You are right jack we should leave them alone and let them be.

Just one of those theories I have that the reason a guy is attracted to a guy and a woman attracted to a woman is some birth defect or mental condition. This may not be the case with all of them or any of them because it is just a theory I have. But then again maybe there are some people where that is the case. Maybe something went wrong when they where in the womb and it screwed up a part of their brain.

The possibilities of this happening are just as good as any other birth defect there is. There are people who are born with the internals of a man but on the outside they are a female. But because they have the internals of a man they can't have kids physically them selves and the same thing can happen with a guy. Born looking like a guy but internally they are female and they can have a kid. They had a debate over this at the Beijing olympics because one of the females that won some running event there internal organs where that of a guys not a girls. They wanted to strip her of her medals because they where saying that it gave her a advantage over the rest of the competition. I think they let her keep them because that honestly would be a jerk move to take them away.

Anyway back on topic. This same thing I think could happen and happen only to the brain. Born with the body of a guy but the brain of a girl and vise versa.

I read a article it seems like a year ago about a catholic guy that was gay. This article was written by the guy. He was talking about what it was like to be a catholic and attracted to not women but men. Instead of the term gay or homesexule he used the term same sex attraction because he was not out dating guys or anything. That would kill the point of him being a catholic.

His article in short was yes I am attracted to people of the same sex as me and there is nothing I can do about. Its not my choice to be attracted to men and not women it is just the way I am wired. The difference between me is that I don't act on this desire because I know it is wrong and un natural. Its my choice to act on it or both but is not my choice to be attracted to men.

That is what this guys article pretty much says. This guys article was screaming to me that probably a good number of these people that are Gay's and Lesbs might just have some mental condition that causes them to be attracted to people of the same Sex as them. The way that guys article sounded to me if there was a medication that would make him not be attracted to men but women instead I bet he would take it.

I honestly think the Scientific community should go and try to figure out what causes people to be attracted to the same sex. Yes you will have your people that are homes because of there own choice but there will also be the people that where just born that way. If the scientific community could find what causes it and make a medication that stops it or fixs it then why not. It would be wrong to force Homosexuls to take the medication but if they wanted to take it by their own choice we should let them. It would be just as wrong to not go and try to find a way to cure it as it would be to force the homosexuls to not be able to be together.

We can leave them alone and let them do what they want to do but we should also find a way to fix it for the ones that wish they could be attracted to the opposite sex.

Sky, it sounds like you have a lot of thought and reason in your beliefs. I'm just really hesitant to talk about it because we are discussing something so personal to a person and their identity. I am not really close to anyone that is gay, and I am not gay myself, so I feel like the causes and rights and wrongs of it all are more than I am qualified to handle. Now if you ask me how it is viewed by the religion that I practice, I would honestly have to tell you that it is viewed as a sinful and bad thing. I don't know why then, if it's viewed as such, that he would create us to be just exactly what he tells us not to be. The same question can be asked of a man or woman who is never satisfied by having only a relationship with their spouse, and a multitude of other things. Unfortunately, if you must have an answer for every possible question to believe in God, you most likely never will. Have you ever answered your own children with "because I said so", not because you were wrong, but because they either couldn't or shouldn't yet understand the ramifications of their actions? I have a feeling that much of God's commandments have similar reasons.

So, I bring this subject up not to discuss the rights wrongs or can't help its of gay people. I bring it up to discuss the major consequences handed to a we'll known individual after he spoke of his religious beliefs. That is the part that really is upsetting to me.

Im gonna stir the pot here with a head scratcher guys. This occurred to me when everyone started talking about this topic. Some christians would say that same sex bedroom activity is an abomination. Now its been at least 15 years since ive actually read any scripture, however i was raised baptist so i was taught to follow that belief even though i dont recall ever reading a passage of the bible that said anything like that. Here's the head scratching part: it has been my experience that most christian churches are sexually segregated, the straight ones have their church, the gays go elsewhere to worship. Does it not strike anyone else as particularly hypocritical of a church to say " we refuse you bc you prefer to sleep with the same sex"? My point here being, no corporation, church or organization is in any position to judge the right or wrongness of another person's activities, especially when those activities happen in the bedroom in a way that doesnt violate the law. Ive known some gays and plenty of lesbians, and as a straight man gays kinda weird me out in large numbers so i dont actively seek them out. But if a friend or coworker comes out of the closet, im not gonna blow it out of proportion either. It is what it is. Everyone is free to do as they wish in the pursuit of happiness, who are any of us to judge?

