>>Please go read the statements by Survivor's Frankie Sullivan about the recent situation. His statements are in contradiction to your 2 sentences here. He can't have it both ways, and neither can you.
No contradiction to the fact that these are property rights. He does not need to offer an explanation. If he chooses to, it's still somebody exercising their property rights. Your impression of his explanation is irrelevant to his exercise of his property rights. You could go and write a song called the Rear End of the Tiger and offer it to Huckabee and the same principle would apply whether Sullivan likes it or not. In the end, the property owner can make whatever legal determination they like. Unless you're saying that musicians should not be allowed to exercise property rights unless Kevin Goff approves of their explanation?
"... They ne'er cared for us
yet: suffer us to famish, and their store-houses
crammed with grain; make edicts for usury, to
support usurers; repeal daily any wholesome act
established against the rich, and provide more
piercing statutes daily, to chain up and restrain
the poor. If the wars eat us not up, they will; and
there's all the love they bear us."
-- Shakespeare: Coriolanus, Act 1, scene 1