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

  • Thread starter ryzno
  • 139 comments
  • 7,769 views
Pupik
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.
Click to expand...

Clearly you don't understand the idea of Federalism...
 
A2K78
Clearly you don't understand the idea of Federalism...
Click to expand...

We are all Republicans, we are all Federalists. If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated
Click to expand...
the support of the State governments in all their rights, as the most competent administrations for our domestic concerns and the surest bulwarks against antirepublican tendencies
Click to expand...

👍
 
The funny thing is whenever the 9th and 10th amendments are brought up people often cite both the Commerce and Supremacy clauses as justification for any action taken by the federal government to interfer with laws pass by individual states and this where they are wrong.
 
A2K78
Clearly you don't understand the idea of Federalism...
Click to expand...

Then how come the able citizens of North Carolina (or Mississippi) were not allowed to vote on this most pressing of matters?

Oppressive governments are everywhere, mind you. But there's a reason for some oversight - it's not just there to print money and leave everyone alone to Big Local Government.
 
Last edited:
Pupik
Then how come the able citizens of North Carolina (or Mississippi) were not allowed to vote on this most pressing of matters?
Click to expand...

I would hardly call it a pressing matter, would you? You do know how our government works right? We don't vote on every silly law they pass, we vote for them to do those things for us.

Oppressive governments are everywhere, mind you. But there's a reason for some oversight - it's not just there to print money and leave everyone alone to Big Local Government.
Click to expand...

Let's have a look then.

The Congress shall have the power
1. to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States:
2. To borrow money on the credit of the United States:
3. To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes:
4. To establish an uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States:
5. To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures:
6. To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States:
7. To establish post-offices and post-roads:
8. To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries:
9. To constitute tribunals inferior to the supreme court:
10. To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offences against the law of nations:
11. To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water:
12. To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years:
13. To provide and maintain a navy:
14. To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces:
15. To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions:
16. To provide for organizing, arming and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress:
17. To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such district (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dock-yards, and other needful buildings: And,
18. To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

1. The President shall be Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several States, when called into the actual service of the United States; he may require the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the executive departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices, and he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.
2. He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law: but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments.
3. The President shall have the power to fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate, by granting commissions, which shall expire at the end of their next session.

AMENDMENT X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

I could go on, I'm trying to show an unbiased view of our laws for anyone who cares to read what it's all about..
 
^ Thank you for the history lesson. We could argue those points for the next 220 years...but we pay people to do that for us, right?

I just don't see how folks are okay with a state depriving some sort of liberty...and somehow when a higher form of government implies the removal of said deprivation, that it is considered some sort of oppression. Unalienable rights, pursuit of happiness (that's in the Declaration of Independence) and all that which does not give additional rights while removing others are also paramount to "States Rights". It smacks of arbitrary disdain, in my opinion.

I would dare say that any questionable state Bill or Law has every right to be challenged in court, and that a bill such as this might be suspended from any enforcement until its need is determined and whether it is indeed unconstitutional or not. Otherwise, people would be tied up in constricting and conflicting laws which could not be overturned because law-makers decide to make laws which suit no purpose.

There is some reason for corporations to challenge it...they probably to not wish to spend millions of dollars on constructing additional restroom facilities. Whither the business-owner, small or large?
 
Last edited:
Pupik
^ Thank you for the history lesson. We could argue those points for the next 220 years...but we pay people to do that for us, right?
Click to expand...

I don't think you need a history lesson just an understanding of the law. 220 is a clever number for sure, we've had our ups and downs with it but that one little piece of paper has made us what we are, following it not braking it. Yes we pay people to do that for us, we vote them into office and then we pay them. I don't know what is upsetting to you about that.

I just don't see how folks are okay with a state depriving some sort of liberty...and somehow when a higher form of government implies the removal of said deprivation, that it is considered some sort of oppression. Unalienable rights, pursuit of happiness (that's in the Declaration of Independence) and all that which does not give additional rights while removing others are also paramount to "States Rights". It smacks of arbitrary disdain, in my opinion.
Click to expand...

I don't know any of these folks you speak of, how is using a toilet depriving of liberty? You are not going to convince me there is a violation that doesn't exist. The some sort of oppression you speak of is not how you describe it to be. We have laws and some of us are smart enough to realize they need to be followed. I have a disdain, a disdain for those who break the law.

What does it say to a trans gender to use one room over another that is so bad? We are told on a daily basis what we can and cannot do and most of it makes little sense. I don't like seat belts I don't like paying for the fact I don't like them. Perhaps it's a bit of a slap in the face and I can get behind that much of it, there was no need.