When a church starts turning away sinners, it might as well close it's doors. We are all sinners, and saying some magic prayer is never going to e enough to make you stop completely.

I guess the big point of contention is that most gay people (I think anyway) do not feel as that it is a sin to be gay. That seems like it could be an impasse, because we as Christians are supposed to at least try to turn away from sin and attempt to remove it from our lives. (I'm not very good at it, but I do try). If you take a behavior that the Bible calls sinful and do not a knowledge it as sin, now what? I guess that where the problem lies.

Again, my point in bringing all of this up is that a well known celebrity has been told he can't talk about his religion from the organization that was helping him to attain that celebrity status, and profiting from it. Is there any debate as to that being the wrong thing to do, especially when the organization was very aware of his beliefs before they ever went into their arrangement?

Skydavis1 wrote: You are right jack we should leave them alone and let them be.

Just one of those theories I have that the reason a guy is attracted to a guy and a woman attracted to a woman is some birth defect or mental condition. This may not be the case with all of them or any of them because it is just a theory I have. But then again maybe there are some people where that is the case. Maybe something went wrong when they where in the womb and it screwed up a part of their brain.

The possibilities of this happening are just as good as any other birth defect there is. There are people who are born with the internals of a man but on the outside they are a female. But because they have the internals of a man they can't have kids physically them selves and the same thing can happen with a guy. Born looking like a guy but internally they are female and they can have a kid. They had a debate over this at the Beijing olympics because one of the females that won some running event there internal organs where that of a guys not a girls. They wanted to strip her of her medals because they where saying that it gave her a advantage over the rest of the competition. I think they let her keep them because that honestly would be a jerk move to take them away.

Anyway back on topic. This same thing I think could happen and happen only to the brain. Born with the body of a guy but the brain of a girl and vise versa.

I read a article it seems like a year ago about a catholic guy that was gay. This article was written by the guy. He was talking about what it was like to be a catholic and attracted to not women but men. Instead of the term gay or homesexule he used the term same sex attraction because he was not out dating guys or anything. That would kill the point of him being a catholic.

His article in short was yes I am attracted to people of the same sex as me and there is nothing I can do about. Its not my choice to be attracted to men and not women it is just the way I am wired. The difference between me is that I don't act on this desire because I know it is wrong and un natural. Its my choice to act on it or both but is not my choice to be attracted to men.

That is what this guys article pretty much says. This guys article was screaming to me that probably a good number of these people that are Gay's and Lesbs might just have some mental condition that causes them to be attracted to people of the same Sex as them. The way that guys article sounded to me if there was a medication that would make him not be attracted to men but women instead I bet he would take it.

I honestly think the Scientific community should go and try to figure out what causes people to be attracted to the same sex. Yes you will have your people that are homes because of there own choice but there will also be the people that where just born that way. If the scientific community could find what causes it and make a medication that stops it or fixs it then why not. It would be wrong to force Homosexuls to take the medication but if they wanted to take it by their own choice we should let them. It would be just as wrong to not go and try to find a way to cure it as it would be to force the homosexuls to not be able to be together.

We can leave them alone and let them do what they want to do but we should also find a way to fix it for the ones that wish they could be attracted to the opposite sex.

