re: #152 lawhawk

Not all viewspoints are valid or worth defending.

Spouting racist claptrap is indefensible.
Making homophobic statements is indefensible.
Etc.

It doesn’t matter the authority being cited in defense of those views. It’s still indefensible.

I can cite the Bible as proof that I have the right to kill nonbelievers, but it’s still murder and indefensible.

I can cite the Bible as proof that polygamy is legal and condoned by G-d, but it’s still criminalized in the US and many other countries.

I can further cite the Bible as proof that one shouldn’t eat milk and meat at the same meal, that pork is not to be eaten, and that shellfish is off-limits, but few other than Jews (and Muslims who cite to their own religious prohibitions), follow those Biblical restrictions.

The complaint is that Phil is “losing a platform” (his own A&E show)) that other people don’t even have.