Are people getting their money refunded? If so, they’re not dicks. And concerts get cancelled for all sorts of reasons – why is this one especially dick-ish? If anything, it might put MORE pressure on the people they’re targetting. “Hey, you bigots cost me a Pearl Jam concert!”
Seriously? They just released their last album three years ago. Were you under the impression that they had disbanded, or retired?
Speaking of not making sense, I’m really not sure what this post is supposed to mean. If you’re trying to point out that American bakers and florists who oppose same-sex marriage cannot easily set up shop someplace that doesn’t allow same-sex marriage, as same-sex marriage is currently recognized in all US states, then I am already aware of that. It does not trouble me in the least to think that homophobic bakers and florists might find that their own choices about where they are willing to do business have left them with no place to go.
If I compare Pearl Jam with a musician that refuses to perform at a gay wedding, I don’t see any real difference. Both are doing the same act, namely refusing to provide a service they generally offer based on their beliefs.
Ludic and Miller both make good and valid points. Though Ludic’s analogy would be more-fitting if we substitute a slap instead of the punch thrown by the **<**dick (puncher #2).
Someone at work today even quipped how it would be unfortunate to have tix to the event if you were one of those negatively affected by the bill itself; a double whammy.
It’s all quite complicated, especially considering this post where Mr Dorkness points out that HB supporters are getting shafted, too.
That does seem like the way to do it.
I still like Pearl Jam. Never did love The Boss, but still respect `im. They’re just doin’ what they think is right and, out of the millions of fans they have, one arena in NC is collateral damage. I don’t like that it calls international attention to the fact that NC has its share of problems, but that’s another thread.
I have no opinion on whether PJ et al. are being dicks. I don’t go to stadium-type concerts, so I have no idea what sort of implied contract exists between big-name performers and their fans when it comes to booking shows or changing the arrangements for booked shows with whatever amount of advance notice, or whether boycotting a venue on grounds of principle is a recognized thing in this context, or what.
My point is that even if you think these performers are being dicks, they are absolutely not being the same kind of dicks that anti-gay bakers and florists are being when they refuse to serve gay bridal couples. Maybe the performers are being inconsiderate dicks, or untrustworthy dicks, or whatever, but they are not being discriminatory dicks in the way that the aforesaid anti-gay bakers and florists are.
[QUOTE=somepumpkin]
It seems no better than refusing to mow the lawn of a lesbian.
[/quote]
I’m not arguing with you about whether boycotts are better or worse than discriminatory denial of services. I’m just making the point that boycotts are not analogous to discriminatory denial of services, and it’s false reasoning to try to equate them or argue that they’re basically the same thing.
I don’t really keep up on news related to them, obviously. It just surprises me since they were big when I was very young. Most bands don’t have that kind of longevity. Mazel Tov to them for sticking with it so long and apparently staying popular.
I had to sit down and schedule a business trip/conference for late summer/early fall. My choices were Charlotte or some town in Maine nobody ever heard of. No brainier, right? Gotta be Charlotte. Hope it’s not a sellout.
But the whole NC thing made me seriously consider Maine. I’ve never been there. Looking at pictures, I can imagine it might be ok. Lobster is good. So I emailed the coordinator and found out there was one slot left for Maine, but plenty of openings for Charlotte. I’m gonna visit Maine!
Fear not, we agree on the issue but yes, it does trouble me about the bakers and florists.
The truth is I don’t believe that striking down this avenue for bigots is more than putting lipstick on the pig. I appreciate a nice looking pig and all but it’s still a pig. Racial rights are an example of the same thing. Sure, superficially things are better for a lot of people but racists aren’t disappearing. They’ve moved into places where they can still be racists; police for example and we get places like Ferguson existing while the Supremes announce racism is dead and we all sing kumbaya. It may look like it but the reality is different and we may end up with a Trump president since while all Trump followers aren’t racists, he is the approved candidate of known racist groups.
I am reminded of the lyrics of the Randy Newman song Rednecks ( 1974 yes over 40 years ago )
Doesn’t seem like much has fundamentally changed in 40 years. We still see the same crap in the same cities. We sure have evolved haven’t we?
Laws don’t change minds, they simply don’t so while I will support any anti discrimination efforts, their gains aren’t super impressive so yeah, I wonder just what these people are going to do. They’re not going to discriminate in the same way but they’re not going to disappear just because society has changed around them. If that were how it worked we would have never had a drug problem and drugs are much more of a choice than moral ideas.
So, since I was toying with the idea of keeping the most useless professions as places where bigots could still channel their hatred I was thinking about what these people could do that could be much much worse than not getting a cake and flowers for your wedding. It’s kinda like a first world solution for a total world problem.
I realized that there was still a lot more that I’d need to consider before i could address the myriad of questions this opinion would receive and it’s certainly not ready to be something I would own and defend without more thought. So, I decided to ditch the attempt to explain and just put out the part about the bakers and florists which was what started me down this path in the first place. I left in too much of the post though so it was confusing.