Skydavis, ive heard variations on this theory of yours, most commonly the "i was born this way" argument. Personally i dont buy into it bc with all the medical advances in the last century, if it were the case that there was some bad wiring there, then it stands to reason that medicine would have found a way to reverse that. I hold a different theory about it. The first part of my theory s personal preference. Some men are attracted to redheads, others like blondes, still others like brunettes. You get the idea. The other half of my theory includes evolution. Look at some species of amphibians. In a single sex environment they can spontaneously change sex from male to female as necessary in order to breed. What if theoretically speaking, humans as a species were taking the first evolutionary steps in this direction by developing an attraction for members of the same sex? Its not entirely implausible. There are always those groups of outcasts that struggle to get any attention at all from members of the opposite sex. Now, given what we know about evolution, it would seem unlikely that these members of the human race could develop and pass along such a gene. However, IF a few members of that outcast fringe somehow managed to have kids, and their kids had the same difficulties, such a gene over millions of generations could propagate to a level where it began an evolutionary mutation, thereby creating a sort of genetic defense mechanism to ensure long term survival of the species. Now granted this would represent a fraction of a percent of the species as a whole, but evolutionary steps always begin with a single mutation. Put that in your pipe and smoke it. seriously though davis, im not saying you're wrong, just offering an alternative theory is all

Both theories could be right HD lol. There are probably hundreds if not even maybe thousands of different things that can cause a person to be that way. Some people it may be birth defect or from some injury to the brain. Others will be that way because they got rejected by the other sex so they looked else where. Evolution takes millions of years and is constantly in motion so that can also be a bit of it.

Jack I think most people hear agree A & E played stupid on this one. He was asked a question and he answered it honestly. A & E knew his beliefs so what were they supposed to expect. If you don't like what the answer could be then don't ask.

Thanks jack, Voltaire was a great man.


This bring up another question I have-

As many of you might know, our founding fathers ideas on our government were basically copied from enlightenment philosophers and the Greeks and Romans. People like Montesquieu, who said he government should have separate parts, judicial, executive, and legislative, that balanced each other. Voltaire, who said that man had natural rights to free speech, protest, and religion. Most of what these guys ideas were, the founding fathers pretty much copy-pasted into our Declaration of Independence and Constitution. There is one thing i don't understand: John Locke said that all men had the right to life, liberty, and property. Now the first two im sure you recognize, but the last? When the founding fathers copied so much from this man, why did they leave he last one out? With the UN pushing agenda 21, it would be helpful to have this in our constitution. (Agenda 21 is basically a guide for the UN to push the world into socialism, look it up, it's not good...) I just brought this up to spark some conversation.

I have what I think is an answer, but feel free to argue it. The founding fathers were all very rich men for their days, and they made their money off of slaves running their plantation. While they could argue (although not too successfully) that the slaves had life and liberty, they couldn't very well argue that they had right to property. That's my opinion on he matter.

THIS IS NOT A FREE SPEECH ISSUE!!! Phil spoke freely. Nothing impaired his ability to say his peace, then, now, or in the future. The first amendment only protects you from government sanctions. Of course we are accountable to our employers. Suppose the roles were reversed. A&E is a moderate level family network. They sign Phil and family to a reality show. They know Phil is gay, but they had no idea how popular the show would be. Phil decides to criticize Christians for their beliefs on homosexuality. Doesn't the employer have a right to fire this guy for image protection? They are not firing him for his religion, for his message, for his lifestyle. They are firing him because he damaged them to their fan base and sponsors. I am totally cool with the whole thing. I subscribe to the Dennis Miller approach on life: "Don't stick your nose where other people like to stick their noses." You don't like A&E's choice, change the channel. YOu don't like Phil's views, change the channel. You don't like my views, I'll be in the parking lot!! Love the Voltaire quotes too.

Good morning TX LAWMAN.

I will disagree in that I think it is a free speech issue as a&e was going to punish him for what his opinion was. I will agree that a&e had the right also to do what they did. The free market will decide the issue.

When people have to be afraid about expressing their opinion then it's no longer free speech, especially when other groups can say all kinds of horrible stuff against the religious right or conservatives and think its perfectly ok to do that.

The tolerant of our society is not so tolerant when you disagree with them.

