|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: What about performers?
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
Let me be clear: I believe that bakers shouldn't be allowed to refuse to bake a cake for the wedding of a gay couple.
But what about performers? I am a musician myself, and I can remember one time that I refused a performing contract for religious reasons. It was to play in a shopping centre to receive Santa Claus / Father Christmas.
I do think that musicians have more freedom than bakers, they have more possibilities to choose who they will have a contract with. I can well imagine that a gospel singer can refuse to perform at a stag night where there are strippers present. I also think (s)he can refuse to perform at a Muslim wedding.
So, can a gospel singer refuse to perform at a gay marriage? I'm not entirely sure, but I lean towards yes.
But where would we draw the line? Is a wedding photographer a performer? Is a baker a performer? (Sometimes, cake making can be an art.)
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amanda B. Reckondwythe
Dressed for Church
# 5521
|
Posted
A performer can always say, "Sorry, but I have another engagement that day." I suppose a photographer could too. But I can't imagine a baker saying, "Sorry, I have another cake to bake that day."
--------------------
"I take prayer too seriously to use it as an excuse for avoiding work and responsibility." -- The Revd Martin Luther King Jr.
Posts: 10542 | From: The Great Southwest | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
I guess that would be the pragmatic answer. But I'm interested in the moral / legal aspects of this.
There is something different between a musician and the venue that contracts him/her, and a baker and a client. But I don't know exactly what. And a photographer seems to fall somewhere in between.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
*Leon*
Shipmate
# 3377
|
Posted
This is an interesting question that I hadn't thought of.
I wonder whether it matters if there's a religious dimension to the performance. So, for example, Gospel music has a clear connection with Christianity, and you can easily argue that a Gospel singer is in some sense a Christian minister. Hence, maybe they should have the commonly-assumed right of Christian ministers to refuse to minister in situations contrary to their belief. But maybe that right wouldn't exist for a secular performer of classical music.
Alternatively, some musicians might argue that their performance responds to the atmosphere of the event and to their relationship to the event. As a result, they could warn people to expect a poor performance in events they didn't feel comfortable with. (However, I'm imagining few people in the wedding performer market can reasonably make that argument)
Posts: 831 | From: london | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
ISTM, it is contextual. A wedding band will likely be seen exactly the same as a wedding baker. Their personal views will not be a factor for most of the guests. A performer at a political event will be seen as endorsing the message of that event. Whereas the baker of a cake for that event remains invisible.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Macrina
Shipmate
# 8807
|
Posted
I really don't think there SHOULD be a line. I read a very interesting piece a couple of days ago about the supposed Biblical and Christian justification for segregation and apartheid.
For a child of the 80s it was utterly baffling to me that someone could sincerely argue that their freedom of religion was being violated by requiring them to serve or mix with black and ethnic minority people.
I see exactly the same argument being played out again, people are uncomfortable and are hiding that discomfort behind the shield of religion. They need to get over it. The law was imposed on the South to end segregation and the law needs to be imposed on Christians who offer service to others to end the endorsement of homophobia and discrimination directed towards LGBT people.
Posts: 535 | From: Christchurch, New Zealand | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
It sounds to me like what you are saying is that those people were NOT sincere, but were rather lying ("hiding discomfort behind a shield") and therefore were not entitled to any right of refusal.
This concerns me, because your logic chain goes like this: that because it baffles you, therefore it must be a lie, and therefore it deserves no legal protection. That's a really dangerous direction to head in, as others can easily turn the same logic on us. Better to overprotect than to underprotect, IMHO. Regardless of how personally abhorrent or baffling one may find it.
I can think of any number of religious issues that outsiders to that group would consider purely insane (for example, for certain Christian groups, the need to use wine in communion even during Prohibition days). That doesn't make them non-religious issues, or any less deserving of protection.
[ 26. February 2015, 19:44: Message edited by: Lamb Chopped ]
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
*Leon*: I wonder whether it matters if there's a religious dimension to the performance.
