Leave Your Morals at Home & Do Your Job

[hawkeye3210]

They misrepresented the gig to him in the first place.  Once you lie, you don't get to hold onto the moral high ground.
It's an apples to oranges argument, conflating the baker with the musician.
The baker is open to the public, so he should serve the public. 

The musician is an independent contractor, so he has the option of making music for whomever he pleases.

As far as Joe Walsh reneging on a contract, if the contract misrepresents the terms, it's null and void on its face.

The Eagles are a registered for-profit corporation under the name of Eagles LTD. Without a doubt in my mind, Joe Walsh has made the same corporate filings for his personal gigs. It would only make sense for tax and liability reasons. Given that, does that now make this discrimination in your eyes?

But the baker is not an independent contractor.  His business is licensed by the state,  to serve the public.
If he doesn't want to do that, then he can become an independent contractor and pick and choose his clientele.
And there is no such thing as a "gay wedding cake."  It's just a wedding cake.

An independent contractor can be a person, business, or corporation. A baker making a cake for wedding is acting as an independent contractor. It’s no different than a musician hired to sing at a wedding.  A business license or whatever the state might require does not change this.  It also doesn’t mean that one is required to serve the public.

With that said, it also has nothing to do with the issue at hand. Joe had a signed contract and decided to terminate that contract. He's going to be liable for the cancellation as was specified in the contract. Without seeing the contract, it's tough to say.

[paints]

They misrepresented the gig to him in the first place.  Once you lie, you don't get to hold onto the moral high ground.
It's an apples to oranges argument, conflating the baker with the musician.
The baker is open to the public, so he should serve the public. 

The musician is an independent contractor, so he has the option of making music for whomever he pleases.

As far as Joe Walsh reneging on a contract, if the contract misrepresents the terms, it's null and void on its face.

The Eagles are a registered for-profit corporation under the name of Eagles LTD. Without a doubt in my mind, Joe Walsh has made the same corporate filings for his personal gigs. It would only make sense for tax and liability reasons. Given that, does that now make this discrimination in your eyes?

But the baker is not an independent contractor.  His business is licensed by the state,  to serve the public.
If he doesn't want to do that, then he can become an independent contractor and pick and choose his clientele.
And there is no such thing as a "gay wedding cake."  It's just a wedding cake.

An independent contractor can be a person, business, or corporation. A baker making a cake for wedding is acting as an independent contractor. It’s no different than a musician hired to sing at a wedding.  A business license or whatever the state might require does not change this.  It also doesn’t mean that one is required to serve the public.

With that said, it also has nothing to do with the issue at hand. Joe had a signed contract and decided to terminate that contract. He's going to be liable for the cancellation as was specified in the contract. Without seeing the contract, it's tough to say.

I don't see discrimination with Walshs' actions.  It's not discriminatory to refuse to do something other than what you contracted for.
A non-partisan benefit concert for veterans families is not the same thing as performing for a partisan political party.

The baker contracts to bake a wedding cake.  If the customer expects a birthday cake and four different kinds of cookies, that would be the same as Walshs' situation.

Either way, misrepresenting the terms of the contract voids the contract.

[hawkeye3210]

They misrepresented the gig to him in the first place.  Once you lie, you don't get to hold onto the moral high ground.
It's an apples to oranges argument, conflating the baker with the musician.
The baker is open to the public, so he should serve the public. 

The musician is an independent contractor, so he has the option of making music for whomever he pleases.

As far as Joe Walsh reneging on a contract, if the contract misrepresents the terms, it's null and void on its face.

The Eagles are a registered for-profit corporation under the name of Eagles LTD. Without a doubt in my mind, Joe Walsh has made the same corporate filings for his personal gigs. It would only make sense for tax and liability reasons. Given that, does that now make this discrimination in your eyes?

But the baker is not an independent contractor.  His business is licensed by the state,  to serve the public.
If he doesn't want to do that, then he can become an independent contractor and pick and choose his clientele.
And there is no such thing as a "gay wedding cake."  It's just a wedding cake.

An independent contractor can be a person, business, or corporation. A baker making a cake for wedding is acting as an independent contractor. It’s no different than a musician hired to sing at a wedding.  A business license or whatever the state might require does not change this.  It also doesn’t mean that one is required to serve the public.

With that said, it also has nothing to do with the issue at hand. Joe had a signed contract and decided to terminate that contract. He's going to be liable for the cancellation as was specified in the contract. Without seeing the contract, it's tough to say.

I don't see discrimination with Walshs' actions.  It's not discriminatory to refuse to do something other than what you contracted for.
A non-partisan benefit concert for veterans families is not the same thing as performing for a partisan political party.

The baker contracts to bake a wedding cake.  If the customer expects a birthday cake and four different kinds of cookies, that would be the same as Walshs' situation.

Either way, misrepresenting the terms of the contract voids the contract.

