What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Artists, businesses boycott North Carolina over anti-LGBT law (1 Viewer)

IvanKaramazov said:
To put it a little differently, let's do a thought experiment.  Suppose that tomorrow morning, Bruce Springsteen wakes up and converts to hard-core fundamentalist Christianity.  Specifically, he comes to the conclusion that there's something bad about homosexuality, and he decides that from now on he'll never perform in another state or municipality that protects gays, let alone the whole LGBTQ spectrum, from discrimination.  

Should we force Springsteen to perform in those locations, against his will?
Click to expand...
Bruce Springsteen does not perform a service that is readily available to anyone who requests it.

 
[scooter] said:
I agree with much of what you say. However, there is a significant difference between "cater a gay wedding" and "do business with gay people". Religious liberty should protect a person from doing the former but not the latter.
Click to expand...
Thanks.  That's reasonable.  A wedding is (some would argue) inherently religious, whereas hiring somebody to do bookkeeping for a construction company isn't.  That's admittedly a different issue.  

[scooter] said:
Bruce Springsteen does not perform a service that is readily available to anyone who requests it.
Click to expand...
Exactly.  We agree that Bruce Springsteen can refuse folks who request that he perform for them.  Other private actors should have the same option.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
IvanKaramazov said:
To put it a little differently, let's do a thought experiment.  Suppose that tomorrow morning, Bruce Springsteen wakes up and converts to hard-core fundamentalist Christianity.  Specifically, he comes to the conclusion that there's something bad about homosexuality, and he decides that from now on he'll never perform in another state or municipality that protects gays, let alone the whole LGBTQ spectrum, from discrimination.  

Should we force Springsteen to perform in those locations, against his will?

I've never met anyone who thought that Christian rock groups should have to accept offers to perform for GLAAD, so I assume the answer to that question is no. But if that's the case, how is a private caterer any different than Bruce Springsteen, in any relevant respect?
Click to expand...
I think anyone who is not offering a public accommodation should be able to do whatever.  So I don't particularly care if a baker chooses not to make wedding cakes for gay marriages, or interracial marriages, or Catholic weddings or whatever.  I think its different when you're talking about hotels, and restaurants, and grocery stores which are public accommodations.

But if a state is going to consider a bakery a public accommodation, I don't think that a baker should get a carve-out just because his or her objection is religious.  That's why I think religious liberty laws are bogus.  Because they aren't about free exercise (baking wedding cakes is not the free exercise of religion).  So religious objections shouldn't be treated any differently than "gay people are icky" or "I hate Albanians" types of objections.

 
Ramsay Hunt Experience said:
I think anyone who is not offering a public accommodation should be able to do whatever.  So I don't particularly care if a baker chooses not to make wedding cakes for gay marriages, or interracial marriages, or Catholic weddings or whatever.  I think its different when you're talking about hotels, and restaurants, and grocery stores which are public accommodations.

But if a state is going to consider a bakery a public accommodation, I don't think that a baker should get a carve-out just because his or her objection is religious.  That's why I think religious liberty laws are bogus.  Because they aren't about free exercise (baking wedding cakes is not the free exercise of religion).  So religious objections shouldn't be treated any differently than "gay people are icky" or "I hate Albanians" types of objections.
Click to expand...
I was actually thinking about exactly this point earlier today, but I refrained from mentioning it because it struck me as inflammatory even by the standards of this topic.  Let's say you pass a bill that says that people can discriminate against gays if they have a religious problem with gays.  That seems to me to be a first amendment violation, in the sense that it allows Christians to discriminate against gays but still could prohibit secularists from discriminating against gays.  I agree that motivation shouldn't be an allowable issue here.  

To clarify, that strikes me as inflammatory because it comes across as "Everybody should discriminate against gays, not just fundy Christians!" when what I'm going after is that people should be free to associate with other according to their own personal beliefs however those beliefs are formed.  That's why I appreciate Springsteen's example.  
 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Discrimination is all about protected classes...you completely ignored the part of the law where it's now ok for a NC employer to fire a worker simply because they are gay or trans...any thoughts on that?  

as for services...bruce is not discriminating because as stated previously anyone can still go see his shows elsewhere regardless of who they are...any one can go to NY in 2 wks and see his show....thats not the same of a florist who refuses only gay weddings.....if Bruce banned only Christians from his shows then you may have a point...you cant discriminate in the scenario you are stating....I honestly dont see the difference with the days where African Americans were refused service and am stunned that this is even an argument in 2016.

