Bryan Adams cancels Mississippi show, citing state's new law

[chuckd]

Undocumented immigrants to the US have racists like Joe Arpaio to deal with. LGBT people have this guy http://www.queerty.com/awful-sheriff-threatens-to-whip-trans-women-who-use-ladies-room-with-his-wife-20160416. This guy has a gun and a badge to back up his discrimination and bigotry.

You failed to mention the "undocumented immigrants" are also called "Illegal immigrants" and are, therefore law breakers.

I seem to recall Australia having problems with "undocumented immigrants" recently. What does your government do about them?

Maybe if you folks act real nice, Bryan Adams will honor you with his presence.

Edited April 17, 2016 by chuckd

[mopar71]

[Jingthing]

That long post was all over the place and in my view a crafty game to hide (with lots of phony SUGAR) some extremely odious bigoted anti-LGBT tropes and agendas and as mentioned dated and totally false STEREOTYPES.

I'm happy someone took the time to respond to that kind of game in detail but I won't because almost all of it is VERY off topic to this actual thread.

Like getting into etiology of homosexuality. IRRELEVANT.

Really the most incredibly annoying aspect of that overlong essay was the citing of isolated incidents, OVER BLOWING them, and then projecting that they represent a unified LGBT movement doing and supporting the same thing. Such total IDIOCY.

Recently some joker in Pattaya was eating out a bar girl in public. Nobody would be so IDIOTIC as to suggest that represents the heterosexual political movement and that represents the political strategy of that movement.

"Friends" like that ... don't need them.

Not offended. Why be offended by something so PREDICTABLE?

Next ...

Edited April 17, 2016 by Jingthing

[up2u2]

It's very simple people should not be permitted to discriminate against others based on their race, religion, colour, physical handicap, sex or sexual orientation. If you are providing a service to the public and your religious views force you to discriminate against others you need to find another line of work. You aren't really suited to making your living in this way.

If a person born a female but identifies as a male and has transitioned to looking and acting as a man I doubt I would have any idea he was born a she. So I am a little confused as to what Mississippians are doing in rest rooms. I would leave none the wiser. Same with women having a person who has transitioned from male to female. Doubt they would even know the other person was born male.

This is just religious foolishness.

[stevenl]

That long post was all over the place and in my view a crafty game to hide (with lots of phony SUGAR) some extremely odious bigoted anti-LGBT tropes and agendas and as mentioned dated and totally false STEREOTYPES.

I'm happy someone took the time to respond to that kind of game in detail but I won't because almost all of it is VERY off topic to this actual thread.

Like getting into etiology of homosexuality. IRRELEVANT.

Really the most incredibly annoying aspect of that overlong essay was the citing of isolated incidents, OVER BLOWING them, and then projecting that they represent a unified LGBT movement doing and supporting the same thing. Such total IDIOCY.

Recently some joker in Pattaya was eating out a bar girl in public. Nobody would be so IDIOTIC as to suggest that represents the heterosexual political movement and that represents the political strategy of that movement.

"Friends" like that ... don't need them.

Not offended. Why be offended by something so PREDICTABLE?

Next ...

Agree, but please refrain from all the capitals.

[lostboy]

Undocumented immigrants to the US have racists like Joe Arpaio to deal with. LGBT people have this guy http://www.queerty.com/awful-sheriff-threatens-to-whip-trans-women-who-use-ladies-room-with-his-wife-20160416. This guy has a gun and a badge to back up his discrimination and bigotry.

You failed to mention the "undocumented immigrants" are also called "Illegal immigrants" and are, therefore law breakers.

I seem to recall Australia having problems with "undocumented immigrants" recently. What does your government do about them?

Maybe if you folks act real nice, Bryan Adams will honor you with his presence.

I do hope that you are not trying to bait me into off topic discussions chuck and be at the peril of dire consequences from the powers that be? On the assumption that this post will remain, I will respond to your issues.

