Thanks for sharing this! Of course it's okay to post here.
There's one part that has me thinking:
That statement sounds in line with the other decisions I've seen, but it also makes me question my opinion on something else. One thing that I'd never really understood regarding the wedding cake fiascos is people saying that they don't want to make the cake because they don't support same-sex marriage. While I didn't get as frustrated over the denial of service as some, my typical response was, "But you're not the one getting married and you're not even attending the wedding. It's just a business transaction, and I'm sure God knows how you feel." While I still stand by that very last part about God, I do see a lot of parallels in the first parts of my cake thoughts with these cancelled concerts when the above reasoning is given. The concert could be seen as a business transaction between the band and its fans (plus probably the state in some way), and making that transaction shouldn't necessarily be an indication of how you feel on the matter. Undoubtedly every state has lower-profile injustices that artists aren't associated with when they perform there.
My instinct is to be happy when these events are moved out of these states because it puts pressure on the state to change and gives them bad press, but reconsidering how I feel about the cake incidents, perhaps it's hypocritical of me to feel that way if I also don't feel happy for those who refuse to make cakes. I understand why I previously had been in support of the concert movers and not the non-bakers, but I guess I'm becoming more aware of the subjectivity of my reasoning.
I think my personal dilemma would be partially resolved if the reasoning given were more explicitly, "We won't perform there because our concerts are inclusive events and in North Carolina this is not possible as long as our trans fans cannot use the restroom they identify with at our concerts." In this case, the North Carolina law would have a direct impact on their ability to do business, and they would be choosing not to agree to those business terms. But I'm not even sure if that's possible to say here because my understanding is that
the bill applies to public agencies and the concert venue would not be under control of one.
I'll have to keep thinking about this, as I know my thoughts are only half-developed at this point. Please feel free to offer your opinions and criticisms, lettersGAF.