Perhaps. When we refused to play for Santa Claus, it was in an orchestra that was connected to a church. We felt that it wouldn't fit if the church was against the over-commercialisation of Christmas, while the church's orchestra was playing at an event that celebrated the commercialisation of Christmas.
I'm not sure if it would be easy to tie up this argument legally though.
quote:
Gwai: The performer, on the other hand, is less anonymous, and I'd guess that to some degree people do presume performers won't play at places antithetical to their beliefs.
I'm going to play the Devil's Advocate for a bit now. What if it is a well-known baker with a very specific style of wedding cakes? When people see such a cake, they immediately know it is him. Then he wouldn't be anonymous anymore.
quote:
Macrina: I really don't think there SHOULD be a line.
So, what you are saying is that a performer SHOULD perform every time (s)he is asked? That would be pretty hard to argue. I've said 'no' when asked to perform numerous times. For many reasons: too busy, I didn't find the festival interesting, etc. I don't even have to say why I don't want to perform.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Gwai: Surely there has to be a line somewhere. I know I certainly wouldn't be willing to perform at a KKK rally or for the Mob, if I were a performer.
Exactly. The KKK and the Mob aren't the best examples, because they are forbidden. But I wouldn't perform for a xenophobic right-wing political party (such as exists in my country) either.
And that's is true for religious and non-religious performers.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
Surely there has to be a line somewhere. I know I certainly wouldn't be willing to perform at a KKK rally or for the Mob, if I were a performer.
I wouldn't be willing to make those people a cake, either.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Macrina
Shipmate
# 8807
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
It sounds to me like what you are saying is that those people were NOT sincere, but were rather lying ("hiding discomfort behind a shield") and therefore were not entitled to any right of refusal.
This concerns me, because your logic chain goes like this: that because it baffles you, therefore it must be a lie, and therefore it deserves no legal protection. That's a really dangerous direction to head in, as others can easily turn the same logic on us. Better to overprotect than to underprotect, IMHO. Regardless of how personally abhorrent or baffling one may find it.
I can think of any number of religious issues that outsiders to that group would consider purely insane (for example, for certain Christian groups, the need to use wine in communion even during Prohibition days). That doesn't make them non-religious issues, or any less deserving of protection.
Lying requires conscious knowledge of your deceit. I don't think that people who are uncomfortable with LGBT people are lying when they say they have religious objections in order to try to hide their homophobia, rather I think they are in an uncomfortable phase of having to confront life long opinions which are suddenly being held up by others as gravely wrong. I do not condemn them for feeling uncomfortable but I don't pander to it either.
I found it baffling that the Bible was used to justify racism because I have had no exposure to the Bible being used in that way. Most Christians have now got wise to the fact it cannot be used in that way . People felt they had a firm scriptural basis for racial and ethnic segregation and discrimination, they feel they have a firm scriptual basis for refusing services to LGBT people - both are claiming that forcing them to do this is religious discrimination, both are wrong.
Religion deserves protection under equality laws in exactly the same way that race or sexuality do, but we have to be clear about exactly what it is that we are protecting and why.
Posts: 535 | From: Christchurch, New Zealand | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Lamb Chopped: I wouldn't be willing to make those people a cake, either.
But that's the thing: I think you would have to. If a Mob boss (or the president of a xenophobic party) would enter your bakery and ask for a cake, you'd have to sell him a cake.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Macrina
Shipmate
# 8807
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
Macrina: I really don't think there SHOULD be a line.
So, what you are saying is that a performer SHOULD perform every time (s)he is asked? That would be pretty hard to argue. I've said 'no' when asked to perform numerous times. For many reasons: too busy, I didn't find the festival interesting, etc. I don't even have to say why I don't want to perform.
No what I am saying is that you should not be allowed to refuse to perform on the basis of your objection to a particular characteristic that person has. There's a whole world of difference between refusing because you don't like the set list offered or the accommodation available or its inconvenient etc and refusing because your client is say a Black Muslim.