I would dare say that any questionable state Bill or Law has every right to be challenged in court, and that a bill such as this might be suspended from any enforcement until its need is determined and whether it is indeed unconstitutional or not. Otherwise, people would be tied up in constricting and conflicting laws which could not be overturned because law-makers decide to make laws which suit no purpose.
Click to expand...

There is no problem in going about it the right way, that's not the argument it's a deflection. Obama is flat out wrong on this, he took an oath to uphold one piece of paper and he can't even do that, it's very sad.

There is some reason for corporations to challenge it...they probably do not wish to spend millions of dollars on constructing additional restroom facilities. Whither the business-owner, small or large?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure if corporate america cares about it one way or another, anytime there is a cost of doing business it's simply passed onto the consumer. Now a small business owner might not like the law very much if when forced to comply cannot.

I think it's safe to say neither one of us care for the law, there was no reason to write it, it cannot be enforced, it really is dumb. I'm not going to agree with the outrage however, over where you park your rear on a public toilet seat? No, I don't care and whomever sits wherever they do, they will continue to do just that law or not.

Did you read this part? This is what the law is intended to do, and that stinks as well.

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.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
allyourjazzz
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.
Click to expand...

I've seen this statement thrown around quite a bit, but I guess I don't see how Obama is trying to "rewrite the Constitution". I could see someone arguing that he's attempting to rewrite the Civil Rights Act, which says nothing about gender, only sex. I'm not calling you out specifically, but I am curious since everything I see around this never actually explains what Obama is doing.

With the whole bathroom thing though, what I don't understand is what valid reason states have for wanting to fight this other than they see it coming from a Democrat and they just want to fight it for the sake of fighting it. I know some use religion, but that's not exactly a concrete foundation for laws and I've seen where people say it's going to increase sexual abuse, which makes no sense either since having a law that bans transgender folks from a certain bathroom is going to work about as well as banning guns to keep them out of criminal's hands.
 
Joey D
I've seen this statement thrown around quite a bit, but I guess I don't see how Obama is trying to "rewrite the Constitution". I could see someone arguing that he's attempting to rewrite the Civil Rights Act, which says nothing about gender, only sex. I'm not calling you out specifically, but I am curious since everything I see around this never actually explains what Obama is doing.
Click to expand...

It is quite crafty what he is doing with his slew of lawyers in the DOJ. I will try to keep it short, it's not about the Civil Rights Act it's about our separation of powers. I posted all that constitution stuff for your(in general) benefit. He has no power to do what he is trying but I will say this much.

If you read the letters from the DOJ you will see they are holding onto the power that they do have and rightly so, in saying "government employees" and things like that, "in the education system that is funded by..." etc, that is why I said I hope the state just thumbs their noses at the education dollars.

Separation of powers and the attempt to strip whatever state's rights are left. It means very little if the law is right or not, that's not the issue at least to me.

With the whole bathroom thing though, what I don't understand is what valid reason states have for wanting to fight this other than they see it coming from a Democrat and they just want to fight it for the sake of fighting it. I know some use religion, but that's not exactly a concrete foundation for laws and I've seen where people say it's going to increase sexual abuse, which makes no sense either since having a law that bans transgender folks from a certain bathroom is going to work about as well as banning guns to keep them out of criminal's hands.
Click to expand...

It is very much political, on both sides. Quite a shame if you think about it, using people of trans gender, kids wanting education, innocent people as pawns.

Here are the two links from this thread that maybe you missed, or not, I'm not sure, the first one is what you should read. Make sure to click on the links to DOJ letters and so forth 👍

http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/politics-government/article75601912.html
http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/09/politics/north-carolina-hb2-justice-department-deadline/index.html

Obama has absolutely no respect for the constitution whatsoever and that is what makes some of us very angry, if it makes you feel any better neither did Bush Jr. What a sorry lot of leaders we've been dealt.
 
I'll say this and say it again, perhaps if government respect the right to private property and freedom of association we wouldn't need RFRA laws.
 
A2K78
I'll say this and say it again, perhaps if government respect the right to private property and freedom of association we wouldn't need RFRA laws.
Click to expand...

The problem arises when you consider government facilities, it's a facade to leak their powers into the private sector. Why do you think the only leverage they have is education money? The federal government has the right to govern themselves but they are conveniently expecting that to spew over to the state.

At least that is how I see it.

On a side note, I noticed someone in this thread or one similar speaking of respect of county or city governments, that is not a part of our law and we actually do not need them in near the capacity they act. The federal governs what they govern and the state governs what it governs. It seems to me a flawed tactic to compare federal infringement upon the state to a state infringement on a city government that was never intended.

