Petition Launched in Support of Bruce Springsteen’s ‘Right to Refuse Service’ Due to Beliefs

Springsteen Credit Craig ONeal-compressed
Photo Credit: Craig O’Neal

JACKSONVILLE, N.C. — A petition has been launched in support of secular rocker Bruce Springsteen’s “right to refuse service” in states with which he disagrees, after he cancelled a concert in North Carolina last week out of his opposition to a recently passed state law that annulled a controversial “bathroom bill” in Charlotte and banned other cities from passing similar ordinances.

“As we also know, North Carolina has just passed HB2, which the media are referring to as the ‘bathroom’ law. HB2—known officially as the Public Facilities Privacy and Security Act—dictates which bathrooms transgender people are permitted to use,” Springsteen wrote in a social media post on Friday. “Just as important, the law also attacks the rights of LGBT citizens to sue when their human rights are violated in the workplace.”

He explained that he had decided to cancel his concert and not perform in North Carolina because he disagreed with the enactment of the new law.

“I feel that this is a time for me and the band to show solidarity for those freedom fighters,” Springsteen said. “As a result, and with deepest apologies to our dedicated fans in Greensboro, we have canceled our show scheduled for Sunday, April 10th.”

“Some things are more important than a rock show and this fight against prejudice and bigotry—which is happening as I write—is one of them,” he continued. “It is the strongest means I have for raising my voice in opposition to those who continue to push us backwards instead of forwards.”

In making a point for the flip-side of the coin—Christian businesses, on Sunday, Jacksonville resident Dennis Burgard launched a petition on Change.org in support of Springsteen’s right to refuse to do business with the state of North Carolina due to his beliefs about homosexuality and transgenderism.

“Bruce Springsteen has a right to his deeply held beliefs. He has a right to control his business and refuse to do business with those he disagrees with,” the petition reads.

  • Connect with Christian News

“He exercised that right when he refused to serve ticket holders in Greensboro NC, for a concert he agreed to perform on April 10th,” it continues. “He cancelled the concert just days before he was to perform, and did so specifically because he disagreed with the beliefs of the people of North Carolina.”

Burgard’s petition also states that every person should have the right to live according to their beliefs.

“[Springsteen] has that right, and so should every business person,” it states. “He did so, even though he knew it would cause financial harm to those who had non-refundable hotel reservations and non-refundable airline tickets.  He did so, even though he knew he was causing financial harm to people who had no control over a decision he disagreed with.”

“You exercised your rights as a business person and we support your right!” it says.

Burgard only had a goal of 100 signatures and had over 80 as of press time.

“I support the rights of all business owners to make decisions for their business that reflect their strongly held beliefs,” one signer wrote.

“The 1st Amendment to the US Constitution states that Congress shall pass no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” another stated. “Let Bruce do what he wants, and we do what we want.”


A special message from the publisher...

Dear Reader, our hearts are deeply grieved by the ongoing devastation in Iraq, and through this we have been compelled to take a stand at the gates of hell against the enemy who came to kill and destroy. Bibles for Iraq is a project to put Arabic and Kurdish audio Bibles into the hands of Iraqi and Syrian refugees—many of whom are illiterate and who have never heard the gospel.Will you stand with us and make a donation today to this important effort? Please click here to send a Bible to a refugee >>

Print Friendly
  • Ron Voss

    “[Springsteen] has that right, and so should every business person. Except for the couple owning the bakery in Idaho, etc.

    • gizmo23

      Springsteen had a contract and he will have to pay to break it. It is nothing like a retail store and governed by different laws

      • Ambulance Chaser

        In that sense, it kinda is like the retail stores. He broke the law and he’s paying a penalty.

  • Michael C

    This is a nice attempt at a ‘gotcha’ headline marketed toward the extremely low-educated reader. If one knows absolutely nothing about the Civil Rights Act of 1964, perhaps they would think the argument presented in this headline is clever.

    Is Bruce Springsteen is a public accommodation? Is statehood a protected characteristic?

  • Mike Sharp

    Let me get this straight, he has the right to refuse service because of his beliefs, however as a Christian I do not have the same right.

    • Quantz

      Bingo.
      Double standard.

      • Cady555

        No . Same Standard.

        A business can choose it’s product but not its customer.

        A business can set its delivery area, its products, etc. but cannot provide those goods and services to one person but not another.

        Springsteen is setting his delivery area. But anyone can purchase a ticket to any concert he holds.

        To be the same as a baker who refuses to bake a cake for Alex and Chris when it happily baked a cake for a different Alex and Chris, Springsteen would have to hold the concert but set a rule that republicans cannot attend.

        • Lacunaria

          Springsteen is setting his “delivery area” specifically based upon the beliefs in that area.

          What makes it ironic and hypocritical is the specific beliefs that Springsteen opposes are the freedoms of association, exchange, and contract.

          • Cady555

            So? Businesses are free to set the parameters of their business on whatever factors they wish. Within those parameters, however, all customers are served without discrimination.

            Mr. Springsteen is opposing discrimination against individuals.

            It is the difference between “I won’t put on a concert in North Carolina” v “You may not attend my concerts anywhere if you were born in NC.”

            Or “I won’t bake fancy cakes for celebrations” v “I will bake fancy cakes for celebrations but you may not buy one.”

            Or “I won’t bake a cake with hate speech on it whether it is anti gay, anti christian, anti muslim or whatever” v “You may not buy one of my cakes because I don’t like the bumper sticker on your car.”

            Me limiting what I will do is okay. Me limiting what you may do is not.

          • Lacunaria

            So? Businesses are free to set the parameters of their business on whatever factors they wish.

            No, they are not legally free to do that if those factors could be seen as proxies for protected classes, like not serving or hiring people from an area because it is predominantly Jewish or black. See the doctrine of disparate impact.

            Me limiting what I will do is okay. Me limiting what you may do is not.

            That is my argument! Voluntary association is the moral ideal here. Do we agree on that?

            Unfortunately, your examples contradict that principle. What your examples actually show is your randomly protecting select classes without defining them.

            Legally, “hate speech” is not protected, nor are bumper stickers. i.e. businesses can legally discriminate against you because they don’t like your bumper sticker, as long as it cannot be interpreted as a proxy for some protected class.

          • Cady555

            The entire state of North Caolina hardly targets a single demographic. Duh.

            A number of bakers have refused to sell any cake to a gay couple for use at a wedding, even though they would make the exact same cake and sell it willingly to a different couple. This is discrimination. The baker does not object to making the cake. The baker objects to letting a specific person buy it.

