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

a reply to: mOjOm

OK. Here's a good analogy. Westboro is a protected entity in the States(1st Amendment). They aren't in Canada. They threatened to come here but never did. I wonder why? Different standards. Not so subtle either.

originally posted by: ReprobateRaccoon
a reply to: jjkenobi

I don't consider "we're better than them" to be a valid argument.

He has his beliefs, and I respect him for sticking to them.

Do you feel the same for religious bakers and florists who don't want to participate in a celebration of a same sex union?

They have their beliefs, and they are sticking to them.

originally posted by: olaru12
a reply to: jjkenobi

Bryan Adams is a businessman. He has the right to ply his trade however and wherever he see's fit.

It's called capitalism....

You got a problem with that?

I don't. But then, I also don't have a problem with Christian businesses who choose to not participate in an event or ceremony they do not agree with.

originally posted by: theantediluvian
It's quite obvious that you're hoping to make a roundabout point in defense of Mississippi's farcical, disingenuous, regressive, pro-discrimination "religious freedom law" by invalidating protests against it but Bryan Adams's inconsistencies are irrelevant to the actual issue at hand.

Mississippi is a state in the greatest country on the planet. Shouldn't we be the setting an example for the backwards, illiberal societies of the world? If we can't get it right then what claim do we have to the moral high ground?

We should be showing we can find a compromise between civil rights and religious freedom.

Last I checked, those religious liberty laws didn't protect a business from denying a gay couple a birthday cake, or a get-well bouquet, or a graduation photograph session. That's not discrimination. That is their right to non-participation based on religious freedom of conscience. Declining to make a cake does not prevent that gay couple from celebrating their union. It does not prevent them from getting a piece of paper from the government.

It's specific to a singular event (same sex union) that their faith considers to promote a sinful behavior.

Even worse, Adams broke a contract. It's not like this was a spontaneous concert event. Agreements were made, money changed hands. No such contract or payments are made between the gay couple and the businessperson.

originally posted by: Teikiatsu

Do you feel the same for religious bakers and florists who don't want to participate in a celebration of a same sex union?

They have their beliefs, and they are sticking to them.

They aren't being asked to participate in the celebration. They are being asked to make a cake like any other cake they've made for a thousand other weddings which they also weren't participating in. It was a basic normal cake like any other.

They don't have to be there for the wedding. They don't need to see the wedding. They don't have to give a gift. They are simply being paid to make a cake.

If they don't want to make a cake for Gay People then they should not be a business which is OPEN TO THE PUBLIC. They should be a Members Only Business so they can choose their customers by whatever arbitrary reason they want. But as long as they are OPEN TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC then they have to treat the General Public all the same.

originally posted by: theantediluvian
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

?

It's right there next to 'the right to wedding pastry'

a reply to: Teikiatsu

I don't see religious bakers and florists as participating in homosexuality when they do business with the homosexual community, just like some don't seem to think that hobby lobby is participating in abortion when they do business with Chinese businesses.
and well, the mississippi law goes beyond just baking cakes and doing floral arrangements. or really the homosexual issue.

originally posted by: mOjOm

originally posted by: Teikiatsu

Do you feel the same for religious bakers and florists who don't want to participate in a celebration of a same sex union?

They have their beliefs, and they are sticking to them.

They aren't being asked to participate in the celebration. They are being asked to make a cake like any other cake they've made for a thousand other weddings which they also weren't participating in. It was a basic normal cake like any other.

1) You are assuming they make every cake that is requested of them.
2) By custom designing a cake, they are participating and by extension are assumed to be endorsing the celebration, just like Adams could have been assumed to be endorsing the Mississippi law.
3) A wedding cake is not a basic normal cake. Those are pre-made and kept in a cooler. And I'm pretty sure the owners would sell them to anyone who came in to buy it.

They don't have to be there for the wedding. They don't need to see the wedding. They don't have to give a gift. They are simply being paid to make a cake.

But they are catering and making their presence known.

If they don't want to make a cake for Gay People then they should not be a business which is OPEN TO THE PUBLIC. They should be a Members Only Business so they can choose their customers by whatever arbitrary reason they want. But as long as they are OPEN TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC then they have to treat the General Public all the same.

A business license is not a surrender of free will. Business owners can and do practice discretion on what jobs they will take. Is a lawyer forced to accept every case? Is a private detective forced to accept every investigation? Is a doctor forced to accept every surgery? Is a DJ forced to accept every job?

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: Teikiatsu

I don't see religious bakers and florists as participating in homosexuality when they do business with the homosexual community, just like some don't seem to think that hobby lobby is participating in abortion when they do business with Chinese businesses.
and well, the mississippi law goes beyond just baking cakes and doing floral arrangements. or really the homosexual issue.

