Mod-Sanctioned LGBT Rights & Issues Thread

[Blakk Metal]

Wait, it's legal to sack homophobes? Get your gas masks and fog lights, we're sacking Bakersfield!

Would Bakersfield even notice?

Not until some guys from LA make the oil wells disappear. (Reference to this.)

[Tekania]

Correction, he was suspended. Still pretty ridiculous.

I suppose. I never have understood the appeal of the show. Television producers are very sensitive to anything that might damage their advertising revenues, though.

Indeed, there are a lot of shows I don't grasp the appeal to..... and this one isn't even on the top of the list.... I mean, let's breeze over to TLC and Honey Boo Boo for starters.... then you have the "Real Housewives" (you know, the shows where few of any of them are "housewives" and none of them are "real"). Obviously my taste in TV entertainment and the average person's taste in TV entertainment must differ.

[Cannot think of a name]

I don't like the idea of being fired from a big TV show for personal opinions unrelated to the show.

To be clear, he had those opinions the entire time. He wasn't fired for having them. He was fired for outlining them in an interview to promote the show in a way that did not mesh with the image that A&E wanted to have.

[Condunum]

I don't like the idea of being fired from a big TV show for personal opinions unrelated to the show.

To be clear, he had those opinions the entire time. He wasn't fired for having them. He was fired for outlining them in an interview to promote the show in a way that did not mesh with the image that A&E wanted to have.

Can I have like, a transcript of the interviewer's questions? Because if he lead him to the topic then that's even worse in my eyes.

[Cannot think of a name]

To be clear, he had those opinions the entire time. He wasn't fired for having them. He was fired for outlining them in an interview to promote the show in a way that did not mesh with the image that A&E wanted to have.

Can I have like, a transcript of the interviewer's questions? Because if he lead him to the topic then that's even worse in my eyes.

Someone stated earlier the question was "what do you find sinful", given the religious overtones of the show, it's a legitimate question.

[Cannot think of a name]

I suppose. I never have understood the appeal of the show. Television producers are very sensitive to anything that might damage their advertising revenues, though.

Indeed, there are a lot of shows I don't grasp the appeal to..... and this one isn't even on the top of the list.... I mean, let's breeze over to TLC and Honey Boo Boo for starters.... then you have the "Real Housewives" (you know, the shows where few of any of them are "housewives" and none of them are "real"). Obviously my taste in TV entertainment and the average person's taste in TV entertainment must differ.

I often wonder if the real appeal of this programing is so that people can tell themselves this.

[Condunum]

Can I have like, a transcript of the interviewer's questions? Because if he lead him to the topic then that's even worse in my eyes.

Someone stated earlier the question was "what do you find sinful", given the religious overtones of the show, it's a legitimate question.

Hmm. Not an overtly "DO YOU LIKE OR HATE TEH GAIS" question. Coulda just said like, stealing or something :|

[Ionian Knights]

Let's look past the homophobic comments he made and look at the issue...

He said his opinions, which are controversial, and depending on who you are, you strongly disagree with them.

But to use your first amendment right of speech, should you be canned off a show?

While I disagree with what he said, he is known for his strong values and cares about the traditional family. Time and time again that is brought up in the show.

Should he be canned for saying his opinion? No.

A&E could be getting a bad image by letting them have a prayer, making the channel look religious. Really, I think the producers and Phil were on bad terms anyway, and were looking for an excuse to sack him.

[Tekania]

Wait, it's legal to sack homophobes? Get your gas masks and fog lights, we're sacking Bakersfield!

;
He was suspended from filming, not fired..... They actually can't "fire" him over this without being in breech of contract. A&E apparently had to stipulate to some conditions that the Robertsons would not compromise on to get the contract; one of being their personal religious views. The suspension is just a crafty way of keeping him off the screen while still retaining the contract for marketing purposes.

[Blakk Metal]

Wait, it's legal to sack homophobes? Get your gas masks and fog lights, we're sacking Bakersfield!

;
He was suspended from filming, not fired..... They actually can't "fire" him over this without being in breech of contract. A&E apparently had to stipulate to some conditions that the Robertsons would not compromise on to get the contract; one of being their personal religious views. The suspension is just a crafty way of keeping him off the screen while still retaining the contract for marketing purposes.

I was using the title to make a pun.

[Tekania]

Indeed, there are a lot of shows I don't grasp the appeal to..... and this one isn't even on the top of the list.... I mean, let's breeze over to TLC and Honey Boo Boo for starters.... then you have the "Real Housewives" (you know, the shows where few of any of them are "housewives" and none of them are "real"). Obviously my taste in TV entertainment and the average person's taste in TV entertainment must differ.

I often wonder if the real appeal of this programing is so that people can tell themselves this.

No idea, I'll stick with my shows (Almost Human, Bones, Glee, Criminal Minds, CSI, Sleepy Hollow, Grimm, Revolution, Walking Dead, Doctor Who and Big Bang Theory).

