Freedom of association isn’t just for the Rockettes

[Sean Hayden]

LIKE EVERYTHING else connected to Donald Trump, even the entertainment at his inauguration is generating controversy. The stories have been a godsend to the talk-shows and tabloids. But they have also provided a reminder of something too easily forgotten: Freedom of association is a vital human right.

...

The divisiveness doesn’t stop with the inaugural entertainment. Heat Street reported that many Washington-area homeowners who had planned to rent out rooms through Airbnb pulled their listings once they realized that they wouldn’t be sharing their homes with Clinton enthusiasts. “I have a visceral reaction to the thought of having a Trump supporter in my house,” one owner said. “No amount of money could make me change my mind. It’s about moral principles.”

...

I support them all — the singers who refuse to sing for Trump, the fashion designers who refuse to design, the landlords who refuse to rent, the dancers who refuse to dance. No one should be forced to play a role in a celebration they want nothing to do with, or to hire themselves out to clients they would prefer not to serve.

continued... https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/201 ... story.html

[JimC]

The KKK do a nice line of burning crosses - very visual, very dramatic...

[Tyrannical]

LIKE EVERYTHING else connected to segregation, even the entertainment at his inauguration is generating controversy. The stories have been a godsend to the talk-shows and tabloids. But they have also provided a reminder of something too easily forgotten: Freedom of association is a vital human right.

...

The divisiveness doesn’t stop with the inaugural entertainment. Heat Street reported that many Washington-area homeowners who had planned to rent out rooms through Airbnb pulled their listings once they realized that they wouldn't be sharing their homes with segregation enthusiasts. “I have a visceral reaction to the thought of having a segregation supporter in my house,” one owner said. “No amount of money could make me change my mind. It’s about moral principles.”

...

I support them all — the singers who refuse to sing for Blacks, the fashion designers who refuse to design, the landlords who refuse to rent, the dancers who refuse to dance, the restaurants that refuse to serve. No one should be forced to play a role in a celebration they want nothing to do with, or to hire themselves out to clients they would prefer not to serve.

[Jason]

"Imperial Grand Cyclops?" Is that a Klan thing?

[Forty Two]

I support them all — the singers who refuse to sing for Trump, the fashion designers who refuse to design, the landlords who refuse to rent, the dancers who refuse to dance. No one should be forced to play a role in a celebration they want nothing to do with, or to hire themselves out to clients they would prefer not to serve.

continued... https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/201 ... story.html

....I support them all....except Christians who refuse to bake cakes for LGBTQ+ weddings....

What I don't get about the Rockettes is, sure, they have and should have every right to to refuse to perform. But, if the owner of the Rockettes group wants to have his troupe perform at a show, then he can have his troupe perform at a show. The individual members of the troupe may refuse, but their employer can fire them for refusing to work.

Like, if the owner of the Rockettes decided to contract with, say, the Estate of George Michael to perform at a funerary celebration part to commemorate George's life and philanthropy. Maybe a devout Muslim Rockette would object to playing for an openly gay man's event or something - whatever the reason might be -- do we "support her right to refuse" -- sure. Does the owner have the right to send his troupe there? Yes. If his employees refuse to perform their jobs, does he have the right to fire them? Of course.

[Forty Two]

Freedom of association is supposed to mean freedom from government restrictions on association or compelled association by government. However, if your employer is, say, a building contractor and he is contracted by Donald Trump to build a new hotel, and you, a skilled tradesman, decide you hate Trump and refuse to build his hotels, you can get fired for it, can't you? I don't get this Rockette thing. More power to your boycott, Rockettes. But, you're an employee of a troupe.

[L'Emmerdeur]

The author of that piece acknowledges the law in one sentence, then a few sentences later contradicts himself.

Freedom of association, like all freedoms, isn’t absolute. Common carriers, innkeepers, and vendors open to the public are barred by law from refusing to serve customers because of their race, religion, or sex, for example. But when it comes to providing personal services to others — whether the service is cleaning homes or singing the national anthem or taking photos — coercion is anathema. It would be ludicrous for the Trump committee to sue Andrea Bocelli or Phoebe Pearl to compel their involvement in the inaugural. It is just as ludicrous, or ought to be, to sue florists and bakers to compel their involvement in weddings they prefer to avoid.

