business in North Carolina because he doesn't like or agree with his potential clients, the same as a baker's decision not to bake a cake for someone he doesn't like or agree with?

Should Springsteen be forced to do business in North Carolina?

the government is not allowed to discriminate.

I can't see how the Constitution, even as interpreted, would place the same restriction on bakers that it does on state governments. Who knows, maybe the incredible power residing in bakers' hats makes them more dangerous than I thought...

so it's OK for bakers to refuse service to black people ?

on his perceived idea about their politics.

He is "discriminating" isn't he?

Can I refuse service to anyone I think is a socialist or a conservative?

Can I refuse service to anyone because I think their ugly or too blonde?

I can refuse service for lots of reasons related to how a person looks, smells, thinks, walks, cuts their hair etc. But not color of skin or sexual preference?

What is the difference between discrimination because of skin color vs. looks vs. ancestry?

Shouldn't ugly be a protected class?

Shouldn't short be a protected class?

but others can't?

Bruce Springsteen can decide to cancel a concert for people he disagrees with politically, but bakers can't choose not to bake cakes for people they disagree with morally?

Bruce Springsteen and his business are free to associate with whomever they please, but other business people in certain states have no first amendment right to freedom of association?

Just trying to understand.

1. Should Bruce Springsteen be allowed to give a concert in Charlotte and refuse to sell tickets to Christians?

2. Should a baker be forced to open a bakery in New York (or some other state that expressly prohibits discrimination against gays)?

be able to refuse to use their time, talents and money on behalf of anyone they choose no matter how distasteful their decision may be?

Wouldn't the free market sort their bad decisions out?

Don't we see the free market sort it out everyday when a business or famous person says something stupid or discriminates?

Isn't forcing someone to provide a service or be fined or arrested a form of slavery prohibited by the 13th amendment and in violation of any implied 1st amendment freedom to associate?

A business open to the public can't discriminate about what part of the public they are open to, except for legitimate business reasons. For example, a business can refuse to extend credit to someone with a bad credit rating.

A baker can't discriminate on sexual orientation. The baker can close up shop altogether and deny service to everyone.

Bruce can't discriminate on who gets to attend his concerts, except for legitimate business reasons. Example, he can ban people with weapons or who don't have tickets.

He can, however, like the baker, close up shop altogether and not do the concert.

It's not really all that complicated.

Brother Of Jerry Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> A business open to the public can't discriminate
> about what part of the public they are open to,
> except for legitimate business reasons.
...
> It's not really all that complicated.

If you're referring to laws in the US, then it actually IS complicated. "Public accommodation" discrimination against certain groups is prohibited by federal law, but there is no national provision covering LGBT discrimination by businesses; what's legal varies by jurisdiction:

"The entire United States is covered by the Federal Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination by privately owned places of public accommodation on the basis of race, color, religion or national origin.
...
"The right of public accommodation is also guaranteed to disabled citizens under the Americans with Disabilities Act, which prohibits discrimination by private businesses based on disability.

"The federal law does not prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation, so gays are not a protected group under the federal law. However, about 20 states, including New York and California, have enacted laws that prohibit discrimination in public accommodations based on sexual orientation.

"So, no matter where you live, you cannot deny service to someone because of his or her race, color, religion, national origin or disability. In some states and cities, you also cannot discriminate against people because of their sexual orientation. If there is no state, federal or local law prohibiting discrimination in public accommodations against a particular group of people, then you can legally refuse to serve that group of people."

https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/the-right-to-refuse-service-can-a-business-refuse-service-to-someone-because-of-appearance


Of course, other countries have their own laws.

And, as far as my understanding goes, in the US, businesses open to the public are under no obligation to show "legitimate business reasons" for discrimination against any group: various categories of discrimination are either legal and therefore permitted, or illegal and therefore prohibited. I'm always interested in learning more on the subject, though. [ETA: Thinking over the subject, I'm sure there are examples where a "legitimate business reason" for discrimination might come into play. If a business claimed that a customer's religious dress, for instance, would interfere with the safe operation of the business, then the business might be able to deny service based on that, which could be considered a form of religious discrimination.]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/14/2016 06:04AM by lurking in.

My understanding is that the bakery in question did not refuse service to gay people. The gays shopped there regularly.

They did refuse to do a wedding cake on religious grounds.

notamormon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> My understanding is that the bakery in question
> did not refuse service to gay people. The gays
> shopped there regularly.
>
> They did refuse to do a wedding cake on religious
> grounds.


