Artists Cancel Concerts after HB2 laws are passed. What are your thoughts?

  • Thread starter ryzno
  • 139 comments
  • 7,769 views
What you removed from the quote was most of the quote. He's clearly making a point about the hypocrisy of Hollywood social justice warriors claiming an issue is really important and jumping behind it, and then turning around and taking money to perform in countries where being LGBT is illegal and results in prison time.

Which countries, which performers, and at what dates? As stated before, I don't agree with the performer's choice to avoid North Carolina, but if you're going to throw around well-worn terms like "social justice warrior", then back it up.

Also, said performers probably have to pay fees for breaches of contract to Ticketmaster and/or stadia, since there's no law protecting them from reverse-anti-discrimination. ;)
 
Last edited:
Hypocrisy runs deep with these Hollywood types.

This is quite true and Ellen Page proved this in her faild attempt in calling out Ted Cruz on gay rights. Essentially she believes that gays deserve to have rights but no one else.


The artist have every right to pull their shows for whatever reason they see fit, whereas fan have every right to be angry and upset over the cancellation of the shows.

I clearly agree with you 100%, the problem is however is the hypocrisy that surround their view. Like I said earlier in this thread, alot of these celebrities like to boast about their stance on human rights and things of that nature, however when you look at their business dealings and where they conduct said business its totally inconsistent. The same can be said about corporations like Star Bucks and Apple who like boast about their love gay rights.

Overall in public they might care about gay rights and all of that crap, but I'm quite sure in private they probably couldn't give a care. In the end the boasting is merely nothing but grandstanding.
 
This is quite true and Ellen Page proved this in her faild attempt in calling out Ted Cruz on gay rights. Essentially she believes that gays deserve to have rights but no one else.

....:odd:

I'm no fan of Ms. Page, but if she was a member of GTP, she might wanna have a word or two with you on that statement....
 
I clearly agree with you 100%, the problem is however is the hypocrisy that surround their view. Like I said earlier in this thread, alot of these celebrities like to boast about their stance on human rights and things of that nature, however when you look at their business dealings and where they conduct said business its totally inconsistent. The same can be said about corporations like Star Bucks and Apple who like boast about their love gay rights.

Overall in public they might care about gay rights and all of that crap, but I'm quite sure in private they probably couldn't give a care. In the end the boasting is merely nothing but grandstanding.

It's what you get in a free market economy. Essentially these artists are using these stances to more or less advertise for them in hopes of selling more entertainment. Same with the companies that do the same thing. They very well may believe in what they protesting, but the grandstanding of it is just advertisement.

Also, I think many Americans aren't super concerned about human rights outside of the USA, which is probably why these celebrities seem to be jumping on this band wagon while they continue to play concerts in countries that have poor human rights. Think about how often people turn on the TV to see innocent people being killed in another country, most of the time I'd wager they would just say "that's awful" and then never think about it again.
 
Which countries, which performers

I'm referring to individuals like Nicki Minaj, Katy Perry, Beyonce, Matt Damon, George Clooney to name a few who either taken money from repressive governments or have performed in countries the HRW say have poor human rights records.

@JoeyD

My thing is, if they're going to boast about their love human rights at least be consistent about it rather than using the stance as a means of political/economic convenience to further their own personal/financial agenda.
 
Last edited:
It is a serious question, have you read the bill? It's written to protect minority rights. What is the problem, it doesn't contain the word transgender? There are many other words it doesn't contain as well, if every Tom Dick and Harry were to be represented the bill would have no end.

If the complaint is specific to sexuality I would say I have a right to a public restroom only to be used by old washed up male hetero musicians. Where is my right if I'm forced to use a facility with females posing as men? I might be a jerk of a minority but none the less, the bill is written to protect minorities, especially when it comes to employment.

Another thing worth noting is you're always free to move to another state that might be more sympathetic to your cause, that's why we have power of the state.
 
Another thing worth noting is you're always free to move to another state that might be more sympathetic to your cause, that's why we have power of the state.

Have you tried moving to another state before? It's easy* enough for those in middle and higher-income brackets, but economically unfeasible for many folks in lower incomes, unless they have a job that permits changing residency without losing that job. Oh crap, we moved to a state that then created their own pointless bathroom bill. Why don't I just buy stock in Mayflower and Atlas Van Lines, while I'm at it?