I went through Texas the other day. Had a really good time in your state. There is a place called GROOM TEXAS, just off highway 40. It has the largest cross in the world, you can easily see it from the highway. We make it a point to go there every time we are in the area, it is absolutely spectacular. A MUST SEE FOR ANY CHRISTIAN.

Someday I would live to meet you in a parking lot of a nice restaurant so we can have dinner and meet each other, take care TX.

You got a standing invitation, Davy! As for the free speech, everything has a consequence. If you work for IBM and swear by Apple, you might get fired. What clouds this is that Phil was speaking on religion. The government has taken no action against Phil, only a private employer. I don't watch A&E as it is, so there is not much I can do to them, my channel is already changed! Lol.

Davy Crockett wrote: Good morning TX LAWMAN.

I will disagree in that I think it is a free speech issue as a&e was going to punish him for what his opinion was. I will agree that a&e had the right also to do what they did. The free market will decide the issue.

When people have to be afraid about expressing their opinion then it's no longer free speech, especially when other groups can say all kinds of horrible stuff against the religious right or conservatives and think its perfectly ok to do that.

The tolerant of our society is not so tolerant when you disagree with them.

I went through Texas the other day. Had a really good time in your state. There is a place called GROOM TEXAS, just off highway 40. It has the largest cross in the world, you can easily see it from the highway. We make it a point to go there every time we are in the area, it is absolutely spectacular. A MUST SEE FOR ANY CHRISTIAN.

Someday I would live to meet you in a parking lot of a nice restaurant so we can have dinner and meet each other, take care TX.

[DD]Big C wrote: Thanks jack, Voltaire was a great man.

This bring up another question I have-

As many of you might know, our founding fathers ideas on our government were basically copied from enlightenment philosophers and the Greeks and Romans. People like Montesquieu, who said he government should have separate parts, judicial, executive, and legislative, that balanced each other. Voltaire, who said that man had natural rights to free speech, protest, and religion. Most of what these guys ideas were, the founding fathers pretty much copy-pasted into our Declaration of Independence and Constitution. There is one thing i don't understand: John Locke said that all men had the right to life, liberty, and property. Now the first two im sure you recognize, but the last? When the founding fathers copied so much from this man, why did they leave he last one out? With the UN pushing agenda 21, it would be helpful to have this in our constitution. (Agenda 21 is basically a guide for the UN to push the world into socialism, look it up, it's not good...) I just brought this up to spark some conversation.

I have what I think is an answer, but feel free to argue it. The founding fathers were all very rich men for their days, and they made their money off of slaves running their plantation. While they could argue (although not too successfully) that the slaves had life and liberty, they couldn't very well argue that they had right to property. That's my opinion on he matter.

I agree with you on that one bigc. No one not even from that time could deny that slaves where real people and most of the founding fathers had slaves. Most of the world at that time had slaves. If I had a slave and I was writing that part of the declaration of independence I would look at it this way. My slaves are my property and any property they have is mine so it really is not theirs thus they have no property and John Lock was wrong about that part. This is also in a time when property was measured in how much land you have and not every one could have their own land.

To bad our founding fathers did not add that in anywhere. If they would have added it maybe the government would not be so eager to takes someones land for their own use. The way they do it now though is not to bad. They give you a big check for it and give you plenty of time to get moved over a bit. I wish the checks they gave out where a bit more. Moving a well, piping, and the pivot of a half mile long sprinkler cost a good several times more than that dam little check is worth. That just so they can add another few feet of width to a highway.

TX, I believe it is a free speech issue, and also a freedom of religion issue. Not in the sense of what government will allow, but more in what we allow each other to say. I think we at least need to be tolerant enough of each other to allow one another to express their religious views without say taking away their income. Especially when we are talking a major religion that is practiced worldwide. I understand that 3 people can decide to worship anything of do anything and hide behind that to justify anything, but I'm pretty sure that Christianity is followed by more than 3 people. I believe that the proverbial pendulum has swung too far the other way right now. We spent too many years totally rejecting gay people and everything about them. Right now popular culture is trying to do the same to Christians. As fun as it may be to "get even," nothing good can come from it, as in time we will just go again to the other extreme. I believe that the right answer to almost everything is found in the middle. The middle ground for this topic I believe is found in live and let live for all. As much as possible anyway.