 
Kiddnets said:
Discrimination is all about protected classes...you completely ignored the part of the law where it's now ok for a NC employer to fire a worker simply because they are gay or trans...any thoughts on that?  
Click to expand...
I certainly wouldn't do that, but it's (literally) not my business.

as for services...bruce is not discriminating because as stated previously anyone can still go see his shows elsewhere regardless of who they are...any one can go to NY in 2 wks and see his show....thats not the same of a florist who refuses only gay weddings.....if Bruce banned only Christians from his shows then you may have a point...you cant discriminate in the scenario you are stating....I honestly dont see the difference with the days where African Americans were refused service and am stunned that this is even an argument in 2016.
Click to expand...
Yes, people from NC can go to NY to see Springsteen.  And they have to pay more and suffer more hardships than folks who live in NY.  Another way to put it is that somebody from NC could just hire someone from NY to cater his or her wedding.  The economic disadvantages to that are pretty obvious.

 
IvanKaramazov said:
I was actually thinking about exactly this point earlier today, but I refrained from mentioning it because it struck me as inflammatory even by the standards of this topic.  Let's say you pass a bill that says that people can discriminate against gays if they have a religious problem with gays.  That seems to me to be a first amendment violation, in the sense that it allows Christians to discriminate against gays but still could prohibit secularists from discriminating against gays.  I agree that motivation shouldn't be an allowable issue here.  

To clarify, that strikes me as inflammatory because it comes across as "Everybody should discriminate against gays, not just fundy Christians!" when what I'm going after is that people should be free to associate with other according to their own personal beliefs however those beliefs are formed.  That's why I appreciate Springsteen's example.  
 
Click to expand...
I do think there's a difference between refusing to offer the service in the area (a la Springsteen) and offering the service on a discriminatory basis.

Clearly, I don't think that "everyone" should discriminate against gays.  I would expect, in most cases, businesses that do so to get killed on social media.  I think its important to focus on the original anti-discrimination laws (well before Jim Crow) which were designed to prevent people who were travelling from being without places to eat or lodge.  And of course, I'd extend it to employment.  But invariably, when we talk about anti-discrimination laws, and gender based ones in particular, we hear from some aggrieved MRA type who wants to know why Curves is allowed to discriminate against men.  And my answer is that gyms aren't public accommodations.  I also think there's value in women having the choice to work out in a gym where they feel comfortable.  But the easier legal answer is that discrimination in gyms just isn't a big enough problem to require the coercion of the state.

 
RENEE MONTAGNE, HOST:

Protecting bakers from having to make wedding cakes for same-sex couples has been a common justification for religious freedom bills, and that's true in Mississippi. Yesterday, Gov. Phil Bryant signed a bill into law that allows religious organizations, individuals and businesses to refuse their services to lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people if they feel offering such services violates their religious beliefs. As it happens, many of Mississippi's business owners object to the new law, among them, bakery owner Mitchell Moore, who was born and raised in Mississippi and now lives in Jackson with his wife and young family. We reached him at one of his bakeries. Good morning.

MITCHELL MOORE: Good morning.

MONTAGNE: As a baker, this bill would allow you to refuse service to people you don't want to bake for. Have you ever felt forced to bake for clients that you didn't want to serve?

MOORE: No, no that is not a problem. I am here to bake cakes and to sell those cakes. I'm not here to decide arbitrarily who deserves my cake and who doesn't. That's not what I do. That's not my job.

MONTAGNE: Have you heard from others that they do have these objections?

MOORE: Not to my knowledge, no. Everyone that I know in the greater, say, wedding-service industry - we're here to serve. The public's made up of a lot of people. I don't have to agree with what they do. I don't have to support them. I serve them.

MONTAGNE: Well, I do gather that you are a Republican. But you oppose this bill. So what are your particular objections, other than it sounds like you don't think it's needed?

MOORE: So leaving aside the stupidity of passing it because it decriminalizes discrimination - which, that really is kind of the biggest issue - but I can actually say I think the law of unintended consequences is going to come back to bite the people who signed this bill. If it is my sincerely held religious belief that I shouldn't serve them, then I can do that. And I can hide behind that language. But that language is so vague it opens a Pandora's box. And you can't shut it again.

