Ian Bayne (R) compares Duck Dynasty star to Rosa Parks

Post Reply New Topic

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/2 ... 80745.html - DISCLAIMER: Keep this discussion civil, please. With that in mind.......

A little background: Ian Bayne, a Republican congressional canadidate in Illinois, compared Duck Dynasty star Phil Robertson to civil rights figurehead Rosa Parks.

I can't believe this. I am LITERALLY in shell shock here. Comparing someone who made anti-gay remarks to a very progressive civil rights figure is, well...... let's just say that s**t don't fly with me. WOW. This is even worse than Sarah Palin, IMO....... *vomit*

I just wish people would leave their political and religious (or anti-religious) hatred out of a SUPPORT GROUP.

I have to agree with Mr. Bayne.

Something is wrong with you. DO NOT, I repeat DO NOT compare one of the most influential people of our time( and I don't mean Oprah) to an idiot.

The man was asked his opinions.

He did not offer them, neither has he stated that he wants any civil/legal/human rights withheld or taken from ANY group.

According to the bill of rights, he has a right to his beliefs.

He simply answered a question in an interview. He is not trying to change his world.

Rosa Parks was, and she did.

Rosa Parks lived with and endured one of the most repressive cultures in modern history.

She risked her life to speak out as she did.

She and her family lived in fear after she refused to move from her seat on the bus.

But...BUT....they already did. The lives of black Americans were taken with impunity.

Read up on the Scottsboro Boys.



Sylkat

Thing is, A&E is not a public forum. They can censor whoever they want.

This is a situation where the rights of one party are up against the rights of another.
Does the homophobic religious zealot have the right to espouse his beliefs on any podium he chooses?
Or does a business have the right to censor anyone representing them who has beliefs that do not agree with that business?

Yes to both.

This.

But who's rights trumps the other?

If A&E lets Christians preach their anti-gay messages,
Then they should also let neo-nazis & kkk preach about racist things,
Or let Muslims go on about how inferior the infidel is.

If A&E is allowed to censor whoever they want, well, there are many other networks to choose from.
If people don't like their censorship, they have the right to change the channel. If their censorship is unpopular enough, they lose ratings and go out of business. But if they allow certain groups to espouse hate speech, then they will alienate another group and still potentially lose business. It comes down to which alienated group effects their business more.

The government isn't allowed to censor, but businesses can censor what they want. The 1st amendment doesn't apply to private property. If people can't do what they want on their private property (so long as they don't physically harm another person), then that property isn't really private property.

Maybe that's the harsh truth abut our society, there is no such thing as private property. Do actually we live in a communist society?

This really is a tangled, sticky situation. When rights collide.

Businesses cannot censor whom they want.

The owner of Chick-Fil-A was giving a portion of HIS own money to a charity or political group seen as anti-gay and was the victim of an organized pressure campaign.

A manager of a fast-food restaurant was approached by numerous parents upset because a woman was publicly nursing in a play area, with no covering. At the parents request, he asked her to cover up or he would find a more private place for her.

She refused, made a scene, called the media, made threats, and presented that she was victimized. The manager was forced to publicly apologize, though he was responding to customer complaints.

Mr. Robertson did not make any of the quoted comments ON theA&E network....he was being interviewed by a magazine, who asked for his personal opinions. He never claimed to speak for anyone but himself, and certainly did not claim to represent beliefs promoted by the A& network.


Sylkat

That's where political correctness has gone; no one can even answer a question honestly unless their answer is "socially acceptable" by current standards.
What next?

Every time one of those homophobic,racist bigots is planted under ground is one step forward for the South.And with the amount of lard they eat,it won't be long.
Hopefully,that's what's next.

Is there a legal precedent for that?
Or is a societal pressure "political correctness" thing?

I'm just asking. I'm trying to hash out if this idea of "private property" is really just an illusion.
I think it is, at least when it comes to property tax. If a person or business doesn't pay "rent" to the government, they have their property seized. But what kind of leeway does a business have in making it's own decisions, in a legal sense.

I feel A&E is completely justified in their actions, so was Chick-fill-A.
Also, anti-gay Christians can say whatever they want, so long as the owner of the microphone they are using lets them.
A pro-gay network like A&E shouldn't be required to feature anti-gay personalities if they don't want to.
Maybe TBN should buy the rights to "Duck Dynasty", and move the show to that network.

How are they racist?

http://www.ibtimes.com/naacp-blasts-phi ... ow-1516178
I suppose he thinks they were happy and overjoyed to be chopping cotton.

Nothing I read there was racist, except to those eagerly looking for a reason, ANY reason, to be offended.