# Gen Con Takes Stand For Inclusiveness



## KirayaTiDrekan (Mar 24, 2015)

Very awesome move on their part.  I applaud and hope it has the desired effect.

(And that's all I have to say about that because such topics can get heated and divisive very quickly.)


----------



## Fallen star (Mar 24, 2015)

Gen Con is free to provide their service to any customer they choose. Other businesses in Indiana should have that same right.

If Gen Con doesn't like that, they are free to move to another state.


----------



## Fergurg (Mar 24, 2015)

Fallen star said:


> Gen Con is free to provide their service to any customer they choose. Other businesses in Indiana should have that same right.
> 
> If Gen Con doesn't like that, they are free to move to another state.




I'd give you XP if it could be done for news stories.


----------



## KirayaTiDrekan (Mar 24, 2015)

Breaking my previous promise, sorry about this...

People like me (transgender in my case) have a very real fear of not only discrimination but hostile and sometimes violent environments where ever discrimination is legal, as Indiana is about to be.  Laws like this create an atmosphere of permission - permission to discriminate, permission to escalate, permission to go beyond discrimination.

Gen Con, like any convention, brings people from all over the world to a single city.  A very diverse range of people who may or may not realize that the local businesses have a "we don't serve their kind here" policy.  

In effect, Gen Con has to choose - continue to welcome the full diverse range of gamers but knowingly endanger some of them; close their doors to that diversity and suffer a loss of reputation and revenue; or move.  The choice they are making - taking a stand - is simply the right thing to do.  

No one should feel unwelcome at Gen Con - except those who would make others feel unwelcome.


----------



## Janx (Mar 24, 2015)

and this is why we can't discuss politics on ENworld.


----------



## SteveC (Mar 24, 2015)

I really miss the days when Gen Con had nothing to do with politics. You know, like last year. Or every other year before that.

Sigh.


----------



## Shemeska (Mar 24, 2015)

I'm proud of GenCon for this. All that I'll say


----------



## Fergurg (Mar 24, 2015)

Kiraya_TiDrekan said:


> Breaking my previous promise, sorry about this...
> 
> People like me (transgender in my case) have a very real fear of not only discrimination but hostile and sometimes violent environments where ever discrimination is legal, as Indiana is about to be.  Laws like this create an atmosphere of permission - permission to discriminate, permission to escalate, permission to go beyond discrimination.
> 
> ...




But that stand is demanding that the business should not be allowed to make a choice on whether or not they will be part of a transaction. Why should anybody be forced to do business with you if they don't want to?


----------



## Umbran (Mar 25, 2015)

Fallen star said:


> Gen Con is free to provide their service to any customer they choose. Other businesses in Indiana should have that same right.




It may not be quite so simple, as businesses are interconnected - if someone cannot get service in a restaurant or bar, they may not come back to the convention.  Thus, how other businesses in the state treat con-goers may impact the business of the convention.  With gamers being more sensitive to such matters these days, being silent on the matter may have seemed a bad business choice for Gen Con.



> If Gen Con doesn't like that, they are free to move to another state.




Given a 5 year contract, picking up and moving may not be possible, or may be very costly.  And Gen Con reportedly brings something like $50 million dollars to the local economy, so whether they go or stay, now or five years from now, is going to be important to the area.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Mar 25, 2015)

SteveC said:


> I really miss the days when Gen Con had nothing to do with politics. You know, like last year. Or every other year before that.
> 
> Sigh.



Well when big business weighs in, politicians take notice.  Apple threatened to leave Louisiana if they elected "former" klansman  David Duke in a gubernatorial runoff with (convicted felon) former Gov. Edwin Edwards.

As to this situation, I'll just say this: a politician in another state where a similar law is being considered proposed an Ammendment: pass the law, but any business choosing to discriminate based on religious grounds as permitted by the law had to post a highly-visible sign saying exactly whom they were discriminating against.  Amusingly, a similar tact was taken by the Detroit chapter of the Church of Satan, and helpfully, has even started printing signs.

The logic: the arch conservatives get their freedom to discriminate, but without the shield of anonymity and plausible deniability.  Those who would be affected by the refusal would save time and embarrassment by not going into this businesses in the first place...as would those who feel solidarity for their plight.

Very much in keeping with Adam Smith's "invisible hand".

Oddly, the push for those laws in those states has lost some steam.


----------



## KirayaTiDrekan (Mar 25, 2015)

Fergurg said:


> But that stand is demanding that the business should not be allowed to make a choice on whether or not they will be part of a transaction. Why should anybody be forced to do business with you if they don't want to?




For the same reason businesses are no longer allowed to discriminate on the basis of skin color.  No class of people should be made to feel less than human.

I hope Gen Con moves to a more progressive city, I really do.


----------



## Fergurg (Mar 25, 2015)

This is not a stand for inclusiveness - this is a stand for telling businesses, "Sorry, you thought you had the right to decide which transactions you want to be a part of? Well, I have decided that I will decide how your business is run."


----------



## Zaruthustran (Mar 25, 2015)

Fallen star said:


> Gen Con is free to provide their service to any customer they choose.  Other businesses in Indiana should have that same right.




Nope. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964 & http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americans_with_Disabilities_Act_of_1990

Here's the text for SB 101: https://iga.in.gov/legislative/2015/bills/senate/101#document-92bab197

Gencon is not free to provide (or not provide) their service to "any customer they choose" on grounds of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, or disability. That's what the civil rights act and ADA protects. Sexual orientation discrimination laws are state-by-state, though supreme court rulings are trending toward disagreeing with discrimination.

SB 101 prevents "burdening a person's exercise of religion." Gencon's concern (as seen in first and third paragraphs) is that SB 101 will essentially give the state's blessing to discriminating on basis of "sexual orientation, gender identities, and socio-economic backgrounds," as those are the only classes of people from their list in 1st paragraph not already covered by the civil rights act and ADA.


----------



## Janx (Mar 25, 2015)

Fergurg said:


> But that stand is demanding that the business should not be allowed to make a choice on whether or not they will be part of a transaction. Why should anybody be forced to do business with you if they don't want to?




Because businesses that single out a group of people to discriminate against are being bad.  Every time somebody's been allowed to do that, it's been found to be bad.


----------



## Forged Fury (Mar 25, 2015)

Fergurg said:


> This is not a stand for inclusiveness - this is a stand for telling businesses, "Sorry, you thought you had the right to decide which transactions you want to be a part of? Well, I have decided that I will decide how your business is run."




You are aware that the Civil Rights Act disallows a public business from refusing service due to a variety of factors, right? The problem the LGBTQ community is (currently) facing is that they aren't a protected class. I give it about 5 years before these discussions are largely moot.


----------



## KirayaTiDrekan (Mar 25, 2015)

Forged Fury said:


> You are aware that the Civil Rights Act disallows a public business from refusing service due to a variety of factors, right? The problem the LGBTQ community is (currently) facing is that they aren't a protected class. I give it about 5 years before these discussions are largely moot.




I certainly hope so.  Being a second-class citizen is no fun, let me tell ya.


----------



## Fergurg (Mar 25, 2015)

Kiraya_TiDrekan said:


> For the same reason businesses are no longer allowed to discriminate on the basis of skin color.  No class of people should be made to feel less than human.
> 
> I hope Gen Con moves to a more progressive city, I really do.




No, but you are demanding that a class of people - business owners - do not have as many rights as you - a transsexual - do. You do not have to do business with them. You do not have to give them your money, and you don't even have to justify it. "I just don't like you" is a valid reason for choosing to not be a customer. And yet, you feel that you should be allowed to compel others to enter into a transaction with you. Sorry, but that's not OK with me.


----------



## Janx (Mar 25, 2015)

Fergurg said:


> This is not a stand for inclusiveness - this is a stand for telling businesses, "Sorry, you thought you had the right to decide which transactions you want to be a part of? Well, I have decided that I will decide how your business is run."




I'll say this crudely, so the point gets across.

Your line of thinking is why 50 years ago, shops in Indiana could say " aren't welcome here"

I sincerely hope that you do not subscribe to that racist creed.

Which is why signs that say "fags aren't welcome here" is the same thing.

The anti-discriminations laws exist so folks are treated the same way.  Anybody who can't abide by that has no right to run a business in the United States of America.


----------



## uriel222 (Mar 25, 2015)

Fallen star said:


> Gen Con is free to provide their service to any customer they choose. Other businesses in Indiana should have that same right.
> 
> If Gen Con doesn't like that, they are free to move to another state.




Said the straight, white, male.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Mar 25, 2015)

I wouldn't be surprised to find that a good attorney could get GenCon out of that 5 year contract on the grounds of something like Force Majeur: "we can't fulfill our side of the contract because the laws of the state create an insurmountable barrier to our ability to run our business profitably."  Or some such.


----------



## Zaruthustran (Mar 25, 2015)

Fergurg said:


> No, but you are demanding that a class of people - business owners - do not have as many rights as you - a transsexual - do. You do not have to do business with them. You do not have to give them your money, and you don't even have to justify it. "I just don't like you" is a valid reason for choosing to not be a customer. And yet, you feel that you should be allowed to compel others to enter into a transaction with you. Sorry, but that's not OK with me.




Please read the links I posted. These aren't demands by any one user here at ENWorld--they're Federal laws, enacted by elected representatives. 

Check out this link. It gives a pretty comprehensive overview of when "I just don't like you" is okay, and when it's illegal. https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/...fuse-service-to-someone-because-of-appearance


----------



## Uller (Mar 25, 2015)

Personally, I'd prefer to know if a business owner hates me enough to not want to do business with me or one of my friends...then I'd know not to do business with him or her.

What is not forbidden shall be mandatory.


----------



## uriel222 (Mar 25, 2015)

Fergurg said:


> No, but you are demanding that a class of people - business owners - do not have as many rights as you - a transsexual - do. You do not have to do business with them. You do not have to give them your money, and you don't even have to justify it. "I just don't like you" is a valid reason for choosing to not be a customer. And yet, you feel that you should be allowed to compel others to enter into a transaction with you. Sorry, but that's not OK with me.




Really? _Really?_ "No dogs or Irish" is fine with you? *In 2015?!?


*


----------



## KirayaTiDrekan (Mar 25, 2015)

Fergurg said:


> No, but you are demanding that a class of people - business owners - do not have as many rights as you - a transsexual - do. You do not have to do business with them. You do not have to give them your money, and you don't even have to justify it. "I just don't like you" is a valid reason for choosing to not be a customer. And yet, you feel that you should be allowed to compel others to enter into a transaction with you. Sorry, but that's not OK with me.




Businesses hold all the cards in this case.  If I go to Gen Con with this law in effect, I could be refused a place to stay, food to eat, or over the counter medicines.  As a customer, my refusing to do business with a company is a choice on my part, sometimes a political statement, sometimes just a personal decision.  As a business, refusing service to a group of people is discrimination.  It is, simply put, bigotry.  There are no nice words for it.  There are no capitalist justifications.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Mar 25, 2015)

Fergurg said:


> No, but you are demanding that a class of people - business owners - do not have as many rights as you - a transsexual - do. You do not have to do business with them. You do not have to give them your money, and you don't even have to justify it. "I just don't like you" is a valid reason for choosing to not be a customer. And yet, you feel that you should be allowed to compel others to enter into a transaction with you. Sorry, but that's not OK with me.




As has been pointed out, that isn't how the law works in the USA.  As the saying goes, "Your right to swing your fist ends just beyond the tip of my nose."  IOW, we all have rights, but they come with corresponding duties.

You ARE permitted to refuse service, true, but if your reason is based on certain prejudices or directed at certain classes of people, that is _illegal_.  

Currently, the LGBT community does not get universal coverage by said laws.  But the laws are trending in that direction.


----------



## Fergurg (Mar 25, 2015)

I don't subscribe to that racist creed. But I do think that a business should be allowed to post "No whites" if they want to. Let the market decide what happens. Because - it's not my business, so I should not be allowed to compel them to do business.


----------



## Fergurg (Mar 25, 2015)

uriel222 said:


> Really? _Really?_ "No dogs or Irish" is fine with you? *In 2015?!?
> *




Should the business be allowed to post that? Absolutely. Would I go in there? No. But should I compel them to do business with dogs and Irish? No.


----------



## vongarr (Mar 25, 2015)

The Governor is not a local politician. 

I hope at some point, the various gaming communities can get back to _gaming_ and resolve all of these social issues. I'm not saying it's OK to do this sort of thing (because it isn't) but stuff like this is a distraction to what brings all of us together. People say "straight, white, male" like it is a bad thing. It shouldn't be good, or bad. It should only be a _thing_, like any other thing.


----------



## uriel222 (Mar 25, 2015)

Fergurg said:


> I don't subscribe to that racist creed. But I do think that a business should be allowed to post "No whites" if they want to. Let the market decide what happens. Because - it's not my business, so I should not be allowed to compel them to do business.




I see where you're coming from, and to an extent, I sympathize.

BUT:

People don't always have the luxury of choosing to take their business elsewhere, nor should they be forced to.  Discrimination is discrimination, and should not be tolerated in a fair and just society. Look up Tyranny of the Majority. It's not right, it's not ethical, and it's not *fair*. So yes, to the extent that some business owner is required to serve the icky gays, just to permit human dignity, I will infringe their rights.


----------



## SteveC (Mar 25, 2015)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> We'll when big business weighs in, politicians take notice.  Apple threatened to leave Louisiana if they elected "former" klansman  David Duke in a gubernatorial runoff with (convicted felon) former Gov. Edwin Edwards.



That's very true. On the other hand, in the few minutes that this thread has been live I think you can see a lot of the rhetoric that politics can bring out that ends civil conversation. That's why we don't talk about it here.

I want Gen Con to be about pretending to be elves and having a beer with my friends I don't see but once a year. Friends that vehemently disagree on this very issue. I want to have that fun with them and not have it be about politics.

I guess what I'm saying is that as much as everything has to be about politics these days, and everything about politics has to be a fight to the death, I preferred when gaming could be not about that at all, and when people who disagreed on, well, you name the issue, could just forget about the rest of the things they disagree on and simply have some fun playing games.

If that were to break apart, that would be sad.


----------



## uriel222 (Mar 25, 2015)

Fergurg said:


> Should the business be allowed to post that? Absolutely. Would I go in there? No. But should I compel them to do business with dogs and Irish? No.




That's the crux of it, isn't it? Two rights are in conflict. One, the business' right to refuse service, and Two, the client's right to be served. Since both can't coexist, one right *must *trump the other.

Ethically, the one which causes the less harm to the other should prevail. What harm comes to the person refused service? They aren't allowed to eat (or drink, or stay) somewhere, and are treated as a second-class citizen (compared to their more privileged peers who aren't refused). What harm to the business owner forced to provide service?

...


----------



## Fergurg (Mar 25, 2015)

Kiraya_TiDrekan said:


> Businesses hold all the cards in this case.  If I go to Gen Con with this law in effect, I could be refused a place to stay, food to eat, or over the counter medicines.  As a customer, my refusing to do business with a company is a choice on my part, sometimes a political statement, sometimes just a personal decision.  As a business, refusing service to a group of people is discrimination.  It is, simply put, bigotry.  There are no nice words for it.  There are no capitalist justifications.




Should a business be required to serve a man wearing a shirt that says, "People like you are why God created AIDS"?

Should a business be required to serve a man wearing a shirt that says, "Mexicans are like pool cues - hit them hard for good English."?

Should a business be required to serve a man wearing a policeman's uniform?

Should a business be required to serve a man wearing a dress?

In all of those cases, it involves clothing that identifies the would-be customer as someone that a significant number of people do not want to even be around. Even having them in your business can be an issue. Yet, I'm sure that you believe that only one of them should have the right to force the business owner to be in a transaction with them.


----------



## Fergurg (Mar 25, 2015)

SteveC said:


> That's very true. On the other hand, in the few minutes that this thread has been live I think you can see a lot of the rhetoric that politics can bring out that ends civil conversation. That's why we don't talk about it here.
> 
> I want Gen Con to be about pretending to be elves and having a beer with my friends I don't see but once a year. Friends that vehemently disagree on this very issue. I want to have that fun with them and not have it be about politics.
> 
> ...




I think that all things considered, this conversation has been very civil, even though the disagreement is very strong.


----------



## Stacie GmrGrl (Mar 25, 2015)

I still find it hard to believe that a person can go from being seen as a 'first class citizen' to a 'second class citizen' simply because somebody is a transgender person (which I am) or somebody wants to be in a same-sex relationship... I mean, how in the world did this happen, in a country where our very own constitution is all about freedom for all people, regardless of race, creed, religion, sex, gender, etc... I mean doesn't that honestly cover everybody when it focuses on ALL PEOPLE? That encompasses...well, everybody born within the US. 

It's truly unfathomable to me that there is support for anything that can end up discriminating against anybody else, for any reason, because to me that's just barbaric.

So I am a 'second class citizen' simply because I was born a male and I identify as female, and I take measures to change my own personal body to go with how I feel and that takes me down a notch and I actually lose rights I was born in this country to automatically get??? How does my choice of what I do with my own body allow others to then discriminate against me, or belittle me, or treat me like crap when I was born here? Did I really lose any rights because of this or is this just a bad misconception of our nation and our culture that individuals feel they have to have their own paragraphs specifically stated to gain rights they feel they are missing out on despite the fact our constitution already gives us these rights due to the fact we are born here? 

As for Gen Con... it's already breaking Indianapolis and I mean this is that the convention is starting to burst by how fast its grown in the last four years. Since this year GenCon had to actually refund people because they couldn't get hotel rooms I think GenCon should move anyways to a city that can handle a larger convention. It's only going to grow.


----------



## uriel222 (Mar 25, 2015)

Fergurg said:


> Should a business be required to serve a man wearing a shirt that says, "People like you are why God created AIDS"?
> 
> Should a business be required to serve a man wearing a shirt that says, "Mexicans are like pool cues - hit them hard for good English."?
> 
> ...




But all those examples are based on individuals, this is about discriminating against a class. If it were solely about a business' right in enforce a dress code, *maybe* I'd agree. But it isn't, and pretending it is is deliberately missing the point.

[EDITED TO ADD It may be important to make a distinction between a cis frat pledge wearing outrageous drag for intentional shocking effect trying to eat at a fancy restaurant, and someone who is wearing their normal dress who wants simply to be served.


----------



## uriel222 (Mar 25, 2015)

Fergurg said:


> I think that all things considered, this conversation has been very civil, even though the disagreement is very strong.




No, I'd agree with that. Thank you for that, by the way.


----------



## Fergurg (Mar 25, 2015)

uriel222 said:


> That's the crux of it, isn't it? Two rights are in conflict. One, the business' right to refuse service, and Two, the client's right to be served. Since both can't coexist, one right *must *trump the other.
> 
> Ethically, the one which causes the less harm to the other should prevail. What harm comes to the person refused service? They aren't allowed to eat (or drink, or stay) somewhere, and are treated as a second-class citizen (compared to their more privileged peers who aren't refused). What harm to the business owner forced to provide service?
> 
> ...




In a case like that, I argue that your premise is wrong; there are no rights in conflict. The client only has the right to be served if the business consents, just as the business has the right to the customer's money only if the customer consents. A business transaction can only be a transaction if both sides agree to it; otherwise, it is a form of slavery. And yes, anytime you are forced to provide a service against your will, it is slavery - whether or not you gain anything for it is irrelevant.


----------



## uriel222 (Mar 25, 2015)

Fergurg said:


> In a case like that, I argue that your premise is wrong; there are no rights in conflict. The client only has the right to be served if the business consents, just as the business has the right to the customer's money only if the customer consents. A business transaction can only be a transaction if both sides agree to it; otherwise, it is a form of slavery. And yes, anytime you are forced to provide a service against your will, it is slavery - whether or not you gain anything for it is irrelevant.




That, however, conflates the idea of being forced to provide a service (e.g. being forced to clean houses) with being forced to provide a service to a class you dislike (e.g. a maid being prohibited from not cleaning Catholic houses).

If you are willing to provide the service to an anonymous client, being prohibited from refusing the service to a specific client of a class you detest isn't "slavery". You're not doing something you didn't want to do, you're just doing it *for* someone you didn't want to serve. The verb isn't being forced, just the object.


----------



## Fergurg (Mar 25, 2015)

Stacie GmrGrl said:


> I still find it hard to believe that a person can go from being seen as a 'first class citizen' to a 'second class citizen' simply because somebody is a transgender person (which I am) or somebody wants to be in a same-sex relationship... I mean, how in the world did this happen, in a country where our very own constitution is all about freedom for all people, regardless of race, creed, religion, sex, gender, etc... I mean doesn't that honestly cover everybody when it focuses on ALL PEOPLE? That encompasses...well, everybody born within the US.
> 
> It's truly unfathomable to me that there is support for anything that can end up discriminating against anybody else, for any reason, because to me that's just barbaric.
> 
> So I am a 'second class citizen' simply because I was born a male and I identify as female, and I take measures to change my own personal body to go with how I feel and that takes me down a notch and I actually lose rights I was born in this country to automatically get??? How does my choice of what I do with my own body allow others to then discriminate against me, or belittle me, or treat me like crap when I was born here? Did I really lose any rights because of this or is this just a bad misconception of our nation and our culture that individuals feel they have to have their own paragraphs specifically stated to gain rights they feel they are missing out on despite the fact our constitution already gives us these rights due to the fact we are born here? [snipped]




You confusion is that you are confusing negative rights with positive rights. The Constitution protects negative rights, not positive ones.

If a business decides to not serve you because you are transsexual, you did not lose any rights, because the right to force others to accept you never existed. The business does not have the right to force you to do business with them. You are not required to patronize them. If I wanted to try to tell you that what you're doing is morally wrong, you have no obligation to listen, or to even be around me. In many businesses, they would even be within their rights to remove me because while the right to speak cannot be taken from me, I do not have the right to your attention.

So, really, when people are arguing for "inclusion" it sounds like more of an argument of taking rights away from people that don't want to include you.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Mar 25, 2015)

I understand the appeal of small gov't/free market solutions such as are enshrined in economic theory by no lesser light than Adam Smith in his "Invisible Hand" doctrine in _Wealth of Nations_.  However, even he recognized that the invisible hand, while preferred, was not efficient nor universally effective in all cases.  

Which is why the US constitution and the court decisions that have flowed therefrom have slowly- and sometimes inconsistently- trended towards limiting legal discriminatory practices.


----------



## Fergurg (Mar 25, 2015)

uriel222 said:


> That, however, conflates the idea of being forced to provide a service (e.g. being forced to clean houses) with being forced to provide a service to a class you dislike (e.g. a maid being prohibited from not cleaning Catholic houses).
> 
> If you are willing to provide the service to an anonymous client, being prohibited from refusing the service to a specific client of a class you detest isn't "slavery". You're not doing something you didn't want to do, you're just doing it *for* someone you didn't want to serve. The verb isn't being forced, just the object.




Isn't that, literally, what rape is? Being forced to service someone you don't want to service?

I'm not talking hyperbole; literally, the only difference between rape and consensual sex is the other party.


----------



## pdmiller (Mar 25, 2015)

Kiraya_TiDrekan said:


> Businesses hold all the cards in this case.  If I go to Gen Con with this law in effect, I could be refused a place to stay, food to eat, or over the counter medicines.  As a customer, my refusing to do business with a company is a choice on my part, sometimes a political statement, sometimes just a personal decision.  As a business, refusing service to a group of people is discrimination.  It is, simply put, bigotry.  There are no nice words for it.  There are no capitalist justifications.




Look it's simple - each side in a business transaction should have the freedom to commit to the transaction or not.

Personally, I think they are stupid if they decide not to take your money because you are transexual or whatever. And these days it is likely to reflect poorly on them and cost them business as a result.

But you cannot compel someone to participate in a transaction and call yourself a free society. It may not be nice, but nice should not be mandated.

Your point about not being able to find a place to stay only holds true if EVERY business takes the decision to discriminate.  Which is highly unlikely in a free market.


----------



## uriel222 (Mar 25, 2015)

Fergurg said:


> You confusion is that you are confusing negative rights with positive rights. The Constitution protects negative rights, not positive ones.
> 
> If a business decides to not serve you because you are transsexual, you did not lose any rights, because the right to force others to accept you never existed. The business does not have the right to force you to do business with them. You are not required to patronize them. If I wanted to try to tell you that what you're doing is morally wrong, you have no obligation to listen, or to even be around me. In many businesses, they would even be within their rights to remove me because while the right to speak cannot be taken from me, I do not have the right to your attention.
> 
> So, really, when people are arguing for "inclusion" it sounds like more of an argument of taking rights away from people that don't want to include you.




You are, I believe, right in the sense that the specific U.S. Constitution doesn't cover rights of this nature, but that does ignore the larger ethical question.

This is a hypothetical, and a bold-faced strawman at that, but bear with me if you would:

Suppose you lived in the centre of the United States, and, all at once, everyone in the country, all 319 million of them, spontaneously decided to have no business with you, whatsoever. No one would sell you food, or fuel, or transport. Nothing.

How long would you survive? What would the quality of your life be? If not a death sentence (which, if you required medical care, it would certainly be), it would certainly be harsh indeed. Every one of those people could honestly say "I'm doing nothing to harm you", yet, by their actions (or wilful lack thereof), they are indeed, collectively, harming you.

A baker refusing to sell a wedding cake to a gay couple may be considered a small harm by comparison, true. But, while small, it is a harm. Where is the actual harm to a baker is only prohibited from denying a service to a class? What harm to the baker?


----------



## God (Mar 25, 2015)

Come on dude. Now you're comparing a prohibition on discrimination to rape? What cliche comes next? 

Also, good on Gen Con. Discrimination's for dicks, and thou shalt not be a dick.


----------



## KirayaTiDrekan (Mar 25, 2015)

pdmiller said:


> Look it's simple - each side in a business transaction should have the freedom to commit to the transaction or not.
> 
> Personally, I think they are stupid if they decide not to take your money because you are transexual or whatever. And these days it is likely to reflect poorly on them and cost them business as a result.
> 
> ...




By that logic...

Gen Con has the right to not do business with Indiana.  And they have stated their intent and their reasoning.