That's not really a good enough answer - the point is that there's no real reason for this law - it seems like a petty distraction rustled up by ultra-conservatives which wasn't a problem to them in the first place. Politicians look like they're doing something with their time, because even under the disguise of "smaller/less government", they still have to justify their jobs.

Oh, think of the children! What bug-addled parent lets their 5-year-old use a restroom alone? And of course, the so-called pedophiles are going to suddenly hang out in bathrooms instead of their clapped-out white Vanduras for a change. What galls me is that the same people who don't want their gun rights taken away because "the bad guys will still have guns", aren't prepared to make the same clause substituted for another situation which doesn't truly interfere them; this law does nothing to assist but creates a pointless barrier.

And what shall be the burden of proof...a birth certificate. Unless you've just recently taken possession of a driver's license, passport, social security card, or marriage license, nobody keeps that on their person, because it goes in a goddamned safe. The magic birth certificate won't be let out into the open for another 10 years**, so you don't get your identity stolen. So unless the accuser is going to haul the scofflaw to the potty police and demand an open unzipping ceremony (oh dear, that stupid Constitution!) there's no way this can even truly be enforced unless someone turns themselves in.

Somehow, folks are fearing vulnerability because they have to share a sink, not a stall, with someone who also wants to wash their hands. It's those who have seriously uncomfortable feelings about which restroom to use that shouldn't be interfered with - it isn't a special or additional "right" - it's because they have a very basic and primary need to use the restroom like all bipeds before they 🤬 or 🤬 on the floor, for :censored:s sake, which is far more embarrassing and disgusting than just about anything else, short of having a piano fall on your head.

* still a pain in the back, legs, arse and a massive drain on time.
** maybe sooner if the Lizard People are claiming dual Kenyan-Hawaiian descent.
 
Last edited:
the point is that there's no real reason for this law

I agree there's no need for the toilet part however I'd think the anti discrimination in the work force would be welcomed by all liberals such as the artists complaining against it. So they don't want equal rights for minority workers then?

Here it is, it's also worth me saying I'm against any new laws being passed just for the sake of a few knee jerks.
http://www.ncleg.net/Sessions/2015E2/Bills/House/PDF/H2v1.pdf
 
It is a serious question, have you read the bill?

I have. Have you?

It's written to protect minority rights.

Ostensibly. In reality, it's quite clear that they are intentionally limiting the rights of a few particular groups.

What is the problem, it doesn't contain the word transgender?

Well, yes, that is the problem. You're trying to promote the bill as a beacon of minority protection, and yet there's quite clearly a minority here that isn't being protected.

There are many other words it doesn't contain as well, if every Tom Dick and Harry were to be represented the bill would have no end.

A favorite strawman of people opposed to equality.

If the complaint is specific to sexuality I would say I have a right to a public restroom only to be used by old washed up male hetero musicians.

That's not a "sexuality," clearly illustrating your utter incomprehension of the actual issue at hand.

Where is my right if I'm forced to use a facility with females posing as men?

Nonsense like this doesn't even warrant a rebuttal.

I might be a jerk of a minority but none the less, the bill is written to protect minorities, especially when it comes to employment.

Except for the minorities that it explicitly excludes.

--

At the end of the day, North Carolina HB2 was quite clearly intended to limit the rights of a particular minority: transgender folks.

And seeing as how you're a person who has spent a lot of the 2016 election thread howling about "freedom," it's quite ironic to watch you support a bill that stripped cities of the right to decide for themselves how to treat transgender folks. I would think that a good ol' conservative like yourself would defer to the smallest, most localized form of government possible. (Of course, I long ago stopped expecting consistency when it comes to right-wing paranoid demagoguery.)
 
I would think that a good ol' conservative like yourself would defer to the smallest, most localized form of government possible.

And you would be correct, as I posted just above 👍

to watch you support a bill that stripped cities of the right to decide for themselves how to treat transgender folks.

I don't support it, I asked why people who would otherwise want that sort of regulation in place pretend the bill doesn't cover what it does. I also clearly stated what a crock the toilet bit is.

The rest of your post has no value worth responding to imo so I'll simply suggest you read all that I write and not just parts you like to whine about. If it was up to me there would be no such bill but I think these artists are contradictory at best.
 
I don't support it, I asked why people who would otherwise want that sort of regulation in place pretend the bill doesn't cover what it does.