Well spoken. Perfect. I wouldn't change a thing.

Did I miss something here? Did A&E suddenly become an agency of the US government?

Sure, the Duck boys have the right to say anything they choose. The nice thing about the free speech protections is that government can't act against you just because you are an A-hole.

But, A & E is a commercial interest that employs (or, I guess, employed) the Duck boys. They are, within contractual agreement, able to act in what they see is their own best interest. If one of their contract players goes down a trail they do not want to pursue, they have every right to part ways. Why they make that choice, whether it leads to short or long term profit or loss, whether their customers love it or hate it: those are all internal decision-processes they are free to keep as close to the vest as they choose. Try asking any corporation for the reason for their actions against employees, and you're liable to get a huge non-response. Welcome to the market economy...

In this case, the Duck got to state his mind. A & E chose to part ways. Both probably lose money in the end, but both probably have more than enough so that they really don't care. But neither were deprived of any Constitutional protection by an act of our government. Whether A & E acted because they thought it was the morally correct thing to do, because they sensed some kind of social pressure to let them go, the smart thing to do so their viewers would not react negatively, because they thought they'd lose money in the long run..it was their choice, just as it was the Duck guy's choice to speak his mind while in their employ.

Put another way, would this discussion take this turn if it had been a case of one of the Ducks seductively stripping down to his skin? On cable TV that is permissible as far as the FCC regs go. Many would argue this is just another form of art. But if A & E chose to part ways from the nekkid Duck, would there be such consternation over that form of free expression...? Doubtful. I guess it will be more controversial when nudists finally start marching down our city streets demanding equal protection under the law or demanding legal recourse against hate crimes.

But it wouldn't happen if they sang the praises of everyone's gayness. If they would have hugged each other and made out they would be fine. Naked or with cloths on. Mingled beard juices. But say one wrong word and you're out. That's what is wrong with it. You can be homo all over TV but don't say you don't like it. Double standard. Like i say I'm neither for or against either one of 'ems beliefs or lifestyles but why is one more right than the other? That's what I disagree with.

That's all well and good, but you should direct your anger against A & E for their judgements, just as you would for a judgement you disagreed with by Exxon, Coke, or KMart. Find enough like-minded individuals and your criticism might register whether its a write-in campaign, boycott, or raising money to run negative ads about the company. But, A & E, like Exxon, Coke, etc., will clamor for their rights to govern employee behavior while they act as representatives of the company until the Supreme Court strips them of that power. I wouldn't hold my breath, nor would I blame the government for this dust-up. Blame A&E, or society, or the media, or Rasta music, but no-one told A&E what to do except themselves.

To be more clear, I guess I take issue with the mention of this as a free-speech issue. Whether due to some desire for political correctness, social or cultural conformity, or who-knows-what, A&E's action was a private transaction between them and their employees. Agree or disagree with the result, but in the end, it all boiled down to an employer who disapproved of an employee's actions. If the employee performed that action in the course of their "duties", there's not much to be said about A & E's right to can them. Unless contractually limited, off the set the Duck's should be able to say what they like. (The key being, if they accepted a contract that limited off set behavior such as a morals clause, felony limitation, etc., then all bets are off.)

In any case, they'll probably be laughing all the way to the bank.

Bt is right. This is no problem with government. That does not mean that it isn't a problem with free speech. Your right to free speech doesn't protect you just against government, it protects you from needless harassment from other citizens as well. Many people in the country and media have attempted to suppress Phil Robertsons right to free speech. Stopping this isn't going to be something we can fix using the government.

One way is to boycott A&E until Phil is allowed back on. As of right now, there is a Facebook group dedicated to doing this.

Cracker Barrel actually took all of its duck dynasty merchandise off its shelves when this happened, but due to general outrage, they put it back on.




This shows that we can prove our point and defend our rights, but it will take effort.

BT. Go to my last post. As I said, it has nothing to do with what the government allows. It has everything to do with what we as a society allow each other to say and do.


