On 12/24/2013 4:56 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 12/24/13, 4:52 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 12/24/2013 4:38 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 12/24/13, 2:20 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 12/24/2013 12:54 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote:

Rabbi Shmuley on Duck Dynasty and Biblical Homophobia
What Walks and Quacks Like a Duck

By Rabbi Shmuley Boteach


I tend to side with my bearded brethren on most things. Men of facial
hair like Abraham Lincoln, Ulysses S. Grant, Ernest Hemingway and, of
course, Jesus clearly demonstrate that whiskers are the
prerequisite of
greatness.

But Phil Robertson, patriarch of Duck Dynasty, might have broken the
unshavenness-is-weightiness rule with his silly and gratuitous remarks
about gays.



Here's what I don't get:

First, when all this hullabaloo started, I had to go google up "Duck
Dynasty" to see what all the fuss was about. I've never seen the show,
nor do I think I have any interest in seeing it.

But my understanding is that this Robertson character made his
"objectionable" remarks in a magazine interview. He didn't make
them on
the A&E television series.

So, unless there's some provision in his contract with A&E, I don't
see
why his personal views have any bearing on the TV series, or why he
would be fired.




Perhaps A&E doesn't want to be connected with a racist, homophobic
asshole.


That may be, but unless they had a provision in the contract that
prohibits it, what he offers as personal opinions in a unrelated venue
or media outlet is none of their business.



Really? I doubt that. Whatever image A&E has of its business, they think
he violated it and there probably are terms in the contract that discuss
that very matter. I think it is their business, no matter what. What he
says publicly reflects on A&E.


Like I said, if there are terms in the contract with A&E that cover and
prohibit bringing bad press, etc. on the show, then A&E is justified in
their actions. If not, it's none of their business, even if they don't
like it.