Of course they aren't participating in homosexuality. But the ceremony does refer to the fact that the two people that are being celebrated have been and/or will engage in a homosexual activity with each other, and their union is in opposition to the definition of marriage described by Jesus Christ. Participation with that event infers that they are supporting the union and therefore the sinful behavior. Even worse, they are expected to be paid money for endorsing the behavior.

I don't see what the big problem is. Declining to not participate in the event is not discrimination against the person, it is avoiding an activity that they do not wish to be associated with. By the same token, if they won't make the couple a birthday cake simply because they are gay, they should be sued.

There is room for compromise. Unfortunately one side is not interested in getting along.

originally posted by: Teikiatsu

Make all the excuses you want. But the fact is, Serving the General Public means serving them all Equally without prejudice. If you can't handle that in your business then don't make it for the General Public. It's that simple.

Because there is no "Reasonable Excuse" to deny someone goods or services that you are offering to the public. Gays are no different than anyone else in the general public all else being equal.

To do so is just ignorant, selfish, self righteous, bigoted, childish BS. All based around your personal beliefs which mean NOTHING to anyone else because they are YOUR PERSONAL BELIEFS.

It's as dumb as a Rock and Roll fan denying goods or services to a Hip Hop fan. Or a Baseball fan denying a Football fan their business. It's petty and it's against what this nation is supposed to be about. Oh, ya, and it's AGAINST THE LAW AS IT DENIES SOMEONE THEIR RIGHT OF BEING TREATED EQUAL UNDER THE LAW.

But screw that, because someone believes a group of people are icky and less than human. You should be very proud.

Wow. This took a sharp turn into Stupid World. I hear that's going to be a new ride at Disney parks. Should be popular.

a reply to: Teikiatsu

this law also covers rental agreements, so. if a couple, or heck, maybe they aren't even a couple, maybe they are just two buddies who wish to share the expenses on the apartment, or heck maybe they ain't two males or two females, maybe they are of the opposite sex, but just not married, or maybe they are married but the person they are wanting to rent from knows that one is divorced,
the law seems to be saying he can refuse to rent to them because he doesn't like their lifestyle.

so, I guess renting an apartment to someone who does something you don't approve of, sexual relations outside of marriage, marriages that your religion doesn't recognized like couples where one has been divorced in the past, ect... well then you must be participating in that also?

originally posted by: intrepid
Wow. This took a sharp turn into Stupid World. I hear that's going to be a new ride at Disney parks. Should be popular.

It's not at Disney.

It's at Six Fags.


(giggles)

originally posted by: Teikiatsu
But the ceremony does refer to the fact that the two people that are being celebrated have been and/or will engage in a homosexual activity with each other, and their union is in opposition to the definition of marriage described by Jesus Christ. Participation with that event infers that they are supporting the union and therefore the sinful behavior. Even worse, they are expected to be paid money for endorsing the behavior.

Can you stretch that any further into ridiculousness?

Someone buys a cake. Baker bakes the cake. Baker's job is done.

What happens after that is not their business.

a reply to: dawnstar

What's sad is that those types of situations have and are happening all the time already. However, whenever it became possible to prove that someone was intentionally discriminating against a certain person or group there was a slight chance that you could hold them accountable for doing so. Which is already extremely hard to do, because most of the time they can simply make up some excuse no matter how lame it is or just lie their way out of it.

But now, we've just made it completely legal to do it and it no longer matters if you can prove someone is discriminating against others and denying them the same civil rights as everyone else. They can do it for whatever reason comes to mind and take no responsibility for doing it. The more closed minded the area the more hell some people will have to go through.

It's a grand set of principles I must say. Jesus would be proud I'm sure. He'd probably be the first one to kick in the teeth of every gay person he could find then deny them a dental visit.

I wish people would just respect each other.

Then we wouldn't need all these dumbass laws.

Gays, respect the religious people. Religious people, respect the gays.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
I wish people would just respect each other.

Then we wouldn't need all these dumbass laws.

Gays, respect the religious people. Religious people, respect the gays.

TOTALLY. But with that out of the way that's one less thing the PTB have to use to divide us.

a reply to: DBCowboy

I don't think it even needs to go as far as respect. Respect is earned. Simply tolerate each others differences would be enough.

Also, as far as I know nobody is legislating that someone who's Christian can't participate in any pubic service that everyone else is able to be a part of if they choose. Simply being Christian doesn't automatically exclude you from any public accommodations. So as for them being Tolerated, I'd say they're being tolerated just fine. Not so much for the other side though.

a reply to: intrepid

Oh yeah, forgot.

We need to be at each other's throats all the time so we don't actually focus our anger on the actual idiots causing all of this.

a reply to: mOjOm

I'd settle for tolerate.

Really.