BRUCE SPRINGSTEEN vs. Religious Freedom

PoS said:

LOL Springsteen has sold about 120 million albums and PJ has sold about half of that. I dont think they will any lose sleep over that loss.

Click to expand...

yea because ticking off fans is much better.

Except bruce springsteen's band is not subject to public accommodations laws. They aren't a stationary business and a band can't be made to perform EVERYWHERE. Also i'm pretty sure he's wealthy enough to just stop doing concerts, if push comes to shove. I support his decision though because he's doing it to oppose a discriminatory and unconstitutional law that was thrust upon the citizens there with no warning. Thus he has to make a sudden decision to cancel his concert. Had he known about the law ahead of time, he would not have scheduled a concert there

X Factor said:

And would you actually object to an atheist refusing a Christian service? I actually would not, because you're right, above all else, you have to be consistent. If someone is going to be permitted to run their own business according to their own moral conscience and beliefs (as I think they should be allowed to), everyone has to have that right.

Click to expand...

bruce springsteen might not be atheist at all and i'm sure many of his customers are not. That isn't what this is about

Public accommodation laws are in place to protect minorities against prejudiced business owners who rely on *publicly funded* roads, sidewalks, and in most cases, a location that thanks to the public already had a steady source of revenue waiting. As an example, those laws could've been very helpful to prevent jim crow, and it seems the hatred of lgbt in north carolina is ratcheting up ever since the law was passed

It's entirely reasonable for the government to dictate that it's a "compelling interest" to not allow doctors to refuse to treat the infant of a lesbian couple (this happened in my state), and for a community to decide a business operating in their area cannot discriminate, as permitting it reflects on all of them and can lead to boycotts of the entire city just like this

X Factor said:

He runs in and "glitter bombs" the store, for example.

Click to expand...

OMG, the Humanity, Glitter!

X Factor said:

And if a gay person was behaving inappropriately, would you support the Christian business refusing service or would you accuse them of being hateful bigots?

Click to expand...

I would support any business that refused to service a customer who was behaving inappropriately.

X Factor said:

There's business here that has a lot of prolife and Christian posters inside of it. Should they be required to take those down, because, y'know someone could be offended by them?

Click to expand...

No, they should not be required to take those posters down. Political speech is protected.

X Factor said:

There's business here that has a lot of prolife and Christian posters inside of it. Should they be required to take those down, because, y'know someone could be offended by them?

Click to expand...

being offended and being denied potentially essential services and made to be 2nd class by law are entirely different

i mean how would you receive a state banning discrimination against race, religion, gender, while removing laws protecting your sexuality? I would take it as being 2nd class and 22 states do exactly this

chromium said:

bruce springsteen might not be atheist at all and i'm sure many of his customers are not. That isn't what this is about

Public accommodation laws are in place to protect minorities against prejudiced business owners who rely on *publicly funded* roads, sidewalks, and in most cases, a location that thanks to the public already had a steady source of revenue waiting. As an example, those laws could've been very helpful to prevent jim crow, and it seems the hatred of lgbt in north carolina is ratcheting up ever since the law was passed

It's entirely reasonable for the government to dictate that it's a "compelling interest" to not allow doctors to refuse to treat the infant of a lesbian couple (this happened in my state), and for a community to decide a business operating in their area cannot discriminate, as permitting it reflects on all of them and can lead to boycotts of the entire city just like this

Click to expand...

IMO, public accommodation laws protect *everyone* against business practices that disrupt civil society and impede commerce

chromium said:

being offended and being denied potentially essential services and made to be 2nd class by law are entirely different

i mean how would you receive a state banning discrimination against race, religion, gender, while removing laws protecting your sexuality? I would take it as being 2nd class and 22 states do exactly this

Click to expand...

Why would anyone take it that way? The only second class citizen is the boob that started a business.

X Factor said:

And if a gay person was behaving inappropriately, would you support the Christian business refusing service or would you accuse them of being hateful bigots?

Click to expand...

come on X, you know that to many bigots out there a gay person can *never* behave appropriately. They refuse service simply because the person is gay

You're trying to spin this around to reveal some kind of hidden animosity, which can be useful because i don't deny some are guilty of that. But the fact is that in the real world, in this country at least, it's almost unheard of for Christians to be be mistreated *because* they are Christian, the way that lgbt are mistreated for being lgbt, and you know this.

The boycotts such as by sprinsteen are intended to put pressure on the legislature to improve the situation for lgbt and send notice to other states to not discriminate. It's intended to help uplift a historically mistreated group, not to subject Christians to the same mistreatment

sangha said:

IMO, public accommodation laws protect *everyone* against business practices that disrupt civil society and impede commerce

Click to expand...

Yes, when you see the backlash against north carolina, the laws can even protect the bigots against themselves

sangha said:

I would support any business that refused to service a customer who was behaving inappropriately.