----------



## Waller (Mar 25, 2015)

pdmiller said:


> Look it's simple - each side in a business transaction should have the freedom to commit to the transaction or not.




But they don't have that freedom. U.S. law and laws around the globe all acknowledge a concept known as a protected class. If you refuse service to someone because they are a member of a protected class, your are committing a criminal offence. These include things like disability, gender, ethnicity, and so on.

This is the law. It has been for a long time.

The only difference here is that folks are saying they don't think that gay people should be one of those protected classes. Which in my view is patently absurd. Of course they should be.



> But you cannot compel someone to participate in a transaction and call yourself a free society. It may not be nice, but nice should not be mandated.




We don't live in a free society. We live in one which restricts our behaviours with the use of laws.



> Your point about not being able to find a place to stay only holds true if EVERY business takes the decision to discriminate.  Which is highly unlikely in a free market.




And yet historically it has been shown that absent these laws, such things do happen. That's why these laws have come about.


----------



## uriel222 (Mar 25, 2015)

Fergurg said:


> Isn't that, literally, what rape is? Being forced to service someone you don't want to service?
> 
> I'm not talking hyperbole; literally, the only difference between rape and consensual sex is the other party.




Again, the discussion is about denying service to classes, not individuals.

In your examples, as with someone who chooses a sex partner, discrimination to an individual is _fine_. No one is arguing that. And, in most cases, sex isn't generally defined as a business (admittedly, a legal prostitute who refused service to Jews is a sticky ethical question, but one which goes to the larger discussion of prostitution).

The distinction between individuals and classes is, literally, the definition of prejudice.


----------



## pdmiller (Mar 25, 2015)

Stacie GmrGrl said:


> I still find it hard to believe that a person can go from being seen as a 'first class citizen' to a 'second class citizen' simply because somebody is a transgender person (which I am) or somebody wants to be in a same-sex relationship... I mean, how in the world did this happen, in a country where our very own constitution is all about freedom for all people, regardless of race, creed, religion, sex, gender, etc... I mean doesn't that honestly cover everybody when it focuses on ALL PEOPLE? That encompasses...well, everybody born within the US.
> 
> It's truly unfathomable to me that there is support for anything that can end up discriminating against anybody else, for any reason, because to me that's just barbaric.
> 
> ...





Putting the shoe on the other foot, I would defend your right, as a shop-owner, not to serve nazis or anyone else that you thought poorly of. The fact is, you can't make everyone like you. You can't compel everyone to pretend to like you. You can't make everyone sell you something if they don't want to, even if you are somehow able to prove their motive for not doing so. In the end, such a move has very bad consequences.

In a free society, people are allowed to not like you, and even say so - hurt feelings or not. Change that and you are going down a very dangerous road.


----------



## uriel222 (Mar 25, 2015)

pdmiller said:


> Putting the shoe on the other foot, I would defend your right, as a shop-owner, not to serve nazis or anyone else that you thought poorly of. The fact is, you can't make everyone like you. You can't compel everyone to pretend to like you. You can't make everyone sell you something if they don't want to, even if you are somehow able to prove their motive for not doing so. In the end, such a move has very bad consequences.
> 
> In a free society, people are allowed to not like you, and even say so - hurt feelings or not. Change that and you are going down a very dangerous road.




Your argument would be strengthened if you were to describe what, precisely, would be the "very bad consequences" or the expected end of the "very dangerous road". What exactly is the harm in protecting a discriminated class? That a Nazi might be able to purchase goods and services?


----------



## pdmiller (Mar 25, 2015)

Kiraya_TiDrekan said:


> By that logic...
> 
> Gen Con has the right to not do business with Indiana.  And they have stated their intent and their reasoning.




Absolutely, GenCon has that right. Everyone has the right to participate, or not, in a transaction. This is how it should work.


----------



## pdmiller (Mar 25, 2015)

uriel222 said:


> Again, the discussion is about denying service to classes, not individuals.
> 
> In your examples, as with someone who chooses a sex partner, discrimination to an individual is _fine_. No one is arguing that. And, in most cases, sex isn't generally defined as a business (admittedly, a legal prostitute who refused service to Jews is a sticky ethical question, but one which goes to the larger discussion of prostitution).
> 
> The distinction between individuals and classes is, literally, the definition of prejudice.




When you start talking about classes, I get very disheartened.

I believe the goal for our culture should be to have no classes. Equal opportunity (not outcomes) should be guaranteed for everyone. That includes the opportunity to determine which transactions you wish to participate in. The more you start building rules and laws around classes, the more permanent the divisions become.

Identity politics and collectivism perpetuate conflict and division.


----------



## KirayaTiDrekan (Mar 25, 2015)

pdmiller said:


> When you start talking about classes, I get very disheartened.
> 
> I believe the goal for our culture should be to have no classes. Equal opportunity (not outcomes) should be guaranteed for everyone. That includes the opportunity to determine which transactions you wish to participate in. The more you start building rules and laws around classes, the more permanent the divisions become.
> 
> Identity politics and collectivism perpetuate conflict and division.




The problem with that is that in that sort of system, the majority and/or the powerful are more "equal" than everyone else.  The tyranny of the majority allows them to push out anyone not like them.  History is full of this sort of thing.  Protected classes are protected because history has shown that if they aren't, they are discriminated against and victimized.  As LGBTQ people are being right this very moment.


----------



## pdmiller (Mar 25, 2015)

uriel222 said:


> Your argument would be strengthened if you were to describe what, precisely, would be the "very bad consequences" or the expected end of the "very dangerous road". What exactly is the harm in protecting a discriminated class? That a Nazi might be able to purchase goods and services?




I don't care whether you want to sell to nazis or not. Your decision.
I don't care if someone is a nazi as long as they do not act in such a way as to impinge upon another person's rights. Note that no-one has a right to not be offended.

If you change that there will be despotism. Seemingly benign, unless you hold unpopular views. All you are doing by creating "protected classes" is creating different rules for different people, and that never ends well.


----------



## JasonZZ (Mar 25, 2015)

Fergurg said:


> But that stand is demanding that the business should not be allowed to make a choice on whether or not they will be part of a transaction. Why should anybody be forced to do business with you if they don't want to?




Why should anybody be forced to move to another city/state/country if they want to buy groceries?


----------



## Zaruthustran (Mar 25, 2015)

pdmiller said:


> Your point about not being able to find a place to stay only holds true if EVERY business takes the decision to discriminate.  Which is highly unlikely in a free market.




I've seen a couple call-outs to the utopia of the free market. The problem with that is that "the market" is never truly free. 

In the example, the business decides to refuse service to the "transexual or whatever." You posit that the market will see that unmet need (a transexual in need of housing) and generate a new business set up to service that client. This might happen in a free market.

But what if the other businesses agree, together, that such a new business shouldn't be allowed to exist? What if that new business does exist, but that industry's suppliers decide not to take on a client that services that particular kind of customer? Maybe one supplier decides to go rogue and supply the new business. But that supplier's other clients--the businesses that refused service to the person in the first place--see this, and threaten to bail. This market isn't so free.

The other problem is that the "free market" is increasingly consolidated, concentrating tremendous influence in a small number of corporations, administered by a small number of humans. I'd prefer a world where the collective will of individual members/society, as expressed through a representative government, has more influence than a small oligarchy of corporations and their tenders.

Which brings up the last problem: these laws all address how a *business* acts. And they're needed, because businesses are inhuman. Businesses do not--some would argue _can not_--care about human concerns. They act in ways that most benefit the business, rather than in ways that most benefit humanity. That's why we need the Civil Rights Act, OSHA, the EPA, EEOC, and other controls over corporate behavior. Because without these controls, corporations would seriously degrade human quality of life in pursuit of an amoral free market ideal.

_tl;dr: the needs of the many (everyone else) outweigh the needs of the few (businesses). An individual human's concerns should trump an individual business's concerns._


----------



## KirayaTiDrekan (Mar 25, 2015)

pdmiller said:


> I don't care whether you want to sell to nazis or not. Your decision.
> I don't care if someone is a nazi as long as they do not act in such a way as to impinge upon another person's rights. Note that no-one has a right to not be offended.
> 
> If you change that there will be despotism. Seemingly benign, unless you hold unpopular views. All you are doing by creating "protected classes" is creating different rules for different people, and that never ends well.




Its already done, in the U.S., and has been for decades.  There is no despotism.  The only thing you are arguing against here is LGBTQ folks.  That's all.  Because we are the only ones who are fair game for discrimination.  We are the only ones who aren't already a protected class.


----------



## Hussar (Mar 25, 2015)

Good on Gen Con for this.  Well done them.


----------



## Waller (Mar 25, 2015)

pdmiller said:


> When you start talking about classes, I get very disheartened.
> 
> I believe the goal for our culture should be to have no classes. Equal opportunity (not outcomes) should be guaranteed for everyone. That includes the opportunity to determine which transactions you wish to participate in. The more you start building rules and laws around classes, the more permanent the divisions become.
> 
> Identity politics and collectivism perpetuate conflict and division.




Your social hypothesis is incorrect. That's not what happens, as history keeps proving over and over.

What happens when social and legal movements such as those engaged in by MLK or by the suffragettes is that laws change to prevent discriminatiin against those classes, and things become more equal. 

Much as you might  want to, you can't refuse service to somebody on the basis of their skin color. That is a criminal act. That is the law, right now, most everywhere in the western world.

And now it's the turn of the folks asking for gender preference equality. And like every time efore it, whether it was skin color or gender, a core group of people who are notable for not being part of that class push back against it. And, like every time before, it'll be in vain.

And then it'll be somebody else's turn.  Then somebody else's. And eventually, things will be equal for everybody.


----------



## pming (Mar 25, 2015)

Hiya!

This is for [MENTION=91165]Fergurg[/MENTION] ...

  I think what you are overlooking is, I don't know how to put it...lets call it "expectation of service". If you walk into a restaurant to order some lunch, you are "expecting" to be served. That's the *entire* purpose of the restaurant...to serve food to people who then pay them money for the food and service. If I was dressed up in drag and walked into a restaurant for lunch, I'd expect to be served simply because the purpose of the business it to serve lunch to those willing to pay.

  What you seem to be saying is that nobody should ever "expect" what a business is providing. By your logic, anyone stopping at a gas station in my Honda, filling up, and then walking to the counter to pay shouldn't expect to be able to do so. They should keep in mind that the owner of the gas station could just say "Nope. Not serving your kind...only owners of American built cars are served here! Hold on while I call the police on you for stealing my gasoline"...and, if there was such a law that said 'yeah, a business can discriminate against a class of people if it wants to', well, you're screwed. You're honestly cool with that? *shudder*

  Bottom line: A business should be able to say "No" to someone if they have a reason that is non-class-of-people based. But people...ANY person...should expect a business to provide what the business sells unless they have reason to believe otherwise.

PS: I'm all for a nice, but sign being required to say "We don't serve [whatever]", as well as a law that requires a business to state the same thing on all advertising (web site, commercial's, print advertisements, etc). At least then, if the law goes through, I would know what businesses I could expect or not expect to do business with (re: booking a hotel room or rental car, for example).

^_^

Paul L. Ming


----------



## Grimstaff (Mar 25, 2015)

uriel222 said:


> Said the straight, white, male.




Oh boy, here we go.

Actually, I'm impressed it only took 20 posts to get to the villain-du-jour.


----------



## Waller (Mar 25, 2015)

Grimstaff said:


> Oh boy, here we go.
> 
> Actually, I'm impressed it only took 20 posts to get to the villain-du-jour.




No, not villain. Person opining about rights for a group of people of which he is not one.  There's a big difference.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Mar 25, 2015)

Well, you can still discriminate against a person in a protected class, _as long as you are not discriminating against them based on their membership in that class_.

IOW, you could refuse service to someone because he is a dick, but not because he is Jewish.  Such behavior has been...circumscribed.


----------



## uriel222 (Mar 25, 2015)

pdmiller said:


> When you start talking about classes, I get very disheartened.
> 
> I believe the goal for our culture should be to have no classes. Equal opportunity (not outcomes) should be guaranteed for everyone. That includes the opportunity to determine which transactions you wish to participate in. The more you start building rules and laws around classes, the more permanent the divisions become.
> 
> Identity politics and collectivism perpetuate conflict and division.




You cover a lot of ground there. Let me respond to the points you make one by one:


"I believe the goal for our culture should be to have no classes" - I'm not sure what to make of this, exactly. The goal is everyone should be the same, homogenous mass? Or that everyone should be judged based on their own actions?
"Equal opportunity (not outcomes) should be guaranteed for everyone." Fair enough.
"That includes the opportunity to determine which transactions you wish to participate in." You really need to stretch the meaning of the word "opportunity" to make that fit, and if you do make "opportunity" into such an over-riding absolute, does that include the opportunity to commit other crimes, as well?
"The more you start building rules and laws around classes, the more permanent the divisions become." How so? If you prohibit persecution of transsexuals, are they likely to disappear?
"Identity politics and collectivism perpetuate conflict and division." If people weren't already divided and in conflict, there would be no need of specific rules, for the same reason there isn't a burning need to prohibit discrimination against left-handed people. Or are you arguing prohibiting business from denying service will itself increase hatred of that class? If so, I'd argue that the opposite has been demonstrated to be true, for example, racism in the deep south is less now than before the civil rights movement. If you have a counter-example, I'll listen.


----------



## pdmiller (Mar 25, 2015)

JasonZZ said:


> Why should anybody be forced to move to another city/state/country if they want to buy groceries?




So there is only one grocery shop in this hypothetical city/state/country?

The genius of the free market is that someone will always fill a need. If idiots don't want to sell you groceries, someone else will. There's money in it.
The difficulty only arises when the law mandates discrimination.


----------



## Grimstaff (Mar 25, 2015)

Corrosive said:


> No, not villain. Person opining about rights for a group of people of which he is not one.  There's a big difference.




Yeah, it's called disqualification.

As in, "I don't think your opinion on this subject is valid, based on your race, gender, and sexual orientation".

Welcome to tolerance, 2015-style.


----------



## uriel222 (Mar 25, 2015)

pdmiller said:


> I don't care whether you want to sell to nazis or not. Your decision.
> I don't care if someone is a nazi as long as they do not act in such a way as to impinge upon another person's rights. Note that no-one has a right to not be offended.
> 
> If you change that there will be despotism. Seemingly benign, unless you hold unpopular views. All you are doing by creating "protected classes" is creating different rules for different people, and that never ends well.




Exactly. Prevent businesses from creating "different rules for different people" (e.g. Whites are served, Blacks are not).


----------



## uriel222 (Mar 25, 2015)

Grimstaff said:


> Oh boy, here we go.
> 
> Actually, I'm impressed it only took 20 posts to get to the villain-du-jour.




Fair enough. That was overly-glib, and I apologize.


----------



## uriel222 (Mar 25, 2015)

pdmiller said:


> So there is only one grocery shop in this hypothetical city/state/country?
> 
> The genius of the free market is that someone will always fill a need. If idiots don't want to sell you groceries, someone else will. There's money in it.
> The difficulty only arises when the law mandates discrimination.




Except, if the supply of something goes down (e.g. some business won't serve you), the price goes up (e.g. immigrant-friendly businesses charge more).

The free market is like the honey badger. But it's not ethical, or fair.


----------



## uriel222 (Mar 25, 2015)

Grimstaff said:


> Yeah, it's called disqualification.
> 
> As in, "I don't think your opinion on this subject is valid, based on your race, gender, and sexual orientation".
> 
> Welcome to tolerance, 2015-style.




No, you're right. For what it's worth, I had written a longer post which expressed the point more fairly (and with much more subtlety), but when it was accidentally deleted I went with the "YouTube comment" version.

The point stands, however, that if a harm doesn't directly affect you, one should be especially careful before dismissing it as a harm out of hand. "First they came for the Socialists", and all that.


----------



## pdmiller (Mar 25, 2015)

uriel222 said:


> You cover a lot of ground there. Let me respond to the points you make one by one:
> 
> 
> "I believe the goal for our culture should be to have no classes" - I'm not sure what to make of this, exactly. The goal is everyone should be the same, homogenous mass? Or that everyone should be judged based on their own actions?
> ...




Uriel, thanks for your thoughtful response.
*No I don't think everyone should be the same homogenous mass (unless everyone somehow wanted to  ). Equal opportunity virtually guarantees this would not happen.
*Exactly how did you arrive at the conclusion that I am advocating freedom to commit crimes? I am saying that deciding not to commit to a transaction is NOT a crime, nor should it be. When you mandate that someone must transact with someone else, you remove that person's freedom.
*When you prohibit behaviour you do not abolish it. You drive it underground where it prospers. Prohibition is a good example. Making guns illegal in Chicago has not worked either. Success in these matters is about changing attitudes, and the weapon for that is free speech, not compulsion.
*The racism in the deep south was always unsustainable. It was irrational and therefore would not persist. The civil rights movement is a great example of what I am talking about - expose the hypocrisy and it will become ridiculed and unsustainable. Ban it outright and you will ensure it persists. Racists are entitled to their views, but through the magic of free speech they look more and more ridiculous as time goes on.


----------



## Grimstaff (Mar 25, 2015)

uriel222 said:


> Fair enough. That was overly-glib, and I apologize.




No harm done, mon frer! If we were experts on rhetoric, we'd be politicians, not fellow game-nerds


----------



## Zaruthustran (Mar 25, 2015)

pdmiller said:


> So there is only one grocery shop in this hypothetical city/state/country?
> 
> The genius of the free market is that someone will always fill a need. If idiots don't want to sell you groceries, someone else will. There's money in it.
> The difficulty only arises when the law mandates discrimination.




The problem with that notion is that there's no historical evidence. In fact, that evidence disagrees. 

Before the Americans with Disabilities Act, how many businesses provided wheelchair-accessible access to their goods and services? Ramps and elevators are expensive to install and maintain. Retrofitting bathrooms costs a bundle. Most potential clients aren't in wheelchairs; it makes good business sense to not provide those facilities and amenities. It's good business, and it's horrible lack of human decency. 

So, the ADA was created and passed into law. Because of that law, businesses HAVE to accommodate the class of people who have disabilities. It's terrible business, and it's the law. Because people with disabilities merit access to the same goods and services as everyone else.

The free market would never have allowed the ADA. Many businesses and lobby groups fought against it, because it's completely counter to cold hard dollars and cents analysis. 

Fortunately for human society as a whole, those businesses failed in their opposition. The market was ignored, and human beings were listened to. _This is the ideal situation, and why we need anti-discrimination laws like the ADA._


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Mar 25, 2015)

Because I'm busy, I didn't address the clothing issue.

Refusal of service based on attire is legal.  Dress codes are legal.  I myself have been refused service in a bar due to my clothing.  

But clothing is changeable with minimal negative impact to the person being refused service on that basis.  One's race religion, or as we are discussing here, gender or sexual identity is NOT so mutable.

Our laws (mostly) recognize that refusal of service on such grounds is a societal problem that the free market does not protect against, and so protects their fundamental constitutional rights with a little extra vigor.


----------



## Osgood (Mar 25, 2015)

Thank you Gen Con for taking a stand against bigotry. I love having the con just the next state over, but if it has to move it has to move.


----------



## Paraxis (Mar 25, 2015)

As a straight white male, who also happens to be conservative and texan I find the concept of a business being able to discriminate against an entire class of people barbaric and ridiculous.  Businesses need to have licenses, government oversight for work safety, and fair wages, the government already has rules in place to tell businesses what they can and can't do for the betterment of society, this is no different.

Now should businesses be able to refuse service to individuals for a variety of reasons sure, disruptive behavior, poor hygiene, stuff like that.  But because they identify as a different gender or are in a same sex relationship heck no.

I want to also point out that besides the LBGQT community another couple of groups are constantly discriminated against and places get away with it, I belong to both of them, the obese and the disabled.  Refusing service to someone based on weight or handicap is just as bad as refusing service to someone because of race, gender, or religion.


----------



## pemerton (Mar 25, 2015)

Fergurg said:


> The Constitution protects negative rights, not positive ones.



The 6th amendment provides that, inter alia, a person accused of a crime "shall enjoy the right . . .  to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence."

I'm sure there's a reading of this out there that presents it as a negative rather than a positive right, but on it's face it is securing a positive right - to be supplied with witnesses, and with counsel.


----------



## Ace (Mar 25, 2015)

Grimstaff said:


> Oh boy, here we go.
> 
> Actually, I'm impressed it only took 20 posts to get to the villain-du-jour.




This is a standards Leftist tactic called Disqualify and as an added bonus is entirely racist and sexist in that its assumed that a white male cannot understand certain issues. That's rubbish, the majority of the civil rights movement   legislation including  the legislation protection for  GBLT people was passed  and often crafted by straight white males. 

These arguments and the attendant passive aggressive BS are why ENWorld rightly bans political talk. The problem is that everything has become political, Even our hobby has been infested with it which I resent . 

As of now its mostly Left Wing Cultural Marxists rhetoric   but I'd just as peeved if it was Social Conservative hoo-ha . I just want to kill some imaginary monsters and take their imaginary treasure and talk about mechanics and not have to hear about whatever hobbyhorse anyone is on, whether I agree with it or not. 

I suspect this politicization of the hobby  just means work for the mods and if I may be so bold, I'd like to suggest that anytime a thread with any probable political content shows up that the mods immediately lock it and allow no comments.

This way they can say "hey we at ENWorld think Gen-Con did a good thing" without a long thread of political back and forth that annoys everyone.  

And to my opinion, I don't do cons and don't have any stake but as a business case I think Gen-Con made the political call they felt would best suit the corporations political beliefs and would exercise fiduciary obligations to their stakeholders as well.


----------



## KirayaTiDrekan (Mar 25, 2015)

Paraxis said:


> As a straight white male, who also happens to be conservative and texan I find the concept of a business being able to discriminate against an entire class of people barbaric and ridiculous.  Businesses need to have licenses, government oversight for work safety, and fair wages, the government already has rules in place to tell businesses what they can and can't do for the betterment of society, this is no different.
> 
> Now should businesses be able to refuse service to individuals for a variety of reasons sure, disruptive behavior, poor hygiene, stuff like that.  But because they identify as a different gender or are in a same sex relationship heck no.
> 
> I want to also point out that besides the LBGQT community another couple of groups are constantly discriminated against and places get away with it, I belong to both of them, the obese and the disabled.  Refusing service to someone based on weight or handicap is just as bad as refusing service to someone because of race, gender, or religion.




You are right and I apologize for not thinking of and including those groups in my previous post.


----------



## uriel222 (Mar 25, 2015)

pdmiller said:


> Uriel, thanks for your thoughtful response.
> *No I don't think everyone should be the same homogenous mass (unless everyone somehow wanted to  ). Equal opportunity virtually guarantees this would not happen.
> *Exactly how did you arrive at the conclusion that I am advocating freedom to commit crimes? I am saying that deciding not to commit to a transaction is NOT a crime, nor should it be. When you mandate that someone must transact with someone else, you remove that person's freedom.
> *When you prohibit behaviour you do not abolish it. You drive it underground where it prospers. Prohibition is a good example. Making guns illegal in Chicago has not worked either. Success in these matters is about changing attitudes, and the weapon for that is free speech, not compulsion.
> *The racism in the deep south was always unsustainable. It was irrational and therefore would not persist. The civil rights movement is a great example of what I am talking about - expose the hypocrisy and it will become ridiculed and unsustainable. Ban it outright and you will ensure it persists. Racists are entitled to their views, but through the magic of free speech they look more and more ridiculous as time goes on.



Again, I'll respond to this point-by-point, if I may:

I take it by "different classes", then, you mean something more akin to different castes? That is, there will be various distinct groups of people, but all of equal status? If so, then I agree that is a worthy goal.
I jumped a step there. "Opportunity", in this context, is generally used to indicate a level playing field of sorts, not a wholesale freedom of action. For example, I'd argue that if a woman was unable to succeed in business because men refused to buy her products solely because she was a woman, then she was denied "opportunity", whereas prohibiting the men from discrimination only denies them the "opportunity" to discriminate. I then extended that prohibition on anti-social behaviour to another, in the sense that any law is, in some way, denying an "opportunity"
Okay, Prohibition is a valid counter-example. Alcohol consumption was perceived as a social harm by one group, then only increased while prohibited, similar to the current "war on drugs". Fair enough.
The racism in the deep south lasted a hundred years past the Civil War, but almost immediately began to decline after the Civil Rights Act, but I take your point that larger socio-economic factors may well have been in play.

If free speech were enough to guarantee a just society, then I would whole-heartedly agree that legislative protections would be less than ideal. The problem is, though, that changing ideologies and attitudes takes time, and not everyone has the good fortune to be born into an era permissive of their class. Should persecuted minorities simply have to endure systematic discrimination while society at large slowly comes around to according them the same treatment? Is the actual harm currently suffered by some to be outweighed by the speculative harm which might occur by protecting them?


----------



## Grimstaff (Mar 25, 2015)

Ace said:


> This is a standards Leftist tactic called Disqualify and as an added bonus is entirely racist and sexist in that its assumed that a white male cannot understand certain issues. That's rubbish, the majority of the civil rights movement   legislation including  the legislation protection for  GBLT people was passed  and often crafted by straight white males.
> 
> These arguments and the attendant passive aggressive BS are why ENWorld rightly bans political talk. The problem is that everything has become political, Even our hobby has been infested with it which I resent .
> 
> ...




I have to agree. While I'm sure Monte Cooks crew, Green Ronin, and now Gen Con have good intentions, there's no question that throwing their hats into the Social Justice ring is a potentially slippery slope.

Politics should absolutely NOT be a factor in RPGs, it's already splintered fandom in Scifi/Fantasy Lit and video gaming. Social Justice  hot topics may be gold for a twitter feed, but they're absolute poison at the cash register. Many people, understandably, don't want the stress and distraction from what should be an escape from all that.

I really hope the last couple weeks trend doesn't last, for the hobby's, and especially the hobby's community's, sake.


----------



## BrockBallingdark (Mar 25, 2015)

Move Gen Con to IL, I'm totally good with that.  We don't have the issues (we just have crooks) like Indiana.

