BRUCE SPRINGSTEEN vs. Religious Freedom

[GoNavy]

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?

 

[Ikari]

It's a bit of an double standard. It's OK to discriminate against large numbers of people because you percieve them to be "bigots". It's not ok for an individual to deny their labor and property to groups we have protected.

 

[joG]

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?

I thought we had cleared all that up. Most Neo-Liberals are bigots and are quite happy treading on other citizens' rights and the Constitution from the morally high ground.

 

[roguenuke]

Bruce Springsteen is not a public accommodation.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[CrabCake]

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?

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.

 

[D_NATURED]

My hope is that this country is finally standing up to faith as an excuse for rudeness and incivility. It's one thing if a business owner wants to go home and pretend that there is a force in the universe that hates gay people. When they are doing business within the infrastructure of the USA, they should be bound to a rational, civil standard of behavior. A country and a town and a corporation can't have a religion. Religion is an individual thing that refuses to admit that it is not universal. So what that it makes people feel good to think that they are fulfilling a mandate of divine purpose? There is a difference and a disconnect between your right to believe and your right to act that the religious deliberately ignore. They seem to think that one is the same as the other but it's not.

All of the artists who are not patronizing bigots are standing for something a whole lot more rational than the christian bakers and wedding planners are. So, to equate them is to risk setting the political table for people's imaginary friends and not having enough spots for real people. Objectively, gay people exist. When you can say that about god, let's talk.

 

[HonestJoe]

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)?

You’re making the all too common mistake of getting tied up with the labelling rather than the outcomes. The characteristics of the people making the decisions and the underlying reasons for them making them are irrelevant. It is the direct intention and outcome that is the key factor.

If the state government had made the law in the opposite direction and a Christian singer decided to cancelled a concert there to protest in that, the underlying legalities and morality of that would be exactly the same. Whether they’re liberal or conservative, Christian or not, deciding on a political or religious basis doesn’t matter. They’re entitled to cancel their concert regardless (applying any legal or contractual obligations regarding refunds etc.).

Equally, if a non-religious baker refused to provide a cake for same-sex weddings (while providing them for others), they would fall foul of exactly the same public accommodation anti-discrimination laws as Christian bakers have done. It doesn’t matter what the religion of the business owner is or the reason for refusing the provide for same-sex weddings. They’re not permitted to discriminate on those grounds.

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.

A secularist might feel a similarly morally-grounded conscientious opposition to supporting religious lifestyles. They’re not permitted to discriminate on grounds of religion any more than your Christians are permitted to discriminate on grounds of orientation or gender. We all have to find ways to manage the inevitable contradictions between our personal moral principles and the laws and practices of where we live.

For example, I have a moral objection to laws that give the religious specific exemptions from laws and regulations that unconditionally apply to the rest of us.

 

[ludin]

You’re making the all too common mistake of getting tied up with the labelling rather than the outcomes. The characteristics of the people making the decisions and the underlying reasons for them making them are irrelevant. It is the direct intention and outcome that is the key factor.

If the state government had made the law in the opposite direction and a Christian singer decided to cancelled a concert there to protest in that, the underlying legalities and morality of that would be exactly the same. Whether they’re liberal or conservative, Christian or not, deciding on a political or religious basis doesn’t matter. They’re entitled to cancel their concert regardless (applying any legal or contractual obligations regarding refunds etc.).

I guess Springsteen hates money. his job is an entertainer it is to entertain. it is still going to cost him as the place he rented to hold the concert isn't going
to give him the money back for the expenses or the rental time.

not only that but the ticket vendors could sue him for all the refunded tickets.

also as was pointed out this isn't stopping cirque du soleil from performing in Dubai where they kill homosexuals.
yet they canceled their NC stop. the hypocrisy is amazing.

Equally, if a non-religious baker refused to provide a cake for same-sex weddings (while providing them for others), they would fall foul of exactly the same public accommodation anti-discrimination laws as Christian bakers have done. It doesn’t matter what the religion of the business owner is or the reason for refusing the provide for same-sex weddings. They’re not permitted to discriminate on those grounds.

actually you would be wrong. the last ruling on a lawsuit like this is that the baker didn't have to support the message they didn't like.
I find it odd that non-religious/gay bakeries can get away with religious discrimination but the other cannot. again the hypocrisy.

A secularist might feel a similarly morally-grounded conscientious opposition to supporting religious lifestyles. They’re not permitted to discriminate on grounds of religion any more than your Christians are permitted to discriminate on grounds of orientation or gender. We all have to find ways to manage the inevitable contradictions between our personal moral principles and the laws and practices of where we live.

yet they try all the time and get away with it.

For example, I have a moral objection to laws that give the religious specific exemptions from laws and regulations that unconditionally apply to the rest of us.

why do you hate the 1st amendment?

 

[HonestJoe]

I guess Springsteen hates money. his job is an entertainer it is to entertain. it is still going to cost him as the place he rented to hold the concert isn't going
to give him the money back for the expenses or the rental time.

I never said it was a good idea for him to cancel and I actually think it was the wrong decision for him to make (not least for the reasons you point out). I was only highlighting that there is zero moral equivalency between his decision and the various discrimination cases and that it makes no moral (or legal) difference whether any of those involved are liberal, conservative, Christian or not.

I find it odd that non-religious/gay bakeries can get away with religious discrimination but the other cannot.

It would be odd but it’s not true. All of the business anti-discrimination laws and regulations apply exactly the same regardless of the religion or sexuality of the business owners (expect in places where special exemptions are being made for the religious).

yet they try all the time and get away with it.

I’d love you to support this claim (especially the “all the time” part) but even if it was true, it would be illegal and they could be taken to court in exactly the same way.

why do you hate the 1st amendment?