Posts: 535 | From: Christchurch, New Zealand | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Macrina: No what I am saying is that you should not be allowed to refuse to perform on the basis of your objection to a particular characteristic that person has. There's a whole world of difference between refusing because you don't like the set list offered or the accommodation available or its inconvenient etc and refusing because your client is say a Black Muslim.
Maybe, but how would you tell the difference? Like I said, I think there is a difference with a baker here. A baker has to serve everyone who comes into his shop and wants to buy a cake. He can't say to a black muslim "I have no time". A musician can. He can refuse to perform for a black muslim, without saying that this is the reason.
And once again, suppose there is a gospel group that is against gay marriage. I condemn their position, but I'm not entirely sure if we can force them to perform at such a marriage. There is a difference between a performer and a shop keeper that I can't quite put my finger on.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Macrina
Shipmate
# 8807
|
Posted
I was having this conversation with a Catholic friend of mine who was making the argument that it is religious discrimination to force participation. I asked her if the baker could bake a blank cake, she said no it would still be participation, and so we go into the ridiculousness of parsing sin down to mixing eggs and flour.
You're right, you can't tell if someone is discriminating solely because of a protected characteristic. Anyone can discriminate if they want to because they are racist or homophobic but they can't say that that is the reason or make it clear that it is or else they are breaking the law. It's not ideal but it's the best we've got and if we suspect that this is their foundation we can take them to court to try and prove it.
The gospel group against gay marriage are just as wrong (on legal grounds) to refuse their services on the grounds of the characteristics of their client as any other group would be. I suppose for me the difference between the baker and the musician is simply that one is a luxury and the other is not.
Taken to the extreme you can survive without music you can't survive without food. It scares me that if you allow discrimination on the basis of sexuality for people of religious faith then you are setting yourself up for a world where someone can be declined a job or a home because offering them this would be 'supporting their lifestyle and endorsing sin'. That said I don't think that my fellow LGBT people should necessarily deliberately go about goading people to get cases into the courts.
Posts: 535 | From: Christchurch, New Zealand | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Macrina: The gospel group against gay marriage are just as wrong (on legal grounds) to refuse their services on the grounds of the characteristics of their client as any other group would be.
Okay, that's your opinion. I'm not entirely convinced by it.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
W Hyatt
Shipmate
# 14250
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
There is a difference between a performer and a shop keeper that I can't quite put my finger on.
A performer is personally involved in the event while a shop keeper isn't personally involved at all. Something between the two might be someone providing a service during the event which requires them to be present but only in the background in a less active role, like handling the lighting.
--------------------
A new church and a new earth, with Spiritual Insights for Everyday Life.
Posts: 1565 | From: U.S.A. | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Macrina
Shipmate
# 8807
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
Macrina: The gospel group against gay marriage are just as wrong (on legal grounds) to refuse their services on the grounds of the characteristics of their client as any other group would be.
Okay, that's your opinion. I'm not entirely convinced by it.
To be fair, it is not only my opinion it is also law under a fair amount of Equality legislation. But I am quite happy to live and let live with regard to you being unconvinced by it ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Posts: 535 | From: Christchurch, New Zealand | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
So, can a gospel singer refuse to perform at a gay marriage?
I'm not sure. We'll have to wait for the first gay couple ever to like gospel music.
It may be some time....
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
Le Roc--
Maybe the difference is whether the hired person has to be present?
Let's say a stunt-kite flyers club wants to hire someone for their annual dinner dance. The person they want to hire loves small birds, has been in bird clubs since childhood, and was always taught that stunt kites are evil and dangerous--both for birds and stunt-kite flyers.
A musician might not want to do a live performance. Would it make a difference if the "evil stunt-kite flyers" group skipped the musician altogether, and used the musician's latest CD?
A baker might not want to bake a cake. But the baker doesn't have to be at the "evil stunt-kite flyers" dinner-dance.