MONTAGNE: Well, do you consider yourself a religious person or would you...

MOORE: Yes.

MONTAGNE: ...consider that maybe you don't understand what it means to have a deeply held religious belief?

MOORE: I don't think that there is such a thing as a deeply held religious belief that you should not serve people. There is no sincerely held religious belief to think that I am better than other people - to think that my sin is different than other people. And so I am a deeply Christian man, and those go counter to my belief system.

MONTAGNE: Why do you think your state elected officials, who presumably think they're looking out for the best interests of exactly people like you - why do you think that they passed this bill?

MOORE: The assumption that they think that they're looking out for us - that's not what they are doing. A report just came out. We rank number one - our state government is the most dependent on federal money. We are the third most obese state. We rank at the bottom in unemployment, in education. We've got crumbling infrastructure. None of them are being tackled. Instead, we are passing, hey-let's-discriminate bills.

MONTAGNE: Coming from Mississippi, do you have concerns that this bill reflects on your state in a way that you wouldn't like it to be seen?

MOORE: Yeah - Mississippi is an amazing place. And it's filled with amazing people. But if you aren't from here, if you don't know that, you're going to choose to not come here because of bills like this - because you see the state government as taking no action on hundreds of other priorities and taking action instead on trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist. It boggles my mind.

MONTAGNE: Well, thank you for sharing this with us.

MOORE: Certainly - you're welcome.

MONTAGNE: Mitchell Moore is a baker, and he owns Campbell's Bakery in Jackson, Miss.
Click to expand...

 
IvanKaramazov said:
Exactly.  We agree that Bruce Springsteen can refuse folks who request that he perform for them.  Other private actors should have the same option.
Click to expand...
Bruce Springsteen decided to "go out of business" in North Carolina due to his objections to a state law that legalizes discrimination. If a law was passed in NC that made this discrimination illegal people with the opposite viewpoint would also have the option to go out of business.

 
IvanKaramazov said:
To put it a little differently, let's do a thought experiment.  Suppose that tomorrow morning, Bruce Springsteen wakes up and converts to hard-core fundamentalist Christianity.  Specifically, he comes to the conclusion that there's something bad about homosexuality, and he decides that from now on he'll never perform in another state or municipality that protects gays, let alone the whole LGBTQ spectrum, from discrimination.  

Should we force Springsteen to perform in those locations, against his will?

I've never met anyone who thought that Christian rock groups should have to accept offers to perform for GLAAD, so I assume the answer to that question is no. But if that's the case, how is a private caterer any different than Bruce Springsteen, in any relevant respect?
Click to expand...
So you'd have no problem with a business that hung a sign in the window that said "Gays not allowed"?  Because this bill allows for exactly that, with no state-level recourse.

 
jon_mx said:
Even just identifying men's and women's restrooms is bigotry by this ridiculous standard.  
Click to expand...
It is bigotry and discrimination.  The sooner people get over their irrational fear of anything discriminatory the better the Nation will be.  

 
elbowrm said:
So you'd have no problem with a business that hung a sign in the window that said "Gays not allowed"?  Because this bill allows for exactly that, with no state-level recourse.
Click to expand...
You do know gays and lesbians are not "protected" classes. 

 
elbowrm said:
So you'd have no problem with a business that hung a sign in the window that said "Gays not allowed"?  Because this bill allows for exactly that, with no state-level recourse.
Click to expand...
I'd like to believe that society has reached a point where the free market would rectify this. 

Would this fly in anyone's town? Not here. 

 
Ramsay Hunt Experience said:
I do think there's a difference between refusing to offer the service in the area (a la Springsteen) and offering the service on a discriminatory basis.