But, if left unchecked, it will eventually make it into our government. Popular belief sometimes seems to become law.

I just had an interesting thought. I'm sure that someone either will, or will want to excoriate me for this but that's ok. Here goes.

To me, this whole controversy is just another very good example of God's existence. How do a group of butt ugly guys who make friggin duck calls in Louisiana, but have trouble with coherent sentences come up with a TV show about nothing, with almost no plot, and certainly no talent become national heroes to so many? The one thing they do is make it abundantly clear that they practice their faith and use every episode to show it being practiced. Then, they become so popular that you can't walk ten feet in public without seeing a reference to them and usually being able to purchase a myriad of items with reference to them. When you don't think they can get any bigger, this whole thing explodes and puts a HUGE spotlight on the bible, religion, and what it expects from you (if you choose to believe). Now the whole world is talking about the bible, because these of these rednecks in Louisiana. This to me shows me the rewards of faithfulness, even if you cannot imagine how you would be useful in any way to god. It also once again affirms my belief that he is right here, and is part of everything.

Ok. Let the hate mail come, or not. I'll live.

Goodnight for tonight Dogfight world.

Not necessarily, Max. Cracker Barrell tried to pull its Duck Dynasty merchandise to avoid offending people that took offense to Phil. There was significant backlash causing them to reverse course. Thus, they tried to say, "we are gay friendly." but found out their market place did not support that stand.

www.latimes.com/business/money/la-fi-mo-....story#axzz2oNBGYvjV

BlueMaxYoung wrote: But it wouldn't happen if they sang the praises of everyone's gayness. If they would have hugged each other and made out they would be fine. Naked or with cloths on. Mingled beard juices. But say one wrong word and you're out. That's what is wrong with it. You can be homo all over TV but don't say you don't like it. Double standard. Like i say I'm neither for or against either one of 'ems beliefs or lifestyles but why is one more right than the other? That's what I disagree with.

I get what you are trying to say, Jack. However, you are off base. The 1st Amendment begins, "Congress shall make no law..." I think we are confusing free speech with no consequences speech. Here is a Lawman parable. When I was a fresh faced rookie, my training officer handed me my copy of department general orders (the rule book). He told me, "Read those. As long as you don't break them or the law and are content to work night shift with Tuesday and Wednesday off for the rest o your career, you can say and do anything you want to anyone you want." We as a society regulate speech by who we choose to give a pulpit too. It's our fault that Alec Baldwin's political rants make news. It's our fault we listen to Hiltons, Kardashians, Kennedy's, Palin's, Michael Moore's, or anyone else. Phil got his pulpit. It is bigger than he ever dreamed. His speech is in no way being surpressed, but there are consequences for it. I don't watch the show, and I won't start now. I am not a hunter, and I have had a lifetime of dealing with rednecks doing stupid stuff. Honestly, I think Phil should have never gone there. I am Christian. I totally think the point of the 2nd covenant was one of self development. Christ destroyed the Pharisees' system. He was fed up with the church telling people how to live and passing judgment. Christ wiped out the laws of the Levites by saying, "Worship the Lord your God with all of your heart and love your neighbor as yourself." That is our new covenant. It has never been man's right to determine sinful behavior. The Lord also directs us in Matthew not to get hung up on the speck of sawdust in our neighbors eye when we have a plank in our own. In other words, quit judging Joe, and get yourself right first. God will decide what happens to gay people not us. I do know that God does not make mistakes. I also think that being gay is not a choice. Who would choose to be gay? It is like asking to be discriminated against. It is still legal to fire someone for being gay. Ergo, if being gay is not a choice, then it was how the person was made. If the person was made by God, then how they were made is not inherently wrong. Thus homosexuality in and of itself is not an affront to God (just my humble opinion). Why was it so important for Phil to go there? Isn't there a better message? How about that God loved us enough to take human form, be debased, tortured, and crucified to physical death to be the perfect blood sacrifice required by his law to allow man to ascend to heaven with the one requirement that they love and believe in God. Way better message than sticking your nose where other people like to stick their noses.