I hate mixing politics with my gaming, I hate politics very much but no one should have the doors closed on them for being who they are.


----------



## neobolts (Mar 25, 2015)

Given that this is a hobby that has been marginalized unfairly in the past (albeit in a minor way by comparison), Gen Con's progressive and inclusive stance seems appropriate for their target audience. Operating where nearby businesses would be adopting exclusionary policies in the future is not in their best interests...

We're talking about business owners that want to ban gays and similar minorities from their stores. Do we really think they're down to party with folks dressed as elves toting books about pretending to be warlocks?


----------



## God (Mar 25, 2015)

Social justice is not a pejorative, no matter how much the troglodytes on Twitter try to make it so.


----------



## fjw70 (Mar 25, 2015)

For those that say businesses should have the right to not participate in a transaction, they do. They can choose to not operate the business. If they choose to operate a business then they agree to abide by the rules all businesses must follow and so choose to serve whoever the law says they have to serve.


----------



## pdmiller (Mar 25, 2015)

uriel222 said:


> Again, I'll respond to this point-by-point, if I may:
> 
> I take it by "different classes", then, you mean something more akin to different castes? That is, there will be various distinct groups of people, but all of equal status? If so, then I agree that is a worthy goal.
> I jumped a step there. "Opportunity", in this context, is generally used to indicate a level playing field of sorts, not a wholesale freedom of action. For example, I'd argue that if a woman was unable to succeed in business because men refused to buy her products solely because she was a woman, then she was denied "opportunity", whereas prohibiting the men from discrimination only denies them the "opportunity" to discriminate. I then extended that prohibition on anti-social behaviour to another, in the sense that any law is, in some way, denying an "opportunity"
> ...




Yeah free speech isn't always enough - but lack of it suffocates other freedoms. I am not unsympathetic to your contention that it's not fair everyone can't be born into whatever nirvana/end state of perfection that our society ends up with - but that is a function of evolution and change...  you have to start somewhere and move forward.


----------



## uriel222 (Mar 25, 2015)

pdmiller said:


> Yeah free speech isn't always enough - but lack of it suffocates other freedoms. I am not unsympathetic to your contention that it's not fair everyone can't be born into whatever nirvana/end state of perfection that our society ends up with - but that is a function of evolution and change...  you have to start somewhere and move forward.




Free speech, and the stifling of it, aren't at issue here, though, except as far as that speech prohibits others the ability to safely and confidently use their services.

And my issue of fairness isn't that it's unfair we all live in an imperfect world, but rather that the world is more imperfect for some than others, and that change that can make it less so is delayed out of a fear of its over-reach.


----------



## Mavkatzer (Mar 25, 2015)

Proud of GenCon.  Proud of Morrus.  Proud that my hobby is moving out of the Dark Ages.


----------



## travathian (Mar 25, 2015)

Fallen star said:


> Gen Con is free to provide their service to any customer they choose. Other businesses in Indiana should have that same right.
> 
> If Gen Con doesn't like that, they are free to move to another state.




I completely agree. And while we are at it, I just bought all the pharmacies in your town said they wont provide medications for kids. You don't have any kids do you? Oh you do? I know it is late at night, your kid is super sick and needs this antibiotic really bad, but sorry, *we don't serve your kind here.*

You are free to drive to another town. 

By the way, I just bought all the pharmacies in the nearby towns as well. *And we don't serve your kind here.*

You are free to drive to another town. 

Gosh, been a few hours, your kid's fever has spiked, so you take them to the hospital. Oops, I bought the hospitals too. *We don't serve your kind here.*

You are free to drive to another town.

Before you make it to a town I don't control, your kid goes on to have a seizure and dies. You take them back home to bury them, but I own the cemeteries. *We don't bury your kind here.*

You are free to drive to another town.


This type of scenario is exactly why the Civil Rights Act was created. If businesses have the right to exclude entire classes of people, then those people can be completely excluded from entire regions. Imagine if I owned every small town gas station and motel from San Antonio to El Paso and put up signs "No Negroes" on each of them. Now an entire class of people is essentially excluded from travelling along the I-10 between those two cities.

Replace Negroes with a description of you and your family's race/gender/religion. But that is cool right? Cause my business should have the right to keep you out of this region correct? Not for certain classes of people.

Regardless of your feelings on the matter, the US Government says otherwise. The rights of a business fall well below the rights of the populace.


----------



## DMZ2112 (Mar 25, 2015)

BrockBallingdark said:


> Move Gen Con to IL, I'm totally good with that.  We don't have the issues (we just have crooks) like Indiana.




Sorry, Brock, but Illinois is one of 19 other states that have already passed similar religious freedom legislation.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Mar 25, 2015)

> The genius of the free market is that someone will always fill a need.




Intolerance is amazingly resistant to free market pressures in the short and medium term- the span of human lifetimes.

As I pointed out before, even the father of free-market economics, Adam Smith, recognized that the free market is not a panacea.  He regarded benevolence as admirable, as a great virtue, and he saw the instinct for sympathy towards one's fellow man as the foundation on which civilised conduct is built.  Because of this, besides _Wealth of Nations_, he wrote another book: _The Theory of Moral Sentiments_.

The failures of Smith's invisible Hand are where laws that protect minorities come into play.  Are you familiar with "sundown towns"?  Those are entire municipalities in the USA where, _even today_, minorities within city limits after sundown are still met with violence. Hence the name.

Are they rare?  Sure.  Is what they do illegal?  Without question.

But the fact is, if you are in one for whatever reason, if you are a minority, there is nobody within a reasonable distance who will fill your needs voluntarily.  Heaven help you if your car breaks down in one.  Which is the reason _The Negro Motorist's Green Book_ existed- so you could plan your travel route to avoid them.

Did you know that there are states in which Atheists still cannot hold public office?  The free market will not address that issue on an infrastate basis anytime soon.  Should atheists wait another 150 years?

How has the free market helped the LGBT community in those states in which they may be fired or evicted for being gay.  Do they have jobs and housing?  Yes.  Do they have the security in their jobs and housing that straights enjoy, that tomorrow they could lose either or both, merely because of a change in management?  Absolutely not.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Mar 25, 2015)

Or as was said by people who got to look down the barrels of intolerance in previous generations:

_First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out— 
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— 
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me._

~ Martin Niemöller

_Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere._
~Martin Luther King, Jr.


----------



## BrockBallingdark (Mar 25, 2015)

DMZ2112 said:


> Sorry, Brock, but Illinois is one of 19 other states that have already passed similar religious freedom legislation.




That's odd, never recalled any business in IL acting in this manner.  If true, fine... move it to a State that is not like Indiana or IL.


----------



## jrowland (Mar 25, 2015)

I'll just link this article from Reason (a libertarian site, if you didn't know).

And this, which talks more generally about the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

All-in-all, I think the debate, like all political debate, is dominated by demagogues who eschew any and all compromise. I think the "system" is doing a reasonable job of finding the balance between the competing interests of sex-orientation discrimination and religious freedom. Yes it's messy, its applied differently in different places, and it takes a long time. Welcome to the Republic.


----------



## kenmarable (Mar 25, 2015)

Props to Gen Con for this. We had been considering taking our kids to their first Gen Con and this gives even more reason to. Given Gen Con's audience, this really makes sense. Between the 1960's civil rights movement and, as Zaruthustran pointed out, the ADA, I thought this was long settled and old news. But i'm looking forward to the day when this is just boring history for my kids or their kids.


----------



## Stacie GmrGrl (Mar 25, 2015)

I think my reasons for wanting to see GenCon move isn't so much all this political stuff but that where they are at now is at a breaking point to the point of it not sustainable anymore in Indianapolis. For about a decade between 2000 and 2010 the average of attendees was about 25,000 to 30,000 every year, then with the board game explosion here in the US that number has increased from 30,000 people to 60,000 in under 5 years. That's double, and the amount of room aimed at attendees via hotels and stuff like that hasn't been able to keep up with this rather sudden increase in convention goers. 

When GenCon made their deal with the city to hold their convention in this city, they did not expect this increase in goers to happen. So for this reason alone it's more viable for GC to move to a different city, one with a bigger infrastructure and larger space to expand with the growing attendance that will be happening for the next few years and it will continue to grow as board games (and gaming as a whole) becomes mainstream within our society and is no longer a niche thing.


----------



## Slamm-O (Mar 25, 2015)

If i read it right, the legislation will allow people to refuse service due to religeous reasons. Cant wait for the uproar when an antithiest says "You're religious? Sorry we don't serve your kind here."


----------



## mlund (Mar 25, 2015)

Actually, the law specifically states that the *government* (ie - the monopoly of violence) may not compel a business to deliver service to individuals in a nature contrary to their religious beliefs *unless* it proves it to be "is the least restrictive means of furthering the compelling governmental interest." 

Basically it keeps people from trolling religious businesses trying to sue them and fine them out of existence for not participating materially in same-sex, polygamous, or post-divorce weddings (state or private) if that's against their belief. Likewise a Jehovah's Witness who won't make cakes for a religious holidays, state holidays, or birthdays can't be held liable. Kosher and Halal delis aren't going to serve you pork either.

I think in a similar vein an atheist photograph who "doesn't do church weddings" likewise can't be compelled by force to choose between his beliefs and his livelihood.

At the same time, if provides for remedy so that someone is not forced to go on to the next town / county / state / whatever to get access to a service. You can have your wedding cake. You just can't use the state to shut down Shawna Taylor's bakery out of business because "she's a bigot!" and won't cater a same-sex wedding because she's Muslim when Joey Baldazzio's bakery across the street will do it without batting an eye-lash.

Marty Lund


----------



## redrick (Mar 25, 2015)

Fergurg said:


> Should a business be required to serve a man wearing a shirt that says, "People like you are why God created AIDS"?
> 
> Should a business be required to serve a man wearing a shirt that says, "Mexicans are like pool cues - hit them hard for good English."?
> 
> ...



Fortunately, bigots are not a protected class.

The United States isn't Europe -- we don't throw people in jail for hate speech -- but we can throw folks out of our bars for verbally or physically assaulting other patrons.

And there is no equivalency between a man in a "God created AIDS" T-shirt and a woman, in a dress, who might have been born a man.

GenCon didn't bring this issue to Indiana. The state of Indiana raised this issue when it considered legally siding with the rights of the discriminator over the rights of the discriminated.


----------



## madrivi (Mar 25, 2015)

Kiraya_TiDrekan said:


> For the same reason businesses are no longer allowed to discriminate on the basis of skin color.  No class of people should be made to feel less than human.
> 
> I hope Gen Con moves to a more progressive city, I really do.




I'm only going to say it once: You nailed it.

 When i read about using the right to do bussines to cover things like discrimination based upon your Gender it seems unbelievable, maybe time machines really exist and we are going back to the past...

Go GenCon go!


----------



## madrivi (Mar 25, 2015)

redrick said:


> The United States isn't Europe -- we don't throw people in jail for hate speech -- but we can throw folks out of our bars for verbally or physically assaulting other patrons.




Not really wanting to be a bore but do you realize that Europe is a Continent and politics are Country wise? I can say then that you in America (the continent) are all the same, and it is a big big World...


----------



## Fralex (Mar 25, 2015)

Wow, you guys are pretty chill discussing controversial topics. This was pleasant to read through. I think people get more riled up talking about whether it's OK to houserule something the game probably ought to have included to begin with than they do talking about real-world political issues.


----------



## dwayne (Mar 25, 2015)

Personally If you own the business you should have the right to refuse service to who ever you want, as its yours not the governments. Forcing ones views or life style on another is not a good thing as it makes those feel uncomfortable being forced to service or take care of those that they do not wish to. I for one would never go to a gay bar as a strait guy because I am not gay and have no interest in going. If you are gay than that's up to you and your choice and has no impact on me, forcing a business that's ran by people who find your life style or out look counter to theirs is an in infringement of there rights as well. So go some where else that's more acceptable to your out look and that way no toes are stepped on.


----------



## Shemeska (Mar 25, 2015)

dwayne said:


> Personally If you own the business you should have the right to refuse service to who ever you want, as its yours not the governments. Forcing ones views or life style on another is not a good thing as it makes those feel uncomfortable being forced to service or take care of those that they do not wish to. I for one would never go to a gay bar as a strait guy because I am not gay and have no interest in going. If you are gay than that's up to you and your choice and has no impact on me, forcing a business that's ran by people who find your life style or out look counter to theirs is an in infringement of there rights as well. So go some where else that's more acceptable to your out look and that way no toes are stepped on.




It's neither a choice, lifestyle, or outlook however. They have as much say as someone does in being black, white, male, female, etc.


----------



## nicolas.carrillos (Mar 25, 2015)

In _my_ opinion, while Gen Con is entitled to political participation (amounting to activism in this case), and so is procedurally correct to protest, I disagree with the substance of the claims. I do not consider that there is discrimination in this case. For once, the proposed legislation would only operate in extreme cases of religious or conscience objection, and so would not entitle the rejection of people to access or contract services merely because of their sexual orientation, etc., unless there is a strong moral objection on the part of the business. As explained by many, this is practically related to homosexual marriage and the idea that people who disagree with it may feel forced to show consent to it contrary to their beliefs despite there being alternative service providers willing to do so. Moreover, discrimination is legally a differential treatment with no proportional bases of persons in the same or equiparable positions. However, as bodies as the European Court of Human Rights have said (Kopf v. Austria case), not accepting or endorsing homosexual marriage is allowed by human rights and international law, because objectively there are differences. We could go on, but in my opinion the problem is that tactics have been used in the US and UK to stigmatize and force people to change their beliefs. This is contrary to a pluralistic society, curiously what advocates of protests claim to endorse: homogeneous thinking is not pluralism, neither is trying to impose it and pretend to censor all who think differently. So, I think that the proposed legislation in no way risks a hypothetical rejection of attendants to Gen Con, and trying to silence and oblige others to accept your _viewpoint_ (legitimate or not) runs contrary to freedom of expression and of opinion. That is my opinion, and I express it respectfully and aware of disagreements with it, but let it be said that I think that there is indeed a need to protect the rights of homosexual people, but that the risks of violation of their specific internationally-recognized rights is not at play in this case. Moreover, discussing political aspects related to RPGs is good in my opinion and permits the exchange of information, which enriches people. Yet, in previous discussions respectful discussions of the sort regarding other _topics _have been silenced, which is not consistent.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Mar 25, 2015)

mlund said:


> Actually, the law specifically states that the *government* (ie - the monopoly of violence) may not compel a business to deliver service to individuals in a nature contrary to their religious beliefs *unless* it proves it to be "is the least restrictive means of furthering the compelling governmental interest."
> 
> Basically it keeps people from trolling religious businesses trying to sue them and fine them out of existence for not participating materially in same-sex, polygamous, or post-divorce weddings (state or private) if that's against their belief. Likewise a Jehovah's Witness who won't make cakes for a religious holidays, state holidays, or birthdays can't be held liable. Kosher and Halal delis aren't going to serve you pork either.
> 
> ...



Here's the problem with that: it won't work.  It _can't_.  These laws are riddled with legal, logical, and theological traps.

First of all, there are faiths out there that would LOVE to discriminate against others than gays.  Christian Identity adherents would love to legally refuse service to non-white minorities of all kinds.  Which wins out?  The new state law that allows them to do so, or the federal laws that say it is unconstitutional?  (I think we all know how that fight ends.)

On the flip side, believers of the Nation of Islam* may well try to use the law to discriminate against whites.  Would NoI have that right, when CI wouldn't?  Is it good law to protect the intolerance of one group while the other group's is not?

Second, opposition to laws like this will be strong, intelligent and vocal.  Some of it will even be religiously literate.  And no court will merely take the religious person's word for it that such discrimination is justified by their faith.  There will be depositions at least, and a court case is probable.

Nearly every major faith in the world incorporates some form of The Golden Rule as a fundamental tenet.  They may have exceptions, but mostly involving instances when the faith or members of it are under violent attack.  IOW, self-preservation is a common exception.

Assuming that Christianity in its myriad forms is the major faith tradition in the USA, how does it do so?



> Which commandment is the most important of all?”  Jesus answered, “The most important is, ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one.  And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’  The second is this: ‘*You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.”*




(Emphasis mine.)

The second greatest commandment in Christianity is the Golden Rule, restated.

This situation, however, is not a violent confrontation, so there is probably no loophole there.

It will be hard for anyone to take the witness stand and assert- with support from recognizable theological sources- that their faith prohibits things like making wedding cakes for gays while simultaneously staying true to The Golden Rule.

But let's say the witness is prepared.

That still puts a secular court judge in the position of making a legal ruling on _what the actual doctrine of a faith is_, and whether the person asserting protection under this kind of law _genuinely believes their faith supports discrimination._.

Not only does this get into the Golden Rule problem, it raises SERIOUS issues regarding the separation of church & state.  Here is the government- in the form of the judiciary- defining religious belief & doctrine.  *And on a state by state basis.*

On those public policy grounds alone, it is far more efficient and less fraught with legal peril to disallow religiously based discrimination instead of legitimizing it in the state codes of law.

Lastly, these laws will not prevent lawsuits, all it does is shape the augments within them.  Forget constitutional arguments- just because there is some state law out there saying someone can legally discriminate does not mean that someone cannot still make a prima facie case that the discrimination was malicious, and thus, actionable as "Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress"...which carries those big jury awards that bankrupt businesses that those politicians so earnestly wish to protect.

The only way to prevent the lawsuits is to do what certain pols and satanists suggested (as I pointed out upthread): posting signs telling "Due to religious reasons, we refuse service to ________."  While that may actually save the business from lawsuits, as the proponents well know, it won't necessarily save them from public opprobrium, boycotts, and an economic death spiral that will bankrupt them as surely as any lawsuit.

Hobby Lobby might be able to weather a storm like that, but Mom & Pop's Great Cake Shop?  Probably not.




* a uniquely American interpretation of Islam that is generally regarded as a heresy by all the other branches.


----------



## Mikaze (Mar 25, 2015)

dwayne said:


> Personally If you own the business you should have the right to refuse service to who ever you want, as its yours not the governments. Forcing ones views or life style on another is not a good thing as it makes those feel uncomfortable being forced to service or take care of those that they do not wish to. I for one would never go to a gay bar as a strait guy because I am not gay and have no interest in going. If you are gay than that's up to you and your choice and has no impact on me, forcing a business that's ran by people who find your life style or out look counter to theirs is an in infringement of there rights as well. So go some where else that's more acceptable to your out look and that way no toes are stepped on.




Along with seconding Shemeska's point that orientation and gender identity are neither a lifestyle or a matter of choice, exactly _how_ are LGBT folks forcing anything on others by simply wishing to be treated as equals.  We aren't exactly recruiting, you know.  

Is our merely existing too much of a burden for certain business owners?


----------



## Maggan (Mar 25, 2015)

I think this is a great move by GenCon, and I support it.

That is all from me.

/Maggan


----------



## Hand of Evil (Mar 25, 2015)

Vegas, here we come!    As someone that remembers the early days and how D&D was viewed, I applaud this and support Gen Con.


----------



## ShadowDenizen (Mar 25, 2015)

Morrus, thanks for posting this.  I know the importance of "the Grandma Rule", and I applaud you for making ENWorld a safe-space for gamers everywhere. And I hope we can dicuss this civilly, knowing everyone will have their own strongly-held opinions.

But sometimes (like in any gaming system) you have to know when to break the rules for a greater cause/purpose.

Personally speaking, I applaud Adrian Swartout (and Co.) for taking a stand for something they believe will benefit not just the gaming community, but potentially the entire state.


----------



## Nylanfs (Mar 25, 2015)

I heartily approve, although I hope GenCon doesn't move.


----------



## graypariah (Mar 25, 2015)

This was a very interesting read this morning and I am glad that pretty much everyone was mature enough to handle the matter well.

That said, I will admit that I am torn. I agree completely that members of the LGBT community should be considered a protected class, but at the same time I also know that forcing people not to be intolerant only drives the intolerance deeper. The Civil Rights Acts were done with the best intentions, but now there is the sneaky intolerance of others that is different that is kept quiet and when it comes out the person claims that they are not truly intolerant. Perhaps I am not phrasing this well, but I am sure everyone knows what I speak of - the co-worker that makes racist comments and then when called on it claims they are not really a racist for example. You can't change the way people think with laws and forcing them to pretend to think differently only digs those thorns in deeper. How many generations since the 1960s were poisoned by their parents because their parents could only vent their ill-conceived hate in private with their family? It was very hard to change the values my parents instilled in me - to break the chain so to speak.

These issue can only be truly resolved with open discussion and positive reinforcement. In this case especially (I truly doubt more than a handful of businesses in a metropolitan area will risk the bad PR) I feel that changing the law will cause more harm than good in the long run.


----------



## Raistrox (Mar 25, 2015)

I would think that if it's a business that's open to the public, they shouldn't be able to scare off or straight-up tell some would-be customers that they're not welcome there. It's part of being a business, your customers can be ANYBODY. 

At least, that's how it should work in my mind. Apparently, my mind isn't on the same page as the actual laws.


----------



## Nellisir (Mar 25, 2015)

I wouldn't mind if Gen Con came a little further east. How about Pittsburgh? Is PA cool?

I support Gen Con in this matter. Good for them for taking a stand.


----------



## KirayaTiDrekan (Mar 25, 2015)

I would say they should go to Seattle, but I wouldn't want PaizoCon to be overshadowed.  Denver maybe?


----------



## chibi graz'zt (Mar 25, 2015)

Bravo to Gen Con for making this clear. All the more reason I am attending again this year.


----------



## Nylanfs (Mar 25, 2015)

I think the largest problem with moving it is the lack of *connected* hotels, there are few other convention areas that are uniquely suited for how GenCon works.


----------



## varden (Mar 25, 2015)

EN World and GenCon need to stay out of politics.


----------



## Banesfinger (Mar 25, 2015)

Bring GEN CON to Canada.  We love everybody up here!


----------



## pemerton (Mar 25, 2015)

Grimstaff said:


> Politics should absolutely NOT be a factor in RPGs, it's already splintered fandom in Scifi/Fantasy Lit and video gaming. Social Justice  hot topics may be gold for a twitter feed, but they're absolute poison at the cash register. Many people, understandably, don't want the stress and distraction from what should be an escape from all that.



I don't really see how you can keep politics out of social activities, particularly ones that involve making up stories about people, gods, worlds etc.

It's like politics should not be a factor in literature.


----------



## ShadowDenizen (Mar 25, 2015)

> EN World and GenCon need to stay out of politics.





While I endorse "The Grandma Rule" as a whole, we have to acknowedge that, (though we often imagine otherwise by our very nature) we live in the real-world; outside issues DO affect us, and our culture as gamers.  And, as a community, it's up to us be able to discuss these matters civilly, realizing that others may disagree with us (and vice-versa.)

And It's raelly about _business_ as least as much as it is about politics and ideologies; I'm sure this was a carefully measured act on GenCon's part, and I'm sure that business/money factored into the decision to take this stand as much as a desire for inclusiveness.


----------



## shadowva (Mar 25, 2015)

Kiraya_TiDrekan said:


> The problem with that is that in that sort of system, the majority and/or the powerful are more "equal" than everyone else.  The tyranny of the majority allows them to push out anyone not like them.  History is full of this sort of thing.  Protected classes are protected because history has shown that if they aren't, they are discriminated against and victimized.  As LGBTQ people are being right this very moment.




You have mentioned 'tyranny of the majority' a couple times, but that's what you're advocating. The majority is passing the law to force the business owner to perform a service they do not wish. It may be seen by different people as 'good' or 'bad' but still the state using force to have the business provide the service.


----------



## TrainedMunkey (Mar 25, 2015)

Unfortunately we can't usually look past our own upbringing and fears. 

I had a rather liberal upbringing and do not fear the LGBT community.

I tend to have pity for and try to understand those who live in fear rather than ridicule them. 

I am proud of my community that they would take a step in the direction of acceptance rather than fear.

I did serve with the Marine Corps, I am a white male and I like women. I have seen both sides of the coin. With the exception of being a part of the LGBT community. 

Also being a geek, I have to end with, "Fear is the mind Killer."


----------



## delericho (Mar 25, 2015)

Good to see GenCon taking a stand.

That said, count me amongst those who are uneasy at ENWorld violating its own "no politics" rule here, even if in a good cause.


----------



## KirayaTiDrekan (Mar 25, 2015)

shadowva said:


> You have mentioned 'tyranny of the majority' a couple times, but that's what you're advocating. The majority is passing the law to force the business owner to perform a service they do not wish. It may be seen by different people as 'good' or 'bad' but still the state using force to have the business provide the service.




I think you missed the initial context of the conversation.  Indiana is passing a law making it legal for businesses to refuse service on religious grounds, AKA permission to discriminate.  The state is doing pretty much the opposite of what you just said, though your phrasing leaves out the underlying bigotry that motivates laws like this.


----------



## shadowva (Mar 25, 2015)

I meant state in the general, government, definition, not the State of Indiana. Though the State is only responding to judicial actions in regard to business owners. The ADA clause regarding business owners which some would have expanded to other 'classes' is tyranny of the major against the business owners. They may be 'bad' business owners with outdated ideals, but they are still losing their freedom of association.


----------



## dmccoy1693 (Mar 25, 2015)

Go GenCon.


----------



## goatunit (Mar 25, 2015)

Just want to lend my voice to the chorus of support. For all the (often deserved) bad reputation that gamers have for being especially reactionary, there are few hobbies where the actual industry leadership is so progressive and open.

Excelsior!


----------



## redrick (Mar 25, 2015)

madrivi said:


> Not really wanting to be a bore but do you realize that Europe is a Continent and politics are Country wise? I can say then that you in America (the continent) are all the same, and it is a big big World...



Haha, fair. I specifically meant France and Germany. It is very interesting to talk to Germans about free speech, as Nazism is wholly outlawed there.

But yeah, I know that Europe is a big place with lots of different countries with different laws, attitudes and cultures. To be fair, we sometimes say, "in America" when we really just mean, "in Missouri."


----------



## Ell-Egypto (Mar 25, 2015)

Gen Con should have stayed out of religion and politics.
En-World should stay out of religion and politics.


