Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

2 Bumps

Does it make sense to be suspended from a REALITY show for homophobia?


I'm among those who don't get the appeal of DD, and all I know of it is what I've picked up from their commercials or seeing them on news/mag type shows.  From what I gather, they are popular for much the same reason Honey Booboo is popular - embodying OTT southern stereotypes for people to either laugh at them or relate to them.  If that's the case, is it right to then suspend one of them for living up to that stereotype?  He doesn't like gay people.  A&E pays that entire family to cater to a specific demographic, one that generally doesn't like gay people.  How can they then be surprised when someone they pay to embody a stereotype lives up to it?

It's up there with being surprised when Dog The Bounty Hunter uses a racist slur off the show.  Were they expecting a Shakespearean monologue?


While I find his opinion deplorable, and an example of everything that's wrong with the stranglehold certain religions continue to exert on society whether they want it or not, it's still his real life.  How can you kick someone off a show about their life for being honest about their life?

Answer Question

Asked by NotPanicking at 7:55 AM on Dec. 19, 2013 in Politics & Current Events

Level 51 (421,174 Credits)
Answers (88)
  • It is an attack on free speech in America. And I find it frightening. It isn't about what one says. It is about his right to say it. I could cry, and I don't watch the program.

    Answer by NannyB. at 8:04 AM on Dec. 19, 2013

  • No, it's not an "attack on free speech". He wasn't thrown in jail for what he said, and the magazine article wasn't yanked from the magazine because of what he said. He was absolutely allowed his free speech. What I'm questioning are the consequences of his free speech - something free speech will always have. Is it appropriate for someone to be suspended for living up to the role they were hired to fulfill?

    Comment by NotPanicking (original poster) at 8:12 AM on Dec. 19, 2013

  • Eh. They're probably worried about their ratings or any negative attention being brought upon the show for having someone who is "anti-homosexual". There are enough people out there that will twist it into an "A&E hates all gay people" agenda over it. Plus, they have all they money. Right or wrong they have control over who they pay and who is on the show. No better/worse than any other junk TV show or network.

    Answer by maecntpntz219 at 8:23 AM on Dec. 19, 2013

  • I for one actually LOVE Duck Dynasty. Even though I am not a religious person myself, I admire the religious traditions that the family has. I also think Phil Robertson is a very wise man.They all have good values, it seems Phil did a good job of raising his sons.

    In comparison to some of the other garbage that's on TV, this one features no drinking, no smoking, no cussing, and no "You are not the father".

    So, that being said, MANY religious people/organizations have an anti-gay stand on things. That I don't agree with. Lots of people have these views, they just aren't celebrities, and therefore it's not made public.

    I'll probably continue to watch the show, whether they decide to film Phil or not, but the show/company wouldn't be without him, so it kind of makes no sense.

    Answer by PartyGalAnne at 8:30 AM on Dec. 19, 2013

  • I plan on sitting back and watching. The Robertsons are a close knit southern family. His sons are likely to gather around him and support him. I see an end to said show quite soon. They don't need the reality show and they'll walk away. To the question, no, it's not right, fair or sensible.

    Answer by sopranomommy at 8:35 AM on Dec. 19, 2013

  • He has the right to speak his opinion (one that I do not agree with, btw), and they have the right to distance themselves from him because they disagree with that opinion. Just like I have the right to distance myself from relationships, personal or professional, in which I have a major difference of opinion with the other party. That's what they have done. Truthfully, it ticks me off a bit that he said what he said and it's nothing more than him expressing his beliefs, but when the network chooses to put distance there because they disagree, THAT'S discrimination. His beliefs are also discriminatory in my opinion, and what the network has done is express their beliefs. Both sides are doing exactly the same thing, just from opposite sides.

    Frankly, I don't watch the show because I find it to be rather stupid. But I think he needs to accept the consequences for what he said, and...

    Answer by wendythewriter at 8:40 AM on Dec. 19, 2013

  • the network should accept the consequences for their choice to distance themselves.

    Answer by wendythewriter at 8:40 AM on Dec. 19, 2013

  • They should have dug deeper into his life before accepting him for the show..or maybe there is a clause in some sort of contract he was made to sign....or maybe they just want publicity....

    Answer by older at 8:42 AM on Dec. 19, 2013

  • They should have dug deeper into his life before accepting him for the show..

    They probably did - they need to cover their asses that he's not in the klan or a pedo or anything like that. Which makes it even more hypocritical to me, at least, that they are now suspending him for being exactly what they hired him to be.

    Comment by NotPanicking (original poster) at 8:50 AM on Dec. 19, 2013

  • I think maybe A&E didn't think this through. I'm not sure that I'd call suspending Phil inappropriate, but it doesn't seem like a smart business move considering the target audience for the show.

    Answer by mommy_jules at 8:59 AM on Dec. 19, 2013

Join CafeMom now to contribute your answer and become part of our community. It's free and takes just a minute.

Next question in Politics & Current Events
Tis the season to be scammed

Next question overall (Health)