          • Lacunaria

            The entire state of North Caolina hardly targets a single demographic. Duh.

            Who said it had to? Please read about disparate impact. Illegal discrimination doesn’t need to solely target a single demographic, it just has to have a… wait for it… disparate impact.

            A number of bakers have refused to sell any cake to a gay couple for use at a wedding, even though they would make the exact same cake and sell it willingly to a different couple. This is discrimination.

            Yes, people are discriminating left and right, some of it is even immoral. The question is whether the harm from their discrimination outweighs the harm of compelling a person’s labor and property.

            You won’t bake me a cake for my event, therefore I will force you to bake me a cake.

            The baker does not object to making the cake. The baker objects to letting a specific person buy it.

            That is false. And it is essential for you to understand why that is false, namely because they are not discriminating against the buyer, but rather against the event.

            Even if a heterosexual would buy it for a gay wedding, they still would not bake it and sell it. They object to contributing to the event, they don’t object to the buyer.

          • Josey

            The bakers you refer to offered a wedding cake that was already made and even offered them the tools to put what they wished on it, they just didn’t want to be the ones to put the message on it so in reality no product was denied them, not to mention if they felt that strongly about it they could have gone and gave their business to a number of places who would have gladly serviced them. This had nothing to do with discrimination!

    • Michael C

      No. You have the exact same right to back out of a concert in North Carolina.

      • Sharon_at_home

        he has the right to say no to a service (his concert) but we can’t say no to a service (not supplying for a LGBT wedding). a belief is a belief. There is no difference.

        • Mike Sharp

          His is even worse, he already took money for his service and then backed out.

        • Michael C

          Do you know what a public accommodation is?

          Do you know what a protected class is?

          • Peter Leh

            As a christian and a conservative at that I understand the belly aching… i just dont understand why we wish to stay so ignorant and make nonsensical arguments.

          • AndrewDowling

            Apparently anything a Christian does is “public,” or so homosexuals believe.

          • Peter Leh

            only to the ignorant christian. education liberates

          • acontraryview

            No, only the provision of service by a business of public accommodation.

        • Guest

          It is the business with the obligation, not any particular employee.

          Take the rock start cake decorator, Melissa Kline in the Oregon case. Yes, the business is obligated to follow the law but that doesn’t mean every cake will be decorated by Melissa. She can’t in good conscience do it, they can let someone else, hire a temp, 3rd party contract the cake out.

          Just as Melissa Kline can personally refuse to decorate the cake so can Bruce Springsteen refuse to perform. That doesn’t mean ‘Sweet Cakes by Melissa’ or whatever corporation actually does Springsteen’s bookings is off the hook, just that Melissa and Bruce won’t be using their talents.

        • Peter Leh

          There is no difference to the ignorant.

          ask any business owner Sharon, they (i) can tell you the difference. Or you may reference you local secretary of state website, available for ALL to read.

          otherwise , Sharon, it is willful ignorance to see no difference.

        • posercom

          If Bruce Springstein has a daughter I would like to see him ask her to use a public restroom or locker room at her gym with a transgender man, Liberals will not be satisfied until hundreds of women and children are raped and or murdered by deranged characters like the one in The Silence of the Lambs. Truth is stranger than fiction and the crimes that these transgender types commit are horrendous. Bruce Jenner should be in prison for vehicular homicide.

          • Cady555

            Trans people are not a danger to your daughters.

            This law puts your daughter in greater danger. Last month, every person with a beard and male features would use the men’s room. Now, if that person is trans, they are required to use the women’s room. Creeps that want to gain access to the womens room no longer even have to change their appearance. They can walk right in.

          • Josey

            Exactly what I said to you the other day, any old pervert can put on a dress and claim to be a tranny now and go into the ladies room, this is why allowing trannys who most still have their male genitalia should use the men’s restroom not the ladies. You are so confused in your comments….uggggg!

          • Cady555

            Ysrael Bien, Catholic priest, placed camera in ladies restroom at his church, fled to Philippines with help of the church.

            Sammy Nuckolls, evangelist and preacher, sentenced to 10 yrs in prison for spying on women in the bathroom at his home.

            Kevin Lambert, baptist pastor, arrested while standing on a chair outside a woman’s home to watch her in her bathroom.

            Robert Lyzenga, installed a camera in the womans restroom at his church. He spied on girls as young as five.

            (Thanks to Captain Cassidy at Roll to Disbelieve for these examples. There are many more.)

            Louis Gromert, republican politician, bragged that he would have violated the privacy of women using the bathroom if he thought he could get away with it. Christians praised him for this statement.

            Number of trans women caught doing anything inappropriate in a restroom ever – zero.

            Hypocrisy, thy name is christian.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            A transgender MAN wouldn’t be in a bathroom with Bruce’s daughter. That would be a female-to-male, and would be most likely to be using the men’s room. (for whatever reason, people don’t get as riled up about those kinds of trans people, but they are out there) And uh, wow……you’re saying transgender people are murderers and/or rapists? Because the most famous one was involved in a nasty car crash? That’s quite the leap of logic.

          • Josey

            Most that call themselves transgender still have a penis, they just dress up like women so yeah it would be a man in a woman’s dress in there with girls.

        • Cady555

          Setting the delivery area that applies equally to each customer is not the same as performing a concert but refusing to sell tickets to specific individuals based on animus.

        • acontraryview

          That is an incorrect analogy Sharon. First, Springsteen is not a business of public accommodation. Second, every person has a right to decide if they want to do business in NC or if they do not.

    • http://www.bing.com/ Martin Smit

      Correct. Unless your name is Bruce. And your surname is Lee or Springsteen. Only then do you have the right to refuse service. (I think that’s the point … duh.)

    • posercom

      Bruce Springstein is just a tool of the liberal anti Christian elite. He has no beliefs. He is just a whore.

      • Josey

        He is a sell out to the luciferian way, he must be about 70 by now anyway, probably didn’t have much in ticket sells anyway. His time is running out and he’ll be meeting the True Creator soon.

    • acontraryview

      No, that would not be correct.

      You most certainly have the right to decide if you want to operate a business in NC or if you do not.

    • Josey

      Exactly, a bunch of hypocrites and has nothing to do with what is moral or right, they hate Christ and they hate all who follow Christ period. that company pay-pal that pulled out of their contract with N.C. because of the bathroom bill that was passed to protect the women and children using public facilities does business all over the world even in muslim countries but they say nothing about what they do to homsexuals, hypocrites, the lot of them.