No, they should not be required to take those posters down. Political speech is protected.

Click to expand...

Well that's confusing. Isn't religious freedom also "protected"? Isn't the argument that a business owner forfeits any constitutional protections and right to run their business according to their own conscience as the price for open a business?

X Factor said:

Well that's confusing. Isn't religious freedom also "protected"?

Click to expand...

Not serving a homosexual is not a religious practice; It's a business practice. Freedom of religion doesn't protect business practices

They remain free to believe in and practice their religion.

Isn't the argument that a business owner forfeits any constitutional protections and right to run their business according to their own conscience as the price for open a business?

Click to expand...

No, that's not the argument.

X Factor said:

Isn't the argument that a business owner forfeits any constitutional protections and right to run their business according to their own conscience as the price for open a business?

Click to expand...

No.

If that's what you think the argument is then you don't understand the discussion.

calamity said:

It comes down to this: being politically correct always trumps free speech or freedom of religion or delivery of services promised to tens of thousands. Some people are just more equal than others.

BTW, so there is no confusion, I do not agree with any of this nonsense. It's a legitimate law that passed the house, senate and was signed by the governor. Don't like it, challenge it in court.

Springsteen is a self-absorbed idiot. But, I suspect the fans who overpaid for their concert tickets always knew that.

Click to expand...

He doesn't have to perform anywhere if he doesn't want to. Furthermore, there is more than a little hypocrisy here when the right, who normally advocate voting with your dollars, gets pissed when Springsteen does it. He has the opportunity to deny that state who, legally or not, created a bigoted law, from receiving any residuals from his performance. He is not doing business with bigots and good for him. There are many others who feel the same way and, if they cost the people of that state enough money, they will change their tune because money always trumps Jesus in America.

There are none more self-absorbed than those who employ a subjective religious justification for their bigotry. Their god is soooooo much more important than civility, equality or human rights...NOT!

GoNavy said:

Yes - I am aware several LENGTHY threads have already taken place on this topic. I am curious about the potential impact this might have in the Christian bakers / photographers / wedding planners / shop-owners community.

Fundamentally - Bruce CHOSE to deny ALREADY scheduled service to tens of thousands of people, due to his political feelings. And btw, I kind of appreciate what he did. But what it REALLY is - is Gomer Pyle (North Carolina) in Full Metal Jacket. He breaks the rules by putting a doughnut in his locker, and everyone else has to pay for it.

So, my question then is this. When a liberal celebrity denies OBLIGATED service to tens of thousands of people, due to his political thoughts ... are we saying that political thoughts (or the right to have them, and react according to them) are a more accepted justification than religious thoughts (or the right to have them, and react according to them)?

A Christian baker or wedding planner or photographer might feel a religiously-grounded conscientious opposition to the idea of providing services for occasions that celebrate or propagate lifestyles that he or she believes is contradictory to the instructions of their faith.

So are we saying that if baker or wedding planner or photographer denied service by using their "political thoughts" as the means for their justification - would that then be more acceptable in today's "progressive" culture?

Click to expand...

1- His contract allowed him
2-No different than other companies pulling out from announced expansions to others that will not expand or boycott the State.

X Factor said:

And if a gay person was behaving inappropriately, would you support the Christian business refusing service or would you accuse them of being hateful bigots?

Click to expand...

I would but it would still need to be a consistent thing. Take the example of the guys kissing at the HOA pool. The person said they couldn't be kissing and attempted to kick them out for it yet there was another, opposite sex couple kissing in the pool who was not even talked to. Inconsistent enforcement of rules is not something that should be supported.

D_NATURED said:

He doesn't have to perform anywhere if he doesn't want to. Furthermore, there is more than a little hypocrisy here when the right, who normally advocate voting with your dollars, gets pissed when Springsteen does it. He has the opportunity to deny that state who, legally or not, created a bigoted law, from receiving any residuals from his performance. He is not doing business with bigots and good for him. There are many others who feel the same way and, if they cost the people of that state enough money, they will change their tune because money always trumps Jesus in America.

There are none more self-absorbed than those who employ a subjective religious justification for their bigotry. Their god is soooooo much more important than civility, equality or human rights...NOT!

Click to expand...

You do realize that the NC law is a bathroom bill, not a "don't serve gays" bill. Right? It does not sound like you do.

GoNavy said:

But what it REALLY is - is Gomer Pyle (North Carolina) in Full Metal Jacket.

Click to expand...

Where are you from?

CrabCake said:

No one has a problem with bakers choosing to close their shop in protest or with wedding planners choosing to quit planning weddings in protest. The problem is when they discriminate against individuals. Had Bruce Springsteen chosen to go ahead with his concert but ban conservatives from entering, this would be a problem. That's not what he did. If bakers want to close their shops in protest or move to another state in protest, no one really has a problem with that.

