
Phil recently expressed his opinions on homosexuality:
"It seems like, to me, a vagina—as a man—would be more desirable than a man's anus. That's just me. I'm just thinking: There's more there! She’s got more to offer. I mean, come on, dudes! You know what I'm saying? But hey, sin: It's not logical, my man. It's just not logical."

Phil's face has been plastered all over the internet, comparing him to the likes of Barack Obama, Oprah, and some random congressman I've never heard of.
He's the new face of Constitutionalism.
A&E has responded to his outrage with this:
"His personal views in no way reflect those of A&E Networks, who have always been strong supporters and champions of the LGBT community. The network has placed Phil under hiatus from filming indefinitely."
This is supposedly in violation of the First Amendment. I believe that is true. But does the government have the right to intervene with a show because they express their freedom of speech and religion? I don't know enough about the situation nor the show to say. But I must ask, What do you think? Leave some insights in the comments section below.
What does "constitutionalism" have to do with this situation? It seems to me that you are not thinking logically about what you are writing. Whether his constitutional rights are being violated or not, he is in a contract with the show, and they can choose to kick him out if they desire. If he is making claims that make him seem like a bigot, then it's only logical that they would drop him out of the show to make sure they score more views and lose less. It's silly to bring up the constitution in this situation, as Phil's rights have not at all been encroached on. In the end, it's A&E's choice, not congress'.
ReplyDeleteThat comment may have come off as rash and prestigious. I didn't mean to challenge your beliefs in anyway. I myself am not for gay rights, and I agree with you wholeheartedly on that. Keep up the good work, and be proud for standing for what you believe in!
ReplyDelete