  • Josey

    Burgard’s petition also states that every person should have the right to live according to their beliefs.

    “[Springsteen] has that right, and so should every business person,” it states. “He did so, even though he knew it would cause financial harm to those who had non-refundable hotel reservations and non-refundable airline tickets. He did so, even though he knew he was causing financial harm to people who had no control over a decision he disagreed with.”

    So should every Christian business owner have the right to run their business as they see fit! A huge difference between Springsteen and a Christian business owner is the Christian wouldn’t have caused loss of money to ppl like Springsteen did.

    • Guest

      Again, if a Christian business owner doesn’t want to personally serve someone they don’t have to but their business does have to obey civil rights laws.

      Make no mistake, whatever corporation contracted for the concert is on the hook, but they can’t force Bruce himself to play or even attend. NC could sue the corporation, the corporation could sue Bruce, but he still doesn’t have to perform against his own conscience.

      This is the point missed in all these civli rights cases – no particular employee of any of these businesses need do any particular thing – all of them can ask for religious accommodation.

      So yes, the business Sweet Cakes by Melissa must not discriminate but that doesn’t mean any cake made has to be made by Melissa.

      Arlene’s Flowers had an employee that would have been happy to make the flower arrangements for the wedding, the business owner could have taken the day off, gone on a cruise.

      Elane Photography might have a photographer that couldn’t, in good conscience, take the pictures but the business had hired 3rd party contract photographers before, they could have this time.

      Again, it is always about the business with the obligation, not any particular person. Bruce does’t have to perform if he can’t in good conscience but that doesn’t mean his decision will be without personal financial consequences down the road.

      • Lacunaria

        Your logic is circular: you are using the law to justify the law. Whether you force someone to perform or force them to hire someone to perform, it is force. It is a violation of free association and free exchange.

        • Guest

          you don’t understand the situation. anyone making an invitation of sale to the general public has already used their free association accordingly knowing such invitations to do business are subsequently legally and constitutionally regulated.

          it is completely constitutional and legal to regulate how a business deals with customers responding to their freely made invitation to do business.

          can’t sell something to the public as the law requires don’t invite the public to buy it, simple as that.

          • Lacunaria

            Public invitations of sale have never constituted a commitment of universal service. Even today, only select classes are protected from discrimination. Business owners can discriminate against anyone else for any other reason.

            By your theory, there should be no reason you can turn away a sale. Furthermore, by your theory, a business would simply have to have a footnote in their advertisements saying that they reserve the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason. To the extent that the law prohibits this, it prohibits free association and exchange.

            it is completely constitutional and legal to regulate how a business deals with customers responding to their freely made invitation to do business.

            That is an example of your using the law to justify the law. It’s circular. The whole question is what the law should be, not what the law is.

            You are basically saying that it is moral for the law to force a vendor because the law is constitutional and legal, and if they didn’t want to be forced then the shouldn’t sell things. Do you see the circle there? The violation of freedom of association and exchange?

          • Guest

            We are currently talking about civil rights and public accommodation laws, it seems you were confused on that, I apologize for not making that clear and wasting your time refuting things not being discussed.

            as to your opinion of what the law should be I really don’t care, I’m talking about laws based on their source, the constitution.

            and since the invitation was freely made knowing full well how such offers are subsequently legally and constitutionally regulated the use of the word ‘force’ is ludicrous, having to obey any law we don’t like would be ‘forced’ by that metric.

            is it legal to regulate freely made public invitations by a business and their subsequent interactions with the responding public? of course, nothing circular about it.

            no one is forcing a business to make invitations to the public, that’s their choice with them knowing ahead of time their obligations beyond that. no violation of free association, they knew the law before freely offering to associate with the public. If they don’t want to respect the civil rights of customers they can use that right of free association to associate with a subgroup of the public, like the Boy Scouts.

            if you want to make more sense quit calling freely made invitations as being ‘forced’.

          • Lacunaria

            We are currently talking about whether to change civil rights and public accommodation laws to include sexual orientation as a protected class.

            Regarding states which already include it, we are talking about whether sexual orientation morally trumps religious belief regarding a person’s own labor and property.

            is it legal to regulate …

            That’s the circular part right there, because regulations are laws. You are saying, “is it legal to have laws”.

            What you probably mean is, “is it constitutional to regulate …”. But the constitution doesn’t help you here because RFRA laws that defer to religious belief and laws that defer to sexual orientation are both constitutional.

            Therefore, you must make a moral argument. Similarly, Josey, who you responded to, was making a moral argument, not a constitutional argument.

            Regarding government’s conditional prohibitions, consider an analogy:

            If Gary stopped you, by force, from leaving your home until you washed his car or hired someone else to wash it, would that be just? After all, it’s your choice whether you leave your property but you would be accepting his conditions by leaving, right?

            But what right does Gary have in the first place to put conditions on your leaving your house and going to your neighbors house who is welcoming you?

            No matter how you look at it, it is an infringement of free association under threat of force.

          • Guest

            a moral argument? our common morality is reflected in our recognized rights and laws. everyone has them.

            every member of the public has their own rights, every business knows this before they invite the public. everyone has a right to have religious beliefs that include same sex marriage and weddings, the business knew that also before making the offer, ditto with their right to be any sexes, and their right, in my state, to be any sexual orientation.

            rights are rights – they are all equal and the business illegally discriminating against them because of their beliefs, sexes, or sexual orientation is still illegal discrimination.

            if a business owner can’t sell to the public and respect their civil rights they have options – they can run as a private club or non-profit that can find the people they will sell to first and then make just them the invitation.

            But invite everyone and then apply a religious test they must pass? Nope, the public’s own right to religious freedom protects them from such invidious and, yes, immoral conduct.

          • Lacunaria

            You are still confused over the commitment of “invitations”. Private clubs have onerous hurdles that reduce business. The question is still why Gary can force your labor or property to other people when you have done no harm.

            You still haven’t made a case for preferring the right to compel sale to freedom of religion. Freedom of religion is actually in the constitution. Public non-discrimination laws are just laws.

            “rights are rights”. I’ve done my best, but you just keep going in a circle.