----------



## Ell-Egypto (Mar 25, 2015)

"I'm sure this was a carefully measured act on GenCon's part"

yes it is. they realized how much money they had,
and it went to their heads, and now they are trying to force 
their view of morality on the people of Indiana.

Is it inclusiveness ? what an odd word for trying to coerce people
to acquiesce to your beliefs.


----------



## the Jester (Mar 25, 2015)

dwayne said:


> Personally If you own the business you should have the right to refuse service to who ever you want, as its yours not the governments. Forcing ones views or life style on another is not a good thing as it makes those feel uncomfortable being forced to service or take care of those that they do not wish to. I for one would never go to a gay bar as a strait guy because I am not gay and have no interest in going. If you are gay than that's up to you and your choice and has no impact on me, forcing a business that's ran by people who find your life style or out look counter to theirs is an in infringement of there rights as well. So go some where else that's more acceptable to your out look and that way no toes are stepped on.




As a straight guy who met his girlfriend in a gay bar, I have to say that you're limiting your awesome bar options. Gay bars are always the most fun, IMHO.


----------



## ivelbob (Mar 25, 2015)

Thank you for posting this Morrus!

While I appreciate the desire to keep politics out of our great hobby, that's a privilege that's only available to those who aren't discriminated against. This has everyday, real-life consequences for those who might be harmed by this legislation. As a gay man, I can be kicked out of my hotel at Gen Con (good luck finding me another room, free market!). Or be refused medication at a pharmacy. And things might be worse for many people who actually live in IN. This isn't just lawmakers arguing on top of some distant hill; it's people's lives.


----------



## the Jester (Mar 25, 2015)

Ell-Egypto said:


> Is it inclusiveness ? what an odd word for trying to coerce people
> to acquiesce to your beliefs.





So do you assert that businesses have the right to exclude blacks, Jews, athiests, Muslims, brunettes and the Irish, too?


----------



## Umbran (Mar 25, 2015)

delericho said:


> Good to see GenCon taking a stand.
> 
> That said, count me amongst those who are uneasy at ENWorld violating its own "no politics" rule here, even if in a good cause.




Well, first off, maybe you can blame me.  I saw the news, and alerted Morrus about the story.

I was uneasy about doing so, precisely because I am normally a pretty hard case about the no-politics rule.  I *like* that rule, I prefer that our hobby gaming discussion not be fraught with weighty matters, and the arguments that come with those matters.  Most of the time, these things just aren't relevant to hobby games, and keeping a lid on discussion makes sense.

In this case, though, it seemed unavoidable - our hobby has people who engage in it, and businesses who serve the hobby.  Thus, on occasion, real-world politics works its way directly into the context of our gaming, and then ignoring it isn't smart.

A law is coming up.  Gen Con feels this law will impact them (and I can see several ways that can happen, so I tend to think they are right).  Gen Con announced what they may do in response - the single largest RPG event of the year may move over this.  That's pretty direct gaming news.  You'd prefer we stuck our fingers in our ears and go, "La la la!  Nothing is happening!"?

And, folks, you have my thanks that you've kept the discussion civil.  That is pretty awesome.  Keep doing that, 'cause I would prefer not having to bring out Mod Voice here.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Mar 25, 2015)

Do do progressive gov't rules and grassroots movements drive bigotry out of the open and into hiding?  Sure.  It is a double edged sword in that sense.  And I feel that, in many ways, concealed bigotry is worse, because you may never know if the negative interaction you had with someone was based on that bigotry.

OTOH, it's a much rarer form of bigotry, viewed in a historical context.

Besides, it sure is nice to be able to sit at a lunch counter or ride on busses in the front seats or go to certain schools or have certain jobs or live certain places.  AND it is nicer to know that if you discover you HAVE been wronged because of prejudice, the justice system gives you tools to combat it.

(On paper, at least.)

Because overt bigotry SANS those laws hurts more often; it touches more aspects of people's lives.


----------



## billd91 (Mar 25, 2015)

shadowva said:


> I meant state in the general, government, definition, not the State of Indiana. Though the State is only responding to judicial actions in regard to business owners. The ADA clause regarding business owners which some would have expanded to other 'classes' is tyranny of the major against the business owners. They may be 'bad' business owners with outdated ideals, but they are still losing their freedom of association.




They are reacting to judicial action, but not what you're implying. They're taking an opportunity to take the Hobby Lobby decision and apply it to the state to keep municipalities from penalizing businesses who discriminate against homosexuals. Before the Hobby Lobby decision, the federal RFRA hadn't been applied to for profit businesses nor, by my understanding, had the courts endorsed the refusal of services because they may enable "immoral acts". Now, they have. This legislation is pretty much license for hotel owners to bar homosexual couples from renting rooms if they think homosexual sex is immoral. Before Hobby Lobby, it pretty much wasn't. The Hobby Lobby decision has changed the landscape and the Indiana government is exploiting that.


----------



## delericho (Mar 25, 2015)

Umbran said:


> Well, first off, maybe you can blame me.  I saw the news, and alerted Morrus about the story.
> 
> ... and lots of other stuff...




Thanks for taking the time to address this. I do, of course, understand the difficulties involved in deciding whether to report/not report the issue.


----------



## RoseNDagger (Mar 25, 2015)

GenCon did the right thing by sending a letter to the governor. It is, in a way, political. But it is a business issue. Many in the gamer community are LGBTQ, this is a place for many of us to deal with the stress of being LGBTQ and feeling as though we are not safe disclosing our status. If Indiana gives businesses the right to discriminate and the hotel manager, or clerk for that matter, chooses to exercise that right GenCon and the vendors that set up shop lose that business. Yes we, as gamers are in it for enjoyment, but the vendors are not always there for the same reason. Religious discrimination doesn't just apply to the LGBTQ people, what if the individual decides not to allow Asian people because of the ignorant belief that they are Buddhist or Muslim? Or worse yet, you can't enter because they believe that roleplaying games re of the devil. GenCon is running a business this act will make them lose business.


----------



## Umbran (Mar 25, 2015)

Ell-Egypto said:


> yes it is. they realized how much money they had,
> and it went to their heads, and now they are trying to force
> their view of morality on the people of Indiana.




That is one plausible story.  There is another.  

Gen Con may realize that they have many attendees for whom this law is relevant.  They may quite rightly choose to not attend the Con if it is in a place with such a law.  And those attendees have friends, who may also choose not to attend because of the law.  

Thus, Gen Con may see decreased sales - this law gets in the way of Gen Con serving its customer base.  That leaves Gen Con with three choices:  Just suck up the loss, move, or announce that they may have to move so that the local government and businesses can make a rational decision before doing this.

I'm told Gen Con brings about $50 million to the area each year.  It seems to me that the third option is the most polite and professional they could be about it.

So, you may choose your narrative, if you wish.  But it seems unsubstantiated.  Mine at least has a vague business case behind it.  You want businesses to be allowed to do what makes sense for them?  Gen Con seems to be doing just that.  I can't see how you can complain about it.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Mar 25, 2015)

> they are still losing their freedom of association.




No, they're not.

Freedom of association (FoA) is a right to join groups, not to decide who comes into your place of business.  IOW, it is a privacy right; it is about there being no way for the government to force you to include others or prevent you from joining with others in private.

As soon as you move into the public sphere, FoA essentially disappears.

A classic example occurred in New Orleans. Many of the Krewes that put on the famous Mardi Gras parades were segregated until the 1990s, when one person sued for the right to join one.  The decision of the court was that- because they operated in the public sphere, the segregated Krewes either had to integrate their membership or they could not have parades anymore.

So many Krewes opted to maintain their FoA, it almost killed NOLA's Mardi Gras.  But guys like Harry Connick, Jr. stepped up and formed new, integrated Krewes.  

Similar rulings also opened up membership in many golf clubs to minorities and women- part of the rationale was that so much business was being done on the links that they had moved out of FoA issues and into the public sphere.  The clubs were forced to choose between integration or closing.  To do otherwise would have permitted white males (not vilifying, just observing that that was the nearly universal club limitation) to have an unjust advantage in business affairs.

IOW, if you want to discriminate against having gays or minorities in your house of worship because of religious beliefs, fine.  But once you open a business to the public, you open it to ALL of the public.


----------



## Farland (Mar 25, 2015)

GenCon did great.


----------



## Mikaze (Mar 25, 2015)

Umbran said:


> That is one plausible story.  There is another.
> 
> Gen Con may realize that they have many attendees for whom this law is relevant.  They may quite rightly choose to not attend the Con if it is in a place with such a law.  And those attendees have friends, who may also choose not to attend because of the law.
> 
> ...




This, with a side dish of "GenCon isn't the one that's hurting people".


----------



## Mikaze (Mar 25, 2015)

Nylanfs said:


> I think the largest problem with moving it is the lack of *connected* hotels, there are few other convention areas that are uniquely suited for how GenCon works.




Oh God, the benefits of those skywalks are going to be one of the hardest things to let go.  

Especially for those lugging and/or wearing heavy, unwieldy stuff, like a cart full of board games or a Pyramid Head costume + ridiculously oversized knife.


----------



## Mikaze (Mar 25, 2015)

Ell-Egypto said:


> Gen Con should have stayed out of religion and politics.
> En-World should stay out of religion and politics.




Religion* and politics are the ones that came to GenCon, not the other way around.  

This is a situation where choosing to say or do nothing would have hurt people.  If you want to blame someone, pin it on those that are pushing an unjust, harmful bill.  GenCon is looking out for the people that attend in this case. 

*Or rather the abuse of religion as a bludgeon to hurt others.  People of all faiths are welcome at GenCon, and Gamers for Jesus has been a thing for a while now.  And they coexist peacefully with the Gaymers stuff.  Some people even get t-shirts from both.


----------



## tomBitonti (Mar 25, 2015)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> I wouldn't be surprised to find that a good attorney could get GenCon out of that 5 year contract on the grounds of something like Force Majeur: "we can't fulfill our side of the contract because the laws of the state create an insurmountable barrier to our ability to run our business profitably."  Or some such.




Would it be as simple as that?  If I were entertaining that argument, I'd want some actual evidence of the loss of profitability.  Also, "insurmountable" seems rather strong, and would seem to attract a rebuttal.

Not that a more detailed (and likely more persuasive) argument couldn't be made: Some numbers on the attendance and distribution of attendees across the affected groups and cases of actual hardship the affected attendees would likely encounter would go a long way to make the argument.

Thx!

TomB


----------



## Nylanfs (Mar 25, 2015)

Mikaze said:


> Oh God, the benefits of those skywalks are going to be one of the hardest things to let go.




Yep, remember when it was in Milwaukee? I never got a hotel anywhere close and most times had to stay at the University.


----------



## tomBitonti (Mar 25, 2015)

I'm finding all sorts of careful delineations which need to be made when addressing the questions posed here.

For example, I imagine that a Baker could decide to not make wedding cakes (for _any_ religion, or for a civil ceremony), on either the basis that they weren't that good at making wedding cakes, or because they don't like to make wedding cakes, or because they had a bad divorce and wanted nothing to do with weddings, or because they don't like religion.  That seems to be discrimination against making wedding cakes, not against a particular religion.

Or, if the reason was based on disaffection for religion as a whole, would the decision be prohibited?

Would it matter if there were many vendors which were not exclusive, and a handful which were?  I understand this is a tricky question, since the many vendors today might become few in the future, and the measure of "many" and "few" are rather imprecise.  But as a practical matter, the difference between "many" and "few" can be used to estimate the hardship endured by an affected attendee.

Also, there is close case law, for example, as discussed here:

http://corporate.findlaw.com/busine...-laws-applicable-to-private-clubs-or-not.html

I'm thinking we will need to review the case law to understand legally how the issue is approached.

Thx!

TomB


----------



## tomBitonti (Mar 25, 2015)

Umbran said:


> Gen Con may realize that they have many attendees for whom this law is relevant.  They may quite rightly choose to not attend the Con if it is in a place with such a law.  And those attendees have friends, who may also choose not to attend because of the law.




Additional text omitted.

This makes me wonder if we can know GenCon's motivation in sending their letter.

The motivation may have little to do with their actual stance on the matter outside of a narrow business sense: The law _would_ impact their profitability by impacting attendance; Sending a letter is of small cost; Sending a letter will help to put the organization on the good side of affected attendees.  (Also, sending a letter might get the ball rolling for justifying breaking their contract.  The issue might be a cover for breaking a contract which they already want to break because the venue cannot handle the number of attendees.)

I imagine the folks who run the convention would rather this weren't an issue, and they really don't care one way or another outside of their focus on running a convention.

Thx!

TomB


----------



## Umbran (Mar 25, 2015)

tomBitonti said:


> Would it be as simple as that?  If I were entertaining that argument, I'd want some actual evidence of the loss of profitability.




Well, of course, if you were taking it to court to get out of a contract, you'd have to have some numbers.  So, let's scotch some up, for the idea...

The percentage of the adult american population that is gay is often estimated to be about 4%.  With its tendency to collect those who are not accepted in the rest of society, gaming may well run higher than that.  We can also expect that for each person impacted, there's probably a friend who would stand in solidarity.  This might then quickly ramp up to, say, 10% of the GenCon ticket sales in question over the matter.  I think it reasonable to think that the vendors might see similar numbers of losses, so those fees drop as well.

What kind of profit margin does GenCon operate under?  We don't know.  But, many businesses run around 10%.  A sudden loss of 10% of revenues could wipe out profitability.

These numbers are made up, of course, but as a back-of-an-envelope estimate, it doesn't sound outright impossible.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Mar 25, 2015)

Fergurg said:


> No, but you are demanding that a class of people - business owners - do not have as many rights as you - a transsexual - do. You do not have to do business with them. You do not have to give them your money, and you don't even have to justify it. "I just don't like you" is a valid reason for choosing to not be a customer. And yet, you feel that you should be allowed to compel others to enter into a transaction with you. Sorry, but that's not OK with me.




So how would you like it if you spent your money on airfare, and hotel, and con registration, only to show up and find out that no bar or restaurant would serve you so much as a scrap of food in the entire town simply because they didn't like the cut of your jib or some other such nonsense? Would that be a con experience that you would be eager to repeat? 

So all those places have the right to deny you service just because they don't like the look of you and you support their decision. What about the hotel and airline that loses your business even though you were welcome because you don't plan to ever return? 

Business owners "exercising their rights" can and do hurt other businesses in the area with their intolerant poisonous garbage. Hurting other peoples livelihoods because being a dick is more important to you than making money is not ok.


----------



## Zaruthustran (Mar 25, 2015)

Regarding "religion & politics" on ENWorld, my opinion is that this has been a good discussion. It's civil, it's timely, and it's relevant: GenCon is, functionally, the oldest and highest-profile community of tabletop gamers--how the stewards of that community act has an impact on this community, here.

I've learned a thing or two in this thread, and appreciate the different viewpoints. Particular call-out to Dannyalcatraz for bringing well-reasoned, well-sourced discussion. IAAL, indeed.

Is this topic uncomfortable? Yes. Is it appropriate for this community of gamers to discuss the actions and implications of the largest representative of the tabletop gamer community (GenCon)? In this limited case, I think yes.


----------



## tomBitonti (Mar 25, 2015)

Umbran said:


> Well, of course, if you were taking it to court to get out of a contract, you'd have to have some numbers.  So, let's scotch some up, for the idea...
> 
> The percentage of the adult american population that is gay is often estimated to be about 4%.  With its tendency to collect those who are not accepted in the rest of society, gaming may well run higher than that.  We can also expect that for each person impacted, there's probably a friend who would stand in solidarity.  This might then quickly ramp up to, say, 10% of the GenCon ticket sales in question over the matter.  I think it reasonable to think that the vendors might see similar numbers of losses, so those fees drop as well.
> 
> ...




Hi,

Thanks for the numbers!  I did a quick check (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_demographics_of_the_United_States) and the numbers are spot on.  (Although, I thought the percentages were higher.)

While we are being specific, I did a look for the meaning of "place of public accommodation", and found this, which is quite specific:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/12181

I didn't expect to find such a specific and enumerative list, but there you have it.

Thx!

TomB


----------



## Umbran (Mar 25, 2015)

tomBitonti said:


> This makes me wonder if we can know GenCon's motivation in sending their letter.




Not unless they tell us.  That's why I spoke about plausible narratives - we don't know.  



> The motivation may have little to do with their actual stance on the matter outside of a narrow business sense...




Quite possible.  There have been several cases recently where national brands have found that being inclusive is ultimately good for business - f'rex, national brands with advertisements that include biracial families, or families with gay/lesbian parents, that took some major heat from one side, but found more than sufficient support from the other to make it a good business decision.   In the age of rapid communication, on the national scale, it may be that this is simply the right business decision.

It is a good day when good business and being good people align.


----------



## tomBitonti (Mar 25, 2015)

I started to look up information about dress codes, and finding good links is a bit hard.  Finding any links at all is easy; it's picking out good ones which is hard.

Edit: The point was to learn more about discrimination based on dress, which seems quite legal, as restuarants as well as other businesses commonly have dress codes for their customers.

Edit2: Notwithstanding, I imagine that using a dress code as a cover for other forms of discrimination is not legal.  Although, I think, the intent might be hard to prove.

This was useful in relation to restuarants and hotels:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/hotels_and_restaurants

That links to this, which turned out to be not so useful:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/2

One of the problems is that "dress code" finds more information about dress codes set by employers for their employees.  For example:

http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/practices/



> Dress Code
> 
> In general, an employer may establish a dress code which applies to all employees or employees within certain job categories.  However, there are a few possible exceptions.
> 
> ...




Thx!

TomB


----------



## Mikaze (Mar 25, 2015)

Nylanfs said:


> Yep, remember when it was in Milwaukee? I never got a hotel anywhere close and most times had to stay at the University.




I've only been to the Indy cons, but I can imagine.  And depending on the local climate....oh this could get rough.  Indy at least tended towards a dry heat in my experience there, but that's a skewed Louisianan perspective talking.


----------



## Krypter (Mar 25, 2015)

GenCon shouldn't be meddling in politics. That is not their business and it'll have nasty consequences.


----------



## Mikaze (Mar 25, 2015)

Krypter said:


> GenCon shouldn't be meddling in politics. That is not their business and it'll have nasty consequences.




Politics pushed first.  And doing nothing would have nasty consequences for people GenCon wants to feel welcome.


----------



## Nylanfs (Mar 25, 2015)

It's on WVPE a NPR station in Indiana right now. 

Here's a link to the actual broadcast where they talk about it and talk about the GenCon letter. There isn't much talk though.


----------



## graypariah (Mar 25, 2015)

ExploderWizard said:


> So how would you like it if you spent your money on airfare, and hotel, and con registration, only to show up and find out that no bar or restaurant would serve you so much as a scrap of food in the entire town simply because they didn't like the cut of your jib or some other such nonsense? Would that be a con experience that you would be eager to repeat?
> 
> So all those places have the right to deny you service just because they don't like the look of you and you support their decision. What about the hotel and airline that loses your business even though you were welcome because you don't plan to ever return?
> 
> Business owners "exercising their rights" can and do hurt other businesses in the area with their intolerant poisonous garbage. Hurting other peoples livelihoods because being a dick is more important to you than making money is not ok.




Business owners typically do not operate as one entity (without being forced to by law) unless there is either a profit to be had by their collaboration or if it is a small enough community that they all know each other personally. Neither of those apply to the city in question. So it wouldn't be that no bar would serve a person, it would be that one bar wouldn't serve the person in a city that is likely filled with bars. And to be fair, if the bar owner is so intolerant to refuse to serve a person with a different orientation than themselves then I would hope that people wouldn't _want_ to give them business.

It is also worth noting that I have seen a lot of discrimination gotten away with simply be not stating the reason why a person was refused. Any business owner regardless of law could use any number of ways other than flat out stating "We don't serve your kind". This type of secret discrimination is much worse because those of us like me are not always aware of it and inadvertently support discriminators. A bar next to GenCon that openly refused to serve a certain group of people next to GenCon is much preferable to one that serves that group but secretly spits in their drinks after all.


----------



## Morrus (Mar 25, 2015)

Krypter said:


> GenCon shouldn't be meddling in politics. That is not their business and it'll have nasty consequences.




Eh?  Politics is everybody's business.  There is nobody on the planet to whom it is appropriate to tell not to meddle in politics. That's what politics is _for_.  Gen Con and its owners are absolutely entitled to get involved in politics when things might affect them or their customers (or even when they might not!)


----------



## Uller (Mar 25, 2015)

Has anyone that is commenting actually read the bill?  I don't think it does what most of you (on either side) think it does.  It doesn't appear to me to be about the hospitality industry at all.  Nor is it giving any sort of green light to discrimination.  It's saying if the government passes a law or a rule that goes counter to people's religious beliefs it must do so in the least restrictive means possible.  How can that be a bad thing?


----------



## Umbran (Mar 25, 2015)

Krypter said:


> GenCon shouldn't be meddling in politics. That is not their business and it'll have nasty consequences.




If it impacts their business, then kind of by definition it is their business.  

Do you have a description of how this won't actually impact GenCon?  If not, then it is their business, and they have a right to respond to the upcoming law.


----------



## Krypter (Mar 25, 2015)

Morrus said:


> Eh?  Politics is everybody's business.  There is nobody on the planet to whom it is appropriate to tell not to meddle in politics. That's what politics is _for_.  Gen Con and its owners are absolutely entitled to get involved in politics when things might affect them or their customers (or even when they might not!)




And yet you censor conversations or comments about politics here on ENWorld. Your hypocrisy is showing, Morrus.


----------



## Morrus (Mar 25, 2015)

Krypter said:


> And yet you censor conversations or comments about politics here on ENWorld.




Yes, I do. I usually ask people not to discuss politics here. I'm relaxing it - carefully - for this thread.



> Your hypocrisy is showing, Morrus.




That's not what that means, but if insulting me helps, go for it, I guess. The point still stands.

If you have further questions about site moderation, please take it to Meta, email, or PM.


----------



## Zaukrie (Mar 25, 2015)

Gen Con is right to take this stance. That's about all I will say on ENWORLD about it.


----------



## Krypter (Mar 25, 2015)

For your perusal in this debate, the latest analysis of LGBT demographics by city in the USA:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/21/u...ay-population.html?rref=upshot&abt=0002&abg=1


----------



## Darkstar360 (Mar 25, 2015)

It's been a really interesting discussion so far with strong opinions on both sides being expressed civilly. 

I find the argument that businesses should be allowed to freely choose their clientele (and by extension refuse service to those they deem 'undesirable') fascinating. There was a high profile case here in England a few years back where a privately run bed & breakfast refused a room to a gay couple purely because they were gay (I'll add a link at the end). This sounds exactly like the situation this state law is trying to allow. 

As I understand it (at least here in Great Britain anyway) an exchange of goods or service is a legal contract. For some very valid reasons you are allowed to refuse service, or even entry to the premises, to any customer and you do not have to give a reason for that refusal. That law is mainly there for you to exclude shoplifters or who you suspect of engaging illegal activities (such as buying alcohol for the under age etc.). However, if it can be discerned that your reason is discriminatory, you are breaking the law. Which is what happened in this case. The couple weren't being abusive or antagonistic, nor were they engaging in anything illegal or dangerous. They simply wanted a room with a double bed so they could sleep together, a service that any other (straight) couple could reasonably expect to be fulfilled. 

Of course they could have then gone to another hotel or such and I assume that's exactly what they did do on the night but that's not the point. They entered into a contract with the B&B owners in good faith and the B&B owners broke that contract by discriminating against their sexuality. 

You can absolutely refuse individuals for the right reasons but you cannot refuse them for the wrong reasons. Refusing someone because of race, religion, sex or sexuality is illegal because you are not refusing the individual for individual reasons, you are refusing a group for arbitrary reason.

Or at least that's how it should be I think, that seems sensible doesn't it?


----------



## Darkstar360 (Mar 25, 2015)

Oops, forgot the link:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-25119158


----------



## Nylanfs (Mar 25, 2015)

Hmm, Louisville might be an option, has a few hotels close.


----------



## Umbran (Mar 25, 2015)

Uller said:


> Has anyone that is commenting actually read the bill?  I don't think it does what most of you (on either side) think it does.  It doesn't appear to me to be about the hospitality industry at all.  Nor is it giving any sort of green light to discrimination.  It's saying if the government passes a law or a rule that goes counter to people's religious beliefs it must do so in the least restrictive means possible.  How can that be a bad thing?




Yes, I have read the bill.  It is not specifically about the hospitality industry, but applies very broadly.  And, when you realize its implications, it does allow for discrimination.

The relevant section reads thus:


			
				 Indiana SB 101 said:
			
		

> Sec. 8.
> (a) Except as provided in subsection (b), a governmental entity may not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion, even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability.
> 
> (b) A governmental entity may substantially burden a person's exercise of religion only if the governmental entity demonstrates that application of the burden to the person:
> ...




So, first off, it isn't just about laws.  It restricts action by a governmental entity, broadly.  So, for example,  the Indiana Environmental Protection Agency and its regulations would be subject to this. 

The "may not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion" is the key element here.  It means that within the state, they cannot pass a law or regulation saying one *cannot* discriminate on the basis of sexual preference, and if they did, individuals could ignore it by claiming it is a religious issue.  If discrimination cannot be prevented, then, of course, it is allowed.  

Mind you, this doesn't only apply to the LGBTQ community getting served in a restaurant for GenCon.  It applies to all sorts of other things, many not relevant to gaming directly.  We're mostly concerned with the impact to service to GenCon, because this site is about gaming.


----------



## Zaruthustran (Mar 25, 2015)

Yep, Uller, I linked the bill in my first post on this thread--it appears on the second page.

The bill essentially says that a person's exercise of religion trumps government, by default. The bill allows the government to "burden" a person's exercise of religion, but only if the government "demonstrates" two qualifications.

Which is whack. Seems to me that the individual should be the one that has to prove injury that a particular rule is causing harm/preventing free practice of religion. 

The crux is personal liberty vs. corporate liberty. I'm of the opinion that personal liberty should triumph over corporate liberty: in general a business should not be allowed to discriminate against you, simply because of who "you" are. 

