I’m going out on a limb to predict that we’ve found someone whose viewpoint has evolved.
I felt differently about the Dixie Chicks thing than I did about this, too, but I felt the same about the “remedy” (I think it was a heavy-handed movie to suspend Robertson.) But there are lots of different factors involved, in any event. The DCs were talking about a sitting president in a time of war; Robertson was talking about a general group of people.
LOL. They’re biting today, boys…
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/77/Deepsea.JPG
The Dixie Chicks were criticizing a public official’s actions as an officlal. Phil Robertson expressed hatred for the very identity of a number of private individuals. Think they compare?
If only he’d actually read the *New *Testament too - that’s where the Christianity stuff is, if you’re going to claim to believe in it.
Are you drunk? 
Are you mad? You seem kind of mad. Are you sad? Does the Christmas season find you depressed? A lot of people do get depressed during the holidays. If you need somebody to talk to, then just send me a message, because I care!
In the meantime, though, I have to go do a little work on one of my houses. Take care now. Ok?
http://www.comicartcommunity.com/gallery/data/media/122/NATURAL2.jpg
So… yes?
I imagine it’s quite stressful to always be defending the stupid shit people like Robertson say. Who are we to judge if he needs a nip from the bottle now and then?
homophobia is the fear and hatred of homosexuals. That’s the meaning of the word. You keep using it incorrectly. Nothing in Phil Robertson’s statement shows any hatred or fear. That he thinks vaginas are the natural place to insert a penis versus an anus is logical given that’s what vaginas are for and anuses are not. That’s a biological fact.
You’re prejudice against him by calling him names is against the board rules. I’m giving you an non-moderator suggestion to live by your own rules and knock off the name calling.
… Phil Robertson is a Doper? I have got to get over to CS more often.
So, would you care to share the calculus that you applied to determine where to stick your penis? 
Actually, tomndeb is using it correctly by both dictionary and common parlance standards. You, however, have fallen into the trap of the etymological fallacy.
You’re conflating two different issues. One is moral: whether I think kicking off a racist homophobe from a TV show is a good idea. The answer to that is that its ALWAYS a good idea. And the other is business: does it make business sense to do so? Like Chick-Fil-A demonstrated, sometimes its a good thing to be homophobic. I may not like it, but I can recognize that there are plenty of homophobic and racist assholes in the world with money and it makes business sense not to piss them off like A&E did. However, ultimately, I want to piss off all the homophobic racists and hope that all businesses stand firm in making the moral choice to isolate and marginalize them whether it makes business sense or not.
I’m with** crowmanyclouds**, that was an odd sentence to parse. But I take it you think a person wearing a hijab is clueless if they’re working in a store that’s not selling it? If so, I don’t think you can assume that she thinks all women should wear it, not that what she thinks matters. The issue here is whether this particular woman should be able to wear it and barring some kind of huge business impact, she should due to religious expression.
If you think A&E was in the wrong, do you think Robertson would win a lawsuit if he sued them saying he was discriminated because of his religious beliefs?
Sure, there are plenty of people who are wrong and homophobic in the world that can determine that. And maybe if this was 1950, you’d be right. But A&E, not having a homophobic and racist bent to their network, clearly disagreed.
To illustrate my point, here’s another instance where I side with a Muslim against what is probably the outrage of Christians.
Read the whole story instead of the headline as the headline is misleading. Apparently, a Muslim clerk refused to sell alcohol to a customer and the retailer’s facing an angry boycott because, I dunno, they didn’t immediately make a public showing of firing this person? But the article states that the clerk went to get another clerk who was not Muslim to sell the alcohol.
Two things about this instance that one should keep in mind. First, it happened in the UK, so you have to pretend that it was in the US to draw a comparison. And second, taking the article at face value, the Muslim clerk did actually try to get someone else to sell the alcohol, which I think is a reasonable action. The article also didn’t say whether or not any disciplinary action has been taken, so you have to pretend he got fired too.
But in this case, I also side with the Muslim because unlike the fundamentalist Christian pharmacists in this country who refuse to sell birth control to people, in this case the clerk did try to get someone else to help out. He didn’t simply say he will refuse, on the store’s behalf, to sell alcohol, just that he couldn’t personally do it. In all the instances of pharmacists, I’ve never read any of them saying that they would get another person to ring up the sale. Plus, access to birth control is a bit stricter and less abundant than alcohol. It would be much less of a hardship for the customer to simply go to another store, not that he should have to, in order to buy alcohol than a woman to go to another pharmacy.
So if M&S were in the US and fired or disciplined the Muslim clerk, I would be totally against it given the information we have about the incident. Of course, if Christians would probably howl at double standards, anti-Christian bigotry, and the downfall of America yada yada yada, but they would be wrong and simply doing it to make a stink.
Isn’t hostile to gays?
From a speech “Phil” made in 2010:
I don’t know how you defend “hate”, but the above might be a good place to start.
Please don’t tell my wife, I’ve only just managed to convince her otherwise.
(I’m not actually married)
I don’t think it’s fair to bring Robertson’s previous speech into this. There’s no indication that anything that happened with A&E or the original backlash to the GQ article was related to that.
This is likely what they planned. Don’t think it will happen, as AFICT, Robertson’s standing on his principles, whereas the bounty hunter was apologetic.
More coldly, the Robertsons were already very, very rich before the show. They have plenty of income apart from TV. And if A&E drops them, it’s a good bet someone else will pick them up. Were I their business manager, I’d already be in talks with other networks to see how much they’ll be paying us after we get out of our A&E deal.
It is not correctly used.
homophobia:
- Fear of or contempt for lesbians and gay men.
- Behavior based on such a feeling.
-a person who hates or fears homosexual people
- irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals
Those are the first 3 listings I pulled up. Phobias by definition are a fear of something. There are many things one can call Robertson but homophobe is not one of them based on his rationale of the function of anuses and vaginas.
When it’s claimed that he isn’t “hostile to gays” and that he “doesn’t hate the sinner”, as debaser did, then previous remarks made are relevant to the discussion.
If the argument was “what he said in the interview wasn’t hostile to gays”, then, you’re right, previous remarks are probably not relevant to the discussion. But they can be cited to bring context, right?
Magiver, my cooking oil is intensely hydrophobic. Thus, it must be afraid of water. Thus, it must be intelligent to be so. Is it wrong to use cooking oil, as I am presumably burning an intelligent thing alive?
In a question of “Were the GQ remarks homophobic”, no, they’re not fair to bring up. In the question of “Is Robertson homophobic” that absolutely are.