Jacklpe wrote: BT. Go to my last post. As I said, it has nothing to do with what the government allows. It has everything to do with what we as a society allow each other to say and do.


But, if left unchecked, it will eventually make it into our government. Popular belief sometimes seems to become law.

For me to be off base, you sure have made a lot of the same points that I have at least tried to... Not all, but a lot.


Obviously what you say is going to have consequences, and as I'm a small government guy, obviously I don't somehow want the government to involve themselves in any of this. Free speech takes a lot of forms though. It's not just the government. I think we owe each other the courtesy to let each other state our religious beliefs. I don't think it's ok to screw people over for talking about their religion. Especially when a lot of his comments were very close to the biblical text. As far as whether any of the "old law" applies now, I don't know. I'm not a biblical scholar. I also feel that to love one another is the most important commandment of Jesus. And yea, truthfully, most of my best friends have always been the kind that don't jive too well with the "bible thumpers". But, I find it appalling to see anyone to face such a backlash for stating their religious beliefs.

BTW. Whatcha got against rednecks man???

TXLAWMAN wrote: Not necessarily, Max. Cracker Barrell tried to pull its Duck Dynasty merchandise to avoid offending people that took offense to Phil. There was significant backlash causing them to reverse course. Thus, they tried to say, "we are gay friendly." but found out their market place did not support that stand.

www.latimes.com/business/money/la-fi-mo-....story#axzz2oNBGYvjV

BlueMaxYoung wrote: But it wouldn't happen if they sang the praises of everyone's gayness. If they would have hugged each other and made out they would be fine. Naked or with cloths on. Mingled beard juices. But say one wrong word and you're out. That's what is wrong with it. You can be homo all over TV but don't say you don't like it. Double standard. Like i say I'm neither for or against either one of 'ems beliefs or lifestyles but why is one more right than the other? That's what I disagree with.

CrackerBarrel had a big deal when they first started over gays. I remember the protests of Cracker Barrel in Amarillo. It was many years ago. I will see if I can find an article and figure out the context of the fight with Cracker Barrel. I think it would shed light on the position they are attempting to take but don't have the backbone to keep. Removing the items then putting them back is weak. Pick a side Cracker Barrel or remain silent. I would not eat in a Cracker Barrel if it were the last restaurant on the planet. Not because they removed them, because they removed them then put them back. Have some stones and stick with what you think is right. Ugh. Good way to get publicity for a crappy restaurant chain though.

WOW ! I never knew this about Cracker Barrel. They should have kept quiet and out of the lime light.

Stolen from Wikipedia.