          • Guest

            The need to religiously discriminate is there’s in a land of universal religious freedom, if the can’t make as much doing so is their choice, just like the deli that doesn’t sell pork loses all their potential pork profits.

            and again there is no force, if they can’t offer something to people of all beliefs as the law requires then offer something else.

            and if a right is in the constitution it’s no more important that a statutory right – rights are rights.

            but that is the real issue, people want special rights for belief but even that fails since the right to think same sex weddings are ok is just as valid as a belief they aren’t. And so the next question to ask is “why are these two citizens even interacting?” and the answer is “because one invited the other knowing they had a RIGHT to not share their beliefs.

            the only reason the Boy Scouts were considered to not be a New Jersey public accommodation business is because they were a private club and if any business wants to operate ignoring others civil rights that is the path they must take too.

          • Lacunaria

            In order to be exempt, private clubs are required to have meaningful conditions of limited membership. So, if they serve all of the public other than gay weddings, it would probably be illegal.

            Of course, they would lose any income from gay weddings, and that is how the free market should work against irrational discrimination. The difference is that, in this case, they are also fined out of existence.

            They want no special rights, just the freedom of association and exchange. These laws force association and exchange. It is just a blatant fact, even if you think the law is justified.

            But in this case, the vendors are not harming anyone, so the law is not justified.

          • Guest

            That isn’t how they would do it, they would enroll members like a golf club and only offer wedding services to them. Or only serve clients of membered pastors and ministers. Its no more difficult than just offering them to someone as a member in good standing of a church.

            ‘Fined out of existence’, please. Most fines are low initially, the Florist shop in Washington got fined $1,000 + 1 in legal fees – they still won’t pay.

            Oregon BOLI fines more but they do for everyone – in 2012 a Christian dental hygienist got a $348,000 award because her employer just asked her to attend a business related meeting but was sponsored by Scientology.

            Businesses have obligations to those they engage with, employees or customers and must respect their civil rights in any offer.

            And yes, wanting a right to religious discrimination of the public is asking for a special right. Sorry, the customer’s right to religious freedom makes them immune to any religious test or requirement the business might want to toss their way.

            And yes, refusing a customer because of a civil rights class does harm them. Using your standard no civil rights law is essential because there is always somewhere else to go. Sorry, in my state the hallmark civil rights case was about someone refused the sale of a Slushie at a 7-11.

            The standard is ‘full enjoyment of all services’ the business has to offer regardless of a customer’s civil rights class. Creed, Sex, Sexual orientation – doesn’t matter, the public can’t be refused because of any of them. Can’t sell something to people regardless of these classes, don’t offer them to the public at all.

          • Lacunaria

            Who am I talking to now? Do you guys switch off or something? You guys share a habit of avoiding the point, but the other guy was practically incoherent.

            That isn’t how they would do it, they would enroll members like a golf club and only offer wedding services to them. Or only serve clients of membered pastors and ministers.

            Yes, that’s how they would be forced to do it, and it requires exactly that tailoring to religious services even if they would serve all of the public in most circumstances.

            ‘Fined out of existence’, please. Most fines are low initially, the Florist shop in Washington got fined $1,000 + 1 in legal fees – they still won’t pay.

            Right, and when they won’t pay, they continue to be fined until they are forced to comply or put out of business. Did you honestly think I was referring to a one-time fine?

            Businesses have obligations to those they engage with, employees or customers and must respect their civil rights in any offer.

            No kidding. You keep making appeals to law when the question debated in these threads is what the law should be. The law is a mess since it’s now based upon a living constitution and conflicting rights.

            And yes, wanting a right to religious discrimination of the public is asking for a special right.

            What is special about it? Everyone should have the same right to refuse service. That’s what freedom of association and exchange means. It is immoral to initiate force against people.

            Sorry, the customer’s right to religious freedom makes them immune to any religious test or requirement the business might want to toss their way.

            A gay wedding is not a religious test.

            And yes, refusing a customer because of a civil rights class does harm them.

            Not selling you a cake is not harm in any reasonable sense, and certainly not enough harm to warrant the use of force.

            Using your standard no civil rights law is essential because there is always somewhere else to go.

            Exactly, I am interested in actual harm done and actual freedom of association and exchange of my own labor and my own property.

          • Guest

            Yes, that’s how they would be forced to do it, and it requires exactly that tailoring to religious services even if they would serve all of the public in most circumstances.

            Exactly! And that is what the Boy Scouts of America had to do to NOT be a public accommodation, that is the only thing that gave them a ‘pass’ on being considered a public accommodation. ’Most’ services doesn’t cut it – the standard is ‘full enjoyment of all services,’ for a public accommodation down to the selling of the smallest Slurpie or a single night in a hotel.

            Right, and when they won’t pay, they continue to be fined until they are forced to comply or put out of business.

            Or the less hysterical option of changing their business. The florist shop in Washington state has done that – they have’t sold the thing the owner says their conscience won’t let them sell for over 3 years – still doing fine. Records showed that such sales were less than 4% of their business, many florist shops don’t sell large customer work. Just like the deli who’s religious conscience won’t let them sell pork, they lose all potential pork profits because of the decision the florist shop that doesn’t want to respect the religious freedom of their customers need sell no flower arrangements that touch on such religious opinion, but they too are giving up those kinds of profits by their decision.

            The law is a mess since it’s now based upon a living constitution and conflicting rights.

            Ha! Sorry civil rights laws are completely constitutional, laws that recognized them are too, and the states have had the right to recognize more than the federal constitution since the first 10 amendments were added, both constitutionally and by statute. And negotiating conflicting rights is the very purpose of laws – if everyone could do whatever they wanted without affecting someone else there would be no need for laws, but they can’t so laws decide.

            This is pretty simple – don’t make invitations to the public and treat the responding public without regard and respect for their acknowledged civil rights.

            A gay wedding is not a religious test.

            Hmmmm, the whole excuse is its against someone else’s beliefs so, yes, it is. The right to believe in marriage regardless of sex is every bit as much a belief as having one there should only be multi-sex marriages and weddings – one can’t be acknowledged without the other.

            Not selling you a cake is not harm in any reasonable sense, and certainly not enough harm to warrant the use of force.

            And that’s a failed argument in every court its appeared in – again, a hotel room, sitting at a lunch counter rather than in the dining room, front or back of the bus, and buying a Slurpie are just a few of the civil rights cases – if you think such things don’t matter then you don’t understand the nature and extend of civil rights laws at all. Again, you don’t like that wipe out all civil rights laws, until you do its ‘pie in the sky’ talk that just distracts a conversation about how things actually are.