Clearly, I don't think that "everyone" should discriminate against gays.  I would expect, in most cases, businesses that do so to get killed on social media.  I think its important to focus on the original anti-discrimination laws (well before Jim Crow) which were designed to prevent people who were travelling from being without places to eat or lodge.  And of course, I'd extend it to employment.  But invariably, when we talk about anti-discrimination laws, and gender based ones in particular, we hear from some aggrieved MRA type who wants to know why Curves is allowed to discriminate against men.  And my answer is that gyms aren't public accommodations.  I also think there's value in women having the choice to work out in a gym where they feel comfortable.  But the easier legal answer is that discrimination in gyms just isn't a big enough problem to require the coercion of the state.
Click to expand...
do you think that, since Curves is not a public accommodation, that they can discriminate against transgender and those who self identify as woman, as well?

here's a link with more on gym memberships... http://www.pashalaw.com/women-only-gyms-discriminatory/

 
IvanKaramazov said:
Thanks.  That's reasonable.  A wedding is (some would argue) inherently religious, whereas hiring somebody to do bookkeeping for a construction company isn't.  That's admittedly a different issue.  

Exactly.  We agree that Bruce Springsteen can refuse folks who request that he perform for them.  Other private actors should have the same option.
Click to expand...
So Bruce is going to punish 15,000 of his fans who had zero to do with this law? Lots of lost revenue for the employees of the bars and restaurants and vendors who are working people trying to earn a buck. The better thing to would be do the show and give his opinion on the topic. Even set up "The Boss Porta Potties"

 
Dr Oadi said:
You do know gays and lesbians are not "protected" classes. 
Click to expand...
But race, sex, national origin, color, religion, age, and disability were protected classes under North Carolina law prior to this bill being passed.  This law, which was introduced and passed in like a day, abolished wrongful discharge claims on the basis of those causes of action according to the sources I've read. Frankly, the bathroom aspects of this law are the least problematic provisions.

edit: That's not to say that I'm in favor of the bathroom provisions. But it appears now that because of this law's passage, an employee who is fired because he's black, or she's a woman, or because he's disabled (but could still do the job) no longer has the right to sue for wrongful discharge under NC law. That is incredibly significant. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Ramsay Hunt Experience said:
I do think there's a difference between refusing to offer the service in the area (a la Springsteen) and offering the service on a discriminatory basis.

Clearly, I don't think that "everyone" should discriminate against gays.  I would expect, in most cases, businesses that do so to get killed on social media.  I think its important to focus on the original anti-discrimination laws (well before Jim Crow) which were designed to prevent people who were travelling from being without places to eat or lodge.  And of course, I'd extend it to employment.  But invariably, when we talk about anti-discrimination laws, and gender based ones in particular, we hear from some aggrieved MRA type who wants to know why Curves is allowed to discriminate against men.  And my answer is that gyms aren't public accommodations.  I also think there's value in women having the choice to work out in a gym where they feel comfortable.  But the easier legal answer is that discrimination in gyms just isn't a big enough problem to require the coercion of the state.
Click to expand...
I agree on basically every dimension of this.  Curves is a nice example in that it represents perfectly reasonable discrimination (its customers would prefer not to be leered at) and also trivial discrimination (it's not like there aren't any gyms that cater to men).  

 
IvanKaramazov said:
I agree on basically every dimension of this.  Curves is a nice example in that it represents perfectly reasonable discrimination (its customers would prefer not to be leered at) and also trivial discrimination (it's not like there aren't any gyms that cater to men).  
Click to expand...
You guys are really missing the full.import of what was done. Biggie explained it above. That's wrong and it isn't about gym membership.

 
Governor Frat Boy just rolled back most of HB2 by executive order. Needs legislation to do more but requested it be handled in the upcoming short session. A near total capitulation. It feels like a win

 
Not all movement or change is progress, sometimes it is regress or useless lateral movement.

Acceptance cannot be legislated.

Ignorance cannot be legislated out of a populace.

Public restrooms are not places in which to expect more than a minimum of privacy, hence the name PUBLIC RESTROOM.

If one is worried about the conduct of certain folks in a public place we generally monitor the potential conduct and provide criminal penalties in an amount we think will discourage the conduct.  We prohibit conduct, not people. I am unclear why such cannot be used to address the fear some folks have of others potentially harassing them, their wife, or their sons and daughters in a public restroom. I am unclear how gender politics enters into the equation, except through fear.  I tend to like legislation that seeks a least restrictive alternative first.  Banning something is not necessary if regulating and monitoring will suffice. (generally)

I do not believe any law will make public restrooms inherently safe.  They are not inherently so now. 