Discrimination based on actions? Sure, I'm for that. If you're disruptive, or rude, or otherwise violating a business's terms of behavior (as expected of and applied to all clientele) then I'm all for a business being able to throw someone out/call the cops to trespass someone from the premises. But discrimination based on fundamental aspects of your being? No way. That's why we have laws like the civil rights act and the ADA. And why we need something similar for sexual orientation/identity.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Mar 25, 2015)

Uller said:


> Has anyone that is commenting actually read the bill?  I don't think it does what most of you (on either side) think it does.  It doesn't appear to me to be about the hospitality industry at all.  Nor is it giving any sort of green light to discrimination.  It's saying if the government passes a law or a rule that goes counter to people's religious beliefs it must do so in the least restrictive means possible.  How can that be a bad thing?




Anyone interested can find the digest and full text here.
http://iga.in.gov/legislative/2015/bills/senate/101#document-92bab197

It applies to *all* of the state's laws:


> Sec. 1. This chapter applies to all governmental entity statutes,
> ordinances, resolutions, executive or administrative orders,
> regulations, customs, and usages, including the implementation or
> application thereof, regardless of whether they were enacted,
> adopted, or initiated before, on, or after July 1, 2015.




That means if a city passes a local ordinance making it illegal to discriminate against gays by firing them for being gay because you believe your religion teaches this is OK, _this_ law makes that ordinance illegal, thus preserving the right to discriminate against gays by firing them for being gay.

Ditto refusing housing, lodging, food service, drink service, medical service...

Not that this legislation explicitly singles out the LGBT community.  However, by seeking to avoid that obvious pitfall, it opens others.  ANY characteristic becomes fair game, the way this law is drafted.  A Muslim owned coffee shop could deny service to non-Muslims.  An ultraorthodox Jewish taxi company could refuse women the right to use their service.  A Christian Identity MD could refuse to treat mixed race people.

(See post #106 in this thread for more problems.)


----------



## SteveC (Mar 25, 2015)

So as I've looked into this a little more, and am seeing what the bill actually does, I honestly can't see how this would interfere with Gen Con in any way. Now I get that this is a political issue, and the Gen Con staff certainly have an opinion on that, but to say that this would somehow actually affect conventioneers is ... a stretch. What's more than that, Indiana is about to become the 20th state to do this, so it's not like there's no precedent or they're a lone voice on this matter.

Here's a link which will tell you about the states that have this law already, which also links to the national law it's based on. Yes, this link comes from Wikipedia, so I haven't checked it with academic rigor or anything. According to that article, Indiana will be the 20th state to have such a law, and the law is already in states who have been suggested as places to move the con.

I get that people aren't liking this. I have very good friends who have strong opinions on both sides, and have heard from both of them already. The irony is that I may end up cancelling my own Gen Con trip based on friends on opposite sides of the issue who are talking about pulling out. Ugh.


----------



## billd91 (Mar 25, 2015)

Uller said:


> Has anyone that is commenting actually read the bill?  I don't think it does what most of you (on either side) think it does.  It doesn't appear to me to be about the hospitality industry at all.  Nor is it giving any sort of green light to discrimination.  It's saying if the government passes a law or a rule that goes counter to people's religious beliefs it must do so in the least restrictive means possible.  How can that be a bad thing?




Prior to the Hobby Lobby case, you might have been able to argue that. After all, the federal law SB101 is based on passed with a large, bipartisan majority to redress the method the courts had used to interpret applicability of law compared to religious objection. Of course, the federal RFRA was envisioned as a way to protect religious organizations and access such as protecting Native American religious rights in the face of government land policy or exempting Amish kids from compulsory education past 8th grade. The law faltered at the state level over the issue of a town wanting to protect a historical church from being demolished by the archdiocese that, instead, wanted a larger facility for the congregation. 

But Hobby Lobby's case, decided largely on the basis of RFRA, opens up a lot of doors for discrimination by, I think, broadening its impact. This was, apparently, the first time it the courts had used RFRA for a for-profit company based on the religious proclivities of the owners and the first time, I believe, it incorporated the idea of businesses objecting to "enabling immorality" as a justification for denying service. In other words, Hobby Lobby was free to not offer the whole suite of birth control options as part of their health plan because it enabled women to use post-conception birth control methods (morning after pill, IUDs) that they didn't approve of because of their belief that life begins at conception. 

If we follow the court's reasoning, laws like this now allow businesses to deny hotel rooms to homosexual couples because they might have disapproved-of sex, or deny said rooms to unmarried heterosexual couples because they might be fornicators (more disapproved-of sex), or deny space for anyone playing devil-worshiping games like D&D, or offer services to Jews because they're "killers of Christ", or maybe even embolden fundamentalist LDS sects to go even farther in ignoring anti-polygamy laws, or exempt the Amish even more from workplace safety and child labor laws.


----------



## tomBitonti (Mar 25, 2015)

Was wondering about whether the use of "person", as in "burden a *person's*" (bold added by me) was significant, but, section seven provides a more detailed, clarifying, statement:



> Sec. 7. As used in this chapter, "person" includes the following: (1) An individual. (2) An organization, a religious society, a church, a body of communicants, or a group organized and operated primarily for religious purposes. (3) A partnership, a limited liability company, a corporation, a company, a firm, a society, a joint-stock company, an unincorporated association, or another entity that: (A) may sue and be sued; and (B) exercises practices that are compelled or limited by a system of religious belief held by: (i) an individual; or (ii) the individuals; who have control and substantial ownership of the entity, regardless of whether the entity is organized and operated for profit or nonprofit purposes




A question ... a doctor (who runs a practice, and is the owner of that practice) has a religious tenet to provide services, hires a nurse who has tenets which disagree with the doctor's.  A patient arrives, to whom the doctor agrees to provide a service, but to whom the nurse will not provide the service.  Whose tenets (the doctor's or the nurse's) hold sway?

Thx!

TomB


----------



## Fergurg (Mar 25, 2015)

I thought about this, and a thought just occurred to me:

If GenCon's concern is as many people addressed, of convention goers being denied service to the point that they can't go to the convention, then the solution is extremely simple. Contact the businesses themselves (restaurants, hotels, etc) and say, "Hey. We're putting together a guide of places to go, and we will mention you for free (or a small fee) as long as we have assurance that the conventioneers won't be discriminated against for their sexual orientation/preference."

That solves every problem of every person who has a stake in this. The businesses get to run their businesses as they see fit, the LGBTSMQQTTETC get assurance that they will be able to eat and sleep while being GenCon conventioneers, and businesses who don't care about their sexual orientation (which is probably most of them) get some free (or cheap) advertising.

In fact, the only people who wouldn't get what they want are the hardcore activists who want to silence dissent and criminalize anything that isn't LGBTSMQQTTETC-positive.


----------



## tomBitonti (Mar 25, 2015)

Fergurg said:


> If GenCon's concern is as many people addressed, of convention goers being denied service to the point that they can't go to the convention, then the solution is extremely simple. Contact the businesses themselves (restaurants, hotels, etc) and say, "Hey. We're putting together a guide of places to go, and we will mention you for free (or a small fee) as long as we have assurance that the conventioneers won't be discriminated against for their sexual orientation/preference."




Additional text omitted.  I kindof asked this same question, above.  

Practically, the list could be very large, and could include businesses other than restuarants and hotels.  You would need to include just about anything (gas station, pharmacy, taxis).  Making such a list seems impractical.

(Would you need to include hospitals, physicians, or emergency services on the list?)

Thx!

TomB


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Mar 25, 2015)

> I honestly can't see how this would interfere with Gen Con in any way.




Assume, arguendo, that a religious group with deep pockets and a deep dislike of LGBT persons bought up some of the local hospitality businesses around the site, and refused them service?  Where will LBGT GenCon attendees sleep, go to eat dinner, etc?

Now, instead of LBGT, let us assume it is one of the more radically anti-white offshoots of Nation of Islam, and they refuse to serve "white devils"?

Repeat the exercise using any religious group and any identifiable subgroup of humanity.

HEY, let's REALLY have fun with it- what if people who believed in Jack Chick's screeds against gamers did this?  They could legally refuse to serve all gamers on religious grounds.  How would that affect GenCon?



> Indiana is about to become the 20th state to do this, so it's not like there's no precedent or they're a lone voice on this matter.




Immaterial- courts are slow.  How many years did many states deny the possibility of same-sex marriage?  How many tried to encode it into their Constitutions?  How long did those amendments last before they got struck down?

The reason that courts don't immediately strike down laws as unconstitutional is ripeness & jurisdiction: they have to have plaintiffs in the targeted class who have been harmed, have proof of the harm, and are willing to proceed.


----------



## Zaruthustran (Mar 25, 2015)

What rankles me about the Hobby Lobby case (well, one of the sources of rank) is that it is based on the notion of a corporation having closely-held religious views. Which is absurd on the face of it. Unless you're playing Shadowrun, where the notion of a corporation having a soul is totally rad. I'd love to go on a run for a corporation that turns out to actually be (dun dun dun) a ghost of a dead corporation.


----------



## Morrus (Mar 25, 2015)

tomBitonti said:


> A question ... a doctor (who runs a practice, and is the owner of that practice) has a religious tenet to provide services, hires a nurse who has tenets which disagree with the doctor's.  A patient arrives, to whom the doctor agrees to provide a service, but to whom the nurse will not provide the service.  Whose tenets (the doctor's or the nurse's) hold sway?




Presumably the Hippocratic Oath overrides that? Do they actually do that, or is it a TV thing?


----------



## Umbran (Mar 25, 2015)

SteveC said:


> So as I've looked into this a little more, and am seeing what the bill actually does, I honestly can't see how this would interfere with Gen Con in any way.




I outlined it above - reduced ticket sales.


----------



## billd91 (Mar 25, 2015)

Fergurg said:


> If GenCon's concern is as many people addressed, of convention goers being denied service to the point that they can't go to the convention, then the solution is extremely simple. Contact the businesses themselves (restaurants, hotels, etc) and say, "Hey. We're putting together a guide of places to go, and we will mention you for free (or a small fee) as long as we have assurance that the conventioneers won't be discriminated against for their sexual orientation/preference."
> 
> That solves every problem of every person who has a stake in this. The businesses get to run their businesses as they see fit, the LGBTSMQQTTETC get assurance that they will be able to eat and sleep while being GenCon conventioneers, and businesses who don't care about their sexual orientation (which is probably most of them) get some free (or cheap) advertising.




That strikes me as a much more obtrusive and burdensome solution than just barring the discrimination in the first place. Moreover, it puts the lion's share of the burden on groups/events whose participants are being discriminated *against* to compile the list of friendly businesses. Plus, it's not like a convention the size of Gen Con is confined to the city center. People pick up rooms all over Indy (and I suspect, increasingly so) which, again, raises the burden on Gen Con.


----------



## Umbran (Mar 25, 2015)

Morrus said:


> Presumably the Hippocratic Oath overrides that? Do they actually do that, or is it a TV thing?




The Hippocratic Oath is not legally binding, even if a doctor does make it.


----------



## billd91 (Mar 25, 2015)

Morrus said:


> Presumably the Hippocratic Oath overrides that? Do they actually do that, or is it a TV thing?




Some form of oath, whether the Hippocratic one or from another source like Geneva conventions, is administered at a lot of med schools and may form the basis of numerous groups' professional ethical standards. But as Umbran said, not exactly legally binding.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Mar 25, 2015)

> Whose tenets (the doctor's or the nurse's) hold sway?




As we've seen already this year, the doctor's.


----------



## Morrus (Mar 25, 2015)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> As we've seen already this year, the doctor's.




The Doctor's tenets always win out in the end. Time Lord, y'know!


----------



## Umbran (Mar 25, 2015)

Fergurg said:


> I thought about this, and a thought just occurred to me:
> 
> If GenCon's concern is as many people addressed, of convention goers being denied service to the point that they can't go to the convention




To be really honest, I don't think that's actually GenCon's concern.  I think GenCon's real concern is ticket sales - that members of groups who might be discriminated against will say, "Well, screw Indiana!  They're not getting my money!" and not come to the con.  It would then behoove GenCon to move to a state where these folks would attend - and that means leaving Indiana, just like they said.



> In fact, the only people who wouldn't get what they want are the hardcore activists who want to silence dissent and criminalize anything that isn't LGBTSMQQTTETC-positive.





And now, I find I do have to bring out the Mod Voice:

Please do not get sarcastic.  Keep it respectful, or you will find yourself quickly removed from the conversation.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Mar 25, 2015)

Fergurg said:


> I thought about this, and a thought just occurred to me:
> 
> If GenCon's concern is as many people addressed, of convention goers being denied service to the point that they can't go to the convention, then the solution is extremely simple. Contact the businesses themselves (restaurants, hotels, etc) and say, "Hey. We're putting together a guide of places to go, and we will mention you for free (or a small fee) as long as we have assurance that the conventioneers won't be discriminated against for their sexual orientation/preference."
> 
> That solves every problem of every person who has a stake in this.




Not really.  Not even close.  

As we saw in pre-civil rights era USA, such guides existed for blacks.  And if all of those businesses were at capacity, a black traveller was S.O.L.  Your options were things like sleep in your car and risk a vagrancy arrest and don't eat dinner tonight.

My maternal step-grandfather saved a lot of black performers in the NOLA Playboy Club (where he worked) from having to go through that.  He put up or fed black performers who had no place to stay or eat.


----------



## tomBitonti (Mar 25, 2015)

billd91 said:


> If we follow the court's reasoning, laws like this now allow businesses to deny hotel rooms to homosexual couples because they might have disapproved-of sex, or *deny said rooms to unmarried heterosexual couples* because they might be fornicators (more disapproved-of sex), or deny space ...




Bold added by me.  Additional text omitted.

Hasn't that been done for quite a while?  Or, hadn't that been done in the past, not uncommonly?

Although, I could justify it as "not wanting to become a locale for prostitution", which could be engendered by renting rooms to unmarried couples.

Thx!

TomB


----------



## redrick (Mar 25, 2015)

Fergurg said:


> I thought about this, and a thought just occurred to me:
> 
> If GenCon's concern is as many people addressed, of convention goers being denied service to the point that they can't go to the convention, then the solution is extremely simple. Contact the businesses themselves (restaurants, hotels, etc) and say, "Hey. We're putting together a guide of places to go, and we will mention you for free (or a small fee) as long as we have assurance that the conventioneers won't be discriminated against for their sexual orientation/preference."
> 
> ...




Sure, if the state of Indiana decides to pass this law, GenCon could round up its employees to go to all the businesses near the convention center and put together a coalition of local businesses who would put the sign in their window saying, "This business refuses to discriminate on the basis of race, creed, religion, gender, sexual orientation, disability," etc. That would be a statement against the law and it might allay some of the hardship faced by GenCon participants if there was no other option. But that's an awful lot of work for GenCon employees that the state has now dumped in their lap. And, can you really imagine walking downtown and checking for a sign in a window that confirmed that, yes, "people like you" are going to be served in this restaurant? That sounds absurd.

Furthermore, nobody connected to this conversation is advocating silencing dissent. Unless you consider passing legislation to be dissent. All anyone is advocating is that _existing anti-discrimination laws_ not be constrained or circumvented by a new bill which would broadly give the right to individuals and businesses to ignore those laws based on their own personal interpretation of a religious doctrine.

And I know that you are arguing that businesses should be allowed to discriminate freely against all people. Not just gay people and transgendered people, but african americans, american indians, muslims, jews, latinos. That the job of protecting people from discrimination should be given over to Adam Smith's invisible hand. That's an opinion that you are welcome to have! However, if that's what you believe, then what you are really advocating is that we should repeal the Civil Rights Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and several other longstanding laws by which the State restricts Free Enterprise.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Mar 25, 2015)

tomBitonti said:


> Bold added by me.  Additional text omitted.
> 
> Hasn't that been done for quite a while?  Or, hadn't that been done in the past, not uncommonly?



It is still a thing, though it is far more common in housing rental than in lodging/hospitality.  And it isn't even universally illegal.


http://ask.metafilter.com/134007/No-room-if-you-aint-hitched
http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/free-books/living-together-book/chapter5-2.html


----------



## Dire Bare (Mar 25, 2015)

While in general I do like the "no politics" rule here at ENWorld, I do think that Umbran and Morris made the right call to report on this and allow the following discussion. Thanks, guys!

For those who feel politics has no place in our entertainment here, sorry, but politics is life. Politics affects everything, there is no separation between politics and all of the other activities we fill our time with. When you think about it, the "edition wars" are politics, albeit limited to a narrow slice of Western culture. The "no politics" rule doesn't exist (IMO) because politics has no place in discussion over gaming, but rather because those discussions tend to get very heated and intransigent. Although, we sometimes get that way anyway . . . . 

I fully support Gen Con in its recent action protesting this horrible, discriminatory, bigoted law. IMO, Gen Con is protesting both as a solid business move (side with the progressive progress our country is slowly attaining) and also as the individuals who make up the leadership of the company, who feel such discrimination is simply the wrong direction for America. I applaud them for their decision.

On a last note, while I do think the discussion here has been very civil, I have seen a few blanket statements about the citizens and businesses of Indiana. It probably doesn't need to be said, but please remember that not all individuals and not all businesses in Indiana support this bigoted law and actively oppose it. Indiana is not a bigoted state, although clearly, there are bigoted individuals and politics at work there. Same goes for the other states that have already passed such legislation, or have such legislation in the works. Heck, the mayor of Indianapolis is on record opposing the law (if I remember correctly)!


----------



## Zaukrie (Mar 25, 2015)

Good people who stand by and allow bigotry are complicit in said bigotry. Ignoring politics is not going to help anyone make the world a better place. If the state passes said law, there should be consequences. It baffles me anyone is cool with discrimination. I can't even conceive of how people are cool with it.


----------



## Koloth (Mar 25, 2015)

I live in the state of Oklahoma and proposals like this are an annual event in the Legislature.  Most die early in the session.  Many are proposed knowing they will fail so the legicritter(s) submitting them can claim they fought the good fight to the voters in their district.  

If by chance this one passes, Gencon should organize a Rocky Horror Picture Show costume contest.  Several thousand folks walking around as  Dr. Frank N. Furter,  the sweet transvestite from Transsexual, Transylvania would make a fitting protest statement.


----------



## Balesir (Mar 25, 2015)

Fergurg said:


> This is not a stand for inclusiveness - this is a stand for telling businesses, "Sorry, you thought you had the right to decide which transactions you want to be a part of? Well, I have decided that I will decide how your business is run."



I don't know the detail of the business laws you have over there, but here it has been the case for several centuries that businesses are not at liberty to engage in transactions that involve illegal goods, false claims, passing off, graft, confidence trickery, irregular weights and measures, tax evasion or the selling of stolen goods. The restriction being proposed here seems to be no less reasonable and proportionate a demand of any business than these, time-honoured requirements. One of the ways I absolutely want governments to "decide how your business will be run" is "not criminally". "Not according to your bigoted discrimination" comes a close second.


----------



## Waller (Mar 25, 2015)

Yes, it is a restriction of your freedom to choose who you do business with.

Yes, it is also a stand for inclusiveness.

It can be both of those things.

Welcome to a thing we call "laws". The thing that says when you refuse to do the right thing, society will make you do it. Even if you can't see why it's the right thing.

The sad thing is that there are places in the world where this doesn't happen, and Indiana is on the verge of becoming one of those places. With luck, when businesses and citizens of that State vocalize their dissention with the proposed law, it will be listened to.

Which is exactly how things should work.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Mar 25, 2015)

Fergurg said:


> Should a business be required to serve a man wearing a shirt that says, "People like you are why God created AIDS"?
> 
> Should a business be required to serve a man wearing a shirt that says, "Mexicans are like pool cues - hit them hard for good English."?
> 
> ...



what about a topless woman? or one in a bikini?

When I was in my early 20's I and my then girlfriend and her best friend went to the beach and then to the bar and grill... both ladies where in bikini tops and cut off shorts (I on the other hand stay clothed as a public service) when the woman at the seating area told them they can't come in with bikini tops, the best friend removed hers... much to everyone's surprise.  The hostess threatened to call the police, and the now topless woman informed her that by law in NY anywhere a man can be topless so can a woman... and at the bar were a few beach goers with just shorts and hats on...

We were escorted out by a very large man... at the time I was too busy being shocked and stareing... but today I would be very upset if I had my neice and nephew there and that happened....



this also goes into the bathroom thing... if someone is in one, and I go in and that person's presence makes me uncomfortable, then there is a problem... I bet that person is in here because THEY would feel uncomfortable in the other one... so how do we solve this???


----------



## pdmiller (Mar 25, 2015)

Morrus said:


> Eh?  Politics is everybody's business.  There is nobody on the planet to whom it is appropriate to tell not to meddle in politics. That's what politics is _for_.  Gen Con and its owners are absolutely entitled to get involved in politics when things might affect them or their customers (or even when they might not!)




So why on earth would you ever have had a no politics policy on your site?

You realise that with these words you just gave licence to everyone to make every discussion on this blog political?


----------



## Morrus (Mar 25, 2015)

pdmiller said:


> So why on earth would you ever have had a no politics policy on your site?
> 
> You realise that with these words you just gave licence to everyone to make every discussion on this blog political?




That is incorrect. My opinion of what Gen Con is entitled to do or say does not define moderation policy on this website. There is no combination of words you can use which will magically make that true. Perhaps I wasn't clear earlier. Let me try again:

If you have further questions about site moderation, take it to Meta, PM, or email. Thank you.


----------



## Umbran (Mar 25, 2015)

pdmiller said:


> So why on earth would you ever have had a no politics policy on your site?




Just because it is everyone's business, that does not mean that all places and times are appropriate for discussion of that business.  We have a no-politics (and no-real-world-religion) rule because EN World is usually not an appropriate place for such discussions, and they generally get heated to the point of being useless to anyone.

This one case, however, is directly relevant to the overall topic of the site, so Morrus decided to include it in the news.

That does not mean that the site is okay for all other kinds of political discussion, by a long shot.


----------



## pdmiller (Mar 25, 2015)

*Mod Edit: * Folks, if you want to discuss moderation, do it by The Rules - take it to e-mail or PM.  Don't engage in-thread.  Thanks.  ~Umbran


----------



## Balesir (Mar 25, 2015)

GMforPowergamers said:


> this also goes into the bathroom thing... if someone is in one, and I go in and that person's presence makes me uncomfortable, then there is a problem... I bet that person is in here because THEY would feel uncomfortable in the other one... so how do we solve this???



Well, we could start by getting educated enough to realise that, in verious places and times, topless women, naked men _and_ women, same-sex liaisons, and public displays of emotion (including violence) have been considered normal, everyday occurrences. Society at large will have its fashions and pecadilloes, of course, but there is no need for us to get too excited about the current "taboo of the era". Like all before it, this, too, shall pass.


----------



## Jester David (Mar 25, 2015)

I'm fine with refusing to serve an individual, especially based on their actions. 
I'm less fine with refusing to serve a group independant of actions. 

I'm happy to see GenCon take a stand for inclusion.


----------



## pdmiller (Mar 25, 2015)

double post...


----------



## pdmiller (Mar 25, 2015)

DM Magic said:


> Business owners are not a protected class of people.




You really don't see a problem with that statement do you?

Protecting "classes" only moves the discrimination from one group to another. And with these rules, there is never a mechanism to turn it off when equilibrium is achieved.


----------



## redrick (Mar 25, 2015)

GMforPowergamers said:


> what about a topless woman? or one in a bikini?
> 
> When I was in my early 20's I and my then girlfriend and her best friend went to the beach and then to the bar and grill... both ladies where in bikini tops and cut off shorts (I on the other hand stay clothed as a public service) when the woman at the seating area told them they can't come in with bikini tops, the best friend removed hers... much to everyone's surprise.  The hostess threatened to call the police, and the now topless woman informed her that by law in NY anywhere a man can be topless so can a woman... and at the bar were a few beach goers with just shorts and hats on...
> 
> ...




 [MENTION=67338]GMforPowergamers[/MENTION], this has been covered upthread, but enforcing a dress code, so long as that dress code is not otherwise discriminatory (eg allowing hats but not yamakas, or head scarves but not muslim head scarves) is legal. A restaurant has every right to tell a woman she needs to wear more than a bikini, so long as that restaurant is enforcing a no-shirts, no shoes sort of policy. Now, if there are shirtless dudes sitting at the bar, but a woman in a bikini is barred entry because her top is "too revealing", I would say that that restaurant is discriminating and deserves some pushback.

As for women being allowed to be topless in New York, yes, that is the law. It is, in fact, tied to a ruling on our anti-discrimination laws. In public places where men are allowed to go topless, women are allowed to go topless as well. It's not something we see every day. I'd say, on a day to day basis, we here in New York see things that are far more discomforting and shocking. The easy solution is just to enforce the standard, "no shirt, no service" rule to both men and women.


----------



## KirayaTiDrekan (Mar 25, 2015)

Slight tangent, on the topic of public restrooms - from personal experience they are an absolute nightmare.  Many a transgender person, myself included, has simply held it (often to the point of physical discomfort, sometimes to the point of risk of hurting oneself) until they got home.  We risk being verbally and physically attacked and even arrested simply because we need to go pee.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Mar 25, 2015)

pdmiller said:


> You really don't see a problem with that statement do you?
> 
> Protecting "classes" only moves the discrimination from one group to another. And with these rules, there is never a mechanism to turn it off when equilibrium is achieved.




Nice doublethink.

"Protected classes" exist in law to correct for past, present and future discrimination experienced by persons society has- at some point or another, based on relatively immutable characteristics.  They level the playing field, they do not shift discrimination to others.

Business owners are not a protected class because there has not been a historical prejudice against business owners, and the fact of being a business owner is not relatively immutable.  You can always sell your business and be free of the restrictions of being a business owner.  I cannot sell my blackness and be free of the restrictions placed on me by my race.

Furthermore, there IS a remedy.  Two, in fact.  

The first: if you can prove in court that you don't need to be covered by special rules, the special rules can be lifted by the courts.  This JUST happened in several southern states in regards to federal monitoring of their elections because of established patterns of racial discrimination.  Now, I personally think the courts were wrong, and that shenanigans are still going on, but the fact remains: federal scrutiny was removed.