Because I think it’s fundamentally discriminatory (certainly in the manner it is currently implemented in the US). Luckily I’m British so I’m free to “hate” the 1st Amendment as much as I like without suffering any consequences.

 

[X Factor]

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?

Huh, interesting comparison.

 

[X Factor]

You’re making the all too common mistake of getting tied up with the labelling rather than the outcomes. The characteristics of the people making the decisions and the underlying reasons for them making them are irrelevant. It is the direct intention and outcome that is the key factor.

If the state government had made the law in the opposite direction and a Christian singer decided to cancelled a concert there to protest in that, the underlying legalities and morality of that would be exactly the same. Whether they’re liberal or conservative, Christian or not, deciding on a political or religious basis doesn’t matter. They’re entitled to cancel their concert regardless (applying any legal or contractual obligations regarding refunds etc.).

Equally, if a non-religious baker refused to provide a cake for same-sex weddings (while providing them for others), they would fall foul of exactly the same public accommodation anti-discrimination laws as Christian bakers have done. It doesn’t matter what the religion of the business owner is or the reason for refusing the provide for same-sex weddings. They’re not permitted to discriminate on those grounds.

A secularist might feel a similarly morally-grounded conscientious opposition to supporting religious lifestyles. They’re not permitted to discriminate on grounds of religion any more than your Christians are permitted to discriminate on grounds of orientation or gender. We all have to find ways to manage the inevitable contradictions between our personal moral principles and the laws and practices of where we live.

For example, I have a moral objection to laws that give the religious specific exemptions from laws and regulations that unconditionally apply to the rest of us.

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.

 

[sangha]

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.

Just to be clear, I would object if a public business refused to service a Christian because they were a Christian. I would not object if they refused to service a Christian because the Christian was behaving inappropriately, etc

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.

In many cases, we aren't allowed to run our businesses according to our own moral conscience and beliefs. We have to run them in accordance with the law

 

[HonestJoe]

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.

The thing is that it’s been illegal to discriminate on grounds of religion, gender and race for a long time and all the people now taking this complete freedom angle were silent. Even now, there are no campaigns to simply repeal these anti-discrimination laws outright, only for there to be special exemptions applied for religious (in practice, Christian) business owners.

I agree on the consistency grounds, but I also think permitting any and all discrimination would be significantly divisive and would lead to even greater conflict. After all, none of these laws were created on a whim but as a direct response to behaviour of citizens. It’s also worth noting that the vast, vast majority of business owners appear to be getting along perfectly well within the scope of these laws.

 

[X Factor]

Just to be clear, I would object if a public business refused to service a Christian because they were a Christian. I would not object if they refused to service a Christian because the Christian was behaving inappropriately, etc


In many cases, we aren't allowed to run our businesses according to our own moral conscience and beliefs. We have to run them in accordance with the law

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?

 

[X Factor]

The thing is that it’s been illegal to discriminate on grounds of religion, gender and race for a long time and all the people now taking this complete freedom angle were silent. Even now, there are no campaigns to simply repeal these anti-discrimination laws outright, only for there to be special exemptions applied for religious (in practice, Christian) business owners.

I agree on the consistency grounds, but I also think permitting any and all discrimination would be significantly divisive and would lead to even greater conflict. After all, none of these laws were created on a whim but as a direct response to behaviour of citizens. It’s also worth noting that the vast, vast majority of business owners appear to be getting along perfectly well within the scope of these laws.

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?

 

[haymarket]

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.

An excellent point.

 

[Casper]

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?

His actions are based on his disagreement with a law that allows discrimination, not the same thing. Religious freedoms were already covered under Federal laws and hence was unnecessary to begin with other than to ensure some were allowed to discriminate. Never forget that while one is free to exercise their rights it does not mean one is free from the repercussions tied to others exercising their rights.

 

[Casper]

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?

Define inappropriately?

 

[HonestJoe]

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?

If they’re not discriminatory as defined by the relevant legislation in their jurisdiction, no (at least not for that reason). This is no different to any other law so I don’t see why it needs to be treated as if it’s somehow impossibly complicated or unclear. Those posters would have to meet advertising, obscenity and copyright laws too, the principle is exactly the same.

 

[PoS]

I guess Springsteen hates money. his job is an entertainer it is to entertain. it is still going to cost him as the place he rented to hold the concert isn't going
to give him the money back for the expenses or the rental time.

not only that but the ticket vendors could sue him for all the refunded tickets.

The Boss is a rich man, he can retire and live the rest of his life in luxury if he wants to. I think he is still touring just for the pleasure of performing to his audience.

And it seems that Pearl Jam is cancelling too.

Pearl Jam join Springsteen in cancelling North Carolina show over anti-LGBT law | Music | The Guardian

 

[ludin]

The Boss is a rich man, he can retire and live the rest of his life in luxury if he wants to. I think he is still touring just for the pleasure of performing to his audience.

And it seems that Pearl Jam is cancelling too.

Pearl Jam join Springsteen in cancelling North Carolina show over anti-LGBT law | Music | The Guardian

they are no less stupid either.
it will cost them millions.

 

[calamity]

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?

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.

 

[PoS]

they are no less stupid either.
it will cost them millions.

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.

 

[calamity]

The Boss is a rich man, he can retire and live the rest of his life in luxury if he wants to. I think he is still touring just for the pleasure of performing to his audience.

And it seems that Pearl Jam is cancelling too.

Pearl Jam join Springsteen in cancelling North Carolina show over anti-LGBT law | Music | The Guardian

Bandwagan is getting awfully crowded. Any more do-gooders jumping on may collapse the wheels.

 

[X Factor]

Define inappropriately?

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