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.
I'm sure there are also a number of fans who have no interest about his political beliefs that got left out in the cold. Those are more the ones I feel for.
I have bigger and better issues to deal with, than to feel sorry for a hypothetical group over something so relatively minor.
I'm sure there are also a number of fans who have no interest about his political beliefs that got left out in the cold. Those are more the ones I feel for.
I am more concerned about civil rights than disappointed concert-goers.
So if Bruce Springsteen is canceling his show in NC because the new law is not in line with his beliefs, what makes him any different than a baker who does not want to bake a cake for a gay wedding because it is not in line with his/her beliefs?
Is he not discriminating against his fans and population of NC by boycotting? Isn't it clear that not everyone supports this law and that many of the people that will attend the concert are within this population?
Look, I respect the fact that he's doing this. I don't like it and think its hypocritical, but he doesn't need the payday, doesn't need to really add more fans and has proven time again to be on the side of the working man (and woman). My question is, will he stop his concerts in other states/countries that have even more discriminatory laws?
Still, it's his right and if he believes strongly in it, have at it. Same with the other companies that won't do business in NC. I live in NC and hate the law. Not really because of the silly bathroom issue, but because of the portion about the employers right to terminate employment of an employee.
Location: Chapel Hill, NC, formerly NoVA and Phila
9,779 posts, read 15,793,171 times
Reputation: 10888
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scrappy907
So if Bruce Springsteen is canceling his show in NC because the new law is not in line with his beliefs, what makes him any different than a baker who does not want to bake a cake for a gay wedding because it is not in line with his/her beliefs?
Springsteen is not disallowing certain types of people to come to his concert. The concert is open to anyone who pays for a ticket, just like the bakery should be open to anyone who pays for a cake.
Springsteen not wishing to hold a concert in North Carolina would be similar to a homophobic baker not wanting to open a bakery in San Francisco. Each have a right to not practice their craft in a certain location.
Springsteen is not disallowing certain types of people to come to his concert. The concert is open to anyone who pays for a ticket, just like the bakery should be open to anyone who pays for a cake.
Springsteen not wishing to hold a concert in North Carolina would be similar to a homophobic baker not wanting to open a bakery in San Francisco. Each have a right to not practice their craft in a certain location.
As far as I know (correct me if I'm wrong), these bakeries are open to anyone who pays for a cake. The limitation is purely on wedding cakes. And by canceling his show, he is disallowing certain people to come to his concert.
And your analogy would be fine if Springsteen didn't plan a concert in NC. But he did plan one and then cancelled after tickets had been purchased, hotel rooms and flights had been booked, cars had been rented and dinner reservations had been made. So he's really more like a bakery that agrees to bake a cake for a gay wedding and then cancels the morning of the wedding.
Location: Chapel Hill, NC, formerly NoVA and Phila
9,779 posts, read 15,793,171 times
Reputation: 10888
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scrappy907
As far as I know (correct me if I'm wrong), these bakeries are open to anyone who pays for a cake. The limitation is purely on wedding cakes. And by canceling his show, he is disallowing certain people to come to his concert.
And your analogy would be fine if Springsteen didn't plan a concert in NC. But he did plan one and then cancelled after tickets had been purchased, hotel rooms and flights had been booked, cars had been rented and dinner reservations had been made. So he's really more like a bakery that agrees to bake a cake for a gay wedding and then cancels the morning of the wedding.
But Springsteen didn't discriminate against anyone or a particular group. He cancelled a concert. It happens. Concerts get cancelled if the performer gets sick, the venue has a power outage, there is a weather event, etc. Yes, he cancelled because he didn't like a bill that was recently passed in the state, but he didn't unfairly treat a particular person or group.
That's how it's different from a baker refusing to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple. Could a baker refuse to bake a cake to a black/white couple if he's against black/whites getting married? No! Just like Springsteen cannot refuse to let into his concerts black/white couples or someone who is a member of the KKK.
A more apt comparison to Springsteen cancelling his concert would be if a baker owned a bakery in Utah and Utah suddenly passed a law that allows gay marriage. The baker is up in arms over the new law so he decides to close his bakery because he doesn't want to bake wedding cakes for gay couples. In the meantime, a couple had ordered a wedding cake before the baker closed the bakery and now the couple has to scramble to find another bakery to bake their cake. It is well within the baker's rights to close his bakery if he doesn't feel comfortable with the state's new law. Just like it is well within Bruce's rights to cancel a concert in a state whose laws he doesn't agree with.
What the baker cannot do, however, is keep his bakery open and choose who he sells cakes to, just like Bruce cannot choose who he sells tickets to his concert to.
And by canceling his show, he is disallowing certain people to come to his concert.
Your sentence makes no sense. If the show is canceled, there is no concert for specific people to not be allowed to go to it. There is no concert.
Bruce is protesting discrimination while the bakers who made headlines wanted to discriminate on a product that they sell based on who the customer was. That's classic discrimination.
A more apt comparison to Springsteen cancelling his concert would be if a baker owned a bakery in Utah and Utah suddenly passed a law that allows gay marriage. The baker is up in arms over the new law so he decides to close his bakery because he doesn't want to bake wedding cakes for gay couples. In the meantime, a couple had ordered a wedding cake before the baker closed the bakery and now the couple has to scramble to find another bakery to bake their cake. It is well within the baker's rights to close his bakery if he doesn't feel comfortable with the state's new law. Just like it is well within Bruce's rights to cancel a concert in a state whose laws he doesn't agree with.
This is certainly an apt comparison. But keep this in mind...in the USA, the KKK is a lawful group. So if a baker can be compelled to bake a wedding cake in Utah because gay marriage is legal, then why can't Bruce Springsteen be compelled to perform for a KKK sponsored concert, should they choose to hire him (and if they can afford him), in a state where he performs and the KKK is a lawfully formed group. Why are musicians allowed to discriminate when bakers are not.
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.
