Applying this standard to Phil Robertson's comments in GQ magazine, it seems self-evident to me that he was expressing nothing more than an opinion and, moreover, to the extent that he was stating facts, what he said is at least arguably true. And, of course, if it's an opinion and at least arguably true, what we have here is not a defamation (which may be actionable) but a disagreement (which is not). Put differently, what we have here from Phil Robertson is not a slur that could be an appropriate basis for punishment, but an opinion, which in a democracy can and should only be countered with debate, i.e., opposing opinions.
Now, for the GLAAD statement:
The Robertsons, the family whose duck hunting products have made them a fortune, are breakout stars featured in A&E’s Duck Dynasty. GQ Magazine’s profile of Phil Robertson included some of the vilest and most extreme statements uttered against LGBT people in a mainstream publication. His quote was littered with outdated stereotypes and blatant misinformation.
Now, let me hasten to say that, as a libertarian, I think consenting adults have the right to do whatever they want sexually. I do not and would never support discrimination against gay men. And, frankly, uniformly every gay man I have met in my life has been nice to me... good co-workers, good neighbors, good friends.“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.
But what is Phil Robertson really saying here other than, to him, in his opinion, anal intercourse with a man is unappealing, undesirable? He doesn't say it, but let's infer... he thinks in his personal opinion that it's icky or gross. Is he really not allowed to think that? Or, more likely, is he just not allowed to say it?