Sure, A & E's suspension of Phil Robertson is not a violation of free speech. The government didn't compel Robertson's silence nor did it force A & E to fire Robertson.
The issue is one of tolerance of alien views and the mistake that tolerance means one has to embrace views or even lifestyles you disagree with rather than--well--tolerate them as something allowed even if you withhold approval.
I defended the Iraq War--a lot, even when it seemed like I shared little company on this issue--in these posts over the years. I was horrified at many of the ill-informed views on the war and shocked at the lack of knowledge in our press corps on reporting on the war. I never called for the firing of any person who had views I disagreed with. Not even over a question of war and victory.
No, while I argued against or even mocked those views on occasion, I tolerated their right to hold their views. I didn't insist they embrace my views on history, the military, and the course of the war. I didn't insist that they had to go because they did not.
Think about this issue. A & E said that it had gay employees offended that Robertson did not approve of homosexuality based on the Bible.
One, Robertson clearly shares a Bible-based opinion on the issue of gay marriage with President Obama that until the last year or so the president held (when he "evolved" on the issue).
Two, Robertson seemed to tolerate their acts (and other behavior of heterosexuals, too), saying it was up to God to judge them and not him to punish. And Robertson clearly tolerated gay and promiscuous heterosexuals who worked on producing his show, even as he did not embrace or even like those acts very much. That is tolerance by him even if you embrace--as you are free to do--what Robertson disagrees with but refuses to punish.
Did Robertson ever tell A & E that he wouldn't work with production staff who didn't agree with his Bible-based views? Heck, I bet plenty of the staff doesn't even like ducks--or thought much about them until their paycheck relied on their appeal.
Look, I really don't care much about the issue. I've never even watched the show. I don't have a duck in this fight. I simply can't care about or write about everything, even if I have an opinion. I can understand why gay and lesbian people would want the right to marry. If asked, I'd say marriage is a traditional heterosexual convention with a long history in our society. If asked to vote on allowing it, I'd vote no on that basis. Yet I'd certainly not treat a gay or lesbian person with anything but respect as a person.
And I freely admit that if I had a close relative or friend for whom this was an important issue, I would probably think (and vote) differently based on that aspect alone.
But if society favors gay marriage even if I don't? Have at it. I won't argue against it. I will tolerate it. I think our society will survive it if the majority accepts it. Who am I to deny anyone the joys of marriage, marital breakdown, and divorce (as I did) if society really wants to extend that privilege beyond heterosexual adults?
What really inspired me to comment at all on this is actually related to the war on terror, believe it or not.
What gets me about the outrage is that Phil Robertson could have gotten absolution from those confused on the distinction between tolerance and embrace for his views on homosexuality if Robertson had done one simple thing--converted to Islam:
Cat Stevens Gets into Hall of Fame After All.“He called for the death of Salman Rushdie, but the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame calls his conversion to Islam ‘courageous.’”
Islam is not, to put it gently, LGBT-friendly.
That's what is puzzling to me. You'd think that feminists like Code Pink and LGBT groups would be natural allies in the war on Islamist terrorism and resistance to the society that spawns those terrorists who would have to "evolve" many centuries just to reach the unacceptable state of tolerance that Phil Robertson displays.
Our Western civilization is worthy of defense against violent fanatics who would destroy it all, even if you disagree with individual parts of our society.
UPDATE: More on the non-war tolerance angle:
Liberals love free expression so long as you freely express things they agree with. Particularly when it comes to homosexuality, there’s zero tolerance for dissent of any kind.
Now, I don’t agree with Robertson’s take on homosexuality. Heck, I don’t even like duck hunting. But I also don’t care. What I object to is the insinuation that I have to.
Robertson is free to believe I will be judged harshly when I meet my Maker. Not for that bestiality thing he mentions, I hasten to add. I'm divorced. Which is verboten in my religion, after all. And I've had relations with women not my wife, as the expression goes, without attempting to bring a life into this world. Perhaps I will be judged harshly in the next world for these failings. But as long as Robertson is content to treat me well enough and leave it to God to do the judging, who am I to insist his view on sin be the same as mine? Or be the same as someone else's?
And if Robertson's views are so unacceptable, why--if I may return to the point of even commenting on this issue at all--isn't the left the most animated combatant in the coalition of the willing waging war on radical Islam?
Heck, in this day and age, isn't Robertson being "courageous" for stating his beliefs?
UPDATE: I would like to add that some of the things Robertson said in other places about homosexuals are repulsive. But my point isn't to make him a poster boy for freedom of speech or even tolerance (although for some, that should add to his appeal, no?). It's to wonder why the religion of peace seems immune to these bouts of outrage.
