Gay Rights Hypocrisy: Bryan Adams boycotts Mississippi, has no problem doing shows in Egypt

a reply to: LSU0408

Just wondering: How does Bryan Adams deny the rights of any person?

a reply to: LSU0408

Please explain how Bryan Adams not performing in Mississippi is "denying the rights of others?" Is there a right that I'm missing somewhere?

Amendment 10.5 - The right of the people to be entertained by 80's pop stars shall not be abridged

?

a reply to: DBCowboy

Lmao!

a reply to: LSU0408

I don't remember any legislation stating Mississippians have a right to Bryan Adams concerts.


Maybe you are referencing some other rights if so what are they exactly?

a reply to: theantediluvian

Do you honestly think other countries like the ones you mentioned are going to look at the US and follow by example? I can remember back in the 90's when the French would be mentioned, people would associate them with weakness and girly boys and we'd always hope we' never ended up appearing like that when Americans came up in a discussion. Now we do. Russia, the UAE, those places don't see the USA as a powerhouse anymore. They sure as hell aren't going to follow our "progression." They laugh at us, America is the butt of their jokes now.

a reply to: theantediluvian

Let the people vote. You don't want my money because of who I am? Glad to know so I can give my money to someone who doesn't care.

That's how I view that bill.

a reply to: jjkenobi

I can respect someone taking a stand on an issue that's important to them. I can especially respect someone willing to put their money where their mouth is and actually walking the talk. But I have no respect for those who would violate the rights of all for the privileges of the few. And I am specifically talking about the right to freedom of conscience. Nor do I have any respect for those who would punish the innocent just to hurt the guilty. How many people in NC oppose this law but are equally effected by the boycott?

Pointing out problems (and pointing fingers) is easy... finding solutions is the hard part. If Bryan Adams had said, "Hey, I won't perform in your theater unless you make reasonable and agreeable bathroom accommodations for the transgender community..." I would applaud him. Same for all of the ridiculous grandstanding by corporations who have the power and means to establish a new standard that doesn't violate anyone's rights. Uni restrooms and family restrooms and even single bathrooms have been a thing forever. There is no good reason to force anyone's will on anyone else.

The fact that so many choose to bully others rather than offer a better option is very telling about the real end game. Maybe Bryan Adams hasn't thought it through. But others have and know exactly what they're doing.

a reply to: Atsbhct

They bought tickets to hear him sing and were refused because he decided to boycott himself. If you don't see that, there's no point in explaining further.

originally posted by: dawnstar
seems to me that Bryan Adams, whoever he is,

Yep.
Right there

originally posted by: LSU0408
a reply to: jjkenobi

Bryan Adams don't care enough about gay rights to lose money over it. He's just being politically correct so that his crowd doesn't disown him and he doesn't become a topic of the people ignorantly protesting MS's bill. He can go do a show in San Francisco, he's been out of style since the 90's anyways.

More like Bryan Adams needs publicity.
Remember Bryan Adams?
He's on tour...

a reply to: Grimpachi

The rights to buy a ticket with your hard earned money and attend the concert you bought your tickets for which happen to be a has-been pop star that decides "eh, # it. I've decided not to play."

Now whoever called in to their job or changed plans to attend this show are put out.

a reply to: the owlbear

Yeah I didn't even know he was still singing.

a reply to: LSU0408

It's still not a "right".

a reply to: LSU0408

You still haven't stated what rights were denied.

Don't tell us you feel they are ENTITLED to his concerts.


They were able to buy a ticket they also got a refund.

a reply to: the owlbear

Funny you keep posting about how irrelevant he is..not to you apparently

a reply to: Grimpachi

Ten forty.

originally posted by: LSU0408
a reply to: theantediluvian

Do you honestly think other countries like the ones you mentioned are going to look at the US and follow by example? I can remember back in the 90's when the French would be mentioned, people would associate them with weakness and girly boys and we'd always hope we' never ended up appearing like that when Americans came up in a discussion. Now we do. Russia, the UAE, those places don't see the USA as a powerhouse anymore. They sure as hell aren't going to follow our "progression." They laugh at us, America is the butt of their jokes now.

We should do the right thing because it's the right the thing to do. Whether or not they follow our example today, tomorrow or never is beside the point.

Not that it has any bearing whatsoever on the topic at hand but if you honestly believe that these countries "laugh at us," then you have no real grasp of our position in the world. Not using the threat of military intervention to dictate world affairs doesn't instantly make us weak. That's right-wing delusion that seems to arise from some feeling that the world is compromised of two sorts of people: bullies and the bullied.

Why is it that right-wingers are so obsessed with Putin? Could it be the deep-seated need for patriarchal authority? Are you jealous that we don't have the ultimate crony capitalist billionaire despot making himself rich while our nation's women sell themselves on websites for citizenship in other countries?

originally posted by: LSU0408
a reply to: Grimpachi

The rights to buy a ticket with your hard earned money and attend the concert you bought your tickets for which happen to be a has-been pop star that decides "eh, # it. I've decided not to play."

Now whoever called in to their job or changed plans to attend this show are put out.

You might want to think about the fact they will get a refund - might calm you down a little.

It's just a bandwagon all these fools are riding. It will die, just like the whole "We are the world" publicity stunt. Gay is the new shinning star of the moment. Don't say anything bad about them, give them the right to be this and that. It's all about sexuality preference, not rights as people. I don't give two cents what they do or how they live as long as they don't bring it in my home.

The part that cracks me up the most is they parade around, showing the love having sex with the same sex. How about all us straight people promote how we love having sex with the opposite sex. Oh no, we can't do that because it's taboo.

Come off it, let them do whatever it is they want to do, just tell them to keep it in the bedroom and not in a parade down Main Street. Give them the right to marriage, just because it's not my religious belief, doesn't give me the right to say they can't. Just don't bring it in my church. Give them medical benefits and marriage tax breaks, what do I care, it doesn't hurt me. Gays are every where, it's part of society of this era. They just need to stop shoving this crap in our faces.

I have to work with them everyday and when they start talking about rights, it always goes back to sexual preference. It's should be about equal rights, not that you like a male or a female. And, whether I'm talking to a lesbian or a gay male, the argument always goes back to sexual preference. I love women, but I don't shout it out in the middle of time square.

Peace

a reply to: Boadicea

"Hey, I won't perform in your theater unless you make reasonable and agreeable bathroom accommodations for the transgender community..."

You're confusing the North Carolina "bathroom law" with the Mississippi law (HB 1523).

Here are the only "religious beliefs" that are protected:

SECTION 2. The sincerely held religious beliefs or moral convictions protected by this act are the belief or conviction that:
(a) Marriage is or should be recognized as the union of one man and one woman;
(b) Sexual relations are properly reserved to such a marriage; and
(c) Male (man) or female (woman) refer to an individual's immutable biological sex as objectively determined by anatomy and genetics at time of birth.

Read the full text of the legislation as it was signed into law here.

Here's a particularly interesting bit:

(3) The state government shall not take any discriminatory action against a person who the state grants custody of a foster or adoptive child, or who seeks from the state custody of a foster or adoptive child, wholly or partially on the basis that the person guides, instructs or raises a child, or intends to guide, instruct, or raise a child based upon or in a manner consistent with a sincerely held religious belief or moral conviction described in Section 2 of this act.

The law makes not placing children in the care of anti-LGBT nuts a form of discrimination. What could possibly go wrong there? Based on just this one small piece, how many children could be forced into the clutches of the "pray away the gay" assholes?