Hmmm.... lots of name calling and slap fights going on here.
Phil Roberston has the right to express his opinions, no matter how hateful or non-hateful they might be and A&E has the right to decide what programming they show and how much support they want to offer to their employees when they make controversial claims.
I think one of the main reasons people are offended is because homosexuality was compared to a bunch of things that are choices. If you're gay, you're gay there's no choice involved, so stating 'gays should go to hell' is condemning a group of people who had no choice in the way they are biologically configured. If you want to cheat on your wife, that's a decision you make to be unfaithful (not to mention a marriage is a legally standing contract you make a conscious decision of signing). IMO, the comparison is rather insulting to gay people, so I can see why gay people would be insulted by his comments.
Do I agree with the super-sensitivity A&E is showing? (I mean the article was in GQ not on A&E) No, not really but I don't agree that being gay is a sin either.
The other remarks he made about black people being happier without civil rights and with segregation being in place are more demeaning , IMO. Pretty bold statement telling an entire group of people (that you don't belong to) when they were happiest. Even bolder when that 'time' was when that group of people were considered inferior and weren't allowed to associate with whites under most circumstances.
How far should freedom of speech protect you? It should mean you shouldn't go to jail or be harmed because of your beliefs. It doesn't mean you are protected from losing your job for being an asshole, or that you're safe from hearing free speech from people that disagree with you. It also doesn't mean that actions are without consequence because you're legally entitled to your own opinion.
Freedom of speech =/= no consequences for what you say.