People who are in the US illegally are people. They exist as humans. They even retain certain human rights and certainly are entitled to rights under the US Constitution. People cannot and should not be referred to as illegal. This is a direct denial of their right to be human. It is purposeful dehumanisation to fit a political agenda. People can and do commit acts that are illegal. The illegality refers to the actions and not the individual. It makes no difference that the people who write and approve legislation in the US use the word illegal alien. Their perpetuation and propagation of discrimination, intentional or not, cannot be excused. I have stated my beliefs on this many times in the past. I am also comforted that these beliefs are supported by such eminent organisations as the Associated Press and the New Yorker, although I do know what view a curmudgeonly Texan takes of the New Yorker. Full of New York values right!

The AP Stylebook today is making some changes in how we describe people living in a country illegally.https://blog.ap.org/announcements/illegal-immigrant-no-more

Should I Use the Term “Illegal Immigrant”?http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/should-i-use-the-term-illegal-immigrant

Australia is a country of immigrants. Respect for diversity and the promotion of multiculturalism has been at the core of the developing Australian identity since the Whitlam Government introduced the Racial Discrimination Act in 1975. More detail on the Whitlam Government and its impact on Australia's social progress can be found here http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/what-did-gough-whitlam-actually-do-rather-a-lot-20141021-11977w.html

Under recent, right wing oriented governments, immigration has been used to stir up hysteria and hatred for political purposes. You say 'my' government but you should say the Australian government since you imply that I support discriminatory immigration policies otherwise. Discrimination is encouraged against the most recent immigrants attempting to enter Australia unlawfully because many of them are Muslim. I grew up witnessing the challenges that post WWII immigrants from Southern Europe and the Eastern Mediterranean had with integrating into Australian society and the changes that they brought to Australia. I witnessed the Vietnamese in the 70's and the Khmer in the 80's. By the 90's Australia had begun to develop a sense of its identity as part of the Asian region, something that was facilitated by legislation and public policy initiatives by the ideological successors to the Whitlam Government. You may wish to read one of Paul Keating's speeches on engagement with Asia from 1992 when he was Prime Minister http://www.keating.org.au/shop/item/australia-and-asia-knowing-who-we-are---7-april-1992

I do not support calls for throwing children of Muslim refugees seeking to enter Australia by boat overboard. I do not support the establishment of concentration camps for such 'boat people' in countries in the Pacific. I do not support indefinite incarceration in immigration detention centres in remote locations in rural Australia. I do support increased activity by the Australian government in diplomatic efforts with neighbouring countries to combat human trafficking.

In Australia the issue is about 'asylum seekers' not 'illegal immigrants'. Here is the government position on asylum seekers http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/rp1415/AsylumFacts You may also wish to read this document from the Asylum Seekers Resource Centre, however I won't hold my breath on that http://www.asrc.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/MythBusterJuly2013FINAL.pdf

I think that is probably enough of the off topic discussion on immigration policy in Australia. I remain convinced about the dangers to people and human rights by the activities of armed bigots like Joe Arpaio and Sheriff Chuck (?) Wright of Spartanburg County, South Carolina.

[lostboy]

False equivalency that promotes discrimination against actual people, not beliefs. Clearly Jon Sweetens has the same superficial understanding of people's right to dignity that many on TVF do.

[Jingthing]

Agree, but please refrain from all the capitals.

Too late. Using them for EMPHASIS is kind of my trademark.

[stevenl]

Agree, but please refrain from all the capitals.

Too late. Using them for EMPHASIS is kind of my trademark.

Which is not working, it only makes your posts more difficult to read.

[up2u2]

Sweren's misses the point. Mississippi's legislature is acting on religious bigotry and unnecessarily discriminating against a minority. Moore is acting in defence and support of people affected by religious bigotry. Mississippians are free to enact any legislation they want but they cannot then complain when people exercise their right to pass judgement and react to that legislative bigotry.

[sangtip2]

Who cares ?

[Jingthing]

Who cares ?

About what?

[up2u2]

Who cares ?

You should. Justice denied to one is justice denied to all. If you do not stand up and defend the rights of others against legislative bigotry who do you expect to stand up for you when your rights are put on the list of 'things to do today' by bigots and xenophobes?

Eternal vigilance.

[Credo]

How untrue. The people of North Carolina are not being denied the right to go to a Springsteen concert and the people of Mississippi aren't being refused entry to Bryan Adams. The musicians have simply chosen to have their venue elsewhere. There is a difference.

