We can't share. You see, you are implying that while Duck Dynasty has a right to free speech, you also imply that those who disagree with Phil Robertson don't have a right to free speech nor does A&E have the right to decide what sort of personalities they want to represent their company. Give us more than empty rhetoric and we'll share.
Hey guys - thanks for commenting, and I'll bring beer! You're reading too much into that graphic. The intent is: not all gays agree with GLAAD, and I happen to be one of 'em. Precisely that, no more, no less.
GLAAD merely expressed their views as an organization and hardly speak for all gays. We get that. One's sexual orientation has no bearing on whether one agrees with or disagrees with the Phil Robertson. That's the message we objected to as well as the quote by Ron Paul on the side. We don't have the First Amendment so that we can say controversial things. We have the First Amendment so that our government can't control what we say or publish...to a degree, albeit a very liberal degree. We expect our politicians to know what they are talking about and Ron Paul obviously does not understand the First Amendment.When do we get our beer?
You should post this blog on the GLAAD facebook page. People need to see that being gay and being liberal are not the same thing. I'm a right-libertarian, I hate political correctness. I'm the kind of guy that supported the abolition of the sodomy laws and gays in the military, but the GLAAD gestapo has gone too far, now they're in the business of censoring people through intimidation. I'm old enough to remember what real homophobia looks like, Phil Robertson is a pussy cat compared to the crap I heard growing up. How would my gay friends feel if the Christians convinced Starz to get rid of all the sex and violence on Spartacus (my favorite show by the way)? I hate all collectivists, whether they be on the right or on the left. We have what? 300 channels on TV? We don't all have to watch the same thing. Let the market pick the winners and losers, I hope A&E learned their lessons. Listen to your customers, not people who don't even watch the show. Greg SmithBlogger at http://sellingthesecondamendment.com
Greg: thank you for the comment! Your analysis of A&E's response (and the lessons they need to learn) is spot on. It is amazing that companies with such bad business practices continue to stay afloat!Apparently one has to be a member of the GLAAD facebook group in order to post stuff to their page, but that is a good idea.
We have to disagree with you, Greg. GLADD has every right to express their views on a public personality just as the public personality has a right to express his views. A misconception is that GLADD forced A&E's decision to temporarily suspend Phil Robertson. They didn't. GLADD merely expressed the opinion that Phil Robertson did not express the views of the majority of Christians and A&E should reconsider what kind of personalities they want to represent the station. GLADD did not threaten a boycott nor call on their members to boycott the station or the show's advertisers.A&E, as a company, has every right to decide if an employee (Phil Robertson is an employee) displays a positive company image or be fired. The 10-day suspension served two purposes: first, great publicity for the show to boost ratings and the resulting ad revenue, and second, a reprimand, of sorts, warning Phil Robertson to choose his words more carefully in the future when discussing divisive social issues.