[Cannot think of a name]

Let's look past the homophobic comments he made and look at the issue...

He said his opinions, which are controversial, and depending on who you are, you strongly disagree with them.

But to use your first amendment right of speech, should you be canned off a show?

Gonna stop you right there. First amendment is a protection from the government censoring your speech. Which is not happening. The government is not telling A&E not to have Mr. Robertson on the show. The government is not involved at all. The first amendment is not a guarantee of venue. Suspending him is not a first amendment issue just like you not having a show on A&E is not a violation of your first amendment. The first amendment does not protect you from criticism nor does it protect you from consequences stemming from the people who own the venue you are using to broadcast your speech.

[Ionian Knights]

Let's look past the homophobic comments he made and look at the issue...

He said his opinions, which are controversial, and depending on who you are, you strongly disagree with them.

But to use your first amendment right of speech, should you be canned off a show?

Gonna stop you right there. First amendment is a protection from the government censoring your speech. Which is not happening. The government is not telling A&E not to have Mr. Robertson on the show. The government is not involved at all. The first amendment is not a guarantee of venue. Suspending him is not a first amendment issue just like you not having a show on A&E is not a violation of your first amendment. The first amendment does not protect you from criticism nor does it protect you from consequences stemming from the people who own the venue you are using to broadcast your speech.

Ah well... there is still the fact one could say by having the religion, they're supporting religion. Still think there is more than a few comments on homosexuality

[Cannot think of a name]

I often wonder if the real appeal of this programing is so that people can tell themselves this.

No idea, I'll stick with my shows (Almost Human, Bones, Glee, Criminal Minds, CSI, Sleepy Hollow, Grimm, Revolution, Walking Dead, Doctor Who and Big Bang Theory).

At least half of those are terrible. But this then relates to my assertion that everyone's music tastes suck. The short version is you should not be patting yourself on the back for your tastes. They're just tastes.

[Lancov]

It's just a scheme by A&E (and probably Phil) to get ratings by generating controversy. Trust me.

[Cannot think of a name]

Gonna stop you right there. First amendment is a protection from the government censoring your speech. Which is not happening. The government is not telling A&E not to have Mr. Robertson on the show. The government is not involved at all. The first amendment is not a guarantee of venue. Suspending him is not a first amendment issue just like you not having a show on A&E is not a violation of your first amendment. The first amendment does not protect you from criticism nor does it protect you from consequences stemming from the people who own the venue you are using to broadcast your speech.

Ah well... there is still the fact one could say by having the religion, they're supporting religion. Still think there is more than a few comments on homosexuality

I have no idea what you're trying to say.

[Cannot think of a name]

Trust me.

Why should we?

[Ionian Knights]

Ah well... there is still the fact one could say by having the religion, they're supporting religion. Still think there is more than a few comments on homosexuality

I have no idea what you're trying to say.

Phil and A&E do not get along. He could make any comment, and if it sounds at all off, they'd sack him.

[Mad Jack]

“Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there — bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men.”

Glad to know that as a gay person I'll be coupluating with animals before too long.

Look, he gave his opinion in an appropriate, if brusque, way. He said he doesn't agree with homosexuality, he gave several reasons for said opinion, he then said that he does not look down on you in any way for doing something he thinks is wrong. Sounds like a fairly descent criticism. You obviously don't have to agree with him, but there's no reason to attack him for his opinion.

I wouldn't say that I agree with him, but of criticisms of homosexuality I've heard in past, this one is far more accepting of homosexuals than any other I've seen

That's entirely why he should be attacked, because he's taking his opinion from a false interpretation of the Bible.

“Don’t be deceived. Neither the adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlers—they won’t inherit the kingdom of God. Don’t deceive yourself. It’s not right.”

What he's paraphrasing here is 1 Corinthians 6:9-10. The "homosexual offenders" part is from the Greek 'arsenokoites'. Now, this is a word that the author of the verse, Paul, makes up. It doesn't appear in any writings prior to Paul, and doesn't appear in any contemporary writings either. It is an entirely manufactured word created by Paul. Their already was a Greek term for homosexuals at the time, 'paiderasste'. Until someone builds a time machine and goes back and asks him, we literally have no way to tell what Paul meant when he invented the word.

In the medieval Latin translation of the Bible, the Vulgata Clemintina, the word translated as "masculorum concubitoribus," implying concubinage or pimping. In Martin Luther's 1545 German translation the word is used for "Knabenschänder" (from "Knaben", boys or young children), implying that "arsenokoites" was interpreted as pedophilia. It's not until the post war 20th century that we get the homosexual translation of the word coming through, thanks to Bible versions such as the New International Version (1973) and the New American Standard Bible (1963).

Indeed, from the 17th century to the early 20th century a great many Bible translations did not include the 'homosexual' translation of 'arseonkoites'.

