Or, at least, technically he probably is, for taxing and business purposes, but for practical applications he's an individual.

See, here's the thing the "religious freedom" rulemongers don't seem to understand: everyone, EVERYONE, in this country, already had religious freedom allowing them to not do business with people of other creeds, genders, and races than they're comfortable with. To wit, if you don't want to do business with black people, or gay people, or Pagan people or HIV-positive people or whatever, you're already perfectly legally allowed to make that choice by not taking a job where you have to. It's as simple as that. Nobody forces you to work, and nobody forces you to contractually obligate yourself to the standards of any corporation. On the other hand, by joining a corporation you are committing yourself, contractually, to following the same rules that corporation is required to, and most jobs -- including, and rightfully so, government positions -- are de facto required to serve any and everyone.

It really is that simple. You don't want to do something, don't take a job that requires it, because there are plenty of other jobs and opportunities out there where you can pursue your personal agenda without harming the welfare or access to services of others. Instead, however, we have individuals thinking that their personal views dictate what the government and corporations should require them to do regardless of the contractual obligations of said entities, and that's where we get into the issues we're having now. For government and businesses, being diverse in your acceptance policies, open to all walks of life, isn't just ethically commendable, but financially preferrable, since it grants a business with more opportunities to distribute wares (thereby profiting,) and gives the government a greater number of individuals likely to benefit from its oversight, and in the long run allows that government greater power (and profits too.)

So, in short, as an individual it's perfectly within Bruce's rights to refuse anyone and anything he wants on the level of personal convictions because he isn't representing an industry or a company or a government, only his own views. It's the same reason it was fine for Ray Charles to refuse to play for segregated crowds, too. Heck, for that matter it's also why it's financially more sound of businesses -- regardless of the personal ethical views of CEOs and such -- to side with diversity over narrow-mindedness because it opens them up to a larger market base as a whole, giving more profit opportunities, which is why any recording or booking businesses The Boss works with are unlikely to penalize him for this either, since his choice pushes a financially sound agenda for them.

Melanie E.