Petition to support Bruce's right to refuse

[Horn6721]

There is a petition on change.org asking for people to sign in support of Bruce's right to refuse to perform in NC because he disagrees with the new law.
hard to disagree.
https://www.change.org/p/the-people...fuse-service-based-on-his-deeply-held-beliefs

 

[mb227]

It shows the sad state of affairs this country has swirled down to when people create an online petition to offer rah-rah attaboys to someone who simply made their decision not to conduct business somewhere...

People seem hellbent on going out of their way to further create divisions...all the online petition crap (on both sides of the issue) does is stifle real discussion of the issues.

 

[Horn6721]

If you read the petition you realize that it might actually open up discussion.

 

[mb227]

If you read the petition you realize that it might actually open up discussion.

I read the petition...I have also been involved enough of those sorts of discussions through the years to know how it plays out. I've even seen the no-platforming of speakers that occurs if you piss off the wrong side of the debate...

Personally, I believe he has the right to pull out of whatever show he wants just as a business should have the right not to do business there if they so choose...but the people feeling the direct impact are not the legislators. Rather it is people who might not even have had a dog in the hunt on either side of the battle...

 

[Seattle Husker]

Personally, I believe he has the right to pull out of whatever show he wants just as a business should have the right not to do business there if they so choose...but the people feeling the direct impact are not the legislators. Rather it is people who might not even have had a dog in the hunt on either side of the battle...

The legislators represent the people though, right? As representatives of the people, they have to decide if this legislation is more important than the economic/cultural impact to their state.

 

[Horn6721]

mb
You feel all people including Bruce have a right to do business as they choose but you know many do not think that. And many of the many
likely would have supported Bruce but then would not extend that support to businesses who make the choice to refuse based on their personal beliefs.
Perhaps some who would have signed this petition because they think he was doing a great thing snubbing the people of NC might actually stop and think it through.
It is a small thing really but could it cause some people to look at all sides?

 

[Phil Elliott]

Bruce is virtue-signaling. Why do I need to give him an attaboy for that?

 

[Joe Fan]

There is a petition on change.org asking for people to sign in support of Bruce's right to refuse to perform in NC because he disagrees with the new law. hard to disagree.s

If so, then the Muslim butcher should be able to legally refuse to provide pork sausages for the Mohamed drawing contest; the black baker should be able to legally refuse to provide Dixie-flag colored cupcakes for KKK state meeting, and the Christian candlestick maker should be able to legally refuse to create phallic-shaped votives for a gay wedding.

 

[UTChE96]

I don't get it. Is Bruce Springsteen being forced against his will to perform a concert in NC?

 

[Seattle Husker]

Fixed it for you.

If so, then the Muslim butcher should be able to legally refuse to provide pork sausages for all customers; the black baker should be able to legally refuse to provide cupcakes for all customers, and the Christian candlestick maker should be able to legally refuse to create votives for all customers.

No middle ground, huh? Most sensible people would say bakers shouldn't be forced to make vulgar or sexually explicit creations. On the flipside, they shouldn't be able to say "you're gay so I won't serve you." A rainbow colored cake? I think most would say that's closer to acceptable. A rainbow colored penis shaped cake? Not many people would argue that anyone should be forced to create that cake.

 

[Joe Fan]

Fixed it for you.

er, not really

 

[ShAArk92]

Fixed it for you.



No middle ground, huh? Most sensible people would say bakers shouldn't be forced to make vulgar or sexually explicit creations. On the flipside, they shouldn't be able to say "you're gay (SIC) so I won't serve you." ....

BUT THAT'S NOT THE PROBLEM, is it, SH?

The problem ... and maybe I'm getting all the events cornfused, but wasn't the original 170 some odd thousand judgement against sweet cakes in OR? that they wouldn't PARTICIPATE in the ceremony?

it wasn't that they refused service ... IIRC, they had done business with these people in the past ... but they saw this request to violate the tenets of their faith ... so ... what's the problem?