The second is far cheaper & easier: don't discriminate.  If you don't, your chances of running afoul of the law diminish to near zero.


----------



## Sunsword (Mar 25, 2015)

I have a propostion:  What if we called Gen Con's customer base to action?
What if we send the Governor Pence a Magic Card, say a Circle of Protection Artifact to his office in Indiana?  Its in stock at most online vendors at 25¢ and the vendor can easily send it the Governor's office for their customer.  
Here is the address:  Michael R. Pence
Office of the Governor is located at 200 W. Washington St., Rm. 206, Indianapolis, IN  46204


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Mar 25, 2015)

redrick said:


> [MENTION=67338]GMforPowergamers[/MENTION], this has been covered upthread, but enforcing a dress code, so long as that dress code is not otherwise discriminatory (eg allowing hats but not yamakas, or head scarves but not muslim head scarves) is legal. A restaurant has every right to tell a woman she needs to wear more than a bikini, so long as that restaurant is enforcing a no-shirts, no shoes sort of policy. Now, if there are shirtless dudes sitting at the bar, but a woman in a bikini is barred entry because her top is "too revealing", I would say that that restaurant is discriminating and deserves some pushback.
> 
> As for women being allowed to be topless in New York, yes, that is the law. It is, in fact, tied to a ruling on our anti-discrimination laws. In public places where men are allowed to go topless, women are allowed to go topless as well. It's not something we see every day. I'd say, on a day to day basis, we here in New York see things that are far more discomforting and shocking. The easy solution is just to enforce the standard, "no shirt, no service" rule to both men and women.




in this case, a bar and grill by the beach had lots of people (including two topless men) in variase states of beach attire, but the no bikini rule they thought inforcable... at the time I was stuned but would be against it... today I understand a little more why a family envoirment might let a guy walk around in shorts and a hat, and require a woman to where a shirt...




Kiraya_TiDrekan said:


> Slight tangent, on the topic of public restrooms - from personal experience they are an absolute nightmare.  Many a transgender person, myself included, has simply held it (often to the point of physical discomfort, sometimes to the point of risk of hurting oneself) until they got home.  We risk being verbally and physically attacked and even arrested simply because we need to go pee.



the problem is that again, there is no good answer...

If my niece and sister walk into a woman's room and a 300lb guy is in there... they will run out screaming... the fact that the man may or may not self identify as a woman is not what they will see. I also don't want to explain to my 8 year old nephew why he has to go with me instead of his mother, but a woman can be in the mens room.

any answer that makes the 300lbs guy feel comfortable but not my sister and neice isn't a good answer, and any answer that makes them comfortable but not the 300lbs guy fails too. there is not a good answer....

to sum up all of this "ITS VERY COMPLICATED AND SHORT OF A FANTASY WORLD NO ONE HAS THE RIGHT ANSWER"


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Mar 25, 2015)

> If my niece and sister walk into a woman's room and a 300lb guy is in there... they will run out screaming... the fact that the man may or may not self identify as a woman is not what they will see. I also don't want to explain to my 8 year old nephew why he has to go with me instead of his mother, but a woman can be in the mens room.




My mom is in the same position on that.

And honestly, while I know that the current standard of health care in this country insists that someone seeking gender reassignment surgery needs to live as that gender as fully as possible for a year (or more) beforehand, it is difficult not to sympathize with the reactions of someone who only sees the physical person standing in the dressing room or restroom, not that person's doctors' orders.

It is a case- a rare one- in which the medical fields' perceptions of necessary treatment is far, far ahead of society's physical and educational infrastructure to cope with that treatment.

That doesn't excuse violence or abuse of those people in those situations, though.

In all honesty, I can't say I'm 100% cool with it either.  But in my case, it is very different.  I'm a 250+lb guy- I'm not threatened by someone of the opposite gender in the rest room or dressing room, just a little weirded out by it. (That's my issue.)  There is no historical context of an implicit threat of the presence of a woman in a men's restroom or dressing room.  

But that is completely not the case for women.  Unfortunately, unless the guy in the women's restroom or dressing room is from maintenance or janitorial, historical odds are very good that he's not there for innocent reasons.


----------



## timbannock (Mar 25, 2015)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Nice doublethink.
> 
> "Protected classes" exist in law to correct for past, present and future discrimination experienced by persons society has- at some point or another, based on relatively immutable characteristics.  They level the playing field, they do not shift discrimination to others.
> 
> ...




^Boom.^

"Business owner" is not, cannot, and never will be a class of person. Business owner is what someone does to make money. That's so wildly and completely different that it's shocking people are trying to use that rationale to state the case for anything associated with a discussion about gender, sexuality, race, or classes of people. About the only thing you could hope to compare it to would be "unemployed," but that necessarily has a wide gulf filled with differences as well, and if you don't know why, try it out for a couple weeks or months, preferably involuntarily, and you'll figure it out right quick.


----------



## mlund (Mar 25, 2015)

neuronphaser said:


> That's so wildly and completely different that it's shocking people are trying to use that rationale to state the case for anything associated with a discussion about gender, sexuality, race, or classes of people.




I think the shocking part is that the "religion" is the class at question in the actual body of the law but everyone completely ignores it. 

Ironically, one's religious affiliation and exercise is not only protected under the Bill of Rights but is a protected class under the Civil Rights Act of 1964 while sexual preference / orientation is decidedly not a protected class. Of course, this whole lobbying campaign and efforts to sue / fine people out of their livelihood because their religion prohibits them from participating materially in a same-sex marriage ceremony are just more steps in the Human Rights Campaign's descent into being a hate-group over the last decade or so, so the irony goes on for miles.

The other elephant in the room is the fact that Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) sponsored the same law on the federal level. It was passed 97-3 in the Democrat-controlled U.S. Senate and signed into law by Bill Clinton in 1993 but nobody's calling them "bigots" or trying to move Gen Con to Canada. Of course it's really just about punishing "enemies," so why bite the hand that feeds?

Marty Lund


----------



## Icon_Charlie (Mar 25, 2015)

I'm a realist. A Venture Capitalist. A Warmongering overlord of my domain when crossed in business or elsewhere.

So as hardcore as I am I will say the following. 

*It makes no business sense in sectioning off your market share based on religion, orientation, and so on.  If their money is good... you take it.  Making personal judgments about someone's ideals that can affect your bottom line is foolish.

Because if you do.... someone else will take their money and add them to their market base. *


On a personal level.

On the long road in life that I have traveled so far, I have learned not to judge people by their looks (and other things, etc...).  As long as people are polite and civil with me I will return the favor.  Even become their friend.  If it happens, it happens.  
*
And there is nothing wrong with that.*


----------



## billd91 (Mar 25, 2015)

mlund said:


> The other elephant in the room is the fact that Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) sponsored the same law on the federal level. It was passed 97-3 in the Democrat-controlled U.S. Senate and signed into law by Bill Clinton in 1993 but nobody's calling them "bigots" or trying to move Gen Con to Canada. Of course it's really just about punishing "enemies," so why bite the hand that feeds?
> 
> Marty Lund




Maybe you should read the other posts I have made in this discussion. Understandings of RFRA, the whole tenor of law based on its language, may have changed significantly with the Hobby Lobby case.


----------



## KirayaTiDrekan (Mar 25, 2015)

GMforPowergamers said:


> in this case, a bar and grill by the beach had lots of people (including two topless men) in variase states of beach attire, but the no bikini rule they thought inforcable... at the time I was stuned but would be against it... today I understand a little more why a family envoirment might let a guy walk around in shorts and a hat, and require a woman to where a shirt...
> 
> 
> 
> ...




There are two major issues with the above...

First what does a person's weight have anything to do with this?  A 300 lb person isn't any or more less dangerous than a 100 lb person depending on the circumstances.  A 300 lb. person isn't any more likely than the 100 lb. person to be the transgender boogeyman that certain, shall we say, extremists, want you to be afraid of.

Second, I'm not a guy.  The 300 lb. person in your example isn't a guy if she's in the women's restroom.  Transgender people are not "choosing to identify" as a gender...they are that gender.  

And there is an easy solution - remove unnecessary gendering of restrooms.  Its a bathroom - everyone needs to poop and pee, it all stinks, and everyone needs a place to do it.  That's it, that's as complicated as it needs to be.


----------



## mlund (Mar 25, 2015)

billd91 said:


> Maybe you should read the other posts I have made in this discussion. Understandings of RFRA, the whole tenor of law based on its language, may have changed significantly with the Hobby Lobby case.




I disagree with the assertion that the tenor of the law has changed. The law functions as it was intended to function:

Mandates courts use the following when considering religious liberty cases:

    Strict scrutiny
    Religious liberty can only be limited for a compelling government interest
    If religious liberty is to be limited, it must be done in the least restrictive manner possible

The tenor that changed over the last decade was the HRC's devolution into a hate-group.

Marty Lund


----------



## Jester David (Mar 25, 2015)

While lots of businesses in the US might claim to be Christian or religious, that doesn't stop them from being open on Sundays. Much of Europe shuts down on Sundays, including secular cities such as Paris. So it seems disingenuous to ask to refuse patrons for religious reasons when the owner is violating one of the Ten Commandments. 

Another thought, is that the Bible is not very forgiving of games of chance and the supernatural. Under the bill, those owners would have every right to turn away GenCon attendees. 
But they won't, because they're happy to take our money, instead picking and choosing when to enforce their beliefs.


----------



## Fergurg (Mar 25, 2015)

DM Magic said:


> Using the term "slavery" in this manner is not only the highest form of hyperbole, but also greatly diminishes those who have been enslaved or been affected by slavery.




It's not hyperbole. Forcing someone to provide labor or service against their will under threat of a gun (which all laws are) is slavery.


----------



## Fergurg (Mar 25, 2015)

Jester Canuck said:


> While lots of businesses in the US might claim to be Christian or religious, that doesn't stop them from being open on Sundays. Much of Europe shuts down on Sundays, including secular cities such as Paris. So it seems disingenuous to ask to refuse patrons for religious reasons when the owner is violating one of the Ten Commandments.




Actually, the role of the Sabbath is a great debate among Christians now. But Hobby Lobby is one of the largest Christian-owned businesses that is closed on Sunday.



Jester Canuck said:


> Another thought, is that the Bible is not very forgiving of games of chance and the supernatural. Under the bill, those owners would have every right to turn away GenCon attendees.




Actually, the Bible defines gambling as more than games of chance. Please make an attempt to understand our views before reciting how we are "violating" them.



Jester Canuck said:


> But they won't, because they're happy to take our money, instead picking and choosing when to enforce their beliefs.




If that's true, then what are you worried about?


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Mar 25, 2015)

Kiraya_TiDrekan said:


> There are two major issues with the above...
> 
> First what does a person's weight have anything to do with this?



level of threat... my sister is small. If she walks in to a strange or threatening situation with a 100lbs person she will feel less threatened then a 300lbs one... I am well over 300, almost 400lbs, and I know I am a big teddy bear, but if you don't know me you might think me threatening looking.




> A 300 lb person isn't any or more less dangerous than a 100 lb person depending on the circumstances.



correct, but when someone out weights you 3-1 it is far scarier...



> A 300 lb. person isn't any more likely than the 100 lb. person to be the transgender boogeyman that certain, shall we say, extremists, want you to be afraid of.



 I'm not afried of boogeymen... I'm afried of monsters that are far too real.



> Second, I'm not a guy.  The 300 lb. person in your example isn't a guy if she's in the women's restroom.  Transgender people are not "choosing to identify" as a gender...they are that gender.




now this is going to get not pretty, but everyone is born with physical markers of gender. Each gender looks a way. If anyone finds that the mental and physical gender do not match up I am sure that is 100 types of hell, and I don't want to make life any harder on them then good old mother nature already has... but you don't walk around with people seeing only your 'true mental self' they see what you were born with. 

3 seconds, you have only the books cover to go by... it sucks, it's not how we want the world to work, but it is...

3 people born men... all three 300+lbs all bald with tattoos... and all in pretty neutral clothing. 1) is a happy go lucky straight guy who really had to go and the mens room was out of order, so he thought he would just duck in and out quick... 2) is a very nice and friendly trans who was born male but sees himself as a woman, but can't afford surgery... 3) is a scary monster, he is going to take advantage and possible injure, or kill the next little girl that stumbles into the bathroom...

the problem is that no one can tell the difference, all three are "Man in the womans room"

I assume that you understand that.




> And there is an easy solution - remove unnecessary gendering of restrooms.



exept if it is ok for people to share a non gendered one, that what is the harm in going to one that is for your physical gender... obviously there are people on both sides of this... and a compramize may be impossible, but it is a real complicated issue that people like to pretend is just people being jerks... (Mixed with people on both sides really being jerks) 




> Its a bathroom - everyone needs to poop and pee, it all stinks, and everyone needs a place to do it.  That's it, that's as complicated as it needs to be.



 if that where true then the issue would be solved with 'just use the one that matches physicly...


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Mar 25, 2015)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> My mom is in the same position on that.
> 
> And honestly, while I know that the current standard of health care in this country insists that someone seeking gender reassignment surgery needs to live as that gender as fully as possible for a year (or more) beforehand, it is difficult not to sympathize with the reactions of someone who only sees the physical person standing in the dressing room or restroom, not that person's doctors' orders.




yes, it is like my most recent EX used to joke about me and my best friend always making her look weird... Tuesday night I come home from work, walk the dog and go to pick her up, I'm in a suit and tie... my friend kurt meets us he is either in the same type of shirt and tie or  sometimes a polo if he is on the doc that day... she comeing from work is covered in swet, is in work boots, a tee shirt, and jeans... she has no time for hair or make up... then on saterday Me and kurt most likely haven't showered or shaved, threw on a ratty tee and jeans, and she is in a dress and hair make up and nails... because if it's just game night we don't care what we wear...





> That doesn't excuse violence or abuse of those people in those situations, though.



 neaither do I



> In all honesty, I can't say I'm 100% cool with it either.  But in my case, it is very different.  I'm a 250+lb guy- I'm not threatened by someone of the opposite gender in the rest room or dressing room, just a little weirded out by it. (That's my issue.)  There is no historical context of an implicit threat of the presence of a woman in a men's restroom or dressing room.



  yea, like I said "I AM the scary one..." so no I woundt either



> But that is completely not the case for women.  Unfortunately, unless the guy in the women's restroom or dressing room is from maintenance or janitorial, historical odds are very good that he's not there for innocent reasons.



ding... that's the issue


----------



## Darkstar360 (Mar 26, 2015)

Fergurg said:


> It's not hyperbole. Forcing someone to provide labor or service against their will under threat of a gun (which all laws are) is slavery.




I'm sorry, I just can't let that one pass.

Dictionary definition of Slavery:

noun
1.the condition of a slave; bondage.

2.the keeping of slaves as a practice or institution.

3.a state of subjection like that of a slave : _He was kept in slavery by drugs._


And Slave:

noun
1.a person who is the property of and wholly subject to another; a bondservant.

2.a person entirely under the domination of some influence or person:_a slave to a drug._


It is wholly incorrect (and a little offensive) to liken making someone legally obliged not to discriminate to being a slave.

Business owners will not be slaves to the LGBT community (or anyone for that matter) if they are sanctioned against discrimination.

At the most basic, fundamental level a businessman can chose to stop being a businessman (though he may not want to), whereas a slave cannot chose to stop being a slave (no matter how much he wants to).

Also, dictionary definition of Hyperbole:

noun, _Rhetoric
_1.obvious and intentional exaggeration.

2.an extravagant statement or figure of speech not intended to betaken literally, as “to wait an eternity.”.


----------



## Morrus (Mar 26, 2015)

Fergurg said:


> It's not hyperbole. Forcing someone to provide labor or service against their will under threat of a gun (which all laws are) is slavery.




OK, that's enough of that. Comparing being asked not to discriminate against people to the horrors of actual slavery suffered both historicaly and by people today is completely offensive.  Do _not_ do this on this website. 

Everyone else, please do not respond to and continue this line of conversation.


----------



## Darkstar360 (Mar 26, 2015)

Morrus said:


> OK, that's enough of that. Comparing being asked not to discriminate against people to the horrors of actual slavery suffered both historicaly and by people today is completely offensive.  Do _not_ do this on this website.
> 
> Everyone else, pleae do not respond to and continue this line of conversation.




Sorry, In retrospect it was obvious a moderator was going to step in on that one. I should have just let it go.


----------



## Jester David (Mar 26, 2015)

Fergurg said:


> Actually, the role of the Sabbath is a great debate among Christians now. But Hobby Lobby is one of the largest Christian-owned businesses that is closed on Sunday.
> 
> Actually, the Bible defines gambling as more than games of chance. Please make an attempt to understand our views before reciting how we are "violating" them.
> 
> If that's true, then what are you worried about?



The catch is, you don't get to pick and choose which part of your faith you follow. Either you accept it all, or reject it all. 
You cannot exclude one "unclean" group but give all others a pass because they're cureently more accepted. If you feel obligated to exclude homosexuals and not serve them, that same view must apply to menstruating women, or unmarried couples, or the unbaptized, or adulterers, or those who worship "false" gods, or tax collectors. 

Once you start picking and choosing what parts of the religion you're going to enforce over offers, then it becomes straight discrimination and religion is a convenient excuse. Then it becomes hate and discrimination.

If someone's desire to earn a living outweights their desire to treat all people equally, them that's just selfish. Their putting their desires and comforts above others, and that's uncool. 
If someone cannot in good faith serve everyone and treat everyone equally then maybe the service industry is not right for them. It wouldn't be the first time religion kept people from certain professions.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Mar 26, 2015)

Jester Canuck said:


> The catch is, you don't get to pick and choose which part of your faith you follow. Either you accept it all, or reject it all.




no... just no. I practice and truly heart and soul believe in a religion that has origins 2,000 years ago, but our main book was written from 100-600 years later, and retconed twice... in fact the book we use is called the king james version... and all of those writers are people influenced by divine but not divine themselves... and you think I have to choose 100% blind faith to every writer and revisionist the same way I show faith to the inspiration of the book?


----------



## Jester David (Mar 26, 2015)

GMforPowergamers said:


> no... just no. I practice and truly heart and soul believe in a religion that has origins 2,000 years ago, but our main book was written from 100-600 years later, and retconed twice... in fact the book we use is called the king james version... and all of those writers are people influenced by divine but not divine themselves... and you think I have to choose 100% blind faith to every writer and revisionist the same way I show faith to the inspiration of the book?



I had a reply half-typed but I'm just going to delete it. This really isn't the forums to get into that level of religious debate. Especially since religion is the ultimate example of a personal choice. 

The intersection of that personal religious choice with the laws of the land or the lives of other people....that's more debate worthy. But I'm not going to argue against someone's personal expression of their faith, and commenting on that direction was likely a mistake on my part.


----------



## KirayaTiDrekan (Mar 26, 2015)

The relevant aspect of religion in this thread, I think, is that not everyone believes the same thing and no one religion should have the ability to influence laws that affect all religions and those without religion.  Gen Con and the gamers who attend should not be forced to deal with a law that forces one religion's belief system on everyone.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Mar 26, 2015)

Kiraya_TiDrekan said:


> The relevant aspect of religion in this thread, I think, is that not everyone believes the same thing and no one religion should have the ability to influence laws that affect all religions and those without religion.  Gen Con and the gamers who attend should not be forced to deal with a law that forces one religion's belief system on everyone.




The problem is that person A believes one thing, and person B believes another... no one should be able to tell either one they are wrong. It is the best if you can find a way to make both happy... but the problem is (and it really shows in this thread) is that the world defaults to X beliefs (weather it is right or not) and some people want to change it to Y beliefs. the problem is that there are people uncomfortable with X and there are people uncomfortable with Y. It's why things are more complicated then people want to admit....


----------



## Morrus (Mar 26, 2015)

GMforPowergamers said:


> The problem is that person A believes one thing, and person B believes another... no one should be able to tell either one they are wrong.




As a concept, that's very flawed.  Obviously some things are wrong, and often criminal.  Society is happy to declare certain things wrong, and religion isn't a defense in those cases. Subjectivity has its limits.


----------



## KirayaTiDrekan (Mar 26, 2015)

GMforPowergamers said:


> The problem is that person A believes one thing, and person B believes another... no one should be able to tell either one they are wrong. It is the best if you can find a way to make both happy... but the problem is (and it really shows in this thread) is that the world defaults to X beliefs (weather it is right or not) and some people want to change it to Y beliefs. the problem is that there are people uncomfortable with X and there are people uncomfortable with Y. It's why things are more complicated then people want to admit....




Simply put, my right to exist and have the same rights as a cisgender person trumps religious beliefs.  Life, liberty and pursuit of happiness is fundamental.  My pursuit of happiness involves being able to go to Gen Con (when I can afford it) without having to worry about being discriminated against anywhere in the city the convention is being held (or anywhere at all for that matter).


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Mar 26, 2015)

Morrus said:


> As a concept, that's very flawed.  Obviously some things are wrong, and often criminal.  Society is happy to declare certain things wrong, and religion isn't a defense in those cases. Subjectivity has its limits.




that would be fair enough if we were talking about my religious right to sacrifice children... but we are not.  That example doesn't just cross the line, it hops a jumbo jet and flies past it... but that doesn't mean that we can both point out exactly where the line is... 

the big issue is that the world is changing... and nobody is sure when those lines are going to move one way or another...

the general rule of don't be a jerk doesn't even help. A perfectly sweet an innocent person could call someone by the wrong adjative insult them.


----------



## KirayaTiDrekan (Mar 26, 2015)

GMforPowergamers said:


> that would be fair enough if we were talking about my religious right to sacrifice children... but we are not.  That example doesn't just cross the line, it hops a jumbo jet and flies past it... but that doesn't mean that we can both point out exactly where the line is...
> 
> the big issue is that the world is changing... and nobody is sure when those lines are going to move one way or another...
> 
> the general rule of don't be a jerk doesn't even help. A perfectly sweet an innocent person could call someone by the wrong adjative insult them.




Don't be a jerk does apply in that case.  The innocent person can learn why the other person was offended, educate themselves, and not make that mistake again.  We all make mistakes - not being a jerk means owning up to them and learning from them.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Mar 26, 2015)

Kiraya_TiDrekan said:


> Simply put, my right to exist and have the same rights as a cisgender person trumps religious beliefs.  Life, liberty and pursuit of happiness is fundamental.  My pursuit of happiness involves being able to go to Gen Con (when I can afford it) without having to worry about being discriminated against anywhere in the city the convention is being held (or anywhere at all for that matter).




ok first I'm going to ask... what is a cisgender person? In context I am going to guess like me someone who was born with body and mind both agreeing on gender... but cis doesn't make anysense to me...

And I don't know anyone here arguing you should not be able to live your life... so pretending that is the argument is wrong. I also don't see anyone arguing you should not be able to go to Gen Con (if you can afford it). So maybe I missed the person who argued that... but it 100% defiantly was not me... all I'm saying is that you need to consider that making things perfect would be great, but we don't live in a perfect world.  it's way more complicated. You need to be able to live your life but so does everyone else...


----------



## Henry (Mar 26, 2015)

First of all, Kudoes to Russ keeping this thread open, and all the relatively calm discourse going on here. 

Second, I am all for business owners having as much freedom as possible in choosing how they do business. However, this issue draws directly in front of my "right and wrong" meter, and having a restaurant telling two guys to leave because they're holding hands, or a person to leave because they've somehow been noted as transgender, just stops me cold.

Third, I am not about to keep quiet if I'm ever at Gencon, and half my party I'm with is turned away from the bar/restaurant/store because they're "not the right kind of clientele". How would any of us feel in that situation?

Fourth, I think the problem is self-correcting, at least as far a GenCon is concerned. All it takes is a business word-of-mouth boycott from the attendees there, and I guarantee somebody's one-off policy will change quickly, for the same market forces mentioned. Most of the businesses in the vicinity of the Convention aren't stupid enough to go along with that kind of thinking. Sure, it's not right on principle, but I really don't think it will make a difference in a practical sense.


----------



## Morrus (Mar 26, 2015)

Here's an interesting analogy. How would people feel if *GenCon* declared that no black people were allowed at the convention? Would they defend Gen Con's right to do business with who they chose, despite that being illegal?


----------



## billd91 (Mar 26, 2015)

GMforPowergamers said:


> ok first I'm going to ask... what is a cisgender person? In context I am going to guess like me someone who was born with body and mind both agreeing on gender... but cis doesn't make anysense to me...




It's them latin roots, man. In some ways, cis ("this side of") is the opposite of trans ("the other side of"). And so I think it was applied, not directly as a true opposite of transgender, but as an analogous word construction.

And it does basically mean that mental gender identity matches the physical/birth sex identity.


----------



## Umbran (Mar 26, 2015)

GMforPowergamers said:


> The problem is that person A believes one thing, and person B believes another... no one should be able to tell either one they are wrong.




As Morrus said, as a concept, that is very flawed.  Person A believes that red is a sinful color, and won't wear it, that's fine.  Person B believes Person A is a heretic, and must be stoned to death...

That is an extreme example, but it demonstrates that in a non-monolithic society, we do have to draw lines - there will be times when a believer may not be allowed to fully express or practice their beliefs.   

Now we get to argue over where those lines get drawn.


----------



## KirayaTiDrekan (Mar 26, 2015)

Cis derives from chemistry originally, where it means...

"Denoting or relating to a molecular structure in which two particular atoms or groups lie on the same side of a given plane in the molecule, in particular denoting an isomer in which substituents at opposite ends of a carbon–carbon double bond are on the same side of the bond."

In relation to gender, cisgender means someone whose gender identity matches their anatomy.  Basically, the doctor said, "Its a boy!" when they observed that you had a penis and your identity and sense of self matches that assumption on the part of the doctor.