          • Lacunaria

            Gary is the government, in case you didn’t understand the analogy, so, no, you did not invite Gary to get involved.

            Your continual appeal to public invitation is specious since it only applies to protected classes. It is the work of Gary that compels you, not the public invitation itself.

          • Guest

            Ha! No civil rights laws are the public deciding how the public should be treated in the public arena when responding to a public invitation. They are completely constitutional and legal regulation of such offers and how the public has decided they will subsequently proceed. Your analogy wasn’t clear because you don’t understand that basic fact.

            And public invitations to a public with acknowledged rights is what we are talking about, all such invitations are knowingly made to people with these rights.

            This is not about should there be civil rights, which is beyond the scope of this discussion. This is about how they interact and in a nation with the first amendment, a universal right to religious freedom included with other civil rights being free from religious discrimination when responding to a public offer is a forgone conclusion. as yet no one has been able to justify it other than by foot stomping fiat.

          • Lacunaria

            You are responding to my moral argument by saying that what Gary is doing is legal therefore it is ok. That’s your circular reasoning.

            Now onto an actual legal argument (please try to keep them straight): gay marriage is not a religious belief. It is an event. These cases involve the religious belief of the vendors vs. a particular event of gay customers.

          • Guest

            No, that isn’t circular. I am saying that constitutionally the public can regulate how public invitations to do business are regulated. Not a damn thing circular about that – our laws are based on the constitution. Gary is the public that has recognized civil rights by totally constitutional means.

            And if ‘gay marriage’ is only an event than any religious argument about rejecting customers because of it fall away. Sorry, either gay marriage is a religious event, just as much as a multiuser wedding is, or it is not. Pick one, but it applies to both sides of this discussion or neither.

          • Lacunaria

            You keep doing it. I, and most here, argue that the law is immoral and you reply, no, it is legal and constitutional, therefore it is moral. Do you see the disconnect?

            Would you also argue against Rosa Parks by saying that she had a choice and she chose to do something illegal? “She doesn’t have to ride the bus, but if she does, then she has to follow the law. It is therefore voluntary.”

            Can you see how that would be circularly using the law to justify the law? Can you see how calling that “voluntary” is specious?

            “Gay marriage” has always been a religious issue to Christians, while it has never been a religious issue to gays until it behooved them to call it such.

          • Guest

            no, there is no disconnect, our common morals are reflected in the constitution, it is the compilation of the postulates of our law.

            if you want to put forth that civil rights laws are immoral Rosa Parks is the wrong way to go. Can a law be unconstitutional, I.e. immoral? Sure.

            But let’s see if we consider immoral to be the same thing – we both think it is immoral to think someone must share our personal beliefs about marriage don’t we? that everyone’s right to religious freedom says the have a right to not share someone else’s?

            It is immoral to invite everyone to do business and then say that some won’t be sold to because of their beliefs and the legal acts they let them do, whether wear yarlmakes or have weddings for samesex marrying couple.

            and now we are back to you wanting special rights to one side. I attended my first multisex religious wedding in the mid-70s, my first samesex religious wedding in the late-70s.

            weddings and marriages are either part of belief for both sides or neither, pick one.

          • Lacunaria

            Can a law be unconstitutional, I.e. immoral? Sure.

            My main point to you is that “constitutional” and “moral” are not synonyms. Just because a majority of SCOTUS votes a certain way doesn’t make it right.

            I think you see this and I appreciate that you subsequently made a moral argument.

            we both think it is immoral to think someone must share our personal beliefs about marriage don’t we? that everyone’s right to religious freedom says the have a right to not share someone else’s?

            To be precise, it’s not immoral to think that, rather it is immoral to compel others by force to share your beliefs.

            We live in a diverse society, and the moral way to get along is to not force each other, but rather to interact through free association and free exchange.

            It is immoral to invite everyone to do business and then say that some won’t be sold to

            This is the crux of your moral argument, but it falls apart because an invitation to do business is not a commitment, contract, or guarantee. If it were, then businesses could not refuse service to anyone for any reason.

            weddings and marriages are either part of belief for both sides or neither, pick one.

            That’s a false choice, as atheist marriages evince, but more importantly, you are misdirecting to the religiousness of the wedding when the real issue is the religiousness of the sale.

            Those vendors consider it a religious sin to sell and thereby contribute to a gay wedding. The customer has no corresponding religious belief that requires that vendor to serve at their wedding. Even if their gay wedding is religious, the sale is not.

            So, there is no conflict between their religions. Only the vendor has a religious claim regarding the sale, and the government is violating the vendor’s religious freedom by compelling their labor and property.

          • Guest

            To be precise, it’s not immoral to think that, rather it is immoral to compel others by force to share your beliefs.

            No, you can’t compel someone’s beliefs, that’s a false statement. What is immoral is not tolerating their beliefs, the only reason anyone has a right to religious freedom is because everyone has a right to same. There is no right to require someone else to act or behave as if they share someone else’s beliefs.

            This is the crux of your moral argument, but it falls apart because an invitation to do business is not a commitment, contract, or guarantee. If it were, then businesses could not refuse service to anyone for any reason.

            An invitation to do business is the start of the business relationship and it is regulated from that point by the people the invitation is to – the public. If that was not the start of the relationship or consumer protection laws wouldn’t work. Once the invitation has been made the public, but constitutional, legal and moral means have regulated how it will proceed. One of those is the business relationship must proceed while respecting the civil rights of those that respond, no matter their beliefs, their sex or their sexual orientation in these situations. Nothing falls apart as long as the business acts in a moral manner. Of course that is not the absolute ‘any reason’ straw man you constructed, there are many reasons a customer can be turned away, just not these.

            That’s a false choice, as atheist marriages evince, but more importantly, you are misdirecting to the religiousness of the wedding when the real issue is the religiousness of the sale.

            And atheist vendors, or Scientologist employers, not a false choice at all. We are talking about his case and no matter how you slice it the customer’s side beliefs include the possibility of samesex couples marrying.

            And thank you for admitting this is about a business that want to sell a religious service, which is completely possible as a private club or a non-profit. But since very single customer has a right to their own beliefs they can’t do this by a public offer, the customer’s own right to religious freedom shields them from any religious test or requirement the seller might toss their way. The seller has no right to expect someone to act as if they share their beliefs to accept the invitation of sale. Their right is to not make offers to the public that can’t be accepted by people of all beliefs.

            The customer has no corresponding religious belief that requires that vendor to serve at their wedding.