Seriously though, we’ve tried the zero tolerance law approach and it doesn’t seem to me to be working too well. If we’re shooting for a society which looks great on the surface but is rotten underneath then we’ve achieved that. If we’re shooting for solutions we’re not very effective. Somehow, I’m doubting that telling people that we don’t care that their choices about where they are willing to do business have left them with no place to go is particularly helpful. Yeah, that’s going to solve the problem. That is, if we’re ostriches. I don’t have the answers but I’m getting tired of being an ostrich.
A last confusion to clear up for now. My thoughts are really about the religious freedom debates in which North Carolina’s law doesn’t really apply. The law provides no religious exemptions for moral beliefs. It affects everyone. At the time I first posted I really didn’t understand that and any discussion of bakers and florists really aren’t applicable to this thread which is about North Carolina’s bathrooms which have neither floral arrangements or cakes as far as I know. At least they didn’t when I lived there.
You’ve listed the biggest difference. Pearl Jam was not performing for a gay wedding. They are not denying service to a race, creed, color, sexual orientation, nationality, etc. The florist and baker are. That’s why there’s no comparison.
Not quite.
Vedder, Moore, and Springsteen are also not performing for people who do share their values. The “bakers and florists” appear to be demand the right to choose who gets their services. If the bakers and florists were to announce, “We are going out of business because we cannot condone this new requirement to provide services to people who don’t share our values,” then it wouldn’t be a problem. On the other hand, if Springsteen were to hold a concert somewhere, and have people at the gates checking ticket holders and turning away anyone on some list of “known bigots,” then that would be a problem.
There’s a Facebook meme about this; it shows a lunch counter, and words along the lines of, “We’ve had this conversation before - you don’t get to decide who sits at the lunch counter.”
As much as my state embarrasses me sometimes, I still hold out that money will talk.
NC’s alcohol limit used to be 5.5%. Thanks to lobbying by microbrewers who convinced the legislature that more alcohol = more tourism dollars, the limit got raised to 15%. NC also didn’t used to have a lottery, but after seeing Virginia and SC suck away our dollars, they instituted one. They even swayed a little on fireworks. NC stores can now sell fireworks that are sparkly and don’t make much noise.
Our esteemed governor is currently blaming everything on the liberal media (as usual) and using the strawman argument that China shows American-made movies, and they have a lot more human rights violations than we do. Maybe he can figure out how to save face and not look like a total retard, but I have my doubts.
You’re begging the question. You’ve simply stated that they are different without providing an argument why they are.
I haven’t seen arena contracts, but I have seen convention center contracts, and there is usually a cancellation penalty. So the bands are very likely putting their money where their beliefs are.
Yeah, good guys are getting affected by this,. but the boycott of South Africa by many during apartheid days also affected those opposed to apartheid. I don’t recall many of those good guys objecting though.
The people getting married are not hurting anyone. I suppose if you are a religious fanatic you might think they are hurting their salvation. The law is hurting other people.
Say that instead of the innocent gay couple the person getting married is a sheriff who makes it a habit of arresting and beating the minority of your choice for no reason. Do you see the difference between refusing to play at his wedding and the wedding of those who never hurt anyone?
The bands boycotting NC are simply not providing those services at all.
Discriminatory businesses are continuing to provide services, but they are picking and choosing who gets those services.
The difference has already been clearly demonstrated earlier in the thread: In order to be the same behavior, the musical groups would have to play their shows in NC but have people stationed at the entrance to turn away bigots.
You either provide services for everyone (you don’t get to choose who sits at your lunch counter) or you provide services for nobody. The bands are choosing to provide services for nobody.
Our hypothetical musician isn’t turning away gay people at their performances so your analogy is not valid. They are doing exactly what Pearl Jam is. Namely, refusing certain gigs based on their beliefs.
But Pearl Jam is still performing shows so they are not choosing to provide services to no one.
treis, in the 1950s, some people refused to patronize certain buses because they didn’t allow black people to choose their own seats. Other people refused to let black people patronize their businesses.
What, if any, moral difference do you see between these two groups?
The ultimate point of this is that I think people should be able to choose who they provide services to. For example, I am a programmer. I want to be able to tell the Westboro Baptist Church to go pound sand if they wanted my services. I think others should enjoy the same right, even if I disagree with how they are exercising it.
I’m not arguing Pearl Jam is on the wrong side of the issue while those refusing services to gay weddings are on the right side. I’m arguing that both sides should be free to provide their services to who they wish. The way to punish the people who choose different than what you think they should is to not patronize that business. So if I were planning a wedding, I would definitely ask what their policy on performing services for gay marriage. If they say no, then they don’t get my business.
So, to be clear, you see no moral difference between those two? I apologize if I misunderstand your answer.