By contrast, when the doctor said, "Its a boy" when they observed that I had a penis, they were wrong.  My sense of self doesn't match the gender labels forced on me by the doctor who delivered me, my parents, and society as a whole.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Mar 26, 2015)

Kiraya_TiDrekan said:


> Don't be a jerk does apply in that case.  The innocent person can learn why the other person was offended, educate themselves, and not make that mistake again.  We all make mistakes - not being a jerk means owning up to them and learning from them.




yes and that will work just fine for 1 person, but we are all individuals, and if we don't except each other we are going to just make things worse... You need to realize (you as in general not kiraya_TiDrekan) that no one is perfect and sometimes it's just easier to not take an offense that isn't meant as one...

we all live in this world, we need to find a way that we can all do it without making each other uncomfortable or unwelcome... so again ITS COMPLICATED...


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Mar 26, 2015)

Umbran said:


> Now we get to argue over where those lines get drawn.




the problem is it is a very blurry line that gets redrawn all the time... and yea that is exactly it... now we could argue till 3000 years from now on where it is or should be...


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Mar 26, 2015)

mlund said:


> I think the shocking part is that the "religion" is the class at question in the actual body of the law but everyone completely ignores it.
> 
> Ironically, one's religious affiliation and exercise is not only protected under the Bill of Rights but is a protected class under the Civil Rights Act of 1964 while sexual preference / orientation is decidedly not a protected class. Of course, this whole lobbying campaign and efforts to sue / fine people out of their livelihood because their religion prohibits them from participating materially in a same-sex marriage ceremony are just more steps in the Human Rights Campaign's descent into being a hate-group over the last decade or so, so the irony goes on for miles.
> 
> ...



People DID call out Bill Clinton & the Democrats on what they did- or rather, DIDN'T do- for gay rights.  Coverage was spotty, but a good-sized portion of the left constituency routinely criticized Don't Ask, Don't Tell and other similar legislation.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Mar 26, 2015)

Morrus said:


> Here's an interesting analogy. How would people feel if *GenCon* declared that no black people were allowed at the convention? Would they defend Gen Con's right to do business with who they chose, despite that being illegal?




it would seem odd, and not something I was comfortable with... but to turn that around what do you think of a women's only gym or school?


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Mar 26, 2015)

Kiraya_TiDrekan said:


> Cis derives from chemistry originally, where it means...




wow... thank you, I will add that as my new word for the day...


----------



## Umbran (Mar 26, 2015)

GMforPowergamers said:


> the problem is it is a very blurry line that gets redrawn all the time...




Yep.  And it *should* get redrawn all the time.  This is not something you can decide once, and walk away and figure you never have to look at it again.  You want the benefits of living in a big, culturally diverse nation, the cost of that is active maintenance.


----------



## Fallen star (Mar 26, 2015)

Morrus said:


> Here's an interesting analogy. How would people feel if *GenCon* declared that no black people were allowed at the convention? Would they defend Gen Con's right to do business with who they chose, despite that being illegal?




This is not an apt analogy. 

First, because this law does not FORCE Gen-Con to exclude homosexuals. It gives them the option, sure. But, we don't know for sure that any restaurant or hotel near Gen Con would infact choose to discriminate.

Second, homosexuality is BEHAVIOR, skin color is not. A business has no way of knowing if a person is homosexual unless that person does something to reveal it. For example, two men are kissing in a restaurant, and the restaurant manager asks them to leave.

A better analogy is smoking. Restaurants can say smoking is not allowed, but does that mean that are discriminating against smokers?


----------



## Morrus (Mar 26, 2015)

GMforPowergamers said:


> it would seem odd, and not something I was comfortable with... but to turn that around what do you think of a women's only gym or school?




I think single sex schools are problematic (and fortunately on the decline); women-only facilities do have valid safety concerns. Absent that, they'd be questionable, but the world we live in means that those safety concerned are, sadly, valid.


----------



## Fallen star (Mar 26, 2015)

Kiraya_TiDrekan said:


> Cis derives from chemistry originally, where it means...
> 
> "Denoting or relating to a molecular structure in which two particular atoms or groups lie on the same side of a given plane in the molecule, in particular denoting an isomer in which substituents at opposite ends of a carbon–carbon double bond are on the same side of the bond."
> 
> ...




Just curious, how did you, personally, conclude that your "sense of self" was the correct one, and your physical anatomy and all accompanying social expectations were the wrong ones?


----------



## KirayaTiDrekan (Mar 26, 2015)

Fallen star said:


> This is not an apt analogy.
> 
> First, because this law does not FORCE Gen-Con to exclude homosexuals. It gives them the option, sure. But, we don't know for sure that any restaurant or hotel near Gen Con would infact choose to discriminate.
> 
> ...




One important thing missing from your assumption...me.  Transgender folks are often the forgotten "T" of LGBT.  Some of us "pass" as a cisgender person and can get by without being discriminated against because people assume we're "normal."  A lot of us, however, don't "pass."  There are visual and auditory indicators that we are not cisgender.  And we are thus targets for discrimination regardless of behavior.

And it is very much discrimination against LGB folks if a same sex couple if asked to leave for kissing if a heterosexual couple is not asked to leave for the same behavior.  Its a vicious and hurtful double standard.


----------



## Morrus (Mar 26, 2015)

Fallen star said:


> Second, homosexuality is BEHAVIOR, skin color is not.




No it is not, and that is an astonishingly offensive remark. Whoever told you that sexual preference was a choice was lying to you.

I'll prove it to you: be gay for a month. You can do that, right? It's just a choice of behaviour.


----------



## billd91 (Mar 26, 2015)

Fallen star said:


> Second, homosexuality is BEHAVIOR, skin color is not. A business has no way of knowing if a person is homosexual unless that person does something to reveal it. For example, two men are kissing in a restaurant, and the restaurant manager asks them to leave.




There are lots of clues people give off that may reveal homosexuality and it's not fair to force homosexuals to constantly hide them just to have the same privileges as heterosexuals, though you do touch on an interesting point. Homosexuals, if they want, can blend in to a degree people of another race usually cannot. Dan Savage of the Savage Love advice column thinks this is one major reason homosexual rights are currently advancing as quickly as they are despite massive setbacks in the early 2000s - literally anyone might be one. They start out distributed through the population without a lot of known patterns. Any family can produce one. Pretty soon, a homophobe's discrimination is hitting his own family or other close relationship and that's more likely to break the barriers down.

That said, *expressing* homosexuality may be behavioral, but *being* homosexual is not and goes deeper than voluntary behavior.


----------



## KirayaTiDrekan (Mar 26, 2015)

Fallen star said:


> Just curious, how did you, personally, conclude that your "sense of self" was the correct one, and your physical anatomy and all accompanying social expectations were the wrong ones?




First, I'm going to ask you the same thing.  How did you conclude that your "sense of self" was the correct one?  Does that question make you uncomfortable?  If so, consider that you are not used to being asked that question.  Transgender people, on the other hand, are asked to validate their gender and sense of self all the time.  We are asked to justify and explain ourselves in every conversation like this.  Our validity and worth as human beings is brought into question...every time.

Second, to answer your question...my personal journey is none of your business, and not relevant to this discussion.


----------



## Umbran (Mar 26, 2015)

Fallen star said:


> Just curious, how did you, personally, conclude that your "sense of self" was the correct one, and your physical anatomy and all accompanying social expectations were the wrong ones?




No disrespect intended, but that's probably not an appropriate discussion for this open thread.  Please have it in private.


----------



## Umbran (Mar 26, 2015)

GMforPowergamers said:


> it would seem odd, and not something I was comfortable with... but to turn that around what do you think of a women's only gym or school?




In a perfect world, in which men no longer posed significant implied threat to women, and where the genders were culturally viewed as equal, we might not have need for such.

We are not yet in that world, so some things are still called for.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Mar 26, 2015)

Umbran said:


> Yep.  And it *should* get redrawn all the time.  This is not something you can decide once, and walk away and figure you never have to look at it again.  You want the benefits of living in a big, culturally diverse nation, the cost of that is active maintenance.



 you are 100% correct. If we as a people want to function we must always strive for that perfect we will never have... and that means re drawing that line all the time...



Morrus said:


> I think single sex schools are problematic (and fortunately on the decline); women-only facilities do have valid safety concerns. Absent that, they'd be questionable, but the world we live in means that those safety concerned are, sadly, valid.




yup and yup... I would never attend a "No black people Gen Con" I would think nothing of going to a mens only sporting event. I would not be happy with being told I could not shop in my FLGS just because I was a DC guy instead of a Marvel one... but I'm fine with bars and restaurants saying "No smokeing" 

If a woman (who identified as a man) walked into the mens room and got in line behind me for a stall, I would make a joke about making her feel at home since the womens room normally has a line and think I was being funny but wouldn't care

If a man got in line behind my sister at the womans room it would freak her out... if she had my neice with her she would run away... fast. 

21 year old me thought it was cool to walk around with two bikini clad girls, and was blown away that one took her top off... 35 year old me would be a little off put if a topless woman sat down across from my family at chillis...(immature male giggling that 21 and 35 year old me share aside)

I also understand why if me and the guys are out walking to our cars and look like trouble makers (biker jackets, tattoos, chains, leather, ripped jeans, a shaved bald man, all of us large) why a person might cross the street, or even turn around... we are all big teddy bears and the nicest guys, but if you don't know us I understand you may not get that vibe at first.


----------



## Fallen star (Mar 26, 2015)

Kiraya_TiDrekan said:


> By contrast, when the doctor said, "Its a boy" when they observed that I had a penis, they were wrong.  My sense of self doesn't match the gender labels forced on me by the doctor who delivered me, my parents, and society as a whole.







Kiraya_TiDrekan said:


> ...my personal journey is none of your business, and not relevant to this discussion.




If your personal journey is not relevant, and none of my business, then why did you post that you were born male?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Mar 26, 2015)

That was the starting line and endpoint- relevant to ID someone as having a personal stake in the discussion- not the journey.


----------



## KirayaTiDrekan (Mar 26, 2015)

Fallen star said:


> If your personal journey is not relevant, and none of my business, then why did you post that you were born male?




I used myself in a generic example to provide a sense of context and credibility.  I find it disingenuous and self-serving for one to argue on behalf of a group one does not belong to.

_Edit: That came off as a little...confrontational which was not my intent.  I should say that I find it disingenuous and self-serving to argue on behalf of a group one does not belong to without the consent or acknowledgement of a member of that group, which can be offered passively simply by participating in the same discussion._


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Mar 26, 2015)

GMforPowergamers said:


> I also understand why if me and the guys are out walking to our cars and look like trouble makers (biker jackets, tattoos, chains, leather, ripped jeans, a shaved bald man, all of us large) why a person might cross the street, or even turn around... we are all big teddy bears and the nicest guys, but if you don't know us I understand you may not get that vibe at first.




Fear of adult males is based in our species' evolution and history.

I'm 5'7" and currently 250lb+ (at my fittest, I was a fairly lean & beefy 193lbs): here is one of the few images of me available online:




Personally, I have been mistaken for a leg-breaker sent to help collect a debt- while wearing a grey silk shirt and a pink vest.  I stopped a drunken brawl at an open air rock festival with a glare.  And that was not the only time my annoyed visage caused someone to back down like the robbers in Ving Rhames' new commercial.

I'm not particularly large.  Is it because of my race?  Who knows?

The late comedian Patrice O'Neal (large black man) detailed his own experiences- like walking down the street and having women lock the doors to their convertibles...while the roofs were down.  OTOH, he also made sure he pointed out his own prejudices in that regard- like how he'd cross the street if he saw a group of bald white guys in denim & leather...even as they called out to him that they were just coming from chemotherapy.


----------



## Fergurg (Mar 26, 2015)

You know, considering the almost 300 comments on this subject and all its social, political, and religious implications, this thread has been going very well.

Why can't we do this when talking about 5th edition?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Mar 26, 2015)

1) people suck

2) I bet most people involved in this thread feel they would only be tangentially affected by laws like this.  In contrast, we ALL have a personal investment in our favorite games.

3) people suck


----------



## KirayaTiDrekan (Mar 26, 2015)

To add to that, there are a few of us who are as passionate about this subject as we are about gaming, but are generally civil (or at least try to be) regardless of subject.


----------



## Dire Bare (Mar 26, 2015)

Kiraya_TiDrekan said:


> And there is an easy solution - remove unnecessary gendering of restrooms.  Its a bathroom - everyone needs to poop and pee, it all stinks, and everyone needs a place to do it.  That's it, that's as complicated as it needs to be.




I remember one of the coolest things about the "new" Battlestar Galactica was a bathroom scene! Several characters, of mixed gender, have a discussion in the bathroom, and while it isn't called out, its clearly a nongendered bathroom! There were no urinals like you might find in a typical men's room, just stalls with central washing stations. That's what we need!

If I walked into a bathroom and found someone who looked like a woman to me (I'm a guy), it might weird me out a little because I'm not used to it. But being weirded out is on me, not the "woman" in the men's bathroom.

Likewise, if your mother, grandmother, sister, daughter, best gal pal, or whatever walks into a women's restroom and sees someone who looks like a man to them, and freaks out, that's on them, not on the "man". Weight certainly has nothing to do with it as implied above (yeah, fat-shaming and transgender discrimination double-whammy). Certainly, the reaction is somewhat understandable as society isn't used to transgender folks, but that doesn't make the transgender person wrong and the person freaking out right.

Still, I feel for my transgendered friends as currently, there is no easy solution as society hasn't proved ready for sensical nondiscrimination.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Mar 26, 2015)

> Likewise, if your mother, grandmother, sister, daughter, best gal pal, or whatever walks into a women's restroom and sees someone who looks like a man to them, and freaks out, that's on them, not on the "man". Weight certainly has nothing to do with it as implied above (yeah, fat-shaming and transgender discrimination double-whammy).




Like I said upthread, there are concrete reasons for women to fear men in places like restrooms and fitting rooms: there is a well-documented pattern of (unauthorized) men in such places being predators*.  We males are at least as much to blame in their reaction to such an event as they are.

There just isn't as a big pattern of a corresponding documented threat in that situation if the genders were reversed.

As for the weight, I believe the example is less about fatness, and more about size disparity, and how that plays into our species' threat assessment instincts.






* either of women themselves or of the children which are more likely in their care than in the care of males.


----------



## dd.stevenson (Mar 26, 2015)

I'm really happy with GenCon's response to this localized bigotry.

I'm a lot less happy to have direct political discussion encroaching even more on EnWorld.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Mar 26, 2015)

And the groundswell grows:
http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2015/...ernor-signs-anti-lgbt-religious-liberty-bill/


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Mar 26, 2015)

dd.stevenson said:


> I'm a lot less happy to have direct political discussion encroaching even more on EnWorld.




The good news is that it has been a lot more civil than not only discussions on gaming- as noted by others- but also the discussions on political websites.


----------



## pdmiller (Mar 26, 2015)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Nice doublethink.
> 
> "Protected classes" exist in law to correct for past, present and future discrimination experienced by persons society has- at some point or another, based on relatively immutable characteristics.  They level the playing field, they do not shift discrimination to others.
> 
> Business owners are not a protected class because there has not been a historical prejudice against business owners, and the fact of being a business owner is not relatively immutable.  You can always sell your business and be free of the restrictions of being a business owner.  I cannot sell my blackness and be free of the restrictions placed on me by my race.




You are nearly there with your argument - except when you mention restrictions placed on you by your race.

There are none in law. In fact there are "affirmative action" type laws to promote access to education and employment opportunities for minorities, including black people. I'm not sure what restrictions you are referring to, but they are probably along the lines of informal racism rather than any legal impediments?

But, people are allowed to be stupid and hold crazy beliefs like racism. You are entitled to hate them right back if you want to, as long as neither of you violates the other's rights. And no, hurt feelings do not count. Defence of free speech is not the same as defence of popular speech.
But you are right - if no-one discriminates, there is no problem!


----------



## pdmiller (Mar 26, 2015)

Icon_Charlie said:


> I'm a realist. A Venture Capitalist. A Warmongering overlord of my domain when crossed in business or elsewhere.
> 
> So as hardcore as I am I will say the following.
> 
> ...




Much kudos to you sir.


----------



## pdmiller (Mar 26, 2015)

Morrus said:


> Here's an interesting analogy. How would people feel if *GenCon* declared that no black people were allowed at the convention? Would they defend Gen Con's right to do business with who they chose, despite that being illegal?




That would be a horrible and stupid thing to do.  They'd be out of business in a wink. Self correction at work.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Mar 26, 2015)

pdmiller said:


> You are nearly there with your argument - except when you mention restrictions placed on you by your race.
> 
> There are none in law. In fact there are "affirmative action" type laws to promote access to education and employment opportunities for minorities, including black people. I'm not sure what restrictions you are referring to, but they are probably along the lines of informal racism rather than any legal impediments?
> 
> ...




No analogy is perfect.

Yes, I was mainly referring to the informal- but often institutionalized- racism faced by blacks.  IOW, while it isn't law, it may well have the force of the state behind it, so it functions as if it were.  It isn't an explicit law on the books, but it is no accident that  Federal investigators found- among other things- black motorists in a traffic stop in Ferguson, Missouri were more than 2x more likely to be searched for contraband than stopped white motorists (11%B vs 5%W) despite being much less likely to actually have contraband (24%B vs 30%W)...all while accounting for 85% of traffic stops.  (Ferguson is less than 70% black.)

And remember, it wasn't until 2000 that Alabama formally struck from its books the prohibition of interracial marriage.  I would not be surprised to find magistrates in & around "sundown towns" everywhere in the USA acting as if it were still legal to deny that fundamental right to mixed couples.

Even when it is private actors doing the discrimination, informal racism can be crippling: redlining by Century 21 kept blacks out of nicer neighborhoods, with all that entails.  Inability to get a bank loan or a job because of your skin's melanin concentration reduces upward mobility.

White guys carrying real firearms in Texas (relatively) peacefully and openly are covered on the news as "Open Carry Advocates"- meanwhile, a black man carrying a BB gun _he intended to purchase_ in a WalMart in Ohio gets covered on the news as being "shot dead."

...but let us leave all that aside, and IMPROVE the analogy.

What if I had said,_ "You can always sell your business and be free of the restrictions of being a business owner. A person cannot sell his religious beliefs and be free of the restrictions placed on him or her by being of that faith tradition."_

And having said so, asked you to reconsider the statements I made earlier in this thread about 
Atheists.   A deeply held conviction that there is no divine being of any kind is still a belief about the nature of religion.

And Atheists are prevented by the constitutions of several states from holding any kind of public office.

http://americanhumanist.org/HNN/details/2012-05-unelectable-atheists-us-states-that-prohibit-godless

Me?  I'm a practicing "cradle" Roman Catholic: most of the religious discrimination I face is like what I face as a black man- informal.  And oddly enough, most of it comes from other Christians, such as when, in 1983, my private high-school was told by a Baptist private school that they would no longer be putting us on their schedule because we were Catholics.


----------



## pdmiller (Mar 26, 2015)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> No analogy is perfect.
> 
> Yes, I was mainly referring to the informal- but often institutionalized- racism faced by blacks.  IOW, while it isn't law, it may well have the force of the state behind it, so it functions as if it were.  It isn't an explicit law on the books, but it is no accident that  Federal investigators found- among other things- black motorists in a traffic stop in Ferguson, Missouri were more than 2x more likely to be searched for contraband than stopped white motorists (11%B vs 5%W) despite being much less likely to actually have contraband (24%B vs 30%W)...all while accounting for 85% of traffic stops.  (Ferguson is less than 70% black.)
> 
> ...




I think we are somewhat on the same track - the focus needs to be on the legal and law enforcement dimensions. Get those right and everyone benefits, and those examples you cite become rarities and eventaully disappear.  I think that is happening now, maybe not fast enough.

But my idea of getting it right may be different from others' - I'm all for creating an environment where everyone has the same rights and opportunities. I think that should be the role of our elected rulers. That means people can think and say crazy stuff - but DOING crazy stuff - especially if it impacts negatively on others or their property - needs to be regulated.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Mar 26, 2015)

The problem with elected politicians in this arena is that they are elected politicians.  If the majority of the constituents in a given area wants to discriminate, no politician who wants to keep his job representing them will stiffen his spine and go against that will.

Which is why- even though imperfect as well- the courts and their unelected judges have been such a key force in the civil rights movement.


----------



## dd.stevenson (Mar 26, 2015)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> The good news is that it has been a lot more civil than not only discussions on gaming- as noted by others- but also the discussions on political websites.




I'm not sure why that would be good news, unless I actually wanted EnWorld to move toward a political discourse site.

Which I absolutely goddamn don't.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Mar 26, 2015)

It's good because it's proof some of us can exhibit...grace under pressure.


----------



## graypariah (Mar 26, 2015)

Wow I missed a lot since yesterday AND the discussion stayed relatively civil.

I would like to preface the below wall with this: the matter of what is and what is not a choice is not something that can conclusively be stated. Choice is central to what it means to be human and how much of our actions and thoughts are actually governed by choice and how much are predetermined will be something we ask ourselves for as long as there are humans to ask it. So to say someone is wrong for believing something is a choice and labeling that statement as insulting seems a bit extreme (after all the person wasn't stating that they made the wrong choice). I do not believe that a person's orientation is a choice, but then again I do not believe any of us has much choice in the river that is life so perhaps it is an easier conclusion on my part.

Those who say that business owners aren't a protected class and imply that they shouldn't be because they can choose not to run their business that way or in that place may not be thinking things through far enough. What would you have them do? Close down shop because they cannot sleep at night after being forced to go against everything they believe is right? How will they pay their bills? Feed their families? Such a decision could lead the business owner to a lifetime of poverty. Once their decision is made to be a business owner, in a lot of cases there is no way to go back without having to declare bankruptcy, get a job making barely above minimum wage, and just get by until social security. Sure there are the small business owners that make millions of dollars, but there are a lot who barely break even. True they chose to take that risk, but once that choice is made should they automatically get the short end of the stick when it comes to any situation that moved the line? How much of the short stick should we give them? Obviously discrimination is wrong, what where does that line get gray enough to allow them any choice in how they run their business? Do they need to provide special seating for those who are overweight? Do they need to provide a place for women to lactate? Do they need to provide kosher and halal options? What about gluten free? How much of that should be required by law and how much should be encouraged by society? The line gets moved and they lose some of their freedoms, do they get any back? 

As for comparing members of the LGBT community with blacks, the issue is that regardless of whether they have a choice in their orientation their orientation is not necessarily visible. Just as a person's religion is not always visible. People say offensive things (sometimes not meaning to) and that is why it is the polite thing to tread carefully with a person if you do not know them well. If your orientation offends them and their religious views offend you, perhaps the best way to handle it is to go elsewhere. I don't bring up certain things around my older family members because it might offend them. My views are not necessarily incorrect but instead of making it a point to bring them up I just keep it to myself. That isn't the same as hiding - I do not think a person should have to hide who they are. But if you think your kissing might offend some people, perhaps just wait until you are alone - after all it isn't like PDA is something to be encouraged at all times and places regardless of who is kissing who. That is pretty much the only way a person is going to know for sure and coincidentally it is also probably the thing that will offend them the most. In some parts of the world (including certain communities in the US) anything more than holding hands will offend people regardless of whether it is a man and a woman or a woman and a woman. 

Let them have their religious freedom even if it means you dial back the PDA. Better that a person have to choose between kissing in public and eating at a certain place than for person to be forced to choose between upholding their religious views and having to risk poverty. One is potentially out a meal, the other is potentially out a job. Does it really matter who is right and who is wrong when the amount of risks are so very different? Besides, as other posters have said only the most diehard of religious people would turn down a customer based on their orientation - would you really want to do business with them anyway if their intolerance was so strong?


----------



## sillyxander (Mar 26, 2015)

*No I'm sorry you don't get to decide to be discriminatory.*



Fergurg said:


> This is not a stand for inclusiveness - this is a stand for telling businesses, "Sorry, you thought you had the right to decide which transactions you want to be a part of? Well, I have decided that I will decide how your business is run."





We have a system set up in this country and if you want to be part of it you have to abide by some rules. These rules are if you want to sell something you don't get to choose who you sell to, and I'm not talking guns, or medicine, or liquor here. I'm talking regular services, like selling lunch or wedding cakes, or taking photos. You don't get to say, "No I don't agree with you life so I won't sell you this sandwich." This isn't about deciding how you run your business. This about discrimination. These so called laws want to protect people who want to be able to discriminate against people they don't like or agree with. How would we feel if this law was being used to discriminate against religions, or people who are a different race? If these were the issues no one would even have to send a letter like this. But yet when it's for the LGBT community it seems like it's ok. Another way to know that this is not about protecting but about discrimination is because these people never care when they sell to people who don't live according to their bible. They let people who eat shrimp shop there, or people who mix different types of material or whatever archaic laws are in that book. I have nothing against people who want to follow whatever religion or practice whatever belief they want to but leave other people to live their lives as they want as long as they aren't hurting no one. Thank you Gen Con for making people like me feel welcome. And thank you En World for letting us have this discussion.


----------



## pickin_grinnin (Mar 26, 2015)

Our country decided decades ago that you can't refuse to serve someone because of the color of his/her skin.  This is no different - it's a civil rights issue.

I applaud GenCon for standing up for basic civil rights.  One of the best ways to prevent this kind of discrimination is hitting cities and states where it hurts most - their pocketbooks.


----------



## graypariah (Mar 26, 2015)

sillyxander said:


> We have a system set up in this country and if you want to be part of it you have to abide by some rules. These rules are if you want to sell something you don't get to choose who you sell to, and I'm not talking guns, or medicine, or liquor here. I'm talking regular services, like selling lunch or wedding cakes, or taking photos. You don't get to say, "No I don't agree with you life so I won't sell you this sandwich." This isn't about deciding how you run your business. This about discrimination. These so called laws want to protect people who want to be able to discriminate against people they don't like or agree with. How would we feel if this law was being used to discriminate against religions, or people who are a different race? If these were the issues no one would even have to send a letter like this. But yet when it's for the LGBT community it seems like it's ok. Another way to know that this is not about protecting but about discrimination is because these people never care when they sell to people who don't live according to their bible. They let people who eat shrimp shop there, or people who mix different types of material or whatever archaic laws are in that book. I have nothing against people who want to follow whatever religion or practice whatever belief they want to but leave other people to live their lives as they want as long as they aren't hurting no one. Thank you Gen Con for making people like me feel welcome. And thank you En World for letting us have this discussion.