            Of course not, they have a constitutional right to have their own beliefs regardless of the seller’s however and a civil right to be able to accept the invitation of sale regardless of if they share the seller’s or not.

            Only the vendor has a religious claim regarding the sale, and the government is violating the vendor’s religious freedom by compelling their labor and property.

            No because the vendor is not compelled to offer anything for sale to the public they can’t sell to people of all beliefs. The government isn’t forcing the vendor to do anything, it is the vendor that wants to be able to require their customer’s to comply with a belief they have a constitutional right not to share in order to actually buy what they were invited to sell.

            Sorry, it is the vendor that is violating the civil and constitutional rights of the customer by applying a religious test the customer has no obligation to meet to accept the invitation.

            Simple first amendment, many states are even more specific about this. Since 1777 states have had that constitutional limitation stated in their constitutions :

            But the liberty of conscience hereby secured shall not be so construed as to excuse acts of licentiousness or justify practices inconsistent with the peace and safety of the state.

            licentiousnessThe indulgence of the arbitrary will of the individual, without regard to ethics or law, or respect for the rights of others.

            In this case their civil rights which include ‘full enjoyment of all services’ offered, which also dovetails with the peace of the state.

            There is no right to act without regard to the rights of others even with the excuse of religion. The vendor is the one with the need to religiously discriminate, its up to them to find a way to run their business as their conscience requires and respect the customer’s civil rights at the same time. If their religion won’t let them sell pork to the general public, don’t offer pork to the general public. If they can’t sell wedding services to the general public, don’t offer them to the general public. There are other business models that all let the business use its right of association first and then make just that group the invitation of sale.

            It really is that simple. There is no right to require a customer responding to public invitation to comply with a religious restriction of a belief they do not share and the customer has a civil right to accept a public invitation regardless of their beliefs.

          • Josey

            So according to your reasoning, I guess Christians will have to put on their places of business, (Only serving Christians) and that is ridiculous but clubs do it all the time. As far as the specialty cake as I’ve said many times before it would be partaking of the celebration to put their message on it and the bakers generally deliver the cake to the venue, these homosexuals had other choices to get their cake done, same with the florist, she even gave them a referral and the answer isn’t just let another employee do it in your place because it is the owners whose name is on the product. They got their feelings hurt, that’s all, guess they were not wearing their big boy pants or big girl panties that day, no permanent harm was done except by their own doing. Who hasn’t gotten rejected or their feelings hurt at one time or another? I have but didn’t sue, I gave my business to someone who wanted it, they are not as traumatized or as persecuted as they are making it sound. As far as the bed and breakfast recently in the news for turning down a homosexual union ceremony where they prob. would have stayed the night, the owners were illegally fined for saying no and they can legally put up a sign that only Christian families can come there. They can set it up as a Christian venue only.

          • Josey

            BTW…I’m sure the bed and breakfast wouldn’t have allowed a party such a some b-day bash to stay either as it is a family bed and breakfast.

          • Guest

            No, Christians would have just sold the advertised product to the customer regardless of the customer’s beliefs and practices, we are talking about a handful of people who call themselves Christian.

            But then its clear you don’t understand civil rights laws. No signs saying ‘whites only’ or ‘christians only’, no whining about ‘they could go somewhere else’ anymore than the lunch counter, buses, hotel rooms of the past.

            If they want to set up a private club for Christians they can, the civil rights statutes explain that, but it takes more than a sign at the gate.

    • posercom

      Next these sick disturbed people will say that they identify as toddlers and they will demand to attend pre school with our young children. This is what happens when you have a party who’s leadership is made up exclusively of lawyers. They create these bat shit crazy laws to give more opportunities for lawyers to sue people, namely Christians.

  • Sharon_at_home

    “Bruce Springsteen has a right to his deeply held beliefs. He has a
    right to control his business and refuse to do business with those he
    disagrees with,” the petition reads.
    Burgard’s petition also states that every person should have the right to live according to their beliefs.

    So why does His beliefs top ours? He can refuse business to a state because of his beliefs, but we aren’t allowed to do the same because of our beliefs? It’s our belief that God doesn’t want us to help people sin, it’s not prejudice and bigotry! We can have no prejudice and bigotry but still want to obey God’s word. I don’t see how his right to do the exact same thing is different than our right to refuse business because of our beliefs.

    I think they should at the least make it so they can’t sue outrageous amounts that destroy the person’s lives and businesses, and that they had no recourse of going to another business that would provide the service. If they can have the service done then they should not have the ability to sue. As far as my belief goes, i think they just want to destroy a life because they don’t agree with them. Just think – all those people will be rich by destroying other people’s lives.

    • prjoe

      His rights top yours because his rights don’t infringe upon the rights of others like yours do.

      • Sharon_at_home

        Yes it does. It infringed upon every person that had anything to do with his business – concert. He even stated that he was sorry for the people who would not be able to get their refunds for hotels, airfare etc. They don’t mention the companies that would have been working the concert; they don’t think of the little people that won’t be able to earn a wage working for those concerts. And what about those people who will never get to see him in concert because this was their only chance to. These people’s rights were infringed on, and it’s not like anyone can say they all agree with Bruce so they would ‘want’ the concert to be cancelled for something like that either.
        All the christian business did was hurt their feelings – if they got served by someone else.
        Give me a break! boo-hoo they don’t like our lifestyle – suck it up like everyone else in the world when someone doesn’t like them. Go on with your life and forget about them. Not everyone is going to like you. That’s life!

        • Peter Leh

          how did Bruce’s right to cancel the show infringe upon your “right” to see Bruce’s show?

        • gogo0

          go to the next bruce springsteen concert held outside NC if you want to attend. your rights aren’t being infringed upon. no one is being denied service, only convenience.

      • Peter Leh

        YEP.

      • AndrewDowling

        Phags with cats are such deep thinkers.

    • Guest

      Hmmm you absolutely are – any employee of any business can ask for religious accommodation, it is the business that has the obligation, not any particular person.

      Which leads to Bruce being able to not personally entertain if it goes against his conscience.

