Replies

I think seriously on these types of news announcements.

I am not sure what Perlman’s orientation is, and it doesn’t matter. He and many others not only bow out of engaging in events in NC but they also ANNOUNCE THE REASON FOR CANCELLING.

So there is a clue in itself. Why the need to ‘explain’? The need is to put political pressure on the NC government to reverse their law, and perhaps more importantly to warn other governments that are working on the same type of legislation.

There is a society of agents for international star performers. These agents are always talking to each other about scheduling their performer either with others or separate from others so as to maximize ticket sales.

It is against an agent’s instinctive desire to rake in sales receipts that they would make a cancellation and then ANNOUNCE THE REASON for doing so.

So what could it be? What would make these agents cancel an entire state with so much money at stake? Bathrooms? No. That’s silly.

What’s making them cancel is the existence of another society, a bigger and more influential society, that orders cancellations or else. Perlman’s agent likely heard someone on the phone demand a cancellation be made OR ELSE. Or else what? Or else Perlman wasn’t going to get any offers from other lucrative performance venues.

What we have is a political force, a business force, and a financing force, all pressuring performers to tow a political line or else. All this for the purpose of confusing gender identity which amounts to nearly zero percent of the wider public.

It should be obvious this is agenda driven.

Now here’s a way to view a means to fight back:

Perlman, by cancelling his performance in venues where the public chooses via their elected representatives to set proper norms and traditions, is in fact, himself DISCRIMINATING AGAINST TRADITIONS of a region, a public society.

The homosexual lobby has shown the way in how they file lawsuits against Christian businesses and push for heavy prosecution.

A way to possibly fight back is to sue the business of Perlman, sue his agent and any John Does that are revealed to have coerced him or his agent. The plaintiff can sue for religious discrimination by Perlman and named parties.

Once the lawsuit is filed in a friendly court, the plaintiff’s lawyers can ANNOUNCE that Perlman is being sued for damages over religious discrimination, damages amounting to lost revenues to patrons of the arts, to the local businesses that normally benefit from crowds attending his performances, from the public who feel ‘emotionally distressed’ by Perlman’s discrimination, and so on.

The idea is to get on the offence because otherwise this nonsense will never stop. But more importantly, the first battles must be won decisively. The very best, most aggressive, most esteemed lawyers must be retained to file such lawsuits to maximize the probability of winning. Because there is one certainty in the legal workd, successful lawsuits that achieve damage awards build themselves a cottage industry of lawsuits.

And the result will be all the performers that have made it to the limelight will never ever be sucked into political coercion again. In the Perlman case, his agent will be begging to not have him involved in ‘following orders’ from those setting the agenda because of legal risk.