Some lifestyles make me uncomfortable.  I try to remember that when this is the case not all who deviate are deviants, other than in a mathematical sense, certainly not in a moral one. 

Try not to become too angry with one another.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Ditkaless Wonders said:
Not all movement or change is progress, sometimes it is regress or useless lateral movement.

Acceptance cannot be legislated.

Ignorance cannot be legislated out of a populace.

Public restrooms are not places in which to expect more than a minimum of privacy, hence the name PUBLIC RESTROOM.

If one is worried about the conduct of certain folks in a public place we generally monitor the potential conduct and provide criminal penalties in an amount we think will discourage the conduct.  We prohibit conduct, not people. I am unclear why such cannot be used to address the fear some folks have of others potentially harassing them, their wife, or their sons and daughters in a public restroom. I am unclear how gender politics enters into the equation, except through fear.  I tend to like legislation that seeks a least restrictive alternative first.  Banning something is not necessary if regulating and monitoring will suffice. (generally)

I do not believe any law will make public restrooms inherently safe.  They are not inherently so now. 

Some lifestyles make me uncomfortable.  I try to remember that when this is the case not all who deviate are deviants, other than in a mathematical sense, certainly not in a moral one. 

Try not to become too angry with one another.
Click to expand...
If anyone was wondering what a truly fair-minded and moderate position looked like, look no further. Well said.

 
“Cirque du Soleil strongly believes in diversity and equality for every individual and is opposed to discrimination in any form,” 

so they will cancel their scheduled performances in Greensboro Charlotte and Raleigh. 

You can still go view their performances from September 16 to 24 at the Dubai World Trade Centre where all the lgbtaqqi stuff is illegal and punishable by confinement for a minimum period of one year 

So brave of them to take a stand in the name of diversity and equality. 

 
bigbottom said:
But race, sex, national origin, color, religion, age, and disability were protected classes under North Carolina law prior to this bill being passed.  This law, which was introduced and passed in like a day, abolished wrongful discharge claims on the basis of those causes of action according to the sources I've read. Frankly, the bathroom aspects of this law are the least problematic provisions.

edit: That's not to say that I'm in favor of the bathroom provisions. But it appears now that because of this law's passage, an employee who is fired because he's black, or she's a woman, or because he's disabled (but could still do the job) no longer has the right to sue for wrongful discharge under NC law. That is incredibly significant. 
Click to expand...
NC Governor on Meet the Press this morning defending the law.  However, he did say that the provision of the law I reference above should be repealed, calling it "poorly thought out."  Perhaps they should have spent more than a day writing, introducing, debating and passing a bill with such wide-ranging implications. 

 
Besides, the birth certificate definition is odd. So a dude with a #### and balls and facial hair dressed like a man is required by law to use the women's restroom if he was born a female per his birth certificate?  Or a chick with a ###### and breasts dressed like a woman is required by law to use the men's restroom if she was born a male per her birth certificate?  Yeah, that will make everyone feel comfortable,

 
Last edited by a moderator:
elbowrm said:
I think I read somewhere that NC issues new birth certificates following sexual reassignment surgery.
Click to expand...
North Carolina will issue a new birth certificate, but other states don't. So, a transgender tourist from Tennessee (living as a male, with penis) would be required to use the women's restroom.

 
Dr Oadi said:
“Cirque du Soleil strongly believes in diversity and equality for every individual and is opposed to discrimination in any form,” 

so they will cancel their scheduled performances in Greensboro Charlotte and Raleigh. 

You can still go view their performances from September 16 to 24 at the Dubai World Trade Centre where all the lgbtaqqi stuff is illegal and punishable by confinement for a minimum period of one year 

So brave of them to take a stand in the name of diversity and equality. 
Click to expand...
Sorry, but North Carolina is a US State and should be held to a higher standard than a third-world country.

 
Ditkaless Wonders said:
You mean like Mississippi?
Click to expand...
Yes, Mississippi should be included in that too.  But being that I live in North Carolina, I keep hearing the argument that Pay-pal (and other boycotting artists who tour) operates in countries where not only is it illegal, but punishable by death and again, I feel that we shouldn't be cool with being compared to third-world nations and should be held to a higher standard.

 
Presumably PayPal declining to add jobs here also has the benefit of being potentially influential given our democratic process - which does not hold true in non-democratic countries.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top