The recent suspension of Phil Robertson, patriarch of the Duck Dynasty clan, exposes the bigotry of the "protected class" of homosexual advocates.
This group, which has fought for years for "tolerance" cannot tolerate expressions of opinion that oppose their agenda. Phil's remarks were totally his own opinion and courtesy of the First Amendment, freely given when pointedly asked by an interviewer. The uproar from the protected class was to silence Phil, to punish him for daring to express the notion that they are wrong. The opportunity available was to bolster the discussion of human sexuality, to carry on the conversation so to speak.
A&E reacted by punishing him to the maximum they dared. A simple disclaimer could have generated the distance they needed and the show goes on perhaps without those who chose not to watch Duck Dynasty again. Questions remain, did they suspend Phil for his belief in what he said, for saying it out loud, or for the terms in which he expressed his beliefs?
Is it possible to express one's support for traditional heterosexual marriage and not be bigoted or even labeled a bigot? Why is the first strategy to silence your opponents instead of engaging them?
DALE THORNTON, Benton City