Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
cancelling the show is realization of the boycott.
He is not refusing service as he was not sought out to perform a service. He and His manager booked venues for a tour.
And no, this has nothing to do with ideology or agreeing with him, if it did, I wouldnt have said the Pope was right and that is why you didnt respond to the rest of my post; You realized you had no real argument.
This has to do with you not understanding the difference between excluding and including.
Well he is refusing service. He determined and advertised that he was playing a concert in Greensboro NC on Sunday 17th April 2016, clearly people sought out this service since he sold out of tickets. While it's not a consistent service like a store, it is still a service he is providing albeit irregular.
Subsequently events transpired that he felt were against his ethics, and then cancelled the concert in protest.
Calling it a boycott is not really pertinent, refusal of a stated and advertised service for ethical reasons is the same regardless, of whether it's Springsteen or a baker (unless it's Ginger Baker who would be identical to Springsteen). The sole difference is a baker is fixed to a single location, Springsteen provides an itinerant service but also spends significantly more in advertising that his service will be at a certain location at a certain date.
However they're both refusing service based on ethical concerns, the sole differentiation would be whether or not you agree with those ethical concerns. If one person can refuse a service on ethical concerns, then logically it would follow that another person can refuse a service on different ethical concerns.
That same "argument" was used 50+ years ago to justify racial discrimination. It just doesn't hold water. If you have a business to serve the public, then serving the public is what you need to do. Not pick and choose who want to serve..
Springsteen is not a retail store. he is not open to the public to sell them or service them in anyway. he is a musician who booked an event, you are free to buy a ticket if you want, he can cancel whenever he wants.
Springsteen is not a retail store. he is not open to the public to sell them or service them in anyway. he is a musician who booked an event, you are free to buy a ticket if you want, he can cancel whenever he wants.
Actually you'd need to look into the contracts he provided in how the event was managed to determine whether or not he's a defacto retailer or not.
Here's the problem, if he rented the auditorium (and any ancillary services, like catering, marketing, etc), and "Bruce Springsteen Road Tours" is the company who is actually putting on the event, then he is a provider of a retail service open to the public.
If however the auditorium is paying Bruce to attend their auditorium, and they are actually putting on the event, then he is not the service provider of a retail service open to the public (that would be the auditorium).
Most commonly the former is used, because the margins for the artists are higher.
This business about "holding my own country to a certain higher set of standards" is a red herring and based on personal perspectives. If there are no absolutes, then anything goes. Everybody's perspective is important to them, and more important than the other guy's.
YOUR 'higher' standards may not be as high as someone elses, and vice versa.
Bruce Springsteen cancelling an entire concert doesn't discriminate against an entire demographic of people who couldn't decide how they were created, but a business refusing to sell to homosexuals or blacks or women does. The latter can create a community of discrimination against people just based on how they were born, whereas Bruce Springsteen cancelling his concert is not targeted at people for how they were born, but for decisions a community made that he disagrees with because it causes discrimination.
This is again the argument all associates must have the same perfect standards, no matter how indirect their decisions; PayPal does business in NC too, and I'm sure you do business with companies that do things you don't like. Does that make you a hypocrite?
Springsteen most certainly discriminates against an entire population of people, of all colors, persuasions, ages -- he took action against everyone, none of whom were able to participate in the drafting and passage of the bill he so vehemently objects to.
If one person can refuse a service on ethical concerns, then logically it would follow that another person can refuse a service on different ethical concerns.
The issue is that the other person has a contract with the state which forbids them from refusing service for the reason they are citing. That is what a business license is, a contract. And when you violate a contract, you are penalized.
This business about "holding my own country to a certain higher set of standards" is a red herring and based on personal perspectives. If there are no absolutes, then anything goes. Everybody's perspective is important to them, and more important than the other guy's.
YOUR 'higher' standards may not be as high as someone elses, and vice versa.
Well, for one thing, I don't believe that there aren't absolutes. There are objective moral truths. For example, genocide is objectively wrong. The evidence for this is that countries or regimes that commit genocide rarely advertise it as such. They either hide the fact that they're doing it, such as by calling it a civil war, or call it something that makes it sound positive, like an ethnic cleansing.
Now, I won't agree that what constitutes as best isn't necessarily universally agreed upon. But in regards to the relevant topics, I think that our country should just know better than to execute homosexuals, which is objectively wrong. However, a higher standard in the context to what I was saying was pretty clear: we are scientifically literate. We know not to base our laws on religion, or at least we should. Now, ideally Saudi Arabia would as well, but it's not my right to force them to stop.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