IIfurtherRC ... sweet cakes even provided a referral, so it's not like they just stomped off and held their breath. They HELPED their former customer ... but that wasn't good enough.

Such has been the MO of the homosexual movement from the contemporary git go.


1980s ... tolerance
1990s ... acceptance
2000s ... normalized

now ... redefining our basic institution of society to make even Clinton's "what's the meaning of is" now seem trivial in the eye of the law.

NOW that the homosexual lobby has conquered the act of breaking the bond of marriage and forcing their lifestyle choices onto others ... current is transgender (if there really is such a thing) ... and there's even been incestual relations now begging for the same "equality."

There are a lot of ways to live one's life ... but there's really only one way to live liberated and free ... only one way to Master Life. The focus has GOT to be moved off of the self's ego, and honor the ordained design of family.

But to get there, one has to respond affirmatively, to have that faith of the sweet cakes bakery owners ... anyhow.

 

[nashhorn]

Guess Hillary's famous "what difference does it make", has more meaning than we ever imagined. I suppose it will become the national motto under her administration.

 

[Seattle Husker]

BUT THAT'S NOT THE PROBLEM, is it, SH?

The problem ... and maybe I'm getting all the events cornfused, but wasn't the original 170 some odd thousand judgement against sweet cakes in OR? that they wouldn't PARTICIPATE in the ceremony?

it wasn't that they refused service ... IIRC, they had done business with these people in the past ... but they saw this request to violate the tenets of their faith ... so ... what's the problem?

IIfurtherRC ... sweet cakes even provided a referral, so it's not like they just stomped off and held their breath. They HELPED their former customer ... but that wasn't good enough.

Such has been the MO of the homosexual movement from the contemporary git go.


1980s ... tolerance
1990s ... acceptance
2000s ... normalized

now ... redefining our basic institution of society to make even Clinton's "what's the meaning of is" now seem trivial in the eye of the law.

NOW that the homosexual lobby has conquered the act of breaking the bond of marriage and forcing their lifestyle choices onto others ... current is transgender (if there really is such a thing) ... and there's even been incestual relations now begging for the same "equality."

There are a lot of ways to live one's life ... but there's really only one way to live liberated and free ... only one way to Master Life. The focus has GOT to be moved off of the self's ego, and honor the ordained design of family.

But to get there, one has to respond affirmatively, to have that faith of the sweet cakes bakery owners ... anyhow.

My reference was more for the Colorado bakery who was asked to bake a rainbow colored multi-tier cake. The Oregon case is an even more egregious case of discrimination. "Participation" in both is defined as baking a cake. Neither was asked to be part of the wedding party. For Sweet Cakes, they discovered at the time of cake tasting that they were being asked to bake a cake for lesbian couple after 3 years earlier baking a cake for the heterosexual mother of one of the lesbians.

I believe everyone has a right to their own beliefs. That right does not carry over to discriminating against others in public services or settings.

 

[Horn6721]

Husker
So you think Bruce did not have the right to cancel the concert?

 

[ShAArk92]

I believe everyone has a right to their own beliefs. That right does not carry over to discriminating against others in public services or settings.

Welp ... I had a passenger the other day who thought it was his right to wear his pants with the waist of the pants closer to his knees than HIS waist. He wasn't going on my airplane dressed like that. Discrimination is a daily part of life and it's not always bad. In fact, most of the time, discrimination is beneficial.

AFA "participating," I understood the Oregon event to have been where the couple wanted the bakery at the reception with their cake, not the wedding party. I never heard they were unwilling to do business with them. I could be wrong on that detail. But I'm pretty sure I read in multiple accounts ... Sweet cakes REFERRED the couple.

 

[ShAArk92]

Husker
So you think Bruce did not have the right to cancel the concert?

well ... uhmm ... ah ... you see ...

 

[Horn6721]

Shark it will be interesting to see how Husker chooses to answer if he does.

 

[huisache]

if the lege says I have to pee in the same room as the girls I am ok with that If they say I can't do so I am ok with that. If they say I have to pee in a can behind the garage I am ok with that. If they say I have to take a dump in the middle of Memorial Stadium on game day well I will do that too.

