|
|
This article was published on January 22 of this year, but I just happened on it now:
$6 Million Anti-Abortion Movie Seeks Major Label Music, But Finds No Takers I'm in general agreement that in a free country, a business can reserve the right to refuse service in most situations. The music publishers denying Unplanned across the board could still be defended from that position. This is why the cake-baking controversy ended with the Supreme Court ruling in favor of the baker in the Colorado case. This is why I think it rude and wrong, but it was still legal for the Red Hen restaurant to refuse service to Sarah Sanders. What isn't being adequately considered is the overall effect this sort of group think censorship has on those watching from the sidelines. There is certainly a difference between multiple bakeries to choose from, but only one official avenue by which published songs may be utilized in a movie. The message is clear: you are either pro-abortion in the entertainment industry, or you are out. Attempting to confuse the issue by calling it "pro-choice" does not ennoble the end result. Then there's the obvious conclusion one should draw from Unplanned's struggle with those who want to control what the public sees and hears: Pro-choice supporters are afraid. There can be no other explanation for the deliberate blocking of such an inoffensive film. So honestly, what are they afraid of? That people will be shown, without condemnation nor demonization, what it truly means to abort a child, and within the context of an authentic setting? Consider the vegan tactic of showing footage of animals being slaughtered for food. If after viewing cows being slaughtered for example, the viewers continue to eat beef, at least now they're aware of what it took to get that hamburger to their plate. But the media industry complex does not want you to possess analogous information regarding abortion. Why not? I mean seriously...why not? |