Policy toward sexual orientation[edit]
In early 1991, an intra-company memo called for employees to be dismissed if they did not display "normal heterosexual values". According to news reports, at least 11 employees were fired under the policy on a store-by-store basis from locations in Georgia and other states.[7][13] After demonstrations by gay rights groups the company ended its policy in March 1991 and stated it would not discriminate based on sexual orientation.[61][62] The company's founder, Dan Evins, subsequently described the policy as a mistake.[7] From 1992 onward,[63] the New York City Employees Retirement System, then a major shareholder, put forward proposals to add sexual orientation to the company's non-discrimination policy. An early proposal in 1993 was defeated, with 77 percent against and only 14 percent in support, along with 9 percent abstaining.[64] It was not until 2002 that the proposals were successful; 58 percent of company shareholders voted in favor of the addition.[61]
Cracker Barrel achieved the lowest score (15 out of 100) of all rated food and beverage companies in the Human Rights Campaign's 2008 Corporate Equality Index, a measure of LGBT workplace equality.[65] Their score for 2011 had improved to a 55. The 2011 survey noted that the firm had established a non-discrimination policy and had introduced diversity training that included training related to sexual orientation.[66] However, the company's score for 2013 dropped to a 35 out of 100, not having obtained the points related to non-discrimination toward gender identity and health benefits for partners of LGBT employees and transgender-inclusive benefits.[67]
On December 20, 2013, Cracker Barrel announced it would no longer sell certain Duck Dynasty products which it was "concerned might offend some of [its] guests"[68] after Phil Robertson, a star on the reality TV show, remarked in a GQ interview[69]
Don't be deceived. Neither the adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlers—they won't inherit the kingdom of God. Don't deceive yourself. It's not right.
Robertson also made "anti-gay comments likening homosexuality to terrorism and bestiality" in the interview, and expressed views about race which attracted criticism. On December 22, less than two days after pulling the products from its shelves, Cracker Barrel reversed its position after protests from customers.[70][71][72]
Racial and sexual discrimination[edit]
In July 1999, a discrimination lawsuit was filed against Cracker Barrel by a group of former employees, who claimed that the company had discriminated against them on the grounds of race.[73][74] In December 2001, twenty-one of the restaurant's customers, represented by the same attorneys, filed a separate lawsuit, alleging racial discrimination in its treatment of guests.[75][76][77] Regarding both accusations, Cracker Barrel officials disputed the claims and stated that the company was committed to fair treatment of its employees and customers.[74][76][78]
In 2004, an investigation by the U.S. Justice Department found evidence that Cracker Barrel had been segregating customer seating by race; seating or serving white customers before seating or serving black customers; providing inferior service to black customers, and allowing white servers to refuse to wait on black customers.[79] The Justice Department determined that the firm had violated Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The company was required to sign a five-year agreement to introduce "effective nondiscrimination policies and procedures". The terms included new equal opportunity training; the creation of a new system to log, investigate and resolve complaints of discrimination; and the publicizing of its non-discrimination policies. They were required to hire an outside auditor to ensure compliance with the terms of the settlement.[80]
In 2006, Cracker Barrel paid a $2 million settlement to end a suit alleging race and sexual harassment at three Illinois restaurants.[81][82] Cracker Barrel stores subsequently began displaying a sign in the front foyer explaining the company's non-discrimination policy,[79] and added the policy and details of how to make a complaint to its menu and website.[83]
Since the early 2000s, Cracker Barrel has provided training and resources to minority employees, to improve its image on diversity. These efforts involved beginning outreach to minority employees, along with testing a training plan to help employees whose first language is Spanish to learn English.[52] As of 2002, minorities made up 23 percent of the company's employees, including over 11 percent of its management and executives.[53] Cracker Barrel is on the Corporate Advisory Board for the Texas Conference of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP),[84] and is a corporate sponsor of the NAACP Leadership 500 Summit, where three of its officials were moderators and panelists in May 2011.[85] The company has been praised for its gender diversity, particularly on its board of directors, which includes three women out of eleven total board members.[86] Its chief executive officer, Sandra Cochran, is the second woman in Tennessee to hold that office in a publicly traded company.[86]

They are showing a pattern of trying to improve their image in that department... But they would have done better to let sleeping dogs lie.

Jacklpe wrote: They are showing a pattern of trying to improve their image in that department... But they would have done better to let sleeping dogs lie.

Or do you think it is more of a "we support the DD message, but we have been spanked for racist and homophobic views before" so we act like we support gays then act like we reversed because of customer backlash deal? Both sides supported. VERY political of them. Very political. And it avoids another anti gay lawsuit.

Anyhow, I think I got off my subject. My point is, different views are OK. Don't try and force one on the other and neither is more right than the other. No one should be canned for being gay and no one should be canned for being anti gay. I think it is the exact same thing. If you can't get away with one, then why is the other perfectly fine? I may be whooping the dead horse.

No probs with Rednecks here. I am one.

Here is a subject that we might all agree on.

Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays to all of you.

Maybe Europe isn't so bad after all...

Nutjobs!!! Can't believe the guy was a governor or a SEAL! We are not all crazy!!

onsekone wrote: Maybe Europe isn't so bad after all...

Actually it needs only a few crazy if the majority of people are stupid, afraid or apathetic.

Last time death camps were used in Europe was 1999 and there's really no reason to think it cannot happen again. Even in the land of the free and home of the brave.