That's not how it works. The baker would sign a contract for services, as did Walsh. It is the exact same situation. Independent parties contracted to perform services for others. Also, not sure how you can believe that ordering cookies as well would change anything from a legal standpoint.

Walsh's contract wouldn't be void as the concert was still for veterans families. It's still legally binding unless he can bring it to the courts and have them throw it out. Reading in between the lines, Walsh's announcement was exactly 90 days before the concert. It was likely a mutually cancel-able contract provided that either party provide 90-days written notice of cancellation. That would be quite common for service contracts.

[linderlizzie]

"It was my understanding that I was playing a concert which was a non partisan event to benefit the families of American veterans on Monday, July 18 in Cleveland. The admat I approved said this specifically. Today it was announced that this event is, in fact, a launch for the Republican National Convention. In addition, my name is to be used to raise sponsorship dollars for convention-related purposes. Therefore, I must humbly withdraw my participation in this event with apologies to any fans or veterans and their families that I might disappoint.
 
I am very concerned about the rampant vitriol, fear-mongering and bullying coming from the current Republican campaigns.  It is both isolationist and spiteful. I cannot in good conscience endorse the Republican party in any way. I will look at doing a veteran related benefit concert later this year."
 
 -- Joe Walsh

Thank you Paints for including Joe Walsh's tasteful and totally appropriate letter. I think it was well written and it seems that his declining to perform was his choice since he feels he was misled.

I'm not sure why this started a firestorm on Fusion Cash. We certainly are an expressive and passionate people, aren't we? 

 

[DwanaMR]

"It was my understanding that I was playing a concert which was a non partisan event to benefit the families of American veterans on Monday, July 18 in Cleveland. The admat I approved said this specifically. Today it was announced that this event is, in fact, a launch for the Republican National Convention. In addition, my name is to be used to raise sponsorship dollars for convention-related purposes. Therefore, I must humbly withdraw my participation in this event with apologies to any fans or veterans and their families that I might disappoint.
 
I am very concerned about the rampant vitriol, fear-mongering and bullying coming from the current Republican campaigns.  It is both isolationist and spiteful. I cannot in good conscience endorse the Republican party in any way. I will look at doing a veteran related benefit concert later this year."
 
 -- Joe Walsh

Thank you Paints for including Joe Walsh's tasteful and totally appropriate letter. I think it was well written and it seems that his declining to perform was his choice since he feels he was misled.

I'm not sure why this started a firestorm on Fusion Cash. We certainly are an expressive and passionate people, aren't we? 

 

"...rampant vitriol, fear-mongering, and bullying..."  That's "tasteful and totally appropriate", linderlizzie?

[paints]

They misrepresented the gig to him in the first place.  Once you lie, you don't get to hold onto the moral high ground.
It's an apples to oranges argument, conflating the baker with the musician.
The baker is open to the public, so he should serve the public. 

The musician is an independent contractor, so he has the option of making music for whomever he pleases.

As far as Joe Walsh reneging on a contract, if the contract misrepresents the terms, it's null and void on its face.

The Eagles are a registered for-profit corporation under the name of Eagles LTD. Without a doubt in my mind, Joe Walsh has made the same corporate filings for his personal gigs. It would only make sense for tax and liability reasons. Given that, does that now make this discrimination in your eyes?

But the baker is not an independent contractor.  His business is licensed by the state,  to serve the public.
If he doesn't want to do that, then he can become an independent contractor and pick and choose his clientele.
And there is no such thing as a "gay wedding cake."  It's just a wedding cake.

An independent contractor can be a person, business, or corporation. A baker making a cake for wedding is acting as an independent contractor. It’s no different than a musician hired to sing at a wedding.  A business license or whatever the state might require does not change this.  It also doesn’t mean that one is required to serve the public.

With that said, it also has nothing to do with the issue at hand. Joe had a signed contract and decided to terminate that contract. He's going to be liable for the cancellation as was specified in the contract. Without seeing the contract, it's tough to say.

I don't see discrimination with Walshs' actions.  It's not discriminatory to refuse to do something other than what you contracted for.
A non-partisan benefit concert for veterans families is not the same thing as performing for a partisan political party.

The baker contracts to bake a wedding cake.  If the customer expects a birthday cake and four different kinds of cookies, that would be the same as Walshs' situation.

Either way, misrepresenting the terms of the contract voids the contract.

That's not how it works. The baker would sign a contract for services, as did Walsh. It is the exact same situation. Independent parties contracted to perform services for others. Also, not sure how you can believe that ordering cookies as well would change anything from a legal standpoint.

Walsh's contract wouldn't be void as the concert was still for veterans families. It's still legally binding unless he can bring it to the courts and have them throw it out. Reading in between the lines, Walsh's announcement was exactly 90 days before the concert. It was likely a mutually cancel-able contract provided that either party provide 90-days written notice of cancellation. That would be quite common for service contracts.

Not "ordering cookies as well."  Expecting cookies as well, which were not part of the contract.