So there you go. By claiming religious grounds, the baker is admitting he is violating the Civil Rights Act.

The Baker is discriminating against gay customers not because of their sexual orientation, but because the customer has different religious beliefs from the Baker. The topic of the belief (sexuality and marriage) is irrelevent.

Religion IS a protected class under the civil rights act.

This is a protest, not discrimination

he has said he wont perform in NC, he has not said NC people cant come to any of his concerts

he hasnt performed at a concert and had any NC people removed

so, he hasnt got a problem with his 'potential clients' - just the state


it is not the same as your bakers analogy.........apples and oranges

He is refusing to serve someone just like a baker based on something he doesn't like about them.

The baker in Colorado is fined for it.

Bruce Springsteen is applauded.

I applaud him as well. He is an individual exercising his freedom not to associate with people he doesn't like or agree with.

I am simply making the point that discrimination or the decision not to share your time or product with someone has to be a
choice that is free to make no matter how distasteful that choice is.

The government is now in the business of telling people who they have to serve.

Would you still want the government telling you that you have to serve someone if the tables were turned and the government were run by people you disagreed with?

What if the government passed a law that said bakers have to bake cakes for German Nazi get togethers, and you didn't want to do it.

I don't disagree that a business choosing not to bake a cake over a person's sexuality or skin color is ridiculous...and wrong.

I just think that the freedom to associate or not to associate is paramount.

It's not semantics. It's about the role of government in private lives.

It is not the same as your analogy

springsteen has not made any condition for any person who he is serving (attending his concerts)
NC people are free to attend any Springsteen concert

the baker has imposed conditions for people he is serving - they have to be heterosexual

I think NC is part of the United States, unless they seceded from the Union and I didn't hear about it. Are they acting up again?

Christian fundamentalism fanned the flames of the Civil war and became entrenched during the reconstruction. Bruce has a right to free speech and no lawyer is dumb enough to throw him under the bus to further someone's crusade.

Were men discriminated against when women demanded the vote?

Were the warmongers discriminated against by the Viet Nam War protestors?

Were white people discriminated against when black people demanded to go into their restaurants? Through the front door even? Was it discrimination against the whites when the separate drinking fountains were taken out?

It's called protest. It means, "We're not taking it anymore." It means decency needs to trump religious bigotry.

North Carolina has made a move to legalize discrimination. Decent people everywhere "ARE NOT GOING TO TAKE IT ANYMORE."

Attempting to liken a protest OF discrimination to actual vindictive discrimination by an overtly Christian state is ridiculous at best and deeply ugly and selfish at worst.


If there is anyone at all in this country who is not being discriminated against it is hands down the Religious Right.

Are you open, loving, empathetic, fair and caring of your fellow man or not? Or, do you see yourself as a special privileged class?

I am appalled at anyone who wants to turn Equality into a game of semantics to suit their own purposes. Might as well vote for Dallin Oaks for president if that's the way you feel.

Women were being denied the right to vote by a government.

Individual humans (not governments) and their private businesses should have the right to discriminate against whomever they choose no matter how wrongheaded, sexist or racist the decision is.

Individual freedom is the cornerstone of our society.

If I don't like the fact that a business won't serve me because I am gay, that business will suffer as a result.

When government forces one person to serve another, that is government action.


Does a muslim baker have to bake a cake for a Jewish party?

Does a Christian have to bake a cake for a Nazi?

Why is anyone "discriminated" against?

Yawn

yawn

"The Boss" can do (almost) anything he wants.

Bryan Adams (Canadian) canceled his Mississippi (Coast Coliseum) show tonight [I wasn't going, anyway; might have when I was younger (if I/it were nearby)] because of similar (hidden hate-seperation) legislation. 95 Mississippi writers wrote a letter of protest. Vermont's people can't-won't visit. Large companies are pulling out, small ones are opening their doors wider, and people were coming out of the woodwork to speak up about all-LGBTQ+ respect, liberty and freedom.

this is how change is made. didn't basketball (or was it football?) teams refuse to play BYU because of discrimination? Then the prophet got the revelation.

Yes, I know it was also a tax-related revelation.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 04/14/2016 11:06AM by liesarenotuseful.

It's because he disagrees with the *government's* actions.

Your analogy with a baker who discriminates against a particular set of people based on their sexual attraction doesn't really apply. A better analogy would be a baker closing his business completely to all customers -- which, of course, they don't do.

a specific group of people. North Carolinians.

He still does concerts in Georgia.

