left got all outraged about what the guy said. Remember that? http://www.glaad.org/blog/duck-dynastys-phil-robertson-uses-vile-stereotypes-tell-gq-his-thoughts-lgbt-people
And if men who fucked around on their wives suffered remotely the kind of discrimination that men who fucked other men did you’d have point, but they don’t so you don’t.
Beyond that, it’s quite illuminating that you immediately make the charge gender specific.
Good dodge. Not a very successful one, but probably the best you can manage.
He does not appear to have been asked about any of this stuff. He volunteered his opinion that all those people were happy based on the single claim that he did not happen to have seen anyone “mistreated.” (I will refrain from the obvious, but hypothetically erroneous, inference that he simply thought that the Jim Crow laws were fine.) The fact that he claimed that he personally did not witness “mistreatment” while living in the Jim Crow South indicates that either he was utterly oblivious to his surroundings and has chosen to willfully learn nothing in the ensuing 55 years or that he is lying.
Is there a reason that you are so desperate to champion his opinions?
I think this is the first time I’ve ever agreed with you. I guess homophobic celebrity controversies make strange bedfellows.
Cite to where I’ve done that?
If you’d bothered to read the first fucking post I made in this thread, you’d see that I don’t agree with his opinions. I think he has every right to express those opinions, and that A&E has every right to fire his ass for it. It’s a business decision that may or may not work out for them. If I had an employee that did or said something that I felt damaged my business, I’d certainly fire their ass.
What I object to is people overstating the case, and putting words in his mouth. He said what he said. Pillory him for that if you like. Just don’t invent other stuff he didn’t actually say to add fuel to the fire.
Do I remember reading GLAAD’s press releases? No, I don’t, their website’s not on my standard morning reading list. I must say, I’m rather impressed with how varied your own news sources must be if you first heard about this story from GLAAD.
I expect them to have an opinion about stuff like this. No, the first I heard about the story was when Sarah Palin got involved. I didn’t hear about it from any of my lefty friends on facebook, it blew up my news feed via the conservative outrage machine.
Yes, cuz of course their press release remained on their site and was not spread around far and wide by all kinds of other news sources.
It’s not really fair to accuse people of lying like that, is it? I mean, do you want people to apply that same standard - which is no standards at all - to you?
It’s a bit rude to accuse people of lying. Would you please not do that?
Whatever you might have posted a few days ago, your persistent mischaracterization of the meaning of his words makes you look like you are championing his cause, now.
If you do not like the message that you convey, stop being disingenuous in describing what he said, (or stop reading at the fourth grade level and up your game to that of an adult).
For the same reason people get outraged over rape, or murder, or poisoning, or lax safety practices, etc.: because harming people is not okay, it’s not something anyone gets to do, it’s no one’s “right” to do such.
Because I find a world in which people don’t harm others, preferable to a world in which they do.
I’m sorry to hear that, because his opinion is quite correct and the only morally defensible one.
Seriously? You think Phil Robertson “harmed” people - in the same sense as rape, murder or poisoning does? Wow. That’s some delusion.
He hasn’t stated anything to suggest he’s afraid of gay people or hates them. He expressed an opinion of the physical virtues of vaginas that some people would disagree with. That’s not the definition of hatred or fear.
Of course it does. His expressions of hate both facilitate and encourage not just outright violence, but also cultural stigma that deprives LGBTQ persons of access to material resources, political participation, and social integration.
You’re right, it’s astounding the degree of real-world harm that expressions of hatred can do.
If by “delusion” you mean “recognizing real-world social dynamics rather than performing a superficial pseudo-analysis based on the assumption that every variable is closed off and isolated from everything else,” then yes.
A&E just discovered that when it comes to homosexuality Phil Robertson is agin it? That must have hit them like a ton of bricks. Who could have known? Thank goodness the rest of the family have solidly progressive views!
You make no points by pretending that homophobia means “fear of homosexuals.” The word has been used to mean any strong antipathy to homosexuality for over thirty years and trying to box up the word based on its component parts is just silly.
(And pretending that his little outburst from a couple of years ago, already quoted, does not express hatred is simply a denial of reality.)