[paints]

"It was my understanding that I was playing a concert which was a non partisan event to benefit the families of American veterans on Monday, July 18 in Cleveland. The admat I approved said this specifically. Today it was announced that this event is, in fact, a launch for the Republican National Convention. In addition, my name is to be used to raise sponsorship dollars for convention-related purposes. Therefore, I must humbly withdraw my participation in this event with apologies to any fans or veterans and their families that I might disappoint.
 
I am very concerned about the rampant vitriol, fear-mongering and bullying coming from the current Republican campaigns.  It is both isolationist and spiteful. I cannot in good conscience endorse the Republican party in any way. I will look at doing a veteran related benefit concert later this year."
 
 -- Joe Walsh

Thank you Paints for including Joe Walsh's tasteful and totally appropriate letter. I think it was well written and it seems that his declining to perform was his choice since he feels he was misled.

I'm not sure why this started a firestorm on Fusion Cash. We certainly are an expressive and passionate people, aren't we? 

 

You're welcome, Linderlizzie. 
Better to start with what was actually said, rather than our reaction to it. 

[hawkeye3210]

They misrepresented the gig to him in the first place.  Once you lie, you don't get to hold onto the moral high ground.
It's an apples to oranges argument, conflating the baker with the musician.
The baker is open to the public, so he should serve the public. 

The musician is an independent contractor, so he has the option of making music for whomever he pleases.

As far as Joe Walsh reneging on a contract, if the contract misrepresents the terms, it's null and void on its face.

The Eagles are a registered for-profit corporation under the name of Eagles LTD. Without a doubt in my mind, Joe Walsh has made the same corporate filings for his personal gigs. It would only make sense for tax and liability reasons. Given that, does that now make this discrimination in your eyes?

But the baker is not an independent contractor.  His business is licensed by the state,  to serve the public.
If he doesn't want to do that, then he can become an independent contractor and pick and choose his clientele.
And there is no such thing as a "gay wedding cake."  It's just a wedding cake.

An independent contractor can be a person, business, or corporation. A baker making a cake for wedding is acting as an independent contractor. It’s no different than a musician hired to sing at a wedding.  A business license or whatever the state might require does not change this.  It also doesn’t mean that one is required to serve the public.

With that said, it also has nothing to do with the issue at hand. Joe had a signed contract and decided to terminate that contract. He's going to be liable for the cancellation as was specified in the contract. Without seeing the contract, it's tough to say.

I don't see discrimination with Walshs' actions.  It's not discriminatory to refuse to do something other than what you contracted for.
A non-partisan benefit concert for veterans families is not the same thing as performing for a partisan political party.

The baker contracts to bake a wedding cake.  If the customer expects a birthday cake and four different kinds of cookies, that would be the same as Walshs' situation.

Either way, misrepresenting the terms of the contract voids the contract.

That's not how it works. The baker would sign a contract for services, as did Walsh. It is the exact same situation. Independent parties contracted to perform services for others. Also, not sure how you can believe that ordering cookies as well would change anything from a legal standpoint.

Walsh's contract wouldn't be void as the concert was still for veterans families. It's still legally binding unless he can bring it to the courts and have them throw it out. Reading in between the lines, Walsh's announcement was exactly 90 days before the concert. It was likely a mutually cancel-able contract provided that either party provide 90-days written notice of cancellation. That would be quite common for service contracts.

Not "ordering cookies as well."  Expecting cookies as well, which were not part of the contract.

Walsh wasn't expected to provide any additional goods/services other than what was in his contract. Even if there was that expectation, it doesn't void his original contract. Just like baker would still be under contract for the cake.

[paints]

The original contract was a non-partisan event. 
"Today it was announced that this event is, in fact, a launch for the Republican National Convention. In addition, my name is to be used to raise sponsorship dollars for convention-related purposes."

If the contract he signed states non-partisan,  specifically, then the contact is void, by their own actions.

[hawkeye3210]

The original contract was a non-partisan event. 
"Today it was announced that this event is, in fact, a launch for the Republican National Convention. In addition, my name is to be used to raise sponsorship dollars for convention-related purposes."

If the contract he signed states non-partisan,  specifically, then the contact is void, by their own actions.

The concert is not part of the RNC. Walsh cancelled because of the mere appearance of an association with the event which takes place the day after the concert. It's still a veteran’s benefit concert. The concert itself is a non-partisan event.

[king4cash]

Without Morals, you are nobody...you have to stand for something

[blackprincenow]

we will see the outcome of what happen

[sfreeman8]

Whoa Whoa Whoa. A baker has the same rights to refuse customers as anybody. Most places go so far to have a sign saying as much.

No, they don't. The lawsuit against the bakery in Oregon (or was it Denver) that refused to bake the cake/cater the wedding of a gay couple proves it. The Oregon bakery was fined $135K and  wound up going out of business because of it. Was that fair? It really was a setup by the LGBT community. Yet the LGBT bakery was allowed to refuse baking a cake for a straight couple and nothing came of it.