There's a crucial distinction between a Christian baker refusing to participate in celebrating a gay marriage and Bruce Springsteen refusing to play in NC.
In refusing to perform, Springsteen didn't refuse his services to or against a particular person or persons because of who they are. That would be discrimination. Essentially because of that, by refusing to perform, his was a protest.
If he had refused to perform or withhold services to members of an audience because some were black or because some were heterosexual or because they were not heterosexual or because some were Christian, and he considered any of those offended his conscience, that would be discrimination.
So he was protesting against the government of a state which was discriminating against people because of who they are.
So after your long rambling discourse the reality is that there is no difference. Except that Bruce Springsteen broke a written business contract and now will be sued.
Artists would be better off keeping their performance dates in NC and using the performance to outline their opposition to HB2. In fact this is what the LGBT community in our state is requesting artists to do.
If you find 5 sentences long and rambling, perhaps words of 5 syllables like discrimination will also be challenging to you.
But nevertheless, the difference between a Christian baker refusing services and Bruce Springsteen doing the same is rational, logical and one prescribed in law.
Springsteen is free to choose his own method to protest. The manner in which you think artists are better off protesting or not is irrelevant .
What the LBGT community want or don't want Springsteen to do is also somewhat beside the point.
It's what Springsteen freely decides is his protest. That is ultimately up to Springsteen.
Separate issue altogether - breaking a business contract - where quite rightly, he might expect to be sued.
I think you need distinguish between what is political and what is clear discrimination against people because of who they are. Springsteen did not do the latter. Christian bakers did. That's the crux of it.
no, but an artist with a public following may feel the need to speak out on what he perceives as an injustice.Nice try stu, but I see it exactly the opposite.
Forcing a Christian baker or photographer or whomever to participate in a gay marriage ceremony is an example of using government power to coerce people to violate their religious beliefs.
Performing in NC however is no different for Springsteen than performing in any other state or in the foreign countries he has performed which criminalize homosexual conduct. He is free to stage his tantrum, but his rights were not threatened either way.
Are you meaning, in your thread title, by "free market, economic principles" to assume the actual existence of conditions which satisfy Walras' general equilibrium model requirements?* (In the Walrasian model, markets left alone, are expected to respond according to supply and demand and will spontaneously seek a price-supply-demand equilibrium.) Or are you using the term "free-markets" euphemistically? If the former is what you mean, then I am going to suggest two things for your consideration: 1. For the Walras' model to reach fruition, a laissez faire attitude of government is one of the hidden requisites;Anyone else sick of these democrats bitching about wages. These are the same assholes who want to flood the labor market with low skill workers for other countries.
yes, once again in my old age I am setting up a new aquarium in my new apartment. I'm a real natural guy and always rely on bacteria and algae, and everything works perfectly until you introduce a fish. If it wasn't for humans, the whole earth would work perfectly. Governing humans by natural law looks good on paper. But it's a real bitch if you are trying to raise healthy humans. Almost everything they do is anti balance.Are you meaning, in your thread title, by "free market, economic principles" to assume the actual existence of conditions which satisfy Walras' general equilibrium model requirements?* (In the Walrasian model, markets left alone, are expected to respond according to supply and demand and will spontaneously seek a price-supply-demand equilibrium.) Or are you using the term "free-markets" euphemistically? If the former is what you mean, then I am going to suggest two things for your consideration: 1. For the Walras' model to reach fruition, a laissez faire attitude of government is one of the hidden requisites;
2. There are zero examples in history where a laissez faire attitude of government did not preclude a breakdown of the perfect competition requirement of the Walras, general equilibrium model.
Thus, history has taught us that in the macroeconomic world there is no such thing, in the pure sense, as a stable, "free market economy"; but there is little harm in using this term as a euphemism for minimally, regulated markets so long as it is understood to be a euphemism. Sadly, it isn't often understood; thus we still run into calls for "free markets" without any qualification, despite the impossibility of their stable existence, at least in the macroeconomic world.
______________________
* In Walras' model, among several other requirements that are also never met in practice, there must be perfect competition. This requirement leads to an enigma. Laissez faire, i.e., non-interference, is a requirement of perfect competition, but laissez faire always leads to imperfect competition.