A caterer might not want to be there. OTOH, everyone needs to eat, even "evil stunt-kite flyers".
An owner of an event space might not want to rent it to "evil stunt-kite flyers". The owner doesn't have to be there for the event; but the group will be in the owner's space.
What about a restaurant? They mostly serve anyone who comes in.
How should all that play out?
Re what someone said about just trying to get a blank cake: I've wondered about that, too. Maybe the baker could have a large selection of cake toppers (wide variety of occasion themes), candied letters, etc. If people for the wedding cake topper are sold separately, then the purchaser can pick out the appropriate ones. If the baker won't carry them, maybe another store could. Might that arrangement accommodate all parties enough?
![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif)
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
W Hyatt: A performer is personally involved in the event while a shop keeper isn't personally involved at all. Something between the two might be someone providing a service during the event which requires them to be present but only in the background in a less active role, like handling the lighting.
I think that another person who might fall in that gray area is the wedding photographer. He isn't performing on a stage, in fact the best of them are those who can make themselves invisible. Would they be allowed to refuse to 'perform' at a gay marriage?
quote:
Macrina: To be fair, it is not only my opinion it is also law under a fair amount of Equality legislation. But I am quite happy to live and let live with regard to you being unconvinced by it
I'm not trying to be antagonistic towards you, I'm just exploring something here. My reasoning is more or less like this. I was a semi-professional musician for some time (I had other income too). I would choose my performances very much based on whether I thought I'd feel a connection with my audience. For me, it is important that the audience appreciates my music, but also that I'd feel at home with them and with the venue, to be able to perform for them. Now if I reserve the right to choose on this basis for myself, I can't very well withhold it from a gospel group that is asked to perform at a gay wedding and says "we wouldn't connect with the audience".
quote:
Adeodatus: We'll have to wait for the first gay couple ever to like gospel music.
It may be some time....
Haha, I happen to know such a couple.
quote:
Golden Key: Maybe the difference is whether the hired person has to be present?
It could be. I found your restaurant example interesting, let's expand that some more.
Suppose a church has some kind of Community Hall that they rent out to the general public (not just church members) for wedding receptions etc., in order to get some income. If this is the case, I think they can't refuse to rent it to a gay wedding reception.
In this case, my experience is that someone from the church needs to be present, if only to open and lock the doors, perhaps to keep an eye on things. And what about waiting staff for example?
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Macrina
Shipmate
# 8807
|
Posted
LeRoc,
No worries, I didn't interpret it as antagonism. I understand where you're coming from it's just that I really do think if we give people an 'out' within the legislation then the legislation will become essentially useless in doing its job. People will be able to refuse all manner of service in line with their prejudice be that religiously or personally founded and then claim that they are protected by the 'out' in the legislation.
I would really hope that the best compromise would be that LGBT groups do not set out to deliberately antagonise religious groups (by say trying to hire religious choirs just to trap them in the law and sue them) until attitudes have had time to adjust to the fact that all people have rights under the law to service.
There is a reason this is a dead horse. I don't view disagreement with me as a personal affront or as any indication of your views over this particular horse.
Posts: 535 | From: Christchurch, New Zealand | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Snags
Utterly socially unrealistic
# 15351
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
Surely there has to be a line somewhere. I know I certainly wouldn't be willing to perform at a KKK rally or for the Mob, if I were a performer.
The difference being that there is equalities legislation to cover sex, age and sexuality. There isn't, in the same way, to cover political belief. So legally you have a situation where any business can refuse service to anyone they like (or don't!) unless that is trumped by equalities laws. So no "because you're a girl", no "because you is black", and no "because you're on the other team".
--------------------
Vain witterings :-: Vain pretentions :-: The Dog's Blog(locks)
Posts: 1399 | From: just north of That London | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
W Hyatt
Shipmate
# 14250
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
I think that another person who might fall in that gray area is the wedding photographer. He isn't performing on a stage, in fact the best of them are those who can make themselves invisible. Would they be allowed to refuse to 'perform' at a gay marriage?
