North Carolina House Passes Bill Voiding All Local LGBT Nondiscrimination Ordinances

[Belsnickel]

(04-15-2016, 12:55 PM)bfine32 Wrote: So you agree that the companies that are boycotting NC are showing a double-standard and being hypocritical/ I guess there's a price to their outrage.

I think they are being a corporation. For-profit corporations are concerned about making money and that will determine just how far their convictions go every time.

(04-15-2016, 12:55 PM)bfine32 Wrote: If a Baker denies service to a gay wedding can he say he is simply denying it because of the legislation making it legal?

So here is where your logic is faulty. Springsteen is denying service to a state. This includes Christians, Muslims, Atheists, Agnostics. Satanists, Buddhists, etc. So to claim he is denying service based on religious belief does not stand up to scrutiny.

As a baker denying service to a same-sex wedding you are denying service to people based upon their sexuality. If you perform the service for "traditional" weddings but deny it to same-sex weddings then you are discriminating.

Kind of like that old saying, "I don't discriminate, I hate everybody." Springsteen isn't discriminating because it's a denial of service to everyone, where in the case of the baker it is not. Now, you could argue Springsteen is discriminating against North Carolinians, which would be true. But it's not illegal to discriminate against someone because of the state they are in.

[SteelCitySouth]

(04-15-2016, 01:26 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Personally I think Saudi and Kuwait's laws are much more severe, but we all have our opinions. I just think being killed for your sexual orientation is a little more drastic that not being able to use whichever bathroom you feel like.

Obviously I didn't put as much thought into it as you..............................................................................................................................................................































































obviously.

[Griever]

(04-15-2016, 01:26 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Personally I think Saudi and Kuwait's laws are much more severe, but we all have our opinions. I just think being killed for your sexual orientation is a little more drastic that not being able to use whichever bathroom you feel like.

its all Sharia law, its just that NC's is biblical Sharia and less severe

[*Nately120*]

(04-15-2016, 01:41 PM)Belsnickel Wrote:  Springsteen is denying service to a state. This includes Christians, Muslims, Atheists, Agnostics. Satanists, Buddhists, etc. So to claim he is denying service based on religious belief does not stand up to scrutiny.

I saw Ringo Starr doing the same thing.  That sucks for people who live in NC and aren't voting for, or attempting to credit their discriminatory preferences to divine powers.  Nuts to the believers though...they'll get to see plenty of concerts in paradise when they get raptured for their sparkling bathroom practices.

[*bfine32*]

(04-15-2016, 01:41 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I think they are being a corporation. For-profit corporations are concerned about making money and that will determine just how far their convictions go every time.


So here is where your logic is faulty. Springsteen is denying service to a state. This includes Christians, Muslims, Atheists, Agnostics. Satanists, Buddhists, etc. So to claim he is denying service based on religious belief does not stand up to scrutiny.

As a baker denying service to a same-sex wedding you are denying service to people based upon their sexuality. If you perform the service for "traditional" weddings but deny it to same-sex weddings then you are discriminating.

Kind of like that old saying, "I don't discriminate, I hate everybody." Springsteen isn't discriminating because it's a denial of service to everyone, where in the case of the baker it is not. Now, you could argue Springsteen is discriminating against North Carolinians, which would be true. But it's not illegal to discriminate against someone because of the state they are in.

Springsteen is denying services to people based solely on where they live. He has done nothing to harm the state; that's why I didn't bring up the corporations; as they are hurting the state moreso than just the individuals.

So are the companies being hypocritical in your opinion (this is like pulling teeth)?

[*bfine32*]

(04-15-2016, 02:31 PM)Nately120 Wrote: I saw Ringo Starr doing the same thing.  That sucks for people who live in NC and aren't voting for, or attempting to credit their discriminatory preferences to divine powers.  Nuts to the believers though...they'll get to see plenty of concerts in paradise when they get raptured for their sparkling bathroom practices.

It is why I brought up the Springsteen thing. many had already made plans and the costs were non-refundable. He just cancelled out of some misguided notion that he was supporting equallity for LGBTs.

Doesn't he and the others realize that if Charlotte had a big enough population of LGBTs that they had the enact the ordinance in the first place, that they are hurting the same population they look to support?

[*bfine32*]

(04-15-2016, 02:04 PM)SteelCitySouth Wrote: Obviously I didn't put as much thought into it as you

Well to be fair; it didn't require a whole lot.

[SteelCitySouth]

(04-15-2016, 02:52 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Well to be fair; it didn't require a whole lot.

Obviously

[Belsnickel]

(04-15-2016, 02:48 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Springsteen is denying services to people based solely on where they live. He has done nothing to harm the state; that's why I didn't bring up the corporations; as they are hurting the state moreso than just the individuals.

But again, not because of religious beliefs. As you said, it is solely on where they live. You asked "by cancelling his concert didn't Bruce Springsteen deny his services to a population because of their religious beliefs?" To which I responded, no, and with this post you are in agreement.

(04-15-2016, 02:48 PM)bfine32 Wrote: So are the companies being hypocritical in your opinion (this is like pulling teeth)?

Yes. All for-profit companies are hypocritical as the almighty dollar dictates their actions. Which is what I said before. I'm not sure why saying something without explicitly using the word you used makes you think the question wasn't answered. I will keep that in mind for future posts.

[*bfine32*]

Here's a NC Representative's view on the Sprinsteen thing:

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/north-carolina-congressman-bruce-springsteen-882208

Quote:"It's disappointing he's not following through on his commitments," said Rep. Mark Walker, a Republican freshman congressman.

"We've got other artists coming soon — Def Leppard, Justin Bieber," the congressman told The Hollywood Reporter.