Danish: "Syndere imod Naturen" (sins against nature)
French (Martin, 1744): "ceux qui commettent des péchés contre nature" (those who commit sins against nature)
French (Ostervald, 1744): "les abominables" (the abominables)
French (Louis Segon, 1910): "les infâmes" (the infamous)
Irish (William O'Domhnuill, 1602): "dáoine míonadúrtha" (unnatural people)
Spanish (Sagradas Escrituras, 1569): "los homosexuales"
Spanish (Reina Valera, 1909): "los sodomitas" (sodomites, a term that in itself is open to wide interpretation)
Swedish (1917): "för dem som... onaturlig vällustsynd" (those who sin unnaturally)
English (Douay-Rheims Catholic Bible, Challoner Revision, 1749): "them who defile themselves with mankind"

[Blackledge]

Let's look past the homophobic comments he made and look at the issue...

He said his opinions, which are controversial, and depending on who you are, you strongly disagree with them.

But to use your first amendment right of speech, should you be canned off a show?

Gonna stop you right there. First amendment is a protection from the government censoring your speech. Which is not happening. The government is not telling A&E not to have Mr. Robertson on the show. The government is not involved at all. The first amendment is not a guarantee of venue. Suspending him is not a first amendment issue just like you not having a show on A&E is not a violation of your first amendment. The first amendment does not protect you from criticism nor does it protect you from consequences stemming from the people who own the venue you are using to broadcast your speech.

I would say this has it down pat.

Why couldn't he just keep his opinions to himself?

I have an illogical hatred of right-handed people and secretly wish to devise a plague to rid the world of said subhumans, but do I go around advertising my organization's plans? Of course not. I don't want to lose my job (until the inevitable Southpaw Revolution).

[Key West]

To be clear, he had those opinions the entire time. He wasn't fired for having them. He was fired for outlining them in an interview to promote the show in a way that did not mesh with the image that A&E wanted to have.

Can I have like, a transcript of the interviewer's questions? Because if he lead him to the topic then that's even worse in my eyes.

Can't find a transcript per se. But I found the online article from which the controversy originated.

http://www.gq.com/entertainment/televis ... rentPage=1

[Cannot think of a name]

I have no idea what you're trying to say.

Phil and A&E do not get along. He could make any comment, and if it sounds at all off, they'd sack him.

You are perhaps making too much of some relatively minor drama. Individual producers bicker constantly over the tone of a show or whatenot. Difficult people are often tolerated with ease as long as the golden eggs keep rolling in. I've worked for douchebags who are so difficult that they've been banned from post-production offices and everyone on the set would warn that they're terrible human beings, but they'll get hired again as long as they keep the money cow milking. Hell, having Phil being outspoken about his own show builds the narrative that the show relies on, of them being independent god-fearing folk. The producers likely read that particular story making 'Ca-ching' sounds.


EDIT: Jebus...I have no idea what happened up there, it was this terrible sentence abortion mutation thing...apologies to anyone who tried to read that...

[Tekania]

I have an illogical hatred of right-handed people and secretly wish to devise a plague to rid the world of said subhumans, but do I go around advertising my organization's plans? Of course not. I don't want to lose my job (until the inevitable Southpaw Revolution).

Quit joking, there is no secret organization of southpaws out for world domination and the elimination of all right-handed people. I should know, I am a southpaw myself.

I personally assure all you right handed people that this person is just kidding. You have absolutely nothing to worry about, and can proceed on your lives without fear.

[Cannot think of a name]

I have an illogical hatred of right-handed people and secretly wish to devise a plague to rid the world of said subhumans, but do I go around advertising my organization's plans? Of course not. I don't want to lose my job (until the inevitable Southpaw Revolution).

Quit joking, there is no secret organization of southpaws out for world domination and the elimination of all right-handed people. I should know, I am a southpaw myself.

I personally assure all you right handed people that this person is just kidding. You have absolutely nothing to worry about, and can proceed on your lives without fear.

Sooon...soon they will feel the ends of our stupid blunt end craft scissors...soon...


...I mean, yeah...nothing to worry about, right handers. Carry on...






soon...

[The Grey Wolf]

Gonna stop you right there. First amendment is a protection from the government censoring your speech. Which is not happening. The government is not telling A&E not to have Mr. Robertson on the show. The government is not involved at all. The first amendment is not a guarantee of venue. Suspending him is not a first amendment issue just like you not having a show on A&E is not a violation of your first amendment. The first amendment does not protect you from criticism nor does it protect you from consequences stemming from the people who own the venue you are using to broadcast your speech.

I would say this has it down pat.

Why couldn't he just keep his opinions to himself?

I have an illogical hatred of right-handed people and secretly wish to devise a plague to rid the world of said subhumans, but do I go around advertising my organization's plans? Of course not. I don't want to lose my job (until the inevitable Southpaw Revolution).

Where did he say he wanted to rid gays of the planet?