"duck dynasty" star fired for anti-gay beliefs

[MrSplitshot]

"pussification"

I'm going to need $10 royalty check on the use of that phrase. Actually, better make it $13 to cover taxes.

Payable in cash or crankbaits.

lol

[SLP]

Yes funny but not the same. The people chose to boycott them and that's their choice and some corporation didn't make it for them. We choose all the time at what we think is right and wrong and that's our choice. For example, I think this love affair with women bashing, women belittling, women being portrayed as whores by so many rap stars is wrong so I stay away from anything they support as much as possible. Yes I'm a little more sensitive to that because I have two daughters and that's my choice. MTV wants to promote this? I choose not to watch their channel...pretty simple really.

I couldn't agree more that MTV is one of the worst channels on television. Their shows are complete garbage.

[SLP]

I'm going to need $10 royalty check on the use of that phrase. Actually, better make it $13 to cover taxes.

Payable in cash or crankbaits.

lol

Or maybe you owe some money to George Carlin (grin)

[GeoFisher]

I'm going to need $10 royalty check on the use of that phrase. Actually, better make it $13 to cover taxes.

Payable in cash or crankbaits.

lol

Then I'm gonna need half of your half................

http://www.fishin.com/forums2/showth...=pussification

I'm glad folks are catching on and using my favorite catchphrase to describe the snot nosed, entitlement PUKES being created by our country today.

[apb]

....

No matter how you feel about it, that was uncool.....and they paid a painful price for it.

Yep, that is why I posted it. They have their freedom of speech to say what they want, but they also had to own up to the consequences of what they said. Sort of grates on me when I see folks on either side of the isle supporting one of those, but not the other. Just because you have freedom of speech doesn't mean that you have the freedom from any consequences of that speech (sort of what Know1 was saying earlier). Same as Don was talking about with not supporting MTV or other stations that play objectionable music. I agree, they may have a right to play it, likewise, I have a right to not listen or support them.

The other thing is the irony in all of it. Looking deeper, the Duck Dynasty guy basically taking the bible al a carte. Picking out parts that support his bigotry, but ignoring other parts. Yep, bible does have some passages against homosexuality (leviticus if I remember right), but also has rules against eating critters with web foot (um, like a duck maybe?) and wearing clothes made of different garments (their camo and boots surely meet this requirement...) (deuteronmy?). Sorry, but claiming one of those is against your religion, so it is ok, but ignoring the parts that you do not like, umm, hypocrite may be.

[apb]

Oh, and to clarify something. Dude was not fired. He was suspended while A&E looked into it.

[GeoFisher]

Oh, and to clarify something. Dude was not fired. He was suspended while A&E looked into it.

It will be interesting to see how A&E spins this.........Phil will be on Duck Dynasty. PERIOD. I think A&E backs down and probably does it after their horrible ratings this Sunday.

Later,

Geo

[apb]

It will be interesting to see how A&E spins this.........Phil will be on Duck Dynasty. PERIOD. I think A&E backs down and probably does it after their horrible ratings this Sunday.

Later,

Geo

Agree

[MrSplitshot]

Man, y'all ****...I can't get away with nothin.

How am I going to split a crankbait between me, the ghost of George Carlin, and Geofisher?

[SLP]

The other thing is the irony in all of it. Looking deeper, the Duck Dynasty guy basically taking the bible al a carte. Picking out parts that support his bigotry, but ignoring other parts. Yep, bible does have some passages against homosexuality (leviticus if I remember right), but also has rules against eating critters with web foot (um, like a duck maybe?) and wearing clothes made of different garments (their camo and boots surely meet this requirement...) (deuteronmy?). Sorry, but claiming one of those is against your religion, so it is ok, but ignoring the parts that you do not like, umm, hypocrite may be.

What you are thinking of is some of the ceremonial and legal laws given to the Israelites in the Old testament. Christians are not under those laws. Jesus fulfilled those laws and as Christians we are no longer under those laws. You may not agree with Phil Robertson, but he is not being a hypocrite, nor cherry picking verses.

“Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill." Mathew 5:17


Freedom in Christ

Galatians 5:1 It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery.
² Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all. ³ Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law. ⁴You who are trying to be justified by the law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace. ⁵ For through the Spirit we eagerly await by faith the righteousness for which we hope. ⁶ For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love.
⁷ You were running a good race. Who cut in on you to keep you from obeying the truth? ⁸ That kind of persuasion does not come from the one who calls you. ⁹ “A little yeast works through the whole batch of dough.” ¹⁰ I am confident in the Lord that you will take no other view. The one who is throwing you into confusion, whoever that may be, will have to pay the penalty. ¹¹ Brothers and sisters, if I am still preaching circumcision, why am I still being persecuted? In that case the offense of the cross has been abolished. ¹² As for those agitators, I wish they would go the whole way and emasculate themselves! ¹³ You, my brothers and sisters, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the flesh^[a]; rather, serve one another humbly in love. ¹⁴For the entire law is fulfilled in keeping this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.”^[

[apb]

Man, y'all ****...I can't get away with nothin.

How am I going to split a crankbait between me, the ghost of George Carlin, and Geofisher?

For a small fee I'll loan you the use of a bandsaw that will cut a crankbait....

[apb]

What you are thinking of is some of the ceremonial and legal laws given to the Israelites in the Old testament. Christians are not under those laws. Jesus fulfilled those laws and as Christians we are no longer under those laws...

What did Jesus have to say about homosexuals? Been a while since I read the bible, but I seem to remember it was in Leviticus (OT). If nothing in the NT, does that mean it is ok?

If christians are no longer under the laws of the OT, why do many use OT passages as a reason for their beliefs?

Seems to me that if one quotes OT law to support their arguement, then they are also obligated to support other OT laws.

Not trying to be an ass here, just trying to learn something.