Because it doesn't cover what you're insinuating that it does.

The rest of your post has no value worth responding to imo so I'll simply suggest you read all that I write and not just parts you like to whine about.

This is rich, considering I addressed all of your post while you've responded to a third of mine, at best. So who is really picking and choosing parts to whine about?

If it was up to me there would be no such bill but I think these artists are contradictory at best.

The only contradiction here is when people claim - as you have - that this bill protects minority rights. It quite clearly doesn't.
 
It clearly does.

It is the public policy of this State to protect and safeguard the right and opportunity of all persons to seek, obtain and hold employment without discrimination or abridgement on account of race, religion, color, national origin, age, biological sex or handicap by employers which regularly employ 15 or more employees.

Now tell me again how my Tom Dick and Harry argument is invalid, how many other minorities do you want included with that? What about the minority that doesn't want to hire any of the above? And what exactly do you suppose "all persons" means?
 
^ It's because they threw in the word "biological", as if everything else were "illogical".
 
It clearly does.

What HB2 clearly did was nullify protection for trans folks that the city of Charlotte had already enacted on its own.

Now tell me again how my Tom Dick and Harry argument is invalid

Slippery slope fallacy.

how many other minorities do you want included with that?

The reasonable ones. Ya know, things like gender, which is probably one of the two or three most important components of a person's identity.

What about the minority that doesn't want to hire any of the above?

We long ago decided in this country that employers can't discriminate based upon gender. So tough luck to that "minority," I suppose.

And what exactly do you suppose "all persons" means?

Considering that a different part of the same bill removed existing protections for one particular group, I'd say that "all persons" in this case is just empty words.
 
^ It's because they threw in the word "biological", as if everything else were "illogical".

Is it really taking away someone's liberty to tell them to use a restroom according to their parts? It's such a non issue that part.

As for the employment, adding the word biological doesn't really change a thing, if a transgender is discriminated against why would they not have a case, after all it's still a matter of their biological sex. Let's say a sexy 'female' is hired as a secretary only for the horny boss to realize later that she is a he and he fires her, she'd have a strong case for discrimination based on biological gender.

The whole thing is so silly, there is no need for the law but the law really doesn't change anything at all. So some hippy singers decided to cancel shows in a failed attempt to get anyone riled up other than people like us on message boards. We'll wait for the next non issue to come along so we can sing and dance once again ;)

The reasonable ones.

And that is not freedom at all, protect all minorities or none, who's to say what is reasonable, the mob?
 
Perhaps its time for NC to invoke the 9th and 10th amendment....

I would think so 👍

There cannot be any implementation of verifying biological sex in public restrooms(I.D. required to pee?) so what this law will ultimately cause is a circumventing of our judicial system. If an alleged crime occurs in a public restroom and the perpetrator is found to be of the wrong sex(biological for that restroom) an extra charge will be added to the complaint, this causes plea bargaining over facing a jury of peers. Just as we have so many other hate laws, if I shoot someone why do I need to be charged with committing the crime on a Tuesday against a short man for instance. It is almost as gross an abuse as Obama's response to it.

Speaking of which, I hope The State tells the Federal Government they can keep their blackmail monies. It's not as if those education dollars are being used very well anyway as far as I can tell. Obama has no respect for the law but he does have an often "it feels good" attitude so, "I'll just do it anyway."
 
Creating pointless laws which restrict the basic freedoms of the innocent as well as the guilty is a damn good reason for Federal involvement to strike down said law, regardless of which state creates it.
 
Perhaps its time for NC to invoke the 9th and 10th amendment....

By this same "government at the most local level possible is best" mindset, shouldn't the state of North Carolina have kept their nose out of the city of Charlotte's business in the first place?
 
Perhaps its time for NC to invoke the 9th and 10th amendment....
Pretty sure "Any ability to mistreat people in ways not established by the federal government is reserved by the states" is more of the other Carolina's forte.
 
Creating pointless laws which restrict the basic freedoms of the innocent as well as the guilty is a damn good reason for Federal involvement to strike down said law, regardless of which state creates it.

The law is not going to make one bit of difference in the short run, Obama trying to rewrite the constitution however will have long lasting effects. It's the best he can do to write an illegal healthcare law that will fail and now he can protect our toilets, what a great president we have.
 
Back