Ak
I can think of some bands I’d love to see but they never play in a city near me. I never felt like they were punishing me though. If they are, I prefer this to most any other form of punishment out there. I’d certainly prefer it to what the trans citizens of North Carolina are facing but that is just me. I guess I could see feeling upset if I felt that my right to hear music trumped my fellow citizens basic rights. Thankfully, I don’t feel that way.
I guess I’d feel similarly if not hearing music would give my fellow citizen basic rights. Unfortunately, it wouldn’t.
And this is just as bad a strawman as those that think that their 1st amendment rights are being trampled if you voice any disagreement with what they have to say. I am disappointed that no one is giving me a million dollars in the mail: that does not mean I think it is my right to receive a million dollars in the mail.
I’m not getting your objection nor do I see my strawman. I am saying what you said, I have no intrinsic right to hear music and if I did it in no way compares to my fellow citizens basic rights. What am I missing? I have no inkling of how to turn what I was talking about into a 1st amendment thing. Please, enlighten me on what I really meant.
Are you equating the NC laws as merely a first amendment thing? I’d strongly disagree with that. These aren’t words we’re talking about here. They are actions that have real repercussions.
The 1st amendment thing was an analogy. It would be a strawman if you were to say that 1st amendment rights are trampled by disagreement. Similarly, it is a strawman to imply that I believe I have a right to hear music.
Well, at least they are trying. I’ll take that over apathy or worse, complaining because I couldn’t see a concert. My caring about my fellow man makes this an easy sacrifice to make. In fact, it’s really not enough but it’s all I got. Of course, I realize now I’m typing in Cafe Society so I realize that other posters would feel more strongly about their culture than I do.
An arena concert cancellation costs the venue at least $100,000 in rental profit directly. Then there’s the pay for event workers, and probably some overtime for local police, that none of them will now be earning or spending. Then there’s all the money that out-of-town attendees would have spent on gas and meals and whatnot, before and after the event.
Make no mistake, each of these cancellations is a ding on the local economy.
Oh, I honestly don’t have a clue what you believe. I was stating that this is what I got out of the words you typed. You could choose to clear up my misunderstanding or you could choose to obtusely tell me I was wrong. You chose the latter so unfortunately I don’t think I’ll ever know what you really meant by " but since we agree on the principle, they would be punishing me, who disagrees with the law, for the actions of people I voted against."
What would the punishment be exactly if it’s not denying your right to hear their music live?
Amen. Being upset at Pearl Jam about this is one big swing and a miss.
First step: bands cancel previously scheduled events
Next step: other bands do not schedule events in the future
Perhaps larger corporations, sports organizations follow suit… the impact on tourism, and ultimately the revenue and taxes may drive GOP decision making much faster than negative feedback, image, or public perception.
I applaud Bruce Springsteen, Ringo Starr, Pearl Jam, Ryan Adams, etc for taking the first step.
Sure. But so what? As JSexton pointed out, anybody’s entitled to “punish” anybody they disagree with by removing themselves from the environment of the other person and refusing to transact business in that environment.
What you are not ethically entitled to do, because it’s discriminatory in principle even if the discrimination isn’t targeting a legally protected class, is to operate a business serving the public in the community/ies shared by the people you disagree with, and then deny your services specifically to those particular members of the public because you disagree with them.
That is unjustly exploiting the people you disagree with. You’re taking advantage of the benefits and the support provided by the whole community that those people contribute to, but you’re refusing to provide them with the services that you’re supposedly offering to the community as a whole.
This is the aspect that all the squawkers about “I should be able to make my own decisions about who I’ll do business with on my own private property” always overlook. If you’re operating a business in a community, even if it’s on “your own private property”, you’re benefiting from all the municipal investments, tax revenues, commercial opportunities, advertising channels, etc., that the community provides. And that includes all the contributions to those benefits made by the specific folks you don’t want to do business with.
So no, sorry, you’re not entitled to enjoy all those benefits from the community as a whole and then pick and choose which members of the community you’re willing to serve. If you don’t want to do business with some people in the community, then you can make your point by upping stakes and not doing business in the community at all. And you take whatever hit to your income that that decision entails.
Costing the local economy several millions though can.
First, I would like to thank North Carolina for taking the focus off of Indiana who made a similar stupid move.
Suddenly when the NCAA, and the Super Bowl, etc. started saying they wouldn’t come here due to this legislation our very religious governor had the “come to Jesus” moment and reversed the decision.
But Kimstu, you’re sorta missing my point. You don’t need to convince me of the bill or it’s implications, and I don’t want to split legal hairs. Plus, I’m sure I’m unqualified to debate at such level of detail.
Though I’m not a legal scholar, I’ve got a lifetime of experience in Dick Detection, and it sounds like PJ, et al., are being dicks. It seems no better than refusing to mow the lawn of a lesbian. It’s still being a dick, isn’t it?
Honestly, I don’t really know how I feel about this issue (artists dicking-out on us). That’s why I’m participating here.
The most surprising thing to me about this news is to hear that Pearl Jam is still touring.
While the bands who boycott garner a lot of publicity, the real hit to North Carolina is coming from boycotting companies, who are costing money and jobs.
Deutsche Bank has frozen a plan to add 250 jobs in North Carolina.
Paypal has cancelled plans to build an operations center in Charlotte, that would have created 400 jobs.
Over 100 companies signed a letter to the governor in opposition to the law.
The conservative Republicans may not care about rock bands (although I’m sure some of them do), but they definitely care about business interests.
They are selling out a lot of shows so I guess somebody still likes them. Raleigh show was sold out.
There is no comparison between entertainers pulling out of NC due to conscience with a baker or florist refusing to serve gays. None. Anyone who claims so understands exactly zero percent of the issue. Its like saying you’re left handed, so you refuse to wear shoes. No comparison at all.
I think there are two differences besides the obvious one that very many North Carolinians oppose the law. One: PJ etc. are refusing to do business with people who are themselves actively messing with innocent peoples’ lives, whereas lesbians are not. So to the extent that all NCers support the law, that is a point in favor of PJ.
Two: on the other hand, PJ is changing their plans which can put concertgoers previous arrangements (e.g. to see them somewhere else) into question. It would be the equivalent of saying to a lesbian “sure, I’ll mow your lawn”, and then cancelling at the last moment. More dickitude than simply refusing to do the job in the first place cause now they’ll have to arrange for another mower etc.
I’m wondering if Pearl Jam is in breach of contract for cancelling a show on ideological grounds on one or two days’ notice.
If someone’s running around, punching people in the face, that guy’s a dick. If, in an effort to stop him punching people in the face, someone else runs up and punches him in the face, that second puncher isn’t so much of a dick, in my book.