GLAAD Defames 'Duck Dynasty' Star Phil Robertson, Claims Reports

GLAAD Defames ‘Duck Dynasty’ Star Phil Robertson, Claims Reports

GLAAD is making false claims about the Duck Dynasty star Phil Robertson, according to some reports.

As previously reported by The Inquisitr, GLAAD was very upset about the A&E decision to reinstate the Duck Commander, but the GLAAD backlash has apparently been hurting the organization.

Founded in 1985, GLAAD originally stood for “Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation” and the group was intended to protest any false claims about homosexuality and AIDS reported by the media. But then they dropped the acronym since their goals changed over time.

Now, even Time magazine is suggesting GLAAD’s time is almost over:

“Frankly, though, I don’t think their hasty reaction to Phil Robertson displayed our LGBT community’s best values. Before many of us even learned that Phil Robertson was interviewed by GQ, GLAAD had already convinced us that Phil’s words were vile and offensive, and called upon A&E ‘to re-examine their ties to someone with such public disdain for LGBT people and families.'”

Time ends their article by suggesting GLAAD should be “gracing our conversation and behavior with the compassion that is sometimes lacking from our loudest political battles.” So, in a way, it’s ironic that an organization founded on fighting defamation would allegedly make false claims about Phil Robertson.

This is what GLAAD stated:

“Phil Robertson should look African American and gay people in the eyes and hear about the hurtful impact of praising Jim Crow laws and comparing gay people to terrorists. If dialogue with Phil is not part of next steps then A&E has chosen profits over African American and gay people—especially its employees and viewers.”

The Blaze claims “GLAAD feels it lost the battle on that issue and needed the cover of ‘racism’ to add heft to its complaints.” They also believe GLAAD put Phil’s comments out of context by claiming Robertson believes Jim Crow laws never harmed the black community, and he also didn’t compare homosexuality to terrorism.

In Christian theology, a big sin is just as bad as a small sin. A sin is a sin, regardless of type, and that’s what supporters of Phil claim about the context of this comment:

“We never, ever judge someone on who’s going to heaven, hell. That’s the Almighty’s job. We just love ’em, give ’em the good news about Jesus—whether they’re homosexuals, drunks, terrorists. We let God sort ’em out later, you see what I’m saying?”

The context includes Phil discussing his old life before becoming a Christian, where he assaulted bar owners, got drunk on a regular basis, and kicked his family out of the house. So when he made that statement, it was the “New Phil” talking about the “Old Phil” as GQ puts it.

As for Phil’s allegedly “racist” comment, GQ says he was talking about growing up in Pre-Civil-Rights-Era Louisiana:

“I never, with my eyes, saw the mistreatment of any black person. Not once. Where we lived was all farmers. The blacks worked for the farmers. I hoed cotton with them. I’m with the blacks, because we’re white trash. We’re going across the field…. They’re singing and happy. I never heard one of them, one black person, say, ‘I tell you what: These doggone white people’—not a word!… Pre-entitlement, pre-welfare, you say: Were they happy? They were godly; they were happy; no one was singing the blues.”

Unfortunately, GQ didn’t provide much context for this comment, although GLAAD was joined by the NAACP, who claimed Phil was saying “African Americans were happier under Jim Crow.” The Duck Commander hasn’t publicly clarified exactly what meaning he intended to convey, but defenders of Phil point out he never specifically mentioned Jim Crow laws, and instead, seems to believe many of the troubles in the black community today are related to the welfare state and beliefs over entitlement.

Do you agree with GLAAD and the NAACP or do you think they managed to defame Phil Robertson?

Comments