The issue is that some people would argue that forcing business owners to serve people of a different orientation than them is religious discrimination. After all, a wedding photographer may not be able to say that he will not photograph a black wedding, but a rabbi can say that he will not preside over a christian wedding (as far as I know anyway). The issue is that unlike racial discrimination this is religion vs. orientation so the comparisons of it to racial discrimination do not necessarily apply. Nor is it nearly as cut and dry. After all if you try to tell a person that their religion is a choice you might get quite an earful, in most cases people aren't touchy about it but some are very, VERY touchy about their religion.


----------



## SteveC (Mar 26, 2015)

Umbran said:


> I outlined it above - reduced ticket sales.




I am sure that will be true to some degree, but I don't believe it was a reason for that letter. If it was, it would have been called out in the letter itself.

Gen Con has has a lot of boycotts over the years for a lot of reasons, some of them were excellent, but it's continued to grow despite this.

I wonder what assumptions are being made about a boycott in general, since until this issue was brought up, I bet 95% of the people who go to the con had never heard of this bill. I had, but that's because when I'm not gaming I'm involved with political issues somewhat. As I wrote, I didn't even know how many states already had this law.

I have gone to Gen Con for a long time, since it was at UW Parkside, and for many the recent years I've done a survey about what I thought of the con and what I wanted to see at it. There has never been a single question about politics on it.

I don't believe that boycotts by attendees or vendors was a reason for this letter, it's only an explanation in hindsight.

And of course there's the caveat that there's nothing wrong with Gen Con taking a political stand on this or any other issue, it's just something that I don't like in gaming, and will likely vote with my (lack of) dollars on. As I wrote earlier, I have friends on opposite ends of this discussion that are already cancelling their trips this year because of this issue, so I suppose it's had an effect, just not what was intended. Hopefully I can convince them otherwise.

I'd also caution the Gen Con folks that just about every state has a hot button political issue or two that people are up in arms about. As I wrote, there's 19 other states that already have this very law, so there goes 40% of the country. When you start looking into the politics of hosting a large event, you will find something you don't like, and that's guaranteed.


----------



## cmad1977 (Mar 26, 2015)

This isn't politics. This is equality. If you don't believe that humans have a right to exist without fear of hostility/violence or to enjoy their pastimes in a welcoming environment then I think you misunderstand one of the foundations of our country.


----------



## Mournblade94 (Mar 26, 2015)

i Certainly don't want Gencon to leave Indianapolis because there are about 5 brewhouses in walking distance.  I get games and craft beer.  

I would like Gencon to stay thoroughly out of politics.  Tired of the politics that have been running rampant in gaming.

I am a full fire environmentalist, and environmental scientist, and I don't like to bring environmental politics to gaming.  I don't know why everyone feels like social politics is an OK topic.


----------



## halfling rogue (Mar 26, 2015)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but couldn't any business refuse service and/or discriminate (on a legal basis) before this proposed legislation even came into existence? That's the right of any business owner. Some clubs have bouncers for a reason. 

It looks to me that this is something that affords the business owner a certain amount of protection regarding this already held right to refuse service and/or legal discrimination.

It's a proaction against what other states have already had to deal with. You have to be living under a rock to not have heard about all of the religious resistance of certain businesses in participating in same-sex weddings, and I think this is born of that.

Imagine GenCon rolls around and someone starts making a scene at a restaurant. Regardless of what the scene is, the bar owner determines that this is not the kind of thing he/she wants at their establishment. Let's say its a bunch of gamers playing D&D and they're taking up too much space. If the owner asks them to leave is he discriminating against gamers or is he looking out for the betterment of his business? The gamers may feel that he's discriminating against them. But at the end of the day, the gamers can't bring a lawsuit against the owner, or one that would have any teeth to it, and claim that the owner is discriminating against them because they are gamers. There is no law protecting the owner against gamers because this is his right.

Now the reason someone felt there needs to be a law to protect the religious scruples of business owners is because their right as business owners and as Americans and as religious adherents is being infringed upon by a group who has a past record of bringing lawsuits against religious American business owners. The curious thing about it is that these cases haven't been "We don't serve yer kind round here", but rather, "We don't want to participate in something that causes us to compromise our religious beliefs" and plain and simple serving isn't the issue. There is always a catch. The Christian baker or photographer will serve homosexuals up to the point where it compromises his belief of baking a wedding cake or taking wedding photos.  

Imagine now the group of gamers at the restaurant again. The owner wants them out, says they're taking up too much space, but he keeps looking awkwardly at the guy in the dress among them. All of a sudden, even without the owner saying anything, what kind of scenario pops in your mind? Is this discrimination against that transgender person? All of a sudden a lawsuit from the gamers has a bit more teeth, and now the owner is in need of something to protect his rights. But lets carry it one step further. Imagine a man and a woman getting handsy in a restaurant. The owner who kicks them out and tells them to get a room isn't doing so based on their sexual orientation or gender but because he has deemed (as his right) that this is not the kind of behavior he wants in his establishment. The same situation with a same sex couple automatically gets placed on a different level. The owner may just not want that regardless, but now he has a lawsuit on his hands. He needs some kind of protection. And here, I haven't even touched upon 'religious scruples'. It's just how the world is right now and some owners are looking for protection against perceived discrimination against homosexuals.

But let's take it beyond that. If there is a legitimate religious reason (like the wedding cake) for refusing service, should not the owner have that right? What if there is a print shop in Indy, owned by a Christian, and a gay rights gaming group comes to them to have them print their promotional information for GenCon. It's not hard to imagine the religious owner having a conflict about it. He disagrees with their position and doesn't want to participate in their promotion of it. Should he not have the right to refuse service without the fear of a lawsuit? Flip the story, a Christian group wants to protest a homosexual wedding with flyers and posters and banners. They go to a print shop where the owner is homosexual. It's not hard to see why the owner would have a conflict of interest. Should he not have the right to refuse service without fear of a lawsuit? Of course.

At the end of the day, it looks like this is less the granting of rights to owners and more of a protection of rights already held. The reason it is a religious bill is because religious business owners are the ones currently under fire. Now if GenCon wants to move if this passes, that's certainly their right, if that's the hill they want to duke it out on. But if they move or stay, it would be a shame if this is where the conversation stalled and lingered. It was nice when playing imagination games wasn't infected with politics.


----------



## Morrus (Mar 26, 2015)

halfling rogue said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong, but couldn't any business refuse service and/or discriminate (on a legal basis) before this proposed legislation even came into existence? That's the right of any business owner.




No. It is illegal to do so for reasons of membership of a protected class.  In other words, it is illegal to refuse service on the basis of skin colour (as one example). Of course, you can refuse service for any reason not one of those protected reasons.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Mar 26, 2015)

graypariah said:


> The issue is that some people would argue that forcing business owners to serve people of a different orientation than them is religious discrimination. After all, a wedding photographer may not be able to say that he will not photograph a black wedding, but a rabbi can say that he will not preside over a christian wedding (as far as I know anyway).



A rabbi could and would refuse to preside over a Christian wedding- assuming it isn't one of those dual-celebrant ceremonies- because he doesn't know how to do a Christian wedding.  There is a fundamental difference between the 2 rituals.

But, presumably, taking pictures of black weddings does not require a special camera, etc.  Pictures are pictures.


----------



## Gnarl45 (Mar 26, 2015)

How is it called when an economic power strong arms politicians into doing their bidding? I believe that's called lobbying. Last time I checked, people make the decisions in a democracy, not corporations... 

Even though I deeply agree with the cause, I can't help but wonder how the civil rights activists could agree with such methods.


----------



## Galendril (Mar 26, 2015)

Well, it's just been signed into law (in private).  I, for one, will no longer be attending GenCons held in Indiana.

http://www.indystar.com/story/news/...ign-religious-freedom-bill-thursday/70448858/


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Mar 26, 2015)

halfling rogue said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong, but couldn't any business refuse service and/or discriminate (on a legal basis) before this proposed legislation even came into existence? That's the right of any business owner. Some clubs have bouncers for a reason.




To expand on the response already given, you can refuse service based on legitimate reasons, like if the person is being disruptive to the operation of the business, the person is acting in a way that presents a danger to someone (including himself), etc.

Any refusal is supposed to be on an individual basis, not a blanket refusal of a whole class of people, so you usually cannot refuse service for relatively immutable personal characteristics like gender, race, or religion.  



> It's a proaction against what other states have already had to deal with. You have to be living under a rock to not have heard about all of the religious resistance of certain businesses in participating in same-sex weddings, and I think this is born of that.




Yes, it is.



> Imagine GenCon rolls around and someone starts making a scene at a restaurant. Regardless of what the scene is, the bar owner determines that this is not the kind of thing he/she wants at their establishment. Let's say its a bunch of gamers playing D&D and they're taking up too much space. If the owner asks them to leave is he discriminating against gamers or is he looking out for the betterment of his business? The gamers may feel that he's discriminating against them. But at the end of the day, the gamers can't bring a lawsuit against the owner, or one that would have any teeth to it, and claim that the owner is discriminating against them because they are gamers. There is no law protecting the owner against gamers because this is his right.



The gamers are being refused service because they are being disruptive, not because they are gamers, so this is legal.

They can still file the lawsuit, but they are extremely unlikely to win.



> Now the reason someone felt there needs to be a law to protect the religious scruples of business owners is because their right as business owners and as Americans and as religious adherents is being infringed upon by a group who has a past record of bringing lawsuits against religious American business owners. The curious thing about it is that these cases haven't been "We don't serve yer kind round here", but rather, "We don't want to participate in something that causes us to compromise our religious beliefs" and plain and simple serving isn't the issue. There is always a catch. The Christian baker or photographer will serve homosexuals up to the point where it compromises his belief of baking a wedding cake or taking wedding photos.




I'm a Catholic.  How does it compromise one's Christian belief to bake a cake?

Martin Luther was once approached by a working man who wanted to know how he could serve the Lord. Luther asked him, "What is your work now?" The man replied, "I'm a shoemaker."

Much to the cobbler's surprise, Luther replied, "Then make a good shoe and sell it at a fair price."

He didn't tell the man to make "Christian shoes" or shoes only for good Lutherans.  He didn't tell him to leave his shoes and become a monk.



> Imagine now the group of gamers at the restaurant again. The owner wants them out, says they're taking up too much space, but he keeps looking awkwardly at the guy in the dress among them. All of a sudden, even without the owner saying anything, what kind of scenario pops in your mind? Is this discrimination against that transgender person? All of a sudden a lawsuit from the gamers has a bit more teeth, and now the owner is in need of something to protect his rights.




No additional legislation is needed- they're being disruptive, and can legally be refused service for it.

I'll make it 100% clear: if it were me being disruptive, I could still be refused service on that basis, _even though I am black._  A disruptive female gamer could still be refused service, _even though she is female._



> But lets carry it one step further. Imagine a man and a woman getting handsy in a restaurant. The owner who kicks them out and tells them to get a room isn't doing so based on their sexual orientation or gender but because he has deemed (as his right) that this is not the kind of behavior he wants in his establishment. The same situation with a same sex couple automatically gets placed on a different level.




No it doesn't.  He is refusing service based on disruption.  Not unless it can be demonstrated that he used a different standard of "handsyness" for straights and gays (straights can get to first base, but gays can't even touch, for example) for such refusal is he in any jeopardy.



> But let's take it beyond that. If there is a legitimate religious reason (like the wedding cake) for refusing service, should not the owner have that right? What if there is a print shop in Indy, owned by a Christian, and a gay rights gaming group comes to them to have them print their promotional information for GenCon. It's not hard to imagine the religious owner having a conflict about it. He disagrees with their position and doesn't want to participate in their promotion of it. Should he not have the right to refuse service without the fear of a lawsuit? Flip the story, a Christian group wants to protest a homosexual wedding with flyers and posters and banners. They go to a print shop where the owner is homosexual. It's not hard to see why the owner would have a conflict of interest. Should he not have the right to refuse service without fear of a lawsuit? Of course.



Can Nation of Islam adherents refuse to serve whites because they are white?  No.

Can Christian Identity adherents refuse to serve blacks because they are black?  No.

Can Southern Baptists refuse to serve Catholics because they are Catholics?  No.

When you operate a business, you are open to the public.  *All* of the public.  You pretty much don't get to pick and choose your clientele based on class characteristics.




> At the end of the day, it looks like this is less the granting of rights to owners and more of a protection of rights already held.




No, it is seeking to establish a legal ground to discriminate in a way that is currently impermissible.



> The reason it is a religious bill is because religious business owners are the ones currently under fire.




It is a religious bill because some religious people are trying to make a sword out of a shield.  Because they are using a torturous reinterpretation of the tenets of their faith.

When the people of the Middle East 2000 years ago objected to tax collectors, "women of tarnished virtue", the ritually unclean, etc., where was Jesus?  *Having dinner with them.*


----------



## Gnarl45 (Mar 26, 2015)

Galendril said:


> Well, it's just been signed into law (in private).  I, for one, will no longer be attending GenCons held in Indiana.
> 
> http://www.indystar.com/story/news/...ign-religious-freedom-bill-thursday/70448858/




You should rejoice. This makes Indiana one of the safest places on earth from divine judgement. God won't incinerate Indiana the way he slaughtered everyone in Sodom and Gomorrah. *sigh*

I wonder why the people of Indiana didn't take it one step further and made the burning of heretics legal.


----------



## graypariah (Mar 26, 2015)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> A rabbi could and would refuse to preside over a Christian wedding- assuming it isn't one of those dual-celebrant ceremonies- because he doesn't know how to do a Christian wedding.  There is a fundamental difference between the 2 rituals.
> 
> But, presumably, taking pictures of black weddings does not require a special camera, etc.  Pictures are pictures.




There is nothing that says that the example rabbi did not know how to preform the christian ceremony or that he would have preformed it if he knew how, only that he did not choose to preform the ceremony because it was a christian wedding. Let us say that he knew how to (perhaps he was previously a priest) but chose not to and did not state a reason why. Would it matter if his reason was that he did not believe Christians should get married, if he did not think anyone should be christian, or that he did not think the members of his synagogue would approve of him doing it? Does he have to justify his reason beyond saying "I am a rabbi, and I will not preform a christian wedding"? If he does not need to justify it and yet can refuse to preform a christian wedding, would that be different from him refusing to preform a same sex marriage between two Jewish people? If he was a member of the synagogue and not a small business he would be protected (probably), but would he be protected if instead of being with the synagogue he ran a small business that specialized in Jewish weddings. It is essentially the same scenario yet one offends people a great deal more than the other would. 

These are not black and white issues, they are gray issues that require a great deal of thought and even then it is hard to say with any certainty that one side is right and one side is wrong.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Mar 26, 2015)

cmad1977 said:


> This isn't politics. This is equality. If you don't believe that humans have a right to exist without fear of hostility/violence or to enjoy their pastimes in a welcoming environment then I think you misunderstand one of the foundations of our country.




If you think anyone here is fore violence or even hostility you miss read every agreement


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Mar 26, 2015)

graypariah said:


> There is nothing that says that the example rabbi did not know how to preform the christian ceremony or that he would have preformed it if he knew how, only that he did not choose to preform the ceremony because it was a christian wedding. Let us say that he knew how to (perhaps he was previously a priest) but chose not to and did not state a reason why. Would it matter if his reason was that he did not believe Christians should get married, if he did not think anyone should be christian, or that he did not think the members of his synagogue would approve of him doing it? Does he have to justify his reason beyond saying "I am a rabbi, and I will not preform a christian wedding"? If he does not need to justify it and yet can refuse to preform a christian wedding, would that be different from him refusing to preform a same sex marriage between two Jewish people? If he was a member of the synagogue and not a small business he would be protected (probably), but would he be protected if instead of being with the synagogue he ran a small business that specialized in Jewish weddings. It is essentially the same scenario yet one offends people a great deal more than the other would.
> 
> These are not black and white issues, they are gray issues that require a great deal of thought and even then it is hard to say with any certainty that one side is right and one side is wrong.




This hypothetical IS black and white.

As a Rabbi, he may know the words, but he- by definition- isn't consecrated as a Christian priest unless he is a convert.  And even if he is a priest who converted to Judaism, he isn't currently a Christian priest, and cannot confer the sacrament of Christian marriage.  He can't do it: there is a_ fundamental theological bar._

The most he could offer Christians is a civil ceremony.


----------



## radja (Mar 26, 2015)

I'm not sure about the US, but marriage here is entirely separate from religion. There's no such thing as a christian marriage, jewish marriage or buddhist marriage. There is only marriage. If you want to hold a religious marriage ceremony, that's fine, but it's just a ceremony and in  no way recognized by any law.


----------



## graypariah (Mar 26, 2015)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> This hypothetical IS black and white.
> 
> As a Rabbi, he may know the words, but he- by definition- isn't consecrated as a Christian priest unless he is a convert.  And even if he is a priest who converted to Judaism, he isn't currently a Christian priest, and cannot confer the sacrament of Christian marriage.  He can't do it: there is a_ fundamental theological bar._
> 
> The most he could offer Christians is a civil ceremony.




That is a matter of preference, not law. A ceremony preformed by a rabbi in accordance with the law would have the same effect as a ceremony preformed by a priest in accordance with the law. As a legally ordained minister and married person myself, I can attest that the actual religion plays very little (if any) role in the legal aspect of marriage. The discussion at hand is regarding the legality of choosing who you can and cannot preform a service for - not whether or not it will be the same as a service provided by another. Unless you are saying of course that a christian would not want a rabbi to preform the ceremony in the first place so it shouldn't matter if it is legal or not for him to discriminate. Which to me sounds akin to saying that a member of the LGBT community wouldn't want to be served by someone who did not approve of their orientation so it shouldn't matter if it is legal or not for him to discriminate. Would it matter if the rabbi was the only clergyman in town and the couple had to go to another town to get married? Perhaps that is why in my example two christians wanted him to preform the ceremony.


----------



## Gnarl45 (Mar 26, 2015)

graypariah said:


> There is nothing that says that the example rabbi did not know how to preform the christian ceremony or that he would have preformed it if he knew how, only that he did not choose to preform the ceremony because it was a christian wedding. Let us say that he knew how to (perhaps he was previously a priest) but chose not to and did not state a reason why. Would it matter if his reason was that he did not believe Christians should get married, if he did not think anyone should be christian, or that he did not think the members of his synagogue would approve of him doing it? Does he have to justify his reason beyond saying "I am a rabbi, and I will not preform a christian wedding"? If he does not need to justify it and yet can refuse to preform a christian wedding, would that be different from him refusing to preform a same sex marriage between two Jewish people? If he was a member of the synagogue and not a small business he would be protected (probably), but would he be protected if instead of being with the synagogue he ran a small business that specialized in Jewish weddings. It is essentially the same scenario yet one offends people a great deal more than the other would.
> 
> These are not black and white issues, they are gray issues that require a great deal of thought and even then it is hard to say with any certainty that one side is right and one side is wrong.




I'm not sure where you're getting at with this but a Rabbi that tries to perform a Christian ceremony is the same as a Canadian judge trying to exert justice on US soil. He just doesn't have that kind of authority. So even if a Rabbi or an Imam did conduct the ceremony, the (religious) mariage would be null and void. No Christian couple would ask the Rabbi to marry them because they know the mariage would be worthless in the eyes of God.


----------



## kenmarable (Mar 26, 2015)

Mournblade94 said:


> i Certainly don't want Gencon to leave Indianapolis because there are about 5 brewhouses in walking distance.  I get games and craft beer.
> 
> I would like Gencon to stay thoroughly out of politics.  Tired of the politics that have been running rampant in gaming.
> 
> I am a full fire environmentalist, and environmental scientist, and I don't like to bring environmental politics to gaming.  I don't know why everyone feels like social politics is an OK topic.




The issue with social politics is that some people don't have the luxury of avoiding politics. People who face discrimination on a daily basis would often love to avoid politics and just enjoy things as well. But while discrimination is out there and prevalent, they don't get to. You can bet they are tired of it, too. So, yeah, it can sometimes make the rest of us uncomfortable and annoyed, but by speaking out for equality and making our hobby welcoming to anyone who wants to play, that IS removing politics from it in the long run. 

The status quo is already political. It's simply that the majority of us (myself included) were lucky enough to never have to notice.


----------



## tuxgeo (Mar 26, 2015)

pickin_grinnin said:


> Our country decided decades ago that you can't refuse to serve someone because of the color of his/her skin.  This is no different - it's a civil rights issue.
> 
> I applaud GenCon for standing up for basic civil rights.  *One of the best ways* to prevent this kind of discrimination is hitting cities and states where it hurts most - their pocketbooks.




Emphasis added on "One of the best ways." There are other ways; for example, _moral suasion_ also counts. 

As a non-sequitur: _"Tuesday's thread is full of dread."_ 
(This has been your unscheduled dissent for this morning. Now, back to your regularly-scheduled brouhaha.)


----------



## graypariah (Mar 26, 2015)

Gnarl45 said:


> I'm not sure where you're getting at with this but a Rabbi that tries to perform a Christian ceremony is the same as a Canadian judge trying to exert justice on US soil. He just doesn't have that kind of authority. So even if a Rabbi or an Imam did conduct the ceremony, the (religious) mariage would be null and void. No Christian couple would ask the Rabbi to marry them because they know the mariage would be worthless in the eyes of God.




Again, this is a matter of preference which would further prove my point. As there are those who have their own interpretation on where god stands on who preforms their ceremony, so too are those who have their own interpretation on what god would consider a sin when it comes to sexual orientation. Not every christian feels their marriage is worthless in the eyes of god unless they had a priest/pastor/reverend/ect preform the ceremony just as not every christian feels that god considers sodomy a sin. 

This is an argument of the legality of the situation but because it involves religion I used a religious hypothetical. It was not my intention to launch a theological debate on the validity of marriages preformed by members outside of a person's faith.


----------



## tuxgeo (Mar 26, 2015)

graypariah said:


> < snip >
> Would it matter if the rabbi was the only clergyman in town and the couple had to go to another town to get married? Perhaps that is why in my example two christians wanted him to preform _[sic]_ the ceremony.




Dannyalcatraz already addressed that whole point when he said, "The most he could offer Christians is a civil ceremony." 

If all the couple wants is to get married, many towns in the U.S. have a Justice of the Peace who can perform civil marriage ceremonies. Counties in the U.S. have County Clerks who can perform civil marriage ceremonies. However, if what the couple want is a _specifically Christian_ religious marriage ceremony, it would not be validly Christian if performed by someone who is not properly _ordained_ to perform those. A person who is not an ordained member of Christian clergy and who merely goes through the motions of a Christian ceremony hasn't really conducted such a ceremony in the eyes of God; and a couple who are Christians in more than name only would know that.

[Edit to strike out the last paragraph, because it took me too long to write this; and graypariah disclaimed theological discussion while I was doing so.]
Those who want a big church wedding typically go to a town that has a big church. There's nothing wrong with going to a big town. Some people on the U.S. west coast drive across state lines to get married in Reno or Las Vegas, Nevada. That works, too. It seems to me that going to another town is not a deal-killer.

_[Edit Edit: I struck out the wrong danged paragraph! -- Now corrected.]_


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Mar 26, 2015)

Gnarl45 said:


> How is it called when an economic power strong arms politicians into doing their bidding? I believe that's called lobbying. Last time I checked, people make the decisions in a democracy, not corporations...




Up to a point.  By constitutional law, we cannot agree to democratically choose to discriminate against certain persons and expect to have the courts uphold that law.

And recently, we've had court decisions that have greatly expanded the definitions of corporate personhood.

Besides, there is nothing wrong whatsoever in deciding not to do business in a region (and announcing it) if you think the policies in the region would be detrimental to your brand and the well-being of your employees.



> Even though I deeply agree with the cause, I can't help but wonder how the civil rights activists could agree with such methods.




They agree with it just fine.  It's a common tactic to get more leverage.


----------



## graypariah (Mar 26, 2015)

tuxgeo said:


> Dannyalcatraz already addressed that whole point when he said, "The most he could offer Christians is a civil ceremony."
> 
> If all the couple wants is to get married, many towns in the U.S. have a Justice of the Peace who can perform civil marriage ceremonies. Counties in the U.S. have County Clerks who can perform civil marriage ceremonies. However, if what the couple want is a _specifically Christian_ religious marriage ceremony, it would not be validly Christian if performed by someone who is not properly _ordained_ to perform those. A person who is not an ordained member of Christian clergy and who merely goes through the motions of a Christian ceremony hasn't really conducted such a ceremony in the eyes of God; and a couple who are Christians in more than name only would know that.
> 
> Those who want a big church wedding typically go to a town that has a big church. There's nothing wrong with going to a big town. Some people on the U.S. west coast drive across state lines to get married in Reno or Las Vegas, Nevada. That works, too. It seems to me that going to another town is not a deal-killer.




I feel like the point has been missed, the point was not regarding the validity of rabbi preformed ceremonies or whether or not any christians would want one preformed. This is very likely my failing which I will attempt to remedy.

Say generic clergyman of religion A chooses to only preform services for members of religion A and not for members of religion B. Members of religion B don't care who preforms the ceremony (that specificity is not part of their religion) but the husband has always dreamed of being married by generic clergyman ever since he was little. Generic clergyman is able to preform ceremonies for both religions and in the past had preformed ceremonies for religions A and B. But unfortunately for the prospective husband, generic clergyman had a religious re-awakening and he now believes that members of religion B are evil. Should generic clergyman be forced to preform the ceremony against his wishes? What if generic clergyman had a small business that did the whole wedding package?

A person's choice on who to provide service to based on their religious beliefs is not a simple black in white matter, that is the point I am trying to make.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Mar 26, 2015)

> Say generic clergyman of religion A chooses to only preform services for members of religion A and not for members of religion B. Members of religion B don't care who preforms the ceremony (that specificity is not part of their religion) but the husband has always dreamed of being married by generic clergyman ever since he was little. Generic clergyman is able to preform ceremonies for both religions and in the past had preformed ceremonies for religions A and B. But unfortunately for the prospective husband, generic clergyman had a religious re-awakening and