Just to throw a couple more examples in the mix:
What about a baker who is willing to bake a wedding cake for any gay or straight couple, but who wants to refuse service to someone who wants a depiction of something like bestiality or masturbation? Or one who wants to refuse to portray a gay wedding service as a Christian religious service? I can support the idea of requiring them to provide their service to everyone equally, without regard to race, religion, or orientation of their customers, but I also think I'd support the idea of allowing them to refuse service based on the details of the particular service being requested. Even so, that line could get very blurry.
On the other hand, how about a legitimate cuddling service? (Try googling "cuddling service".) Should they only employ cuddlers who are willing to cuddle with someone of either sex, or should the cuddlers be free to limit their clients to one particular sex?
--------------------
A new church and a new earth, with Spiritual Insights for Everyday Life.
Posts: 1565 | From: U.S.A. | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
This question reminds me of one of the participants - a mezzo-soprano - in a summer opera workshop back in the last century. She announced to everyone that she was a Christian, and would never do anything on stage that contravened her religion. And yet she wanted to be an opera singer .... ![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
So, of course, we all started asking her questions like, "Would you dress as a man?" and "Would you kiss a woman?" and "Would you summon the Devil?" It turned out she didn't really know much about the operatic repertoire for her voice type, much of which consists of "witches, bitches and britches". I guess her answers were all no, because I never heard of her again after that summer.
The only gig I've ever felt uncomfortable about was my very first gig, and at the time it didn't bother me, 'cause, hey, it was my first gig. Now, I sometimes wonder if I contributed to human suffering by singing for a Christian Science congregation.
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arabella Purity Winterbottom
Trumpeting hope
# 3434
|
Posted
Tangent
I can't imagine it coming up here. Most of the lesbians I know have at least 3-4 lesbian friends who will fall over themselves to play guitar for their weddings. Likewise my gay friends have plenty of musician friends who will play and sing for a sandwich and champagne. I've sung a number of the latter.
I can't actually imagine a situation in which a lesbian or gay man would need to hire musicians unknown to them.
And I'm sorry to burst your bubble Adeodatus, but I'm very fond of classic gospel, as are all the members of my homo group (like a home group, only more fabulous). We also like all forms of pre-20th century music.
Tangent over
--------------------
Hell is full of the talented and Heaven is full of the energetic. St Jane Frances de Chantal
Posts: 3702 | From: Aotearoa, New Zealand | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
Call me grouchy, but...
Most of us can get a pretty fair idea of what the occasion is (and who it is for) at the time the initial approach is made to see if we can play/sing/ bake or decorate cake/ whatever.
If you don't like the sound of it, take instant dislike to the person/people who make the approach - again, whatever - you just make your excuses* and decline.
You do this without feeling the need to unburden yourself of your prejudices or foibles, just say you can't take the job because* and back out.
Whether you wish the happy gay couple well or wish them to roast in the eternal fires of hell is your opinion and they, and the world, don't need to know about it.
* another engagement/ clashes with family celebration/ too far to travel/ hoping to be on holiday - you get the drift
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Macrina
Shipmate
# 8807
|
Posted
I agree L'Organist.
In an ideal world I'd like it if everyone had fundamental respect for the lives and choices of others even if they themselves did not actively agree and endorse those things. Unfortunately, as these and many other cases show, we do not. I remain in favour of laws which forbid active discrimination but I am not going to advocate prosecuting thought-crime for suspected discrimination if people can make reasonable excuses for declining which do not rest on extolling their prejudices.
Posts: 535 | From: Christchurch, New Zealand | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gwai
Shipmate
# 11076
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Snags:
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
Surely there has to be a line somewhere. I know I certainly wouldn't be willing to perform at a KKK rally or for the Mob, if I were a performer.