He equivocates between entertainers and "florists and bakers." The latter two fall within the category of "vendors open to the public," while entertainers like Bocelli do not. That is why it is perfectly legal for Andrea Bocelli to refuse an invitation to sing, while it is not legal for a baker to refuse to bake a cake for a black person.

In localities that recognize gay people as members of a "suspect class" the baker cannot legally refuse to bake a cake for them, either. The baker has established a business that it open to the public and so must abide by the laws applicable to such businesses, whether Mr. Jacoby finds it "ludicrous" or not. An entertainer like Bocelli on the other hand has no such establishment.

In the case of the Rockette that doesn't want to perform for Trump's inauguration, while she has a right to refuse to perform, that doesn't protect her from any legal sanction her employer may wish to impose including terminating her employment.

[Forty Two]

Agreed.

[JimC]

I support them all — the singers who refuse to sing for Trump, the fashion designers who refuse to design, the landlords who refuse to rent, the dancers who refuse to dance. No one should be forced to play a role in a celebration they want nothing to do with, or to hire themselves out to clients they would prefer not to serve.

continued... https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/201 ... story.html

....I support them all....except Christians who refuse to bake cakes for LGBTQ+ weddings....

What I don't get about the Rockettes is, sure, they have and should have every right to to refuse to perform. But, if the owner of the Rockettes group wants to have his troupe perform at a show, then he can have his troupe perform at a show. The individual members of the troupe may refuse, but their employer can fire them for refusing to work.

Like, if the owner of the Rockettes decided to contract with, say, the Estate of George Michael to perform at a funerary celebration part to commemorate George's life and philanthropy. Maybe a devout Muslim Rockette would object to playing for an openly gay man's event or something - whatever the reason might be -- do we "support her right to refuse" -- sure. Does the owner have the right to send his troupe there? Yes. If his employees refuse to perform their jobs, does he have the right to fire them? Of course.

Do the Rockettes have an "owner"? They may have an agent to get them gigs, which they can collectively decide whether to accept or not, but surely, like any other musical group, they own themselves...

[Hermit]

Do the Rockettes have an "owner"?

Yes, they do, and there's no need for the scare quotes either. The dancers are employees, and have been since 1925. What's more, they are unionised. In 1967 they won a month-long strike for better working conditions, which was led by AGVA salaried officer Penny Singleton. (From the Wikipedia article.)

[Brian Peacock]

I support them all — the singers who refuse to sing for Trump, the fashion designers who refuse to design, the landlords who refuse to rent, the dancers who refuse to dance. No one should be forced to play a role in a celebration they want nothing to do with, or to hire themselves out to clients they would prefer not to serve.

continued... https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/201 ... story.html

....I support them all....except Christians who refuse to bake cakes for LGBTQ+ weddings....

What I don't get about the Rockettes is, sure, they have and should have every right to to refuse to perform. But, if the owner of the Rockettes group wants to have his troupe perform at a show, then he can have his troupe perform at a show. The individual members of the troupe may refuse, but their employer can fire them for refusing to work.

Like, if the owner of the Rockettes decided to contract with, say, the Estate of George Michael to perform at a funerary celebration part to commemorate George's life and philanthropy. Maybe a devout Muslim Rockette would object to playing for an openly gay man's event or something - whatever the reason might be -- do we "support her right to refuse" -- sure. Does the owner have the right to send his troupe there? Yes. If his employees refuse to perform their jobs, does he have the right to fire them? Of course.

You're presuming that the management owns the talent, but sure, if the management contracted the talent the management could fire them, but then they'd have to find replacements, and train them etc, and maintain a working relationship with the remainder of the workforce who might not take well to seeing their colleagues and friends treated badly. But perhaps the management simply respect the views of the talent about what, or where, or for whom they perform. Management isn't just about telling others what to do and how to do it. in fact, to my mind it has very little to do with that - it's about managing relationships, and all management problems are basically relationship problems.