      • Sharon_at_home

        personally i don’t believe there is any difference. but regardless of that. does that mean that if a christian business posts a sign that says it will only serve people that do not go against their beliefs mean they will still get sued. yes. So what about the old sign “we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone” with no explanations made. Is that allowable enough to avoid being sued?
        the other thing that pisses me off is that by suing these people who hurt their feelings, they are destroying their whole lives. they lose their business, use all their money to pay their legal costs and usually end up moving away from their homes. Meanwhile the other side gets to get rich, and their life goes on happily ever after. Is that really what this is about? Make a reasonable limit to how much they can sue for – especially if they received the service elsewhere – so the person can still live their own life – within the restrictions of the law against their belief.
        You seem to think only other people should have the right to their own beliefs. That’s hardly fair and equal like the LGBT want. They don’t want fairness and equality – they want it all their way and no other.
        The Christian businesses that refused service did NO harm. The LGBT people did GREAT harm. That is what I am opposed to. As a reasonable person, if someone refused me service, I wouldn’t sue although i might be angry about it. I would go on to find someone who will serve me.

        • Guest

          does that mean that if a christian business posts a sign that says it will only serve people that do not go against their beliefs mean they will still get sued. yes.

          Of course, they can’t invite the public in general to come buy and then apply a religious test the customer must pass to actually buy – that is a violation of the customer’s own right to religious freedom.

          The solution that is right there in the laws is to use the freedom of association first – find the kiind of people they want to sell to and then make just them the offer of sale. Best example is the Boy Scouts of America. They are a private club – a person can’t come walking off the street and say they want to get a fire making merit badge, they have to be a member of their private club first and only the club members are offered that opportunity.

          Any business that can only sell to people of certain beliefs can operate as a private club or as a non-profit, both are allowed to find just the people they want to associate with first and then make any invitations to just these people.

          But invite everyone and then do the selection process? Not allowed – the universal right to religious freedom protects every person invited from any religious test the business might like to put them through.

        • Guest

          Oh and your comment about ‘limits on suing’ shows a misunderstanding of the issue – the customers put in a complaint, the state decides the fine.

          You might be thinking of the Oregon case where the Sweet Cakes by Melissa bakery owners got fined $138,000? A couple years earlier a Christian got a discrimination complaint payout of $348,000 by the same BOLI head that was complained about.

          Some states do big fines – the florist shop in Washington was fined $1001 total.

        • Josey

          I know it’s satan’s plan to rid all God fearing Christians out of service period. I’m with you on if someone doesn’t want to do business with me I move on to someone who does. Re-education centers are beginning to surface now but no one can take out what God has put into a person’s heart and we have His protection from deception. Just wait it won’t be fun for those who rejected Christ for they will be the only ones the demons will be able to torment for God’s ppl are sealed. They think they are getting rid of (in their words not mine, us self righteous bigots) but they are the ones who will be tormented for rejecting the Truth.. Beware when they say, Peace and Safety, sudden destruction overtakes them.

      • posercom

        He has no conscience. He is a tool of the industry. Do you think it is just a coincidence that nearly 99% of people in the main stream entertainment industry hold liberal ideologies? I assure you they are controlled by the elite who use them to push an agenda that is anti Christian and anti American.

        • Guest

          hmmm liberal is both American and Christian. The fear and legalism that are hallmarks of the modern conservative movement are what’s against those two things.

    • posercom

      If you do some research on the pop music industry, you will understand that these so called artists are just tools and have no belief system of their own, or are wiling to sell out and forget about their beliefs. Banking interests control our entertainment industry. The song “The Day The Music Dies” explains the agenda well. Many musicians like Chaka Khan have exposed the sick and demonic pop music industry and it’s overlords. Bruce is serving his master and his master is the opposite of Jesus Christ.

    • Cady555

      Springsteen is not refusing to do business with one class of people. Republicans, christians and people with NC birth certificates can attend his concerts.

      Springsteen, like everyone else, can choose what product he serves and where he operates. Once he makes these decisions, he welcomes anyone who wants to buy a ticket.

      • Josey

        you are talking out both sides of your mouth and don’t even recognize you’re doing it.

  • bowie1

    Does he still have to pay for the venue he no doubt would have had to reserve for the concert? I wonder…

    • Guest

      He is probably an employee of a corporation that is who does the actual booking. The corporation could be sued for breach of contract and they could sue Bruce I suppose, but since he is probably the owner corporation don’t think that would happen.

      The problem would be the fall out of suing because of a canceled performance, that could very well make the entire state could just get ‘skipped’ by all major performers in the future rather than risk a cancellation lawsuit.

      Its not like the big acts need to perform in North Carolina – they have few enough performance opportunities as it is, and there are other venues in other states that could probably make them more money anyway.

      So I doubt there will be many consequences to his actions thought that doesn’t mean there legally couldn’t be.

    • Peter Leh

      It is all in the contract. There is probably something that comes out of his pocket i would guess.

  • Emmanuel

    If you still listen to this guy, you need Jesus. LOL

    • Peter Leh

      I do both. 🙂

  • Peter Leh

    “Burgard’s petition also states that every person should have the right to live according to their beliefs.”

    what is the difference Burgard? Let be consistent. If Bruce said “no Christians allowed” you have an argument. Rather, Bruce pulled his service for all of NC… which is legal.

    What Burgard is arguing in effect and unwittingly is AGAINST businesses discriminating against protected groups as these christian business are doing and FOR bruce.

    Why are christians so business ignorant?

  • Pererin

    Well, that’s intolerant!

  • Bertha Warren

    Yea! Yea!

  • Penny-Linda P. Thompson

    He is a performer. That is all. He provides a service. He did not perform the service paid for. SUE. Hurt him in the pocket. He is a has been any way.He needs to keep his opinions in Jersey. N.C. doesn’t need him. Don’t come to Texas. We have the same law. We cherish our women and children. Don’t need men’s private parts haning out in front of our little girls.

    • Peter Leh

      he played in dallas just the other day.

      So you WANT Bruce to spread his “liberal” show to the folks in NC?

    • Bob Johnson

      “SUE” – Have you ever read the back of a concert ticket?

  • Reason2012

    // A petition has been launched in support of secular rocker Bruce Springsteen’s “right to refuse service” in states with which he disagrees, after he cancelled a concert in North Carolina last week out of his opposition to a recently passed state law that annulled a controversial “bathroom bill” in Charlotte and banned other cities from passing similar ordinances. //

    So if you refuse the request to support an ACT that goes against your beliefs, you’re a bigot, but if you refuse to support people in any way because you hate their beliefs, you are now praised as a hero.

    Behold the hypocrisy of the left.