[Andreas2]

Just another example for the hypocrisy of these so-called entertainment "stars" and SJWs: What Beverly Hills Hotel Boycott? A-List Stars Set for Weekend Fundraiser at Venue

"No major Hollywood red carpet event has unspooled inside the Beverly Hills Hotel since 2014 when the owner, the Sultan of Brunei, passed Sharia law in his country, calling for the stoning of gays and adulterers."
...
"Another source quipped, "I think people have turned their attention toward anti-LGBT legislation being passed everywhere from North Carolina to Tennessee to care any more about a boycott of the Beverly Hills Hotel.""

Ain't it great to have the right to selectively boycott (or not anymore) for whatever reason you please? To have the freedom to select your flavour of the month?

What a bunch of hypocrites! Or does anybody understand, that after two years it is okay again to support people or business owners who advocate the stoning of gays? What could be the reason for this switch of principle? If there was ever one.

[Jingthing]

Yes. That is hypocritical.

But I think we can discuss stoning of gays in some foreign countries on other threads.

The topic here is related to the trend in the U.S. for some states to pass additional anti-GLBT civil rights laws. Clearly as a BACKLASH to the federal marriage equality civil rights victory.

I say additional because a number have already been on the books for many years.

Edited April 17, 2016 by Jingthing

[chuckd]

Undocumented immigrants to the US have racists like Joe Arpaio to deal with. LGBT people have this guy http://www.queerty.com/awful-sheriff-threatens-to-whip-trans-women-who-use-ladies-room-with-his-wife-20160416. This guy has a gun and a badge to back up his discrimination and bigotry.

You failed to mention the "undocumented immigrants" are also called "Illegal immigrants" and are, therefore law breakers.

I seem to recall Australia having problems with "undocumented immigrants" recently. What does your government do about them?

Maybe if you folks act real nice, Bryan Adams will honor you with his presence.

I do hope that you are not trying to bait me into off topic discussions chuck and be at the peril of dire consequences from the powers that be? On the assumption that this post will remain, I will respond to your issues.

People who are in the US illegally are people. They exist as humans. They even retain certain human rights and certainly are entitled to rights under the US Constitution. People cannot and should not be referred to as illegal. This is a direct denial of their right to be human. It is purposeful dehumanisation to fit a political agenda. People can and do commit acts that are illegal. The illegality refers to the actions and not the individual. It makes no difference that the people who write and approve legislation in the US use the word illegal alien. Their perpetuation and propagation of discrimination, intentional or not, cannot be excused. I have stated my beliefs on this many times in the past. I am also comforted that these beliefs are supported by such eminent organisations as the Associated Press and the New Yorker, although I do know what view a curmudgeonly Texan takes of the New Yorker. Full of New York values right!

The AP Stylebook today is making some changes in how we describe people living in a country illegally.https://blog.ap.org/announcements/illegal-immigrant-no-more

Should I Use the Term “Illegal Immigrant”?http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/should-i-use-the-term-illegal-immigrant

Australia is a country of immigrants. Respect for diversity and the promotion of multiculturalism has been at the core of the developing Australian identity since the Whitlam Government introduced the Racial Discrimination Act in 1975. More detail on the Whitlam Government and its impact on Australia's social progress can be found here http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/what-did-gough-whitlam-actually-do-rather-a-lot-20141021-11977w.html

Under recent, right wing oriented governments, immigration has been used to stir up hysteria and hatred for political purposes. You say 'my' government but you should say the Australian government since you imply that I support discriminatory immigration policies otherwise. Discrimination is encouraged against the most recent immigrants attempting to enter Australia unlawfully because many of them are Muslim. I grew up witnessing the challenges that post WWII immigrants from Southern Europe and the Eastern Mediterranean had with integrating into Australian society and the changes that they brought to Australia. I witnessed the Vietnamese in the 70's and the Khmer in the 80's. By the 90's Australia had begun to develop a sense of its identity as part of the Asian region, something that was facilitated by legislation and public policy initiatives by the ideological successors to the Whitlam Government. You may wish to read one of Paul Keating's speeches on engagement with Asia from 1992 when he was Prime Minister http://www.keating.org.au/shop/item/australia-and-asia-knowing-who-we-are---7-april-1992

I do not support calls for throwing children of Muslim refugees seeking to enter Australia by boat overboard. I do not support the establishment of concentration camps for such 'boat people' in countries in the Pacific. I do not support indefinite incarceration in immigration detention centres in remote locations in rural Australia. I do support increased activity by the Australian government in diplomatic efforts with neighbouring countries to combat human trafficking.