[JimC]

Do the Rockettes have an "owner"?

Yes, they do, and there's no need for the scare quotes either. The dancers are employees, and have been since 1925. What's more, they are unionised. In 1967 they won a month-long strike for better working conditions, which was led by AGVA salaried officer Penny Singleton. (From the Wikipedia article.)

Well that's just fucking weird.

[DaveDodo007]

LIKE EVERYTHING else connected to Donald Trump, even the entertainment at his inauguration is generating controversy. The stories have been a godsend to the talk-shows and tabloids. But they have also provided a reminder of something too easily forgotten: Freedom of association is a vital human right.

...

The divisiveness doesn’t stop with the inaugural entertainment. Heat Street reported that many Washington-area homeowners who had planned to rent out rooms through Airbnb pulled their listings once they realized that they wouldn’t be sharing their homes with Clinton enthusiasts. “I have a visceral reaction to the thought of having a Trump supporter in my house,” one owner said. “No amount of money could make me change my mind. It’s about moral principles.”

...

I support them all — the singers who refuse to sing for Trump, the fashion designers who refuse to design, the landlords who refuse to rent, the dancers who refuse to dance. No one should be forced to play a role in a celebration they want nothing to do with, or to hire themselves out to clients they would prefer not to serve.

continued... https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/201 ... story.html

Or Christian cake bakers who refuse gay couples, oh wait we lefty/liberals are hypocrites.

[Hermit]

Do the Rockettes have an "owner"?

Yes, they do, and there's no need for the scare quotes either. The dancers are employees, and have been since 1925. What's more, they are unionised. In 1967 they won a month-long strike for better working conditions, which was led by AGVA salaried officer Penny Singleton. (From the Wikipedia article.)

Well that's just fucking weird.

You'll be surprised if you discovered just how many entertainers are employees rather than equal partners in an act. I know one personally. He was a classmate at school, who went on to become the drummer for a band named Mental as Anything. One night before a concert the other band members insisted that he stop smoking tobacco backstage. During the concert he played the drums in a way that made things difficult for them. After the concert they fired him on the spot. Turned out that he was a salaried employee for 20 years. The band was owned by two of its five members.

I met up with the drummer a few years ago. When I had a bit of a whinge about my boss at that time, he replied "I know what you mean." I laughed, thinking he's doing OK, being a member of a successful band and stuff like that. He then explained his terms of engagement to me. Yes, his bosses were rather tight-fisted too.

[pErvinalia]

I support them all — the singers who refuse to sing for Trump, the fashion designers who refuse to design, the landlords who refuse to rent, the dancers who refuse to dance. No one should be forced to play a role in a celebration they want nothing to do with, or to hire themselves out to clients they would prefer not to serve.

continued... https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/201 ... story.html

....I support them all....except Christians who refuse to bake cakes for LGBTQ+ weddings....

What I don't get about the Rockettes is, sure, they have and should have every right to to refuse to perform. But, if the owner of the Rockettes group wants to have his troupe perform at a show, then he can have his troupe perform at a show. The individual members of the troupe may refuse, but their employer can fire them for refusing to work.

Like, if the owner of the Rockettes decided to contract with, say, the Estate of George Michael to perform at a funerary celebration part to commemorate George's life and philanthropy. Maybe a devout Muslim Rockette would object to playing for an openly gay man's event or something - whatever the reason might be -- do we "support her right to refuse" -- sure. Does the owner have the right to send his troupe there? Yes. If his employees refuse to perform their jobs, does he have the right to fire them? Of course.

You're presuming that the management owns the talent, but sure, if the management contracted the talent the management could fire them, but then they'd have to find replacements, and train them etc, and maintain a working relationship with the remainder of the workforce who might not take well to seeing their colleagues and friends treated badly. But perhaps the management simply respect the views of the talent about what, or where, or for whom they perform. Management isn't just about telling others what to do and how to do it. in fact, to my mind it has very little to do with that - it's about managing relationships, and all management problems are basically relationship problems.

Why do you hate capitalism so much?!