Click to expand...

This is a distinction it will be very difficult for the Far Right to grasp.

calamity said:

You do realize that the NC law is a bathroom bill, not a "don't serve gays" bill. Right? It does not sound like you do.

Click to expand...

I know what the bill is. It's hilarious that you think it matters whether it's about bathrooms or lunch counters. If you don't get it, just say so. Don't try to minimalize what this is about.

At some point, the religious establishment and all their various minions are going to have to come to grips with the fact that this is no longer a binary world. The simplistic explanations and juvenile sexual attitudes that defined our ancestors do NOT have to be our baggage going forward. How many opportunities to evolve have been wasted while we have patronized throwbacks, I shudder to think.

This IS about bigotry, against anyone who doesn't fit the approved sexual format. The bill is a prude's Alamo, a waste of effort. Why does anyone care where another person is allowed to use the bathroom? Why do transsexual people have to fight past someone's god to find relief? The last time I checked, we all have the same functions.

Yes, the plumbing is different from individual to individual but so what. The "product" is the same. We are the same.

D_NATURED said:

I know what the bill is. It's hilarious that you think it matters whether it's about bathrooms or lunch counters. If you don't get it, just say so. Don't try to minimalize what this is about.

At some point, the religious establishment and all their various minions are going to have to come to grips with the fact that this is no longer a binary world. The simplistic explanations and juvenile sexual attitudes that defined our ancestors do NOT have to be our baggage going forward. How many opportunities to evolve have been wasted while we have patronized throwbacks, I shudder to think.

This IS about bigotry, against anyone who doesn't fit the approved sexual format. The bill is a prude's Alamo, a waste of effort. Why does anyone care where another person is allowed to use the bathroom? Why do transsexual people have to fight past someone's god to find relief? The last time I checked, we all have the same functions.

Yes, the plumbing is different from individual to individual but so what. The "product" is the same. We are the same.

Click to expand...

I happen to agree with the logic that people with penises don't belong in women's bathrooms, locker rooms or showers. Call me old fashioned.

calamity said:

You do realize that the NC law is a bathroom bill, not a "don't serve gays" bill. Right? It does not sound like you do.

Click to expand...

Actually, it's more than just a "bathroom bill". It's also a ban on raising the MW and passing laws to protect people from discrimination in addition to other things.

sangha said:

Actually, it's more than just a "bathroom bill". It's also a ban on raising the MW and passing laws to protect people from discrimination in addition to other things.

Click to expand...

I notice none of these divas are boycotting states that pass draconian abortions laws. But, pass a law which actually protects women, and they go ape. **** those hypocrites.

sangha said:

Actually, it's more than just a "bathroom bill". It's also a ban on raising the MW and passing laws to protect people from discrimination in addition to other things.

Click to expand...

to be accurate, it's a state law supremacy article.. not a ban on raising minimum wage , etc....( the only "ban" is for cities and municipalities , not for the State.)
what it means is that cities and municipalities can't set these regulations on their own (except if the laws only pertain to their own employees).. the state asserted supremacy over the issues.

minimum wage can be increased, and protections against discrimination can be passed... but only by the state legislature ( if the laws are to pertain to citizens other than city and municipal employees)

calamity said:

I happen to agree with the logic that people with penises don't belong in women's bathrooms, locker rooms or showers. Call me old fashioned.

Click to expand...

well, i think it's pretty sound logic... but there's much more going on with the issue than genitalia.

first, no one needs bathroom laws..... people will go to which ever bathroom they feel they fit in ... and really, public perception is much more powerful than some stupid ass state law in this regards.
2nd, unless you're going to offer up a genitalia inspector to sign off on entry to a specific restroom, it's a pretty stupid law... I don't know about you, but i don't think we're gonna be having dick checkers posted at bathrooms anytime soon.
3rd, you don't know the "real " gender of folks you already share a public restroom with... .unless you're a dick checker yourself.... most folks are very good at ignoring everyone else in public restrooms...it's not a "sharing experience" in a social environment.
4th, there's a 100% chance you've already shared a bathroom with a transsexual that didn't have a penis... and you never knew it.

all in all, it's a dumb law... the're no enforcement mechanism to it at all.... nothing is easier than ignoring this law and using whatever bathroom you feel comfortable using. ( SJW haven't wrapped their heads around this fact )
and even in the incredibly unlikely event one is caught in the wrong bathroom .. .without their birth certificate, of course.... there's no criminal penalty for this action ( because it's not a crime.. another fact SJWs haven't wrapped their head around)

(it's kinda funny.... millions and millions and millions of folks will openly and purposefully ignore a law that actually has enforcement mechanisms and criminal penalties and not bat an eye... but they lose their mind over this law, which isn't enforceable and has no penalty.)