The difference being that there is equalities legislation to cover sex, age and sexuality. There isn't, in the same way, to cover political belief. So legally you have a situation where any business can refuse service to anyone they like (or don't!) unless that is trumped by equalities laws. So no "because you're a girl", no "because you is black", and no "because you're on the other team".
Legally that is certainly true, but I was thinking morally because we all live in various countries with various rules on the topic. And if I can refuse ethically to refuse to play for the KKK because I find them abhorrent, then why can't J refuse to play for my gay wedding because she finds me abhorrent.* Practically yes I agree that only a foolish person or a crusader would give their actual reason. (Particularly to the Mob!) One would just say one couldn't for x reason. That's the other reason to focus on the ethics, I guess.
*Ignoring the fact that IRL I'm married because let's not complicate things here
--------------------
A master of men was the Goodly Fere,
A mate of the wind and sea.
If they think they ha’ slain our Goodly Fere
They are fools eternally.
Posts: 11914 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
The US is not unique in this, Gwai. Wish it were.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Macrina
Shipmate
# 8807
|
Posted
But if someone says 'I'm sorry I have a prior engagement that day' and you suspect it's not because of that but because you are a racial or sexual minority how do you deal with that other than dragging someone through the court system to find out if they really HAD arranged to have pizza with their friend?
I am uncomfortable with the idea that we can prosecute people for thoughts they do not voice.
Posts: 535 | From: Christchurch, New Zealand | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Macrina: No worries, I didn't interpret it as antagonism. I understand where you're coming from it's just that I really do think if we give people an 'out' within the legislation then the legislation will become essentially useless in doing its job.
And I can understand where you are coming from. Yes, you're totally right. If you give performers an 'out' on this one, other people will look for an 'out' as well.
There are two things in conflict here: the fact that we shouldn't discriminate LBGT people, and the freedom an artist has to choose where (s)he will perform (a kind of freedom a shopkeeper doesn't have). This is what I am struggling with.
One thing is: if an artist refuses to perform, he doesn't need to explain why. When I was a musician, some times I just said "No sorry, I'm not interested", and that's it. No further explanation or justification is needed, and I don't think it would be easy to demand such a justification.
This is true even if the artist tells a white lie. Sometimes when I was asked to perform in a place that I didn't like, I would say "I'm already busy that day". Telling a white lie like that isn't against the law. And even if you'd drag me through the courts, it would be up to you to prove that I wasn't busy. Good luck with that.
So, suppose that a gay couple calls a band to ask them to play at their wedding. If they answer "We won't play for homo's", then yes you can drag their arses through court all the way to China. Rightly so, and I'll be cheering for you to win.
But if they say "No, we're not interested" or "No, we're busy that day", first I don't think there is a lot you can do. And second, they're not necessarily homophobes for saying that. We don't know, and I don't think they have an obligation to justify anything beyond that.
I think this is even true if they consistently refuse to play at gay venues. I'm sure that Iron Maiden has never played at a gay bar, but are they homophobes because of that? I'm not sure.
quote:
W Hyatt: What about a baker who is willing to bake a wedding cake for any gay or straight couple, but who wants to refuse service to someone who wants a depiction of something like bestiality or masturbation?
I don't know how much I have to say about this about the OPer, but we already have some threads in DH where we discuss things like this about the baker. If the Hosts are Ok with it, I would like to focus in this thread specifically on whether there is a difference between a baker (shop-keeper) and a performer in this.
[ 27. February 2015, 18:52: Message edited by: LeRoc ]
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
churchgeek
Have candles, will pray
# 5557
|
Posted
Does presence enter in? One of the differences between the wedding singer and the baker is the wedding singer is at the event; the baker might come set the cake up, or they might not. If a mobster wanted to come into your shop and buy a cake, you'd be selling someone a cake. If you were a singer, you'd have to put your person at their function as part of the bargain. You would have no control, however, as to whether they played your CD at their function (assuming all other license issues were above board), and while you might not be thrilled that they were playing your music, it wouldn't be the same as your going there yourself.
