Boycotting NC

I heard on the news this morning that Bruce Springsteen is pulling out of his show in North Carolina in protest of the new bathroom laws.
There have been several other notable celebrities and businesses who have gone public about not doing business in NC such as Paypal not opening a location among others.

My question is, how is this different than a Christian baker refusing to make a cake for a gay wedding because it doesn't agree with their belief system?  We have numerous individuals and businesses who are refusing to do business with the citizens of NC because they enacted a law that doesn't agree with their belief system, right?

My personal thoughts are that I think all the boycotting crap is stupid and serves nothing more than drive a deeper wedge between those on opposite sides of the issues.  With Paypal, they have as a culture embraced those with same sex attraction and had the opportunity to bring their culture and influence to North Carolina but because they were "offended" by the new law they are now refusing to have an influence on that community and punishing the hundreds (maybe thousands) of people who would have been employed by them.  Seems kind of counter intuitive to their long term goal of broadening minds and winning hearts on the social issues they hold dear.

I heard on the news this morning that Bruce Springsteen is pulling out of his show in North Carolina in protest of the new bathroom laws.
There have been several other notable celebrities and businesses who have gone public about not doing business in NC such as Paypal not opening a location among others.

My question is, how is this different than a Christian baker refusing to make a cake for a gay wedding because it doesn't agree with their belief system?  We have numerous individuals and businesses who are refusing to do business with the citizens of NC because they enacted a law that doesn't agree with their belief system, right?

My personal thoughts are that I think all the boycotting crap is stupid and serves nothing more than drive a deeper wedge between those on opposite sides of the issues.  With Paypal, they have as a culture embraced those with same sex attraction and had the opportunity to bring their culture and influence to North Carolina but because they were "offended" by the new law they are now refusing to have an influence on that community and punishing the hundreds (maybe thousands) of people who would have been employed by them.  Seems kind of counter intuitive to their long term goal of broadening minds and winning hearts on the social issues they hold dear.

There is a big difference tuwood.  Not selling to a gay couple because of your beliefs is discriminatory.  When your belief system is your excuse for discrimination and being as arsehole to people, the rest of us are going to vote with our dollar.   There is also a huge difference between having a business and refusing to sell to or work with individuals, and having a state pass an unconstitutional law and then large corporation decide not to work within that state because this law discriminates against some of their employees.

So here's the definition of discrimination:

Discrimination is treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing is perceived to belong to rather than on individual merit.

Bruce Springsteen is discriminating against the citizens of North Carolina based on the group they belong to because he doesn't agree with the positions of that group, right?  In his particular case he had the venue booked and scheduled which is a place of business and is now refusing to provide his services to the group. 

The difference is that these businesses don't currently offer services in that state.  You obviously can't tell someone where their business must exists.  This is where I believe that the state should say, "this is what we believe, so we don't want your business."  As a capitalist, I believe that if your state, or business cannot survive by following your beliefs then you should probably pack it in.  If you alter your beliefs to secure the mighty dollar then you have probably lost the respect of the customers you cherish most.

Now a state is a little different.  But still in essense, it is more important to listen to the people of your state then those outside your state.  The personality of your state is the most important thing.  As an example, take California, they enjoy being a liberal haven.  If they were to become conservative overnight, you would end up with a very unhappy populace.  That is not where you want to be.  

Another example, would be Colorado.  Imagine if because of a minority of environmentalists the state passed laws prohibiting the use of mountain trails for hiking, skiing or mountain biking.  It would fundamentally change why people love this state and call it home.

NC has a very strong religious base.  Passing laws that change that would be hurtful to the state.  In fact they may lose more businesses if they didn't pass the law then they will lose (coming into the state) by passing it.  (look at Colorado businesses that left because of the gun laws, or medical marijuanna)  

he is not discriminating against the citizens of north Carolina.  a citizen of north Carolina can go buy a ticket to any show they want.   he is choosing not to do business in a state because the laws of that state are discriminatory.

This does make a little more sense.  I guess if we use the baker analogy it would be the equivalent of a baker closing up shop in lets say San Francisco because the baker doesn't agree with a local bathroom ordinance mandating shared bathrooms (just made that up).

Then on the flip side, it would be probably more alike if Springsteen were to only allow certain people into his concert venue in NC versus canceling all together.

