Sure, he has a right to his opinion, but his employers have the right to protect themselves against potential fallout when he says something inflammatory.
This message board permanently closed on June 30th, 2020 at 4PM EDT and is no longer accepting new members.
Sure he does. And his employers have the right to decline to pay him. He is supposed to make them (and himself, in the process) money. When he starts looking like a liability, they have the right (and responsibility, since they have shareholders and employees) to reevaluate that relationship.He has a right to his opinion, and I don't think he should have been suspended.
He is a pretty old man and still believes what the Bible tells (in the Old Testament) so it's hard to change someone like that. But yes - you are right - it would have been better if in that article in GQ he had just kept his opinion re gays to himself. Apparently they quoted an article from GQ magazine so there was no script as such.If I had been part of the one of the most lucrative advertising gimmicks of the last few years, I'd say nothing at all except what the script put in front of me said to say. If you want to keep the bucks rolling in, appeal to everyone. When your image is being sold on everything from cups to couch covers in Wal-Mart, I wouldn't rock the boat. How hard is it to keep to the company line when you are basically making millions of dollars for doing nothing? Course, in this country, ANY press is good press as far as keeping the money rolling in.
If I had been part of the one of the most lucrative advertising gimmicks of the last few years, I'd say nothing at all except what the script put in front of me said to say. If you want to keep the bucks rolling in, appeal to everyone. When your image is being sold on everything from cups to couch covers in Wal-Mart, I wouldn't rock the boat. How hard is it to keep to the company line when you are basically making millions of dollars for doing nothing? Course, in this country, ANY press is good press as far as keeping the money rolling in.
Just my two cents I believe that A&E needs Duck Dynasty more than Duck Dynasty needs A&E. I pretty sure another network will gladly scoop up this hot series.
I don't think he compared them to one another. I think he was just listing them both as sexual sins. He also had going from person to person (sexually) listed as well.Oh God - to compare being gay to bestiality? Holy moley! I had a friend (very conservative) and when they said they were going to make it legal for same sex couples to get married he actually said "Next you will be able to marry a goat!" (with apologies Dana Jean).
me too. I love it.It's not for everyone. However, it is for me.
I'm with you. Part of me wants to debate, really badly...but I think...for now...I'll not. (excluding what I've already posted, of course. )I agree and you know what . . .I also think that maybe the Duck Dynasty Family is just tired . . .they're not stupid and Phil is clever . . .he knew what he was doing.
I still like the show . .. and as I stated earlier I'm not going to get into a debate on this.
Jesus... that stuff is way worse than basically just (crudely) paraphrasing the Bible about sexual deviancy. So much for the "smartest businessman I know" nonsense.