d3b453r

This is moot; the two situations are not equivalent. Nobody is prevented from purchasing a Queen song based on political affiliation (or sexual orientation), and being able to listen to it. That would be comparable to the baker refusing to bake/decorate a cake for certain customers.

 

Licensing for broadcast or public use is an issue of copyright, and nobody is obligated to license their intellectual property to anyone, except under certain specific conditions.

This is an interesting distinction I had not considered. So in your view is it permissible for intellectual property be withheld on the basis of anything (e.g. race, sexual orientation, political orientation)?

I watched an episode of Through The Wormhole (Are We All Bigots?) the other day where this subject came under the spotlight. It seems that there is neurological evidence to support the notion that conservatives and liberals are "wired differently", that they use different parts of the brain to ponder certain matters that would typically be associated with a pro-conservative or pro-liberal stance (not only towards a specific political party, but also i.t.o. racism and opinions re gun control, climate change, etc). That would suggest more nature and less nurture..?

I certainly think it is more nature than most people believe. I will have to check out Through the Wormhole, never heard of it.

This question came out of a friend's comments about whether or not the RNC should be allowed to use a song by Queen. Long story short, my friend asserted that a Christian baker should be required to bake a cake for a gay wedding, but Queen should not be required to sell song usage rights to a conservative. His reasoning was that "one you're born with, one you choose".