In Australia the issue is about 'asylum seekers' not 'illegal immigrants'. Here is the government position on asylum seekers http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/rp1415/AsylumFacts You may also wish to read this document from the Asylum Seekers Resource Centre, however I won't hold my breath on that http://www.asrc.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/MythBusterJuly2013FINAL.pdf

I think that is probably enough of the off topic discussion on immigration policy in Australia. I remain convinced about the dangers to people and human rights by the activities of armed bigots like Joe Arpaio and Sheriff Chuck (?) Wright of Spartanburg County, South Carolina.

And at the end of all your misdirection, illegal immigrants are still people performing illegal acts.

Individuals like that are normally called criminals by the NY Times.

I do agree with part of your post. This is off topic just a bit so...Ta.

[lostboy]

Just another example for the hypocrisy of these so-called entertainment "stars" and SJWs: What Beverly Hills Hotel Boycott? A-List Stars Set for Weekend Fundraiser at Venue

"No major Hollywood red carpet event has unspooled inside the Beverly Hills Hotel since 2014 when the owner, the Sultan of Brunei, passed Sharia law in his country, calling for the stoning of gays and adulterers."

...

"Another source quipped, "I think people have turned their attention toward anti-LGBT legislation being passed everywhere from North Carolina to Tennessee to care any more about a boycott of the Beverly Hills Hotel.""

Ain't it great to have the right to selectively boycott (or not anymore) for whatever reason you please? To have the freedom to select your flavour of the month?

What a bunch of hypocrites! Or does anybody understand, that after two years it is okay again to support people or business owners who advocate the stoning of gays? What could be the reason for this switch of principle? If there was ever one.

I am beginning to think that you are not arguing in good faith since you do not actually address the issues at hand. The issue is legislation that authorises the discrimination of minorities and the back lash. First you argue a moral equivalency of 'sincerely held' religious beliefs and the right to dignity of a minority that is defined by their biology. You now move to argue that protest against such anti LGBT legislation requires all protesters to protest all issues related to LGBT equality otherwise their protest can be dismissed and trivialised on the basis of hypocrisy.

Is Brian Adams protesting the Beverly Hills Hotel? I have no idea. Perhaps you can tell us. You might also find out about The Boss even though he is not part of this thread. Perhaps you might ask them if they knew about the issue with the Sultan of Brunei. Perhaps you might ask if they believe that putting energy into protesting religious bigotry in the US may have more impact than protesting the Ruler of a Sovereign State. You might also explain to them your expectation that they protest all issues with equal energy and vigour and demand an accounting of every issues that they have protested and at what level of intensity.

This circular argument that freedom of speech allows speech and actions that discriminate against a minority is easily countered by those who are subject to such discrimination also have the right to protest such discrimination can go on forever. It is clear to me that the rights of people to discriminate on the basis of their learned behaviours and received perceptions are less than the rights of those who are being discriminated against due to their biology.

People expressing support for LGBT equality need not be subject to ridiculous and insolent expectations that they fight all issues related to LGBT equality equally. This is just plainly irrational.

I enjoy and support a lot of what Bill Maher talks about. I particularly support what he says about Reagan and Religion (separately). His latest monologue on Real Time last Friday evening addressed the issue of religious discrimination. I think he has the correct solution.

I think that continued use of false equivalency would demonstrate bad faith in this discussion. Some have already judged it to be so. If any replies continue this line, then I guess we will know for sure.

[teatree]

Mr Adams has the perfect right to boycott any place he wants.

Just as people should be allowed to refuse to provide a wedding cake that compromises their beliefs.

[Chicog]

Mr Adams has the perfect right to boycott any place he wants.

