>>...but I think it's the band that said they were against them using the song based on a moral judgement call - as in they don't like what the lady stands for. I *think* that Kevin's point is (he can correct me if I'm wrong) is that if that's the moral argument that the band wants to make, then they shouldn't single out just her, it should be everyone who's morals they don't agree with.

The argument doesn't make sense- it's like saying that if you have a particular dislike of apples, you oughtn't eat oranges or other fruit or you're being inconsistent. Preference never has been black or white and there's nothing abnormal about having one or two strong preferences.

In this case there isn't any certainty that the band has or has not called out others. Seems to me they were peeved at seeing their song stolen by people who should know better, to promote a cause in a fashion that might suggest that Survivor blessed the event. What I recall very clearly is stars saying you need to control associations or your name gets connected to all sorts of things which then cheapens any cause you do decide to promote. But none of this matters if Survivor owns the rights to play the song at a rally. They can allow or disallow as they please and people who don't like it and don't like their songs anyway, have no reasonable expectation that their dissent matters.