The difference is that these businesses don't currently offer services in that state.  You obviously can't tell someone where their business must exists.  This is where I believe that the state should say, "this is what we believe, so we don't want your business."  As a capitalist, I believe that if your state, or business cannot survive by following your beliefs then you should probably pack it in.  If you alter your beliefs to secure the mighty dollar then you have probably lost the respect of the customers you cherish most.

Now a state is a little different.  But still in essense, it is more important to listen to the people of your state then those outside your state.  The personality of your state is the most important thing.  As an example, take California, they enjoy being a liberal haven.  If they were to become conservative overnight, you would end up with a very unhappy populace.  That is not where you want to be.  

Another example, would be Colorado.  Imagine if because of a minority of environmentalists the state passed laws prohibiting the use of mountain trails for hiking, skiing or mountain biking.  It would fundamentally change why people love this state and call it home.

NC has a very strong religious base.  Passing laws that change that would be hurtful to the state.  In fact they may lose more businesses if they didn't pass the law then they will lose (coming into the state) by passing it.  (look at Colorado businesses that left because of the gun laws, or medical marijuanna)  

For the record the Bible laws regarding slavery are in the context of the time where slavery was fully supported as the law of the land.  One could argue that the Bible gave far more rights to slaves in that era than any other form of government.  Trying to apply Jewish law from 4000 years ago to today is no different than trying to apply Egyptian law to today, but I digress.

A complete tangent; but I always find the enactment of laws and the boundaries for them an interesting topic.  All laws are based on what either an individual (dictatorships) or the citizens (democracy) want.  However, in America our founders created the Constitution to protect individual rights as you mention above which puts some boundaries on the laws that are able to be created.

There are dozens of countries in the world where you can be legally put to death for being gay because its what the population/leader wants.  That's kind of scary to me.

I have a little bit of a different take on the justification for not supporting some of these laws.

As an example, I own a business and am very welcoming to all people who want to work here.  I'm a pretty strong Christian, but I have a few card carrying atheists working here and had a gay employee in the past. (he quit, I didn't fire him.  lol)

Anyways, in Nebraska they've tried a few times to pass laws elevating sexual orientation as a protected class for businesses which seems like a good thing on the surface.  However, when you dig into the actual language of the laws they're extremely vague and open up a whole legal can of worms with any person you fire for any reason.  Meaning, there's absolutely zero legal definition for what constitutes a same sex attraction when it involves to insert yourself into this class.
So, hypothetically, if I were to hire you and you decided to be a big slacker and I fired you after a few months you could sue me for discrimination because of your sexual identity.  All you'd have to do is say you're bisexual and it doesn't matter beyond that legally speaking.  I now have to legally defend myself and my business spending tens of thousands of dollars and prove that I didn't fire you based on your sexual orientation and I also have to prove that I fired you for legitimate reasons.  The burden of proof is on me, not you.

So, on the surface I fully support protecting anyone from discrimination or harassment based on their sexual orientation but I have yet to see any legislation in my state that even remotely is functional.  I'm not a bigot, homophobe, or religious zealot.  I'm just a business owner who fights to prevent laws that put my business in a very tough spot.

I have a little bit of a different take on the justification for not supporting some of these laws.

As an example, I own a business and am very welcoming to all people who want to work here.  I'm a pretty strong Christian, but I have a few card carrying atheists working here and had a gay employee in the past. (he quit, I didn't fire him.  lol)

Anyways, in Nebraska they've tried a few times to pass laws elevating sexual orientation as a protected class for businesses which seems like a good thing on the surface.  However, when you dig into the actual language of the laws they're extremely vague and open up a whole legal can of worms with any person you fire for any reason.  Meaning, there's absolutely zero legal definition for what constitutes a same sex attraction when it involves to insert yourself into this class.
So, hypothetically, if I were to hire you and you decided to be a big slacker and I fired you after a few months you could sue me for discrimination because of your sexual identity.  All you'd have to do is say you're bisexual and it doesn't matter beyond that legally speaking.  I now have to legally defend myself and my business spending tens of thousands of dollars and prove that I didn't fire you based on your sexual orientation and I also have to prove that I fired you for legitimate reasons.  The burden of proof is on me, not you.

Christians believe that Old Testament laws were abolished with the new Covenant made by Jesus Christ and his being sent by God to be the atonement for our sins, so therefore you can eat shrimp and wear the clothes of your choice and not have to do animal sacrifices anymore.

religion is all made up anyhow, maybe we shouldn't base our laws on storybooks.  I want a goldilocks law that says I can sue the department store is my sweater doesn't fit JUST RIGHT.  its bear discrimination.