Just as people should be allowed to refuse to provide a wedding cake that compromises their beliefs.

Mr. Adams has the right to use a clause in a private contract to opt out.

Bigots who run public businesses that refuse service to individuals based on race, religion or gender are breaking the law.

How hard is it to understand?

If Bryan Adams refused to have Christians at his concerts because he was a Satanist, you'd be all over it like a cheap suit.

[lostboy]

Mr Adams has the perfect right to boycott any place he wants.

Just as people should be allowed to refuse to provide a wedding cake that compromises their beliefs.

LGBT people should be dismissed from employment because they are LGBT? Straight people should be dismissed from employment because they support marriage equality? This is not about cakes or bathrooms. A cake does compromise any belief. Simplistic diversion to stir up hatred and discrimination.

[teatree]

How untrue. The people of North Carolina are not being denied the right to go to a Springsteen concert and the people of Mississippi aren't being refused entry to Bryan Adams. The musicians have simply chosen to have their venue elsewhere. There is a difference.

And the gay couple who were refused a wedding cake in one shop are not being denied the right to a wedding cake, they simply have to go to another bakery to get it.

If I go to a bakery in BKK with my fiance and the owner refuses to ice a wedding cake because we're a mixed race couple, then I just go to the bakery next door. I may curse him for being a narrow minded racist, but I'm not going to act like a cry baby demand damages because he hurt my feelings.

[Jingthing]

Enough with the CAKE obsession.

It indeed is a DIVERSION to try to justify discrimination against LGBT in all (and yes, much more IMPORTANT) matters.

[up2u2]

How untrue. The people of North Carolina are not being denied the right to go to a Springsteen concert and the people of Mississippi aren't being refused entry to Bryan Adams. The musicians have simply chosen to have their venue elsewhere. There is a difference.

And the gay couple who were refused a wedding cake in one shop are not being denied the right to a wedding cake, they simply have to go to another bakery to get it.

If I go to a bakery in BKK with my fiance and the owner refuses to ice a wedding cake because we're a mixed race couple, then I just go to the bakery next door. I may curse him for being a narrow minded racist, but I'm not going to act like a cry baby demand damages because he hurt my feelings.

So as long as there are only a few homophobic bigots that is okay. May be a good idea to run that up the flagpole at the Symposium of Dangerous Ideas Festival.

[Andreas2]

Just another example for the hypocrisy of these so-called entertainment "stars" and SJWs: What Beverly Hills Hotel Boycott? A-List Stars Set for Weekend Fundraiser at Venue

"No major Hollywood red carpet event has unspooled inside the Beverly Hills Hotel since 2014 when the owner, the Sultan of Brunei, passed Sharia law in his country, calling for the stoning of gays and adulterers."

...

"Another source quipped, "I think people have turned their attention toward anti-LGBT legislation being passed everywhere from North Carolina to Tennessee to care any more about a boycott of the Beverly Hills Hotel.""

Ain't it great to have the right to selectively boycott (or not anymore) for whatever reason you please? To have the freedom to select your flavour of the month?

What a bunch of hypocrites! Or does anybody understand, that after two years it is okay again to support people or business owners who advocate the stoning of gays? What could be the reason for this switch of principle? If there was ever one.

I am beginning to think that you are not arguing in good faith since you do not actually address the issues at hand. The issue is legislation that authorises the discrimination of minorities and the back lash. First you argue a moral equivalency of 'sincerely held' religious beliefs and the right to dignity of a minority that is defined by their biology. You now move to argue that protest against such anti LGBT legislation requires all protesters to protest all issues related to LGBT equality otherwise their protest can be dismissed and trivialised on the basis of hypocrisy.

Is Brian Adams protesting the Beverly Hills Hotel? I have no idea. Perhaps you can tell us. You might also find out about The Boss even though he is not part of this thread. Perhaps you might ask them if they knew about the issue with the Sultan of Brunei. Perhaps you might ask if they believe that putting energy into protesting religious bigotry in the US may have more impact than protesting the Ruler of a Sovereign State. You might also explain to them your expectation that they protest all issues with equal energy and vigour and demand an accounting of every issues that they have protested and at what level of intensity.

