In other words, A & E—like ESPN/ABC before them—believes that their "Duck Dynasty" audience is outraged, disgusted, or whatever by Phil the duck guy, and that enough of this audience would change the channel if Phill stayed on that A & E would lose money. Is A & E correct in this belief? Time will tell. - OldCoyote

I am with Sarah Palin on this one. A person should be able to give their opinion. If A & E was so concerned where were they in the interview process? They should have been on GQ for what questions were going to be asked. Now, after the fact, they have no business suspending this guy for giving an honest opinion. This is what he believes. This is what a lot of people believe. He was not judging anyone, he was giving his opinion. What is the problem with what he said anyway?-Missmarya

[W]hat Mr. Robertson said is without doubt not merely offensive, it is vile. He called people sinners. He placed himself above them. He used graphic language, vagina and anus, in order to make a vile point. Ask yourself, why did he speak on this topic? It wasn't the subject of the interview. So why did he bring it up and use the words he did? A reasonable and compassionate man would, if pressed to express an opinion that he knew would be hurtful to some, would use different words. Think about it. He most definitely did USE his religion to give himself "authority" to pass judgment on his fellow man/woman. -OuraniaSeven

So this is really the article that is causing so much fuss and A & E to shoot themselves in the foot and alienate the proper part of their entire majority of DD viewership? Not groundbreaking if you ask me - there is nothing here that people who even cared about DD didn't already know. Wow, imagine that - Phil Robertson is a Christian and has strong opinions...hmmm. It's ridiculous honestly and the Robertsons will be fine...so will A & E unfortunately.

On another note, I am embarrassed for the writer of the article. I mean, I always had the opinion that GQ was a somewhat intelligent and sophisticated publication but the amount of gratuitous cussing and back-handed ridicule that is ever so slight makes the author and GQ look like complete morons and the ignorance is very off-putting. -Just_Tom

For all those who think this is a free speech issue, I want you to write an opinion piece in your local paper in which you call your boss an idiot who couldn't manage his way out of a paper bag. Make sure your boss sees it. Then let us all know how long you stay employed.- Aftershock1581

You know, as a Christian and as a man who places a high value on personal responsibility, Phil Robertson no doubt believes that actions have consequences. Robertson is free to express his views on anything he likes. So far, no one has hauled him off to jail for doing so. However, A & E is also free to make business decisions based on how his actions impact their organization. If they feel his words stepped over a boundary they weren't willing to cross, or that his words offended a large part of their viewership, then they are as free to suspend him from the show as he is to express his opinion regarding sin, homosexuality, vaginas and anuses.This situation is democracy in action, it's free speech in action, it's the free market system in action, it's personal responsibility in action and it's standing by your beliefs regardless of popular opinion in action.So why is everyone so upset...? - JM Dunne

No matter what the backlash from this story has been, I see and feel the reverence that manifests in Mr. Magary's story through his time in the Bayou. It begins as a sort of abject resistance to a foreign situation, and transitions into an almost apologetic observation of a person, and a family, that stands behind what it says that it stands behind...Mr. Magary's story is essentially a microcosm of the way that a vast majority of the country views anyone from the Southern states, or those that choose to openly worship Jesus Christ; we're oddly assembled, racist, backwards, and genetically watered-down rubes with little or no grasp on the world from an intellectual (read: superior) standpoint....What it boils down to...when you actually READ and interpret what Magary wrote in the article...is that the author found a unique and honest quality that he reveres (in way that he can't yet process). If you open your eyes, ears, and heart...and shut your mouth...you will see the story shine through.- Rloftoncox3

The article, in my humble opinion, was mocking in tone, and Mr. Magary goes out of his way to insult the very man he is paid to interview. One of the family's standards is no profanity, yet Mr. Magary's article is littered with F-bombs and other expletives. Honestly, in this woman's mind, that kind of language just demonstrates a lack of education, the inability to command your vocabulary.- DLimechic

And as for Mr. Robertson's opinions, they are just that, HIS OPINIONS. He is referencing Biblical verses from a Bible he believes in. I'm so sick of this "Politically Correct" America. It's only okay to have an opinion if your opinion doesn't offend anyone. I'm sorry, that's not the way the world works. People need to agree to disagree and move on. - Lalpow

I think that A & E has made a big mistake. Phil is entitled to his own opinion. Yes he does states that he doesn't agree with homosexuality but he also says that he would never treat anyone differently because of it. I think honestly that what Phil said was great. We NEED someone like Phil to step up and speak for Christianity because how many others would have so boldly done so the way he did? He did it in an opinionated way but backed it up with his beliefs and used references from the bible on why he felt the way he did. The thing is while he did make a majority of his statement about homosexuality being wrong he wasn't just pointing out gays as the only sinners. I don't believe in any way was Phil attacking gays. - Maggzie96