• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Bryan Adams Cancels Mississippi Show Over State's 'Religious Freedom' Law

i said this before, but i will repeat it.

adams using his fame and concert as collective to repeal a law, the same as trying to get a law created.

business are not being collective in law making by refusing someone a service.

I doubt very much Mississippi will look at changing any laws because Bryan Adams is boycotting the state, and I'll flat-out guarantee Bryan Adams doesn't think they will.
You might, just might, be indulging in a flight of hyperbole.
Besides, it's Mississippi. Who wouldn't jump on a chance to boycott Mississippi?
 
I doubt very much Mississippi will look at changing any laws because Bryan Adams is boycotting the state, and I'll flat-out guarantee Bryan Adams doesn't think they will.
You might, just might, be indulging in a flight of hyperbole.
Besides, it's Mississippi. Who wouldn't jump on a chance to boycott Mississippi?

oh i understand what you are saying, he not going to make them change their minds, however, i hate collectives who work to create or change laws to there own advantage.
 
thats true, however he is using his name and the concert as a tool, to try to change law, the same as if he was trying to get a law made.

he acting as a self collective power on MISS law making, and collective law making is evil.

What the **** is a self collective
 
oh i understand what you are saying, he not going to make them change their minds, however, i hate collectives who work to create or change laws to there own advantage.

Do you hate it when more than one person votes for a thing?
 
What the **** is a self collective

a collective is group of people who work to achieve a goal, the group does not care about the rights of other people or the powers of governments to achieve that goal, they are single focused on getting what they want any way they can.

adams ia single person, but has fame and the power of the concert he is using as a collective entity, because of concert sales and service for it/ revenue.

in our congress in Washington there are thousand upon thousands of collective groups lobbying congress to get laws made in their own collective interest at the expense of the people, the states and the union as whole....and this is destroying our nation.
 
a collective is group of people who work to achieve a goal, the group does not care about the rights of other people or the powers of governments to achieve that goal, they are single focused on getting what they want any way they can.

adams ia single person, but has fame and the power of the concert he is using as a collective entity, because of concert sales and service for it/ revenue.

in our congress in Washington there are thousand upon thousands of collective groups lobbying congress to get laws made in their own collective interest at the expense of the people, the states and the union as whole....and this is destroying our nation.

How famous do I have to be before I am no longer allowed to express my opinion? What level of fame makes a celebrity lose his freedom of speech?
 
no i don't, the founders state the people can vote collectedly, but they are to excluded from being able to make collective laws.

All laws are collective laws, what the **** are you talking about.
 
Bryan Adams was not one to change and or affect culture nor is he now. He was and is on the coattails so to say. Unlike people like The Boss, Ramones, Sex Pistols, Nirvana, Sinatra, Brian Eno, Capt Beefheart all whom were at the forefront of culture and effected it.
 
All laws are collective laws, what the **** are you talking about.

thats correct to a point!

in original constitutional law, laws were not collective, because the senate was not a collective body, and the senate blocked collective laws the house would create, because the founders knew they are bad.

but when the senate became a collective body 17th amendment, like the house, then collective laws started being made in america, and we have suffered for it by laws being made in the interest of a few,........ the collective
 
Last edited:
How famous do I have to be before I am no longer allowed to express my opinion? What level of fame makes a celebrity lose his freedom of speech?

i am not saying he cannot speak is peace, ...you never saw me say such thing...so why are you putting it out there?
 
:roll:

Given how many GOP politicians sign anti-gay legislation with one hand whilst jerking someone off with the other, maybe you should cut the "DERP LIBERAL" crap and understand that it's a human staple.

Meanwhile.......

More Republicans Lawmakers Have Been Arrested For Bathroom Misconduct Than Trans People – The Gaily Grind

By now, you have got to be tired of all this talk of ‘bathroom bills’ targeting the transgender community. So am I! But I never tire of putting so-called social conservatives in their place, so let’s turn this thing on its head.

Bathroom bills are a tactic used by social conservatives to keep trans individuals from using the bathroom associated with their gender identities. The argument goes that by allowing this, we’re essentially allowing predators into women’s bathrooms.

But stats show that no trans person has ever been arrested for sexual misconduct in a public bathroom in the U.S. Certain Republican lawmakers, however, cannot say the same.
 
Meanwhile.......

Yup, I posted that a few times..and while some posters here got all pissed off.....none of them can deny the actual numbers.

LOL
 
Meanwhile:



What a schmuck.

Actually this is more than likely a stunt for attention. Hes a has been looking to be relevant. Look at his website go to the tour. he has a show tonight in San Antonio. matter of fact the show started an hour ago but if you go to tickets you can still get front row seats.
pretty empty stadium.
 
All about that love and tolerance... unless you happen to be a citizen in a state that did something that you didn't like.
 
Not surprising. There will be plenty of things like this because of Mississippi foolishness. We all knew there would be economic consequences, no sense in bitching about it now.

actually i was concerned there was no way to punish the 50th ranked state economically

i'm surprised they even have paved roads
 
Actually, this is entirely the fault of LGBTQRSTUVWXYZ whack jobs suing to force people to serve them against their will, and contrary to freedom of religion. Not, "Mississippi foolishness". :roll:

if only they could sue mississippi into the atlantic ocean, will spare us all the embarrassment of being associated with their 200 years and counting of discriminatory antics
 
They probably won't be upset by this. Mississippi, and other states for that matter, seem okay with trading economic activity for making this political point.

I find it sad that this is where we are. In this case Mississippi did this to themselves.

they're only ok with it until they lose federal funding or the super bowl

which i don't at all expect to happen in this case, seeing as MS is already the toxic rectum of america, but with north carolina, very possible
 
sorta kinda.

Bryan Adams boycotts Mississippi of anti-LGBT legalization... but performs in a country that is actually anti-lgbt...

Mississippi is a ultra liberal utopia compared to Egypt...

actually, they're pretty much the same

in this case i agree he's a hypocrite because his reason is "can't in good conscious" and bryan adams is no more able to stop discrimination in MS than in egypt

but it's still the right thing to do, no matter how you frame it
 
All about that love and tolerance... unless you happen to be a citizen in a state that did something that you didn't like.

Refusing to provide a voluntary service in a state..... Freedom of speech.
 
Refusing to provide a voluntary service in a state..... Freedom of speech.

I never said he shouldn't be allowed to do it. I find it silly though how people will say it was wrong and illegal for cake bakers to refuse to cater a gay wedding yet applaud someone boycotting and refusing to serve the people of an entire state over the political actions of their state legislature. Does freedom of speech not go both ways?
 
I never said he shouldn't be allowed to do it. I find it silly though how people will say it was wrong and illegal for cake bakers to refuse to cater a gay wedding yet applaud someone boycotting and refusing to serve the people of an entire state over the political actions of their state legislature. Does freedom of speech not go both ways?

thats nowhere near the same thing, if he had held the concert and then said christians weren't allowed to come, than you might have a point, but thats not what happened, so you don't
 
I never said he shouldn't be allowed to do it. I find it silly though how people will say it was wrong and illegal for cake bakers to refuse to cater a gay wedding yet applaud someone boycotting and refusing to serve the people of an entire state over the political actions of their state legislature. Does freedom of speech not go both ways?
Interesting.

Regulation of commerce within a boundaries legal borders where once is providing a service which in those borders. IN this case a voluntary service, who which legally backed out of providing said service within those legal boundaries (AKA state boundaries) .
 
Back
Top Bottom