This circular argument that freedom of speech allows speech and actions that discriminate against a minority is easily countered by those who are subject to such discrimination also have the right to protest such discrimination can go on forever. It is clear to me that the rights of people to discriminate on the basis of their learned behaviours and received perceptions are less than the rights of those who are being discriminated against due to their biology.

People expressing support for LGBT equality need not be subject to ridiculous and insolent expectations that they fight all issues related to LGBT equality equally. This is just plainly irrational.

I enjoy and support a lot of what Bill Maher talks about. I particularly support what he says about Reagan and Religion (separately). His latest monologue on Real Time last Friday evening addressed the issue of religious discrimination. I think he has the correct solution.

I think that continued use of false equivalency would demonstrate bad faith in this discussion. Some have already judged it to be so. If any replies continue this line, then I guess we will know for sure.

My initial post was about the hypocrisy of Brian Adams to use his freedom to boycott (a group of) people to show and underscore his support to... Deny them the very same freedom he is using.

In a later post I explained why I support his freedom unconditionally by referring to the Non-Aggression-Principle (NAP) which is the foundation of my social behaviour. The NAP in a nutshell:

The NAP holds that “aggression against the person or property of others is always wrong, where aggression is defined narrowly in terms of the use or threat of initial physical violence.”

Btw: The freedom to boycott has absolutely nothing to do with the freedom of speech but with the freedom of association, to which I also refer in a later post.

Now, to make a long story short: To request the state to coerce people / companies to do business they would otherwise voluntarily decline (they forego an opportunity to earn money), is an aggressive, very dangerous path you choose.

It could go the same way as "feminism" is going right now in our Western culture:

If you bothered to watch the video, I hope you understand if I say: Be careful in your unconditional, aggressive request for "diversity" in our Western culture. At least don't blame the NAP for any unintended blowback! Which would me off very much, too.

[Jingthing]

Enough with the total B.S.

Nobody civilized in the U.S. thinks it's OK to not serve black people a restaurant meal, to fire them for just being black, to not sell them a hotel room, to discriminate against them in real estate (sales or rentals), etc. etc.

But somehow the odious anti-GLBT agenda is trying to sell a twisted bill of goods that it's OK to be bigoted that way towards GLBT.

No. No, it's not.

The "religious freedom" B.S. argument was previously used by RACIST bigots to rationalize such unfair discrimination against black people. It was wrong then. It's wrong now.

Yes, talking here about CIVIL RIGHTS movements for discriminated against MINORITY groups..

Yes, the USA GLBT civil rights movement was modeled after the black civil rights movement.

It's about EQUAL treatment under the law and protections against unfair discrimination ... and the struggles continue.

Edited April 17, 2016 by Jingthing

[F430murci]

Washed up fool trying to get attention. He plays in Dubai, Saudi et al and/or in countries that really persecute and prosecute gays, but boycotts Mississippi where he probably only has a 10 fans and 15 more people that ever heard of him or remembers who he is.

[Ulysses G.]

Yes, talking here about CIVIL RIGHTS movements for discriminated against MINORITY groups..

Civil rights concern not being arrested for having gay sex and having equal employment rights. Gay people in the US pretty much already have that. Letting men use women's toilets is not civil rights. It is just silly stuff. People just laugh at this kind of nonsense.

[mopar71]

False equivalency that promotes discrimination against actual people, not beliefs. Clearly Jon Sweetens has the same superficial understanding of people's right to dignity that many on TVF do.

There is nothing dignified about this whole stupid toilet/locker room issue.

Forcing women to accept men in the toilet if the man pretends to be trans or pretends to "identify as female" is asinine.

Everyone knows women go there together for their secret women pow-wows or whatever. The Ladies Room is their safe space. I thought the Left was in full support of safe spaces?

People can pretend that it is some kind of civil right, human right, and anyone who opposes is a bigot, but that is all BS. There was a lesbian on the BBC speaking out against this so don't pretend that the LGBT community is united on the issue. The vast majority of women still don't want men in their toilets.

They can solve this issue by changing the signs on the doors. Instead of the image of a man or woman, just have a penis or vagina.

[Scott]

Off-topic post removed along with replies.