"I've never been a Bieber fan, but I might have to go. Maybe artists who weren't 'born to run' deserve a little bit more support," he said, referencing one of Springsteen's most famous songs.

...

Walker accused Springsteen of a history of poor judgment, criticizing him, for example, for singing "Fortunate Son" 18 months ago at The Concert for Valor, which aired live on HBO.

"This is a guy who has such a lack of discernment that he sang a draft-dodging song at a Veteran's Day concert meant to honor those who have actually served," said Walker.

"Using inflammatory vitriol is not where I am," he said. "I would just like to intellectually explain to Bruce Springsteen the safety aspect of this bill, which is about four pages long. Sometimes people only hear one side of the story."

[GMDino]

(04-15-2016, 03:06 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Here's a NC Representative's view on the Sprinsteen thing:

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/north-carolina-congressman-bruce-springsteen-882208

He thinks "fortunate son" is a draft dodging song.

If that's all he got out of it that explains a lot of his thinking....and why he'd want to see Justin Bieber.  

[*Nately120*]

(04-15-2016, 03:12 PM)GMDino Wrote: He thinks "fortunate son" is a draft dodging song.

If that's all he got out of it that explains a lot of his thinking....and why he'd want to see Justin Bieber.  

Technically, "Fortunate Son" IS about draft-dodging...moreso about how the poor people who couldn't dodge said draft!

[Belsnickel]

(04-15-2016, 03:12 PM)GMDino Wrote: He thinks "fortunate son" is a draft dodging song.

If that's all he got out of it that explains a lot of his thinking....and why he'd want to see Justin Bieber.  

(04-16-2016, 01:07 AM)Nately120 Wrote: Technically, "Fortunate Son" IS about draft-dodging...moreso about how the poor people who couldn't dodge said draft!

My dad loves that song. He tried a poor man's version of draft dodging by trying to join the Air Force before his number came up. His number came up before he signed the paperwork though and when he talked to his recruiter he said there was nothing he could do and wished him luck.

[GMDino]

(04-16-2016, 01:07 AM)Nately120 Wrote: Technically, "Fortunate Son" IS about draft-dodging...moreso about how the poor people who couldn't dodge said draft!

I always took it as a statement against those in power/with money and how they fix the system to get the little guy whether it be taxes, war, etc...

Edit:

Quote:The lyrics to the 1969 song reference rich people who orchestrate wars and then draft the poor to fight in them. People have criticized the musicians' decision to play the song at a Veterans Day event.

"'Fortunate Son' is a song I wrote during the Vietnam War over 45 years ago," Fogerty said in a statement. "As an American and a songwriter, I am proud that the song still has resonance. I do believe that its meaning gets misinterpreted and even usurped by various factions wishing to make their own case. What a great country we have that a song like this can be performed in a setting like Concert for Valor.

"Years ago, an ultraconservative administration tried to paint anyone who questioned its policies as 'un-American,'" he continues. "That same administration shamefully ignored and mistreated the soldiers returning from Vietnam. As a man who was drafted and served his country during those times, I have ultimate respect for the men and women who protect us today and demand that they receive the respect that they deserve."

Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/john-fogerty-addresses-fortunate-son-concert-for-valor-controversy-20141113#ixzz45zd0qKmq
Follow us: @rollingstone on Twitter | RollingStone on Facebook

[*PhilHos*]

(04-15-2016, 01:34 PM)fredtoast Wrote: This logic is a total fail.

Springsteen is not opposed to religious beliefs.  He is opposed to discrimination based on religious beliefs.  

He does not care what your religious beliefs are.  All he cares about is discrimination.  He will gladly perform and take the money of any religion, but he will not accept discrimination based on those beliefs.

Except that he's denying services to a group based upon their religious beliefs. According to you and most of the media, it is because of religious beliefs this law was passed. Ergo Springsteen is discriminating against NC because of their religious beliefs which is against the law and you should be lambasting him as well as NC.

[GMDino]

(04-16-2016, 12:26 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Except that he's denying services to a group based upon their religious beliefs. According to you and most of the media, it is because of religious beliefs this law was passed. Ergo Springsteen is discriminating against NC because of their religious beliefs which is against the law and you should be lambasting him as well as NC.

I'd much rather someone deny services to a bigot who hides behind their religion.

[fredtoast]

(04-16-2016, 12:26 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Except that he's denying services to a group based upon their religious beliefs. According to you and most of the media, it is because of religious beliefs this law was passed. Ergo Springsteen is discriminating against NC because of their religious beliefs which is against the law and you should be lambasting him as well as NC.

Springsteen is not denying servive to anyone based on religious beliefs.  he is denying services to people because they are discriminating based on their religious beliefs.

Springsteen has been performing in front of these people for years. And he will gladly come back and perform in front of the exact same people with the exact same beliefs when they stop discriminating based on their beliefs.

[*PhilHos*]

(04-16-2016, 12:34 PM)GMDino Wrote: I'd much rather someone deny services to a bigot who hides behind their religion.

So you're okay with discrimination based on religious beliefs as long as it's against someone that you don't like.

It's good thing the law says otherwise.

[*bfine32*]

(04-16-2016, 12:40 PM)fredtoast Wrote: This has notthing to do with religious beliefs.  Springsteen has been performing in front of these people for years.

Then why do so many folks attribute this action to religion?

[fredtoast]

(04-16-2016, 12:42 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Then why do so many folks attribute this action to religion?

The action (discrimination) is directly attributed to religious beliefs.  But Springsteen will gladly perform in front of the same people with the exact same beliefs when they stop discriminating.

So it isn't about the beliefs.  It is about the discrimination based on those beliefs.