LAMB OF GOD Banned From Performing In L.A.

[Bunbury]

LAMB OF GOD are being forced to step aside from one of their arena concerts on the upcoming Subliminal Verses Tour with SLIPKNOT, because of their name LAMB OF GOD and former moniker BURN THE PRIEST.

The venue, The Forum in Los Angeles, is owned by The Faithful Central Bible Church, who decided to impose a ruling to ban LAMB OF GOD's performance at their venue.

LAMB OF GOD have come off of several extremely successful headline runs through L.A. in the last year, so this move comes completely unexpected for the band and the tour as a whole. Los Angeles is, and has always been, a huge market for the band, building steadily with each one of their releases and tours as well as and exploding with the bands current CD, "Ashes of the Wake" (Epic).

In deciding to ban LAMB OF GOD's performance, The Faithful Central Bible Church are imposing on the public's freedom of speech, choice and assembly; the band's art along with the bands ability to conduct commerce.

Drummer Chris Adler commented, "The 'situation' in L.A. can only be described as ridiculous. It's already been a huge waste of energy trying to turn this around. The powers that be aren't interested budging — or doing their research apparently — and we've never been a band to placate anyone to get our way, smooth things over or make anyone feel better. They have made it clear that they don't want us because of our name, our show and our crowd — because of that ignorance, LAMB OF GOD is not being permitted to appear on the Subliminal Verses concert in L.A. It's truly a shame for the show overall, especially for our friends and fans in L.A. that are being forced to miss our part of the show. Trust that this was not our decision, we'd love to kick some ass in L.A., but apparently the word from the powers that be is that LAMB OF GOD is not the wholesome family fun that the good people of Los Angeles deserve."

 

[knox]

Um....it's not infringing on freedom of speech, choice, or assembly if it's a private organization on private property...

 

[Bunbury]

thats true.

 

[u2popmofo]

retarded

 

[Bunbury]

thats true too

 

[wolfeden]

(weren't they just out with FearFactory?)

sheezus that's lame.

 

[wolfeden]

Um....it's not infringing on freedom of speech, choice, or assembly if it's a private organization on private property...

okay hold on. lemme play macphisto's advocate here for a sec..

all venues are private property.

so... say in your town, the majority of music playing venues eventually become owned by groups such as the one Bunbury mentions. Tell me you're not going to get a bit tee'd off when bands you want to see suddenly can't play <Your Local Arena> because of the religious views of the owners?

Now, none of this negates your point. You are correct in what you stated. I'm just saying it's setting an abhorrent precedent for the industry.

What I wonder is, what kind of covenant is implied in the ownership of a facility intended solely to serve the public, as the Forum is? Nobody's asking the Faithful Central Bible Church to have the concert in their place of worship. They purchased an *entertainment venue* and now wish to censor the bookings solely based on some perception of religious issue - not talent, not an individual choice of booking.

Is this not, point of fact, discriminatory on the basis of religious belief?

 

[BAW]

I guess they didn't check Motley Crue's back catalogue when they booked them for March 23rd...or maybe they just promised not to play Shout at the Devil

 

[UnforgettableLemon]

Well, (I really shouldn't know this), in regards to Motley Crue's "Shout at the Devil," according to the liner notes in the rereleased version of the album, Nikki Sixx says the song is actually an anti-Satanist song. So make of that what you will. I think the Motley Crue playing there thing is that no one takes them seriously anyway.

 

[BAW]

I've heard that too (the ant-Satanist comment) and it may well be true but the lyrics really aren't all that "family friendly"

Considering my age and that I was in high school when they hit it big (LOL), I mostly associate Motley Crue with pentagrams, make-up and

It just seems weird that the church would cancel one band for not being family friendly and allow another whose past is not exactly squeaky clean either. I guess these days, that's all pretty laughable and not very scary.

 

[IWasBored]

lame.

50 cent was allowed to play in my town, and you mean the good people of amherst, MA (aka "we want to be the most PC town in the world!") weren't morally offended by his "music"? come on, if "you maa bitch, niggaaaaaaa!!" doesn't offend the owners of the mullins center (quite the opposite, he was booked to headline the spring concert a couple years ago), a former band name shouldn't be an issue*



*disclaimer, i'm not totally serious in putting that up for an arguement - i'm mostly joking. the "lame" part was how i really feel about this. although what's more lame is slipknot...

 

[typhoon]

Oh man, God is gonna be pissed.

 

[knox]

okay hold on. lemme play macphisto's advocate here for a sec..

all venues are private property.

so... say in your town, the majority of music playing venues eventually become owned by groups such as the one Bunbury mentions. Tell me you're not going to get a bit tee'd off when bands you want to see suddenly can't play <Your Local Arena> because of the religious views of the owners?

Now, none of this negates your point. You are correct in what you stated. I'm just saying it's setting an abhorrent precedent for the industry.

What I wonder is, what kind of covenant is implied in the ownership of a facility intended solely to serve the public, as the Forum is? Nobody's asking the Faithful Central Bible Church to have the concert in their place of worship. They purchased an *entertainment venue* and now wish to censor the bookings solely based on some perception of religious issue - not talent, not an individual choice of booking.

Is this not, point of fact, discriminatory on the basis of religious belief?

Actually, these guys use the Forum as their place of worship, which is why they bought it.

If they have a religious issue with some music, it is their RIGHT to say, no, you aren't playing here. Do I think it's silly? Yeah, but they can, and it's not a violation of the Constitution, as implied in the first post of this thread.

As a (privately owned) public venue, I don't think that they can say that people can't buy tickets and go to see the shows, but they are well within their rights to choose who to book.

 

[Zoomerang96]

Actually, these guys use the Forum as their place of worship, which is why they bought it.

If they have a religious issue with some music, it is their RIGHT to say, no, you aren't playing here. Do I think it's silly? Yeah, but they can, and it's not a violation of the Constitution, as implied in the first post of this thread.

As a (privately owned) public venue, I don't think that they can say that people can't buy tickets and go to see the shows, but they are well within their rights to choose who to book.

this is true.

however, i have no idea why they let the other bands play...

 

[Bunbury]

(weren't they just out with FearFactory?)

yup, I was at that show, kick ass!