    // “As we also know, North Carolina has just passed HB2, which the media are referring to as the ‘bathroom’ law. HB2—known officially as the Public Facilities Privacy and Security Act—dictates which bathrooms transgender people are permitted to use,” Springsteen wrote in a social media post on Friday.//

    Notice they’ll claim that it’s discrimination to make a man who FEELS like a woman use the bathroom with men, but it’s NOT discrimination to make a woman who biologically IS a woman use the bathroom with men”. Behold the hypocrisy of the whole “you’re discriminating against them” claim while pretending it’s not discrimination to force it on everyone else.

    // “Just as important, the law also attacks the rights of LGBT citizens to sue when their human rights are violated in the workplace.” //

    Can a black man who has no problem baking cakes for white people be forced to bake cakes for ACT of a “the beliefs of black people do not matter” celebration? No. That would be a hateful demand.

    Can a person into homosexuality who has no problem serving Christians be forced to support the ACT of a “homosexuality is wrong” gathering? No. That would be a hateful demand.

    And likewise can a Christian who has no problem baking cakes for professing homosexuals be forced to bake cakes for anti-Christian ACTS, like a same-gender wedding? No. That would be a hateful demand.

    And yet here is Springsteen refusing to serve people in ANY way, having nothing to do with asking him to perform certain ACTS that goes against what he believes, but instead refusing to serve them in ANY way whatsoever, just because he hates their beliefs. Hypocrisy, nothing less. And he / the left needs to be exposed for their dishonest hypocrisy.

    • gogo0

      “And yet here is Springsteen refusing to serve people in ANY way”
      no, he is simply not performing in NC. he could play in SC tomorrow and everyone from NC would be welcome to attend. your analogy doesn’t hold up, it is nonsense because these things are not the same.

      • Reason2012

        Sure it is – many wanted him to perform in their state, and Springsteen refuses to provide his service to them because he hates their beliefs.

        • gogo0

          try reading and thining before you reply. anyone from NC can go see him perform at any venue he plays. christian cake-makers will deny gays everywhere they go. these are not the same thing, you guys are clinging to a broken analogy

  • Grace Kim Kwon

    That’s exactly the rights all Christians need in USA. Liberty was established for keeping the Holy Bible and one’s own clear conscience according to the truth. Raw humans go wrong one way or another. Sin is evil and is the slavery. Truth liberates and makes people do what is right, both then and now.

  • posercom

    People need to do research on these so called transgender men who think they are women. They are dangerous and deranged people who have murdered and raped many women and children. Now women are expected to submit to using public restrooms with these people. We are living in modern day Babylon and the entertainment industry has been used to push this very dangerous anti Christian agenda on America.

    • John N

      ‘They are dangerous and deranged people who have murdered and raped many women and children’
      Oh my. Your prisons must be filled with transgendered people having murdered and raped , are they not? Because you do have the evidence to back this up, like actual court cases of transgendered people having committed these crimes, right? Of course you would not just be lying about it to sow fear and hate against transgenders, would you?

    • gizmo23

      There are many transgendered women, maybe more than men

    • acontraryview

      “They are dangerous and deranged people who have murdered and raped many women and children.”

      Basos

    • Cady555

      Evidence please. (Spoiler alert – there is none.)

  • Gena B

    I’m sure he can easily book a gig in San Francisco

  • TheBottomline4This

    Who cares if Bruce cancelled. It just shows his and the bands discrimination toward those who have an opposing opinion. If he thinks that ALL of his fans support this trans stuff than he is delusional.

  • antilib

    You couldn’t pay me to sit through Springsteen or Adam’s shows. I nearly walked out of a CSN in Austin when Stephen Stills started a rant about Bush. But he quit broke into “Woodstock” and it was good after that. Yes, I get sick of Ted Nugent’s schtick, too. It was fun watching Ted banter with the dweebs in the front row at the Univ of Texas. Ted enjoys making a young liberal’s head explode. He can work them into a lather in no time flat.

  • david

    these new pro liberal laws are being forced upon christians. the liberals proclaim tolerance as long as you believe as they do, then the liberals become intolerant.

    this is what is happening with bruce and bryan adams- to go along with the modern agenda , even if it takes freedoms away from moral Christian people.
    i totally lost respect for those two.

    we all die eventually and will be Judged by Jesus. Gods Judgement throne is where right and wrong will be expedited . time is ticking away, I know I have peace with God.

  • acontraryview

    Well let’s examine this petition a little further.

    Bruce Springsteen is not a business of public accommodation. Therefore, he does not fall under anti-discrimination laws.

    Contrary to what the petition says, he is not refusing “to do business with those he disagrees with.” He is choosing not to perform a concert in NC. In similar fashion, a person who wants to operate a business is free to choose where to locate that business and where not to.

    ““He exercised that right when he refused to serve ticket holders in Greensboro NC”

    He did not refuse to tickets to only certain people. He choose not to conduct business in NC. A choice any person has.

    “did so specifically because he disagreed with the beliefs of the people of North Carolina.””

    Not everyone in NC beliefs the same thing.

    “and so should every business person,”

    Every business person does have the right to choose to do business in NC, or choose not to.

    This attempt to equate Bruce Springsteen cancelling a concert in NC to businesses of public accommodation being legally allowed to discriminate in the provision of services is both false and disingenuous.

  • John O

    its amazing to me reading all these comments constitutional law is accepted as obsolete. Numbers 15:16 (NASB)
    ‘There is to be one law and one ordinance for you and for the alien who sojourns with you.’ ”
    constitutional law was equal protection and equal prosecution. special interest groups nullified all of that. the last college course was 1988 and the professor stated the only one on campus not stated was the straight white male. equal rights came from God. that is just about our of public life now. nwo.

  • TheKingOfRhye

    What Bruce did is just not comparable to any “bathroom bill” or any business refusing service to LGBT people…..

    Has any law or anybody ever said any musical artist does NOT have the right to cancel a concert? (for whatever reason it might be) I mean, artists and bands cancel shows at times, it’s nothing new…and for any number of reasons. I’ve never once heard of any instances of someone trying to cancel a concert and being told they must go on with it anyway.

    What would be comparable is if some Christian-owned business refused to open a store in a certain area because the owners didn’t like the anti-discrimination laws in effect there. And they would completely have the right to do that, just like Bruce has the right to cancel a concert.

  • peanut butter

    I don’t know who would want to go see this burned-out has been anyway. My redneck neighbors,(yeah, more redneck than I am) used to wear out his albums blasting them to the neighborhood. I got my fill of him back in the 80’s. And now, with this stance, I can safely say that he would never get another nickel from me, even if my neighbors hadn’t worn out his welcome.