I don't give a zhit what the people in either of the Carolinas decide about who pees and zhits where.

 

[Seattle Husker]

Husker
So you think Bruce did not have the right to cancel the concert?

The whole concert? Yes. Does he have a right to cancel the tickets for a subset who support the bill because he disagrees with them? That's the question you are avoiding. You're either offering a service to the public or you're not. As a private establishment, you have every right to have a rule that applies equally to all customers. Having rules that discriminate based on race or sexual orientation are in many states legally prohibited.

 

[Horn6721]

" Does he have a right to cancel the tickets for a subset who support the bill because he disagrees with them? That's the question you are avoiding"

I am not it avoiding it. That is plain silly.

 

[Phil Elliott]

I am still not clear on the issue here - who is trying to *force* BS to give a concert in NC?

 

[chango]

I had a passenger the other day who thought it was his right to wear his pants with the waist of the pants closer to his knees than HIS waist. He wasn't going on my airplane dressed like that.

I believe you made this up. If not, I apologize for my accusation and hope this passenger has a very good lawyer.

What airport was this in?

 

[Seattle Husker]

I am still not clear on the issue here - who is trying to *force* BS to give a concert in NC?

Horn6721, evidently.

 

[ShAArk92]

I believe you made this up. If not, I apologize for my accusation and hope this passenger has a very good lawyer.

What airport was this in?

you can believe whatever you choose, chango.

Dress appropriately and it's not a problem.

behave properly, and you get where you want to go when you intended to go.

become a problem and the problem is dealt-with ... that's the authority written, and is echoed in the "right of carriage" ... which is included in every ticket purchased.

The airport of this referenced event is irrelevant ... as is anything else but the inappropriate dress and the responsibility for the aircraft, passengers, crew, and cargo.

In case you missed it ... I refer you to the second 2 lines for review.

The point is ... discrimination is a requirement for daily living.

 

[Horn6721]

No Phil the petition asks people if they agree that Bruce has the right to cancel a concert if Bruce ' s personal belief system is conflict with a law in N C. If the people agree with that do they also agree other people have the right to cancel their services based on their personal beliefs.

Maybe another question that should asked is if biological females have a right to be able to pee in a female only restroom or biological men ? What about children?Do parents gave a right to expect biological gender restroom ?
Should there be some requirements to make sure the Transgender are actually transgender? Or just perverts subverting the latest, there are many reports of men using the transgender demands to invade female restrooms and lockerrooms
The other question is why is not having a separate facility for unisex enough. Unisex,leaving cis female and cis male only facilities. Why is this not a good compromise for all?

 

[ShAArk92]

Well, you know ... because being seen entering/exiting the "special" facility would bring shame and duress upon the transgendered. The separate but equal conundrum.

So, evidently the answer to the questions follow:

No
No
No, absolutely not
yes

 

[Seattle Husker]

there are many reports of men using the transgender demands to invade female restrooms and lockerrooms

Can you provide a few examples from the media? You said "many", right?

No Phil the petition asks people if they agree that Bruce has the right to cancel a concert if Bruce ' s personal belief system is conflict with a law in N C. If the people agree with that do they also agree other people have the right to cancel their services based on their personal beliefs.

Discriminating against an extreme minority is the equivalent of Bruce S. discriminating against the state of NC? That's a cliff jump leap of logic, my friend. Again, your analogy doesn't work because Bruce isn't telling a few people they can't attend his concert because he disagrees with them. If you want to make Bruce's actions analogous to the bakery's then they wouldn't serve anyone in their local community rather than singling out homosexuals, or blacks or whomever violated their beliefs to not serve.

 

[nashhorn]

Discriminating against an extreme minority

Ok SH I am going to show my complete ignorance here but just what is an 'extreme' minority? I know what I consider carrying this issue to an extreme may not be another opinion but just what is considered an 'extreme' minority in your eyes?

 

[Phil Elliott]

If they are such an 'extreme minority' why are we turning our social norms upside down to accommodate them?