I think the CD is more analogous to the cake. Both are products. The food service workers (caterers, meat slicers, etc.) are more like the singer than the baker is. Are caterers required to do any event someone is able to pay for?
--------------------
I reserve the right to change my mind.
My article on the Virgin of Vladimir
Posts: 7773 | From: Detroit | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Keromaru
Apprentice
# 15757
|
Posted
I keep thinking of Rush Limbaugh.
I don't recall anybody raising a stink about anyone contributing a cake or decorations or such to his wedding a few years back. I DO remember an outcry about Elton John performing there, considering Rush's views on gay people.
Don't really have much to add than that example, I'm just curious where that fits in.
Posts: 26 | From: Diocese of East Tennessee | Registered: Jul 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by churchgeek:
Does presence enter in?
Not, IMO, for a wedding singer. As I mentioned earlier, people do not associate acceptance with such. Unless it is something like the Limbaugh/John thing. RL is high profile and his views on homosexuality are well documented.
quote:
Originally posted by Keromaru:
I keep thinking of Rush Limbaugh.
I don't recall anybody raising a stink about anyone contributing a cake or decorations or such to his wedding a few years back. I DO remember an outcry about Elton John performing there, considering Rush's views on gay people.
Well, Elton John is batshit crazy. I can forgive him for singing at that wedding, I cannot forgive him for what he did to the Lion King.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
churchgeek: Does presence enter in?
I'm not sure, some people on this thread have suggested that. But I don't know if a rule "You can refuse to be present at a gay event" would work.
First, it still sounds rather discriminatory. And second, what about a business that rents space for parties etc.? If we had this rule, the waiting staff could simply refuse to show up if the space was rented for a gay wedding reception. I don't think that's what we want either.
I agree with you about the analogy between the cake and the cd.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Elton John is batshit crazy. ... I cannot forgive him for what he did to the Lion King.
What did he do?
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
The soundtrack. Though, I will concede the stage version manages to wrest some of the awful out of it.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Surely, all of this - baking, photography, music - depends on how you've held yourself out in the first place. That's what I've said in previous threads, and I still think it's true.
If you advertise yourself in a certain way, as a business available to the public, then you're going to start running into trouble if you start refusing to provide your services to certain members of the public based on what you think of them morally.
Whereas if you've always conveyed that your services are a matter of negotiation and consideration, and that you're not automatically available to anyone who walks in the door with money, then you'll be fine.
It's not the rejection of a customer that gets people into trouble. It's the inconsistent rejection of a customer.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
Or the all too obvious consistency in rejection of certain groups specifically?
(Years ago I did a temp gig for a company that would not hire anyone coloured [any shade of brown or black]. It was never said officially, but I found out and answered the question my temp agency had as to why certain people were never interviewed or employed who looked otherwise good on paper. Other reasons were given each time. That raised another question: do you putting anyone forward to roles at this company, or do you decide not to embarrass otherwise perfectly good candidates who will never get accepted? It was certainly one of the reasons I didn't apply to stay there permanently.)
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
orfeo: If you advertise yourself in a certain way, as a business available to the public, then you're going to start running into trouble if you start refusing to provide your services to certain members of the public based on what you think of them morally.
Whereas if you've always conveyed that your services are a matter of negotiation and consideration, and that you're not automatically available to anyone who walks in the door with money, then you'll be fine.
This is more or less how I see it too. I don't know how easy it would be to tie up this distinction legally, but if you say it can be done it would work for me.
quote:
Curiosity killed ...: Or the all too obvious consistency in rejection of certain groups specifically?
I'm not too sure either.
Suppose a band has a meeting in January and they say to eachother: "This year we're going to do the theatre tour, we already have requests in 5 cities. We're going to try to be on a couple of jazz festivals. And maybe this project will come up with regional tv where we'll be playing with a well-known artist."
Now, if a gay bar calls them in March and asks them to perform, they can say no because it doesn't fit in what they thought about for this year. Even when five gay bars call them. The band has the right to make their planning in accordance with their artistic and commercial perspectives.
