Let’s start with the obvious: Phil Robertson’s suspension from “Duck Dynasty” is not a violation of the First Amendment.
A&E is perfectly within its rights not to put him on the air if it disagrees with his message, just as this newspaper is free to reject articles it does not wish to publish.
Still, the right to do something doesn’t always make it the right thing to do.
There’s no denying that in his comments to GQ, some of which even Robertson admits were crude, he made clear he believes homosexual behavior is sinful. He went on to link it to other behavior (bestiality, heterosexual promiscuity, etc.) he also says is condemned by the Bible.
The question is whether tolerance demands demonizing and silencing him.
We suspect that part of what is animating the huge backlash against A&E is that many Americans are simply tired of the intolerance often imposed by the same people lecturing everyone else about tolerance.
As for A&E, our guess is its executives are used to dealing with people who will do anything to stay on TV — not folks who describe themselves as godly and are unlikely to apologize for their beliefs for profit. The big bucks “Duck Dynasty” brings in (it’s cable’s highest-rated program) suggest A&E needs the Robertsons more than the Robertsons need A&E.
Let’s not treat the gay community as monolithic, either. Andrew Sullivan, for example, points out that Robertson is “being fired for staying in character — a character A&E has nurtured and promoted and benefited from.” Camille Paglia, who says she’s an atheist as well as gay, calls the move by gay activists to silence Robertson “utterly fascist.”
We go back to the definition of tolerance, which is putting up with opinions you don’t agree with, not driving people out of polite society for holding them. Many with views similar to the Duck Dynasty patriarch have learned this means acknowledging the reality of gay Americans in their families and communities, and recognizing they are not going back in the closet.
It ought to work the other way, too.