Puffed up nonsense the whole lot of it. The good news is, I'm going to go use the restroom of my choosing right now and I'm going to enjoy it.
 
Joey D
I could see someone arguing that he's attempting to rewrite the Civil Rights Act, which says nothing about gender, only sex.
Click to expand...
Sex = Gender under the law. What Obama is doing by withholding federal funds to North Carolina for the HB2 law because he includes transgender people as a sex.
 
Sanji Himura
Sex = Gender under the law. What Obama is doing by withholding federal funds to North Carolina for the HB2 law because he includes transgender people as a sex.
Click to expand...

That is indeed the definition in US English as @Danoff pointed out to me some time ago. Where I think the confusion comes is that elsewhere in the world those words don't mean exactly the same thing.
 
Joey D
I could see someone arguing that he's attempting to rewrite the Civil Rights Act
Click to expand...

Why rewrite the Civil Rights Act when the best thing to ever do to is abolish this unconstitutional law it from the face of the earth? Again the best to create a win-win situation if for government to respect the right to private property and free association.
 
GTPorsche
Guess so. Didn't know that believing in equality makes one an SJW.

The things those tumblrellas come up with.... :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Damn that Rosa Parks and that Emmeline Pankhurst, with their misandREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!
 
huskeR32
Not cancelling a show now makes the celebrity in question an "SJW?"
Click to expand...

@A2K78 No response to this? You've spent the entire thread criticizing artists for cancelling shows. Suddenly an artist who is going to perform as scheduled is an "SJW."

You've cynically denounced these artists as taking disingenuous political stands to "further their own personal/financial agenda." And now, this artist who is going to go ahead and perform is also going to donate some of the proceeds to an advocacy group - she's setting aside her own financial interests in order to "practice what they claim preach" (sic) just as you demanded.

I would have expected the man who decried these "inconsistent" celebs to stay consistent with his own statements and celebrate Miss Gomez's decision in this matter.

Turns out your hypocrisy is just as great as any of these "SJW" celebrities, huh?
 
Last edited:
huskeR32
@A2K78 No response to this? You've spent the entire thread criticizing artists for cancelling shows. Suddenly an artist who is going to perform as scheduled is an "SJW."

You've cynically denounced these artists as taking disingenuous political stands to "further their own personal/financial agenda." And now, this artist who is going to go ahead and perform is also going to donate some of the proceeds to an advocacy group - she's setting aside her own financial interests in order to "practice what they claim preach" (sic) just as you demanded.

I would have expected the man who decried these "inconsistent" celebs to stay consistent with his own statements and celebrate Miss Gomez's decision in this matter.

Turns out your hypocrisy is just as great as any of these "SJW" celebrities, huh?
Click to expand...


You do understand that the reactions to the bathroom law are nothing but for generating PR?


http://cognoscenti.wbur.org/2016/04...-adams-north-carolina-bathroom-bill-tom-keane



That said, where is the hypocrisy in calling out someone who clearly trying use the issue for PR?
 
TenEightyOne
I need that clip of Earnestly Applauding Guy.
Click to expand...
slow_clap_citizen_kane.gif
 
LeMansAid
Great stuff. Just checking though, you're all in with the authority of the article writer, and agree that "the uproar over 'anti-LGBT' laws is well-warranted"?
Click to expand...

I'm not talking about the uproar but the reaction..the only reason why celebrities like to react to things like this is because it brings them PR and gets them attention. If you want a good example of this look no further than Rhianna's stupid response to the Palestine/Israel conflict....totally clueless about what's going on.
 
A2K78
You do understand that the reactions to the bathroom law are nothing but for generating PR?
Click to expand...
A2K78
I'm not talking about the uproar but the reaction..the only reason why celebrities like to react to things like this is because it brings them PR and gets them attention.
Click to expand...

Does "generating PR" usually make "no economic sense whatsoever"? Does "generating PR" usually lead to the artists being the only ones getting hurt "in the form of missed ticket sales/revenue."



I always thought "generating PR" usually led to the opposite result.
 

Similar threads

Müle
Supreme Court of Canada Strikes Down Prostitution Laws
Replies
17
Views
911
Müle
Müle
Caz
My fight with the US government
4 5 6
Replies
154
Views
16K
BobK
BobK
FoolKiller
South Carolina Bill Seeks to Outlaw Profanity
2
Replies
30
Views
2K
Sniffs
Sniffs
KSaiyu
The British Hacker - your thoughts?
Replies
12
Views
1K
Keef
Keef
Vince_Fiero
Public space vs Private property
Replies
0
Views
2K
Vince_Fiero
Vince_Fiero

Latest Posts

Back