Posts
6090
Joined
11/19/2011
Location
Escondido, CA
US
Fantasy
762nd
Edited Date/Time
5/19/2016 8:39pm
Everyone agrees that discrimination a bad thing. That a business should not be allowed
to deny customers based on the fact that the customer believes differently than the owner
of said business. The example I would use is that if a bakery owner who is Christian denies
to serve a customer who is of a different religion. It's a business and you are selling a
product, you should not be allowed to "not" do business for this reason.
So why is the entertainment industry exempt from this. Why is it OK to tell Republicans
to stop using their product (music) that they sell as a business because the customer
believes something different?
TM
to deny customers based on the fact that the customer believes differently than the owner
of said business. The example I would use is that if a bakery owner who is Christian denies
to serve a customer who is of a different religion. It's a business and you are selling a
product, you should not be allowed to "not" do business for this reason.
So why is the entertainment industry exempt from this. Why is it OK to tell Republicans
to stop using their product (music) that they sell as a business because the customer
believes something different?
TM
http://www.thecollegefix.com/post/25748/
being different. You either are OK with discrimination or you're not. And when the entertainment
industry is sooo vocal about discrimination as an issue why are they not called out on it?
TM
My business, my rules.
The Shop
where it's considered a health issue.
So, you're OK with discrimination at your business based on your choice if your
customer is a person worthy of your product?
TM
All you get is a performance royalty of about a nickel each time they play it in public.
If someone like Trump was using my product to promote himself, I'd want more than a nickel.
In fact, he probably couldn't afford what I'd want to charge him.
If you're playing music for a crowd you have to have the broadcast rights to it.
They can't use the opening intro for Monday night football as their walk on theme for the same reason.
If an artist disagrees with your politics they can decide not to do business with you and if you don't have the broadcast rights to their music, they can sue you for using it once they have explicitly told you not to.
It's nothing personal, some people are just harder to work for, and some are slow at paying their bills.
They have the option to pay the premium, or hire someone else.
"If an artist disagrees with your lifestyle they can decide not to do business with you and if you don't have the broadcast rights to their music, they can sue you for using it once they have explicitly told you not to."
I'm not trying to put words in your mouth...I'm just trying to understand where you draw the line.
1 They are a business selling music
2 Someone is willing to buy the music
3 They are refusing to sell the music based on the customer having different views.
In it's simplest form, is that not discrimination? And is that not what the
entertainment industry is always protesting against?
Discrimination is OK for me but not for thee.
TM
I do have a thing in my estimates though that I call " PIA factor ".....which for my own use , it stands for " Pain in the ass factor "....I'll usually fatten the bid up because of the extra pain I'm going to have to deal with while doing your job. It's come in handy more times then you can imagine.
AND.....In 25yrs of doing construction business , there is a rule , where a person should never use these three words together.
Fast , perfect and free.
If you want it done fast....it isn't going to be perfect and it won't be free.
If you want it perfect.....it isn't going to be fast and it still won't be free.
If you want it free.....it won't be done fast or perfect.....because you can get someone else to do your job.
I just don't understand if it's not OK for others to discriminate, why is it OK for them?
From News Max,
"Copyright experts say campaigns don't need an artist's permission to play their songs at rallies as long as the political organization or the venue has gotten what's known as a blanket license from the performing rights organizations ASCAP and BMI.
The license isn't for a single artist but for all the music in the licensing group's repertoire, which is staggering. ASCAP represents over 10 million musical works from over 525,000 songwriters and composers. BMI represents 10.5 million musical works created by more than 700,000 songwriters. The license is for the right to perform the song publicly.
Some people DO believe in discrimination, generally ideology and culturally based. i.e. my group/people think this way so I do too.
While that may be true, it would not be the first or last time I'm wrong about something.
Pit Row
http://kutv.com/news/local/what-if-utah-lawmakers-had-to-wear-the-logos-of-their-donors
As long as they have a valid license they can play the song all they want. If they had no license to do it, then they're breaking the law and I would have many reasons to object in that case.
Would I be upset if somebody didn't want somebody else to play their music as a personal anthem in public appearances because they were gay? I'd lose respect for the artist for sure. There's many reasons to disagree with a person, but their sexuality, religion, race, gender, etc isn't one of them IMHO.
http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/514418/Katie-Hopkins-twitte…
(Ignore the fact it's Katie Hopkins if you can)
How is that different that a baker refusing to sell a cake to a gay couple?
Humans are tribal, not everyone works outside that box.
Post a reply to: acceptable discrimination?