I didn’t see the mounting technique. Knowing these clowns, we sure they didn’t use double stick tape?
I just want to take the T off.
OTOH, Trump isn’t exactly known for maintaining possession of his marbles….
Marble armrests make me think of park benches with spikes so nobody loiters.
“Threatening to sue” is simply performative bullshit. He won’t sue. Because he has no case.
Richard Grenell, president of the Kennedy Center, said that Mr. Redd had engaged in “sad bullying tactics employed by certain elements on the left.” And threatening to sue him isn’t bullying?
All that matters is whether Redd had a contract, and what any contract might say. Quick googling fails to answer this.
If there is a contract, it is probably with the Kennedy Center, not the Trump-Kennedy Center.
I could see a defence being tried that there was a fundamental change there, that he would never have contracted with the Trump Center, and they’re the ones in breach.
Who predicted the biting satire of a cartoon might bite the government ass?
Not I.
You’re assuming real gold? Bless ..
IANAL, but I’d be surprised if the contracts didn’t envision this possibility and safeguard against it:
Even if there is a binding contract, at least some of these entertainers must have good legal counsel to advise them.
I would think they would have thought through at least some of the more glaring consequences.
IANAL, but my guess it has something to do with the issue of endorsement. If an artist appears in a stadium named after a corporation, the implication is that they are endorsing that corporation - if you appear in Staples Center, for instance, it is assumed that your name, linked to that of Staples, generates profit for Staples; that’s why Staples sponsored the place in the first place. If an artist doesn’t want to link their name to that of Staples, then they won’t perform there.
In the case in question, the artists signed up to perform at the Kennedy Center, linking their name and reputation to John F. Kennedy and John F. Kennedy only. By adding Trump’s name, they are asking artists to also endorse Donald Trump, which was not what they had originally agreed to do. This gives them grounds, IMHO, to withdraw from the contract.
And it doesn’t have to be an endorsement of a corporation or a person, it could just be an implied endorsement of the name of the venue. If Taylor Swift is booked to appear at Madison Square Garden, and a week before the show the owners decided to change its name to the Shithole, and start advertising “Taylor Swift is in the Shithole!”, don’t you think she’d have grounds to cancel?
Sure, assignment and succcessor clauses are common. But in some legal systems, there’s the concept of fundamental breach: that one party to a contract does something that is so contrary to the purpose of the contract thst the other party can treat it as void.
Here, the musician might try to say that he would never have entered into a contract with a Trump-themed institution, and changing the institution to a Trump theme, in violation of federal law, is a fundamental breach.
Similar to what Alessan said.
No idea if such an argument would have any traction in a DC court; pure speculation in my part.
Interesting thought.
In some ways, I guess it’s akin to the Masterpiece Cakeshop case (and others of a similar nature), where the claim was about ‘forced speech’ in the setting of something to which the baker was passionately morally opposed.
I doubt it would get legs, though, because that kind of discrimination action, in the US, only tends to prevail in one direction 
The President of the United States is not a protected class.
No. Certainly not.
But ISTM that the underpinnings of the kind of defense that the performer(s) who canceled might use is compulsory speech, and that – since the Chair of the Board happens to be the President of the United States, it would be – de facto – the government compelling the artist’s ‘speech.’
I’m not sure how successfully a President who enjoys the vast (more now than ever before) protections of the office can assert that he was “acting solely as a private citizen” in matters of this sort.
Would they have to play music when on stage? One could perhaps enlighten all of the crimes and hipocrisies going on. Use a sharpie.
Or, write the song and sing it.
Trump is a raving maniac
has no business being here
As soon as he’s imprissoned
We are all going to get a beer.
Not bad for a 5 minute thought.
Weeeeelllll. When the SCOTUS says you can do as you please, that’s pretty protected.