Again - I like that he is taking the stand. He should have the freedom to choose who he does concerts for.


Just making the point that everyone should have the ability to choose who they work for or spend their time with...no matter how distasteful we find their decision.

Judged Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> a specific group of people. North Carolinians.

EVERYONE in North Carolina. Not just christian North Carolinans or gay North Carolinans. (I don't know if it's Carolinans or Carolinians...:)

And actually, he wasn't discriminating against any Carolinans. He simply didn't travel to that state. Carolinans can come to any of his concerts they want to, anywhere he does one.

You're really stretching for this one. A few differences.

Bruce is not providing a "service"....he provides "entertainment"....he doesn't have a shop that is open for the public to walk in and request service or entertainment.

He isn't passing on NC because of anyone's race, sexuality, gender, religion, or any protected status.

He isn't refusing to play for people from NC, they can travel and see him in any other state he plays, and he would welcome them I'm sure.

NC is not a "protected" state. He is under no obligation to perform there if he doesn't want to. He could skip NC because he doesn't like the climate or the bugs.

It's not against the law to protest laws by boycotting. That's what he is doing. Protesting a discriminatory law by boycotting doing business in the state that made the law. He is not not refusing to play for, or discriminating against, a specific group of people.

Get it straight will ya?

You are not making a fair comparison. If Bruce Springsteen held the concert and banned certain people (aka. Religious nut jobs) that would be a fair comparison. A baker is free to not serve anyone just like Bruce did.

Apples and oranges...

Bruce Springsteen is not required by law to hold a concert in every state in the nation. He is not required to hold a concert within a certain driving distance of every citizen. He can and does pick his venues based on a variety of factors. He has every right to do so.

What he can not do is hold a concert and then refuse to sell tickets to a certain group of people. He can not say, "I'm holding a concert in NC, but christians aren't allowed." THAT would be apples and apples.

That's not what he's doing. He has decided that for a variety of reasons (bad publicity, not willing to support local taxes of a government that discriminates against a group of his fans, a sign of solidarity with an oppressed group, and a show of support for that group, etc) that he won't hold a concert in NC. He hasn't refused service for anyone. They can still go to his concerts at a venue where he will have a concert.

As for the Bakers in question, that has been debunked in every way. If you are going to open a public business in the US, you agree to serve everyone, EVERYONE, equally... If you don't want to sell wedding cakes to a certain group, then you don't sell wedding cakes AT ALL, you can not refuse to sell to only a certain group. It's really not that hard.

If LGBT couple wanted a wedding cake from a certain bakery and the bakery refused, why would the couple go to court to force the transaction?

I sure wouldn't want to eat a piece of the cake someone was forced to bake.

You don't know what they baker would put or spit into the batter for revenge.

Go someplace that appreciates your business.

Yep, you're so right. Just like those black people should have just gone to a cafe that wanted to serve them, or at least stayed in their section. After all, why would they want to eat at a restaurant that didn't like them or sit around people who didn't want them there, or ride in the front of the bus, or anything like that.

In this country we totally support and allow bigotry to run rampant and never, ever stand up against it. That's what being American is all about, bigotry and stomping on minorities.

/end sarcasm

wrong place.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/14/2016 12:38PM by Finally Free!.

I think in terms of the applicable law, these are different actions. Springsteen is perfectly within his rights not to travel to North Carolina to provide his services.

The problem for Springsteen is that in terms of the ethics and motivation, they are virtually identical. He's perfectly fine with his ability to withhold services based upon his conscience, but feels that ability should be denied to others.

Springsteen likely did violate a contractual agreement to appear, and he may well face some liability on that front. Ticket sellers and other vendors likely invested in support services based upon his promise to appear. For that reason, he should have fulfilled his obligation and promised never to return unless the state changed in ways he wishes. Unless his contract had some strange obscure clause allowing this cancellation, he's acting unethically by not honoring it.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/14/2016 12:25PM by Tall Man, Short Hair.

"...in terms of the ethics and motivation, they are virtually identical"

No, they are not. The bakers had a bakery that provided a service to the public, the refused to service a specific group of that they didn't like. Their "ethics and motivations" were, I hate this group and won't serve them due to my christian beliefs.

Springsteen has canceled a concert in a state that has created laws to oppress a minority group. His motivations and ethics are that he won't provide money to the state with taxes that he would generate if he held his concert there. He is refusing to support the oppression of the minority group (many of which may be his fans).

They are opposite. One supports oppression, the other is a denial to support said oppression.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/14/2016 12:39PM by Finally Free!.