You could say that they've rejected a certain group specifically. But I'm not convinced they've done anything bad.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
It shouldn't become an issue, though. If notes were compred bewteen th bars and some though an issue was there, all that would be necessary would be to show your calendar.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
JoannaP
Shipmate
# 4493
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Suppose a band has a meeting in January and they say to eachother: "This year we're going to do the theatre tour, we already have requests in 5 cities. We're going to try to be on a couple of jazz festivals. And maybe this project will come up with regional tv where we'll be playing with a well-known artist."
Now, if a gay bar calls them in March and asks them to perform, they can say no because it doesn't fit in what they thought about for this year. Even when five gay bars call them. The band has the right to make their planning in accordance with their artistic and commercial perspectives.
You could say that they've rejected a certain group specifically. But I'm not convinced they've done anything bad.
The problem would be if a straight bar called them the day after the first gay bar - and the band rearranged their schedule to fit the straight bar in. If they turn down all bars that ask, they are fine.
--------------------
"Freedom for the pike is death for the minnow." R. H. Tawney (quoted by Isaiah Berlin)
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Benjamin Franklin
Posts: 1877 | From: England | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
If you advertise yourself in a certain way, as a business available to the public, then you're going to start running into trouble if you start refusing to provide your services to certain members of the public based on what you think of them morally.
Whereas if you've always conveyed that your services are a matter of negotiation and consideration, and that you're not automatically available to anyone who walks in the door with money, then you'll be fine.
It's not the rejection of a customer that gets people into trouble. It's the inconsistent rejection of a customer.
This makes the most sense to me. ![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
lilBuddha: It shouldn't become an issue, though. If notes were compred bewteen th bars and some though an issue was there, all that would be necessary would be to show your calendar.
I'm not sure. I don't think we can force the band to show their calendar. And I also don't think it would help much.
Suppose that the band rejects a performance in a gay bar on March 1. The gay bar calls this discrimination and somehow they get the band to show their calendar. The calendar shows that the band didn't have a performance planned for March 1.
Does this mean that it was discrimination? The band can have a million reasons not to play that day. Some members play in other bands, some may have family obligations, etc.
And once again, I don't think the band even needs to explain or justify anything. It is upon the gay bar to show that there was discrimination.
Moreover, I think that the band has the freedom to plan their musical year. If their planning says theatre tour, Jazz festivals and a television gig, and this planning doesn't include gay bars, then that's their prerrogative.
quote:
JoannaP: The problem would be if a straight bar called them the day after the first gay bar - and the band rearranged their schedule to fit the straight bar in.
I admit that this would look icky. But even here I think it would be difficult to make a case for discrimination. It may be that the band heard that at the straight bar an important producer would be present who might give them a record deal. So they decided to rearrange their schedule for that opportunity.
It may seem that I'm defending artists' rights to discriminate against LGBT people here, but I'm not. I simply don't think that you'd have a case.
quote:
JoannaP: If they turn down all bars that ask, they are fine.
I don't think that works either. A friend of mine is a folk singer in the Netherlands. A couple of years ago, she decided to sing in Irish pubs around the country. So she accepted gigs from Irish pubs, but rejected request from other bars (including gay bars). Was she discriminating? I don't think so.
quote:
ChastMastr: This makes the most sense to me.
To me too.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by JoannaP:
The problem would be if a straight bar called them the day after the first gay bar - and the band rearranged their schedule to fit the straight bar in. If they turn down all bars that ask, they are fine.
Maybe the straight bar owner was a friend, and the band went the extra mile for him. Maybe it was a bar that served particularly good beer. Maybe the band member that couldn't make it yesterday has his schedule rearranged and is now free.
Unless you come out and say "I don't play for / photograph / whatever $DEROAGATORY_EPITHET", it's pretty hard to prove discrimination.
In other words, if you're a bigot, be a liar too, because it's too easy to catch an honest bigot.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
