acceptable discrimination?

Because it looks like the entertainer is endorsing the politician. I don't know if the politician "has" to stop using the song legally, but the usually do.

And then you have people demanding segregation all over again. Grandparents and great grandparents must be rolling in graves.

http://www.thecollegefix.com/post/25748/

71Fish wrote:

Because it looks like the entertainer is endorsing the politician. I don't know if the politician "has" to stop using the song legally, but the usually do.

I get that they see it as an endorsement but it's still refusing to do commerce with someone for
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

Remember the sign "no shirt no shoes .... "

My business, my rules.

KMC440 wrote:

Remember the sign "no shirt no shoes .... "

My business, my rules.

Yes I've seen that sign and typically associated with food service businesses
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

ToolMaker wrote:

I get that they see it as an endorsement but it's still refusing to do commerce with someone for
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

It's not a lot of commerce when someone uses your song.

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.

So it is ok to charge one group an affordable price but another group that you don't agree with an unaffordable price? Isn't that discrimination? What if it was the cake incident? The cake cost $500 normal price and for the gay couple $50,000. What is the difference?

The entertainment business is about copyright and ownership of the song/media in question.

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.

FlickitFlat wrote:

So it is ok to charge one group an affordable price but another group that you don't agree with an unaffordable price? Isn't that discrimination? What if it was the cake incident? The cake cost $500 normal price and for the gay couple $50,000. What is the difference?

Legal fee's, probably less of a chance of getting dragged into court for the "normal" cake.

FlickitFlat wrote:

So it is ok to charge one group an affordable price but another group that you don't agree with an unaffordable price? Isn't that discrimination? What if it was the cake incident? The cake cost $500 normal price and for the gay couple $50,000. What is the difference?

When I give a quote for a project, I give some customers a higher quote because I really don't want to work for them.

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.

Acceptable discrimination: LGBT.

Rooster wrote:

The entertainment business is about copyright and ownership of the song/media in question.

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.

Obviously, politics isn't a protected class (like religion, sex, race, etc.) but would you still say the same thing if an artist/singer/band didn't want their music played at a gay rights rally?

"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.

GeorgiePorgie wrote:

Acceptable discrimination: LGBT.

motogeezer wrote:

It's not a lot of commerce when someone uses your song.

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.

The cost of the product is a separate issue.
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 only discriminate against assholes. I do work for strait people , gay people , white , black , Hispanic , Asian , fat , skinny....it doesn't matter. I treat everyone equally. Except assholes. If I choose not to do your job , it's usually because you came off like an asshole.....and at the very first meeting , you act like that.....then what will you be like while I'm working there? Probably act like an asshole.

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.

jeffro503 wrote:

I only discriminate against assholes. I do work for strait people , gay people , white , black , Hispanic , Asian , fat , skinny....it doesn't matter. I treat everyone equally. Except assholes. If I choose not to do your job , it's usually because you came off like an asshole.....and at the very first meeting , you act like that.....then what will you be like while I'm working there? Probably act like an asshole.

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.

Big difference is that you will be working side by side with said customer. It's not like you are selling mass produced widgets that are sold at every other internet site. I totally get you may not want to work side by side with an ass day after day for 3-4 weeks. Not really the case here. It's selling a product.
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.

Mistaken supposition.

Some people DO believe in discrimination, generally ideology and culturally based. i.e. my group/people think this way so I do too.

Spartacus wrote:

Mistaken supposition.

Some people DO believe in discrimination, generally ideology and culturally based. i.e. my group/people think this way so I do too.

So you're saying that I'm mistaken in my belief that people think discrimination is bad?
While that may be true, it would not be the first or last time I'm wrong about something.

thoughts?

http://kutv.com/news/local/what-if-utah-lawmakers-had-to-wear-the-logos-of-their-donors

peelout wrote:

thoughts?

http://kutv.com/news/local/what-if-utah-lawmakers-had-to-wear-the-logos-of-their-donors

I think it's a great idea.

Titan1 wrote:

Obviously, politics isn't a protected class (like religion, sex, race, etc.) but would you still say the same thing if an artist/singer/band didn't want their music played at a gay rights rally?

"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.

It's a moot point because they could just buy the blanket licenses that toolmaker mentioned and be able to do it anyway.

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.

Want 'acceptable discrimination'? How about an effectively government entity advertising job vacancies for non whites only

http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/514418/Katie-Hopkins-twitter-rant-BBC-white-discrimination-racism-LBC-radio

(Ignore the fact it's Katie Hopkins if you can)

peelout wrote:

thoughts?

http://kutv.com/news/local/what-if-utah-lawmakers-had-to-wear-the-logos-of-their-donors

That would be a great idea, although I think most of our career politicians would struggle showing all their donors.

Rooster wrote:

The entertainment business is about copyright and ownership of the song/media in question.

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.

Titan1 wrote:

Obviously, politics isn't a protected class (like religion, sex, race, etc.) but would you still say the same thing if an artist/singer/band didn't want their music played at a gay rights rally?

"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.

Rooster wrote:

It's a moot point because they could just buy the blanket licenses that toolmaker mentioned and be able to do it anyway.

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.

What if that particular artist refused to sell those rights (blanket license) to a gay rights group (or to a politician for their rallies).

How is that different that a baker refusing to sell a cake to a gay couple?

It really should be relabled as illogical discrimination. I think giving discrimination overall a bad rap is maybe on purpose.

By the way whatever happened to those signs we used to see "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone"?

Titan1 wrote:

What if that particular artist refused to sell those rights (blanket license) to a gay rights group (or to a politician for their rallies).

How is that different that a baker refusing to sell a cake to a gay couple?

I have yet to see an argument put forward that political affiliation is a born feature the same way as race sex and sexual orientation

Spartacus wrote:

Mistaken supposition.

Some people DO believe in discrimination, generally ideology and culturally based. i.e. my group/people think this way so I do too.

ToolMaker wrote:

So you're saying that I'm mistaken in my belief that people think discrimination is bad?
While that may be true, it would not be the first or last time I'm wrong about something.

I do think you're mistaken, some people think discrimination is not only Ok but it's the right thing to do.

Humans are tribal, not everyone works outside that box.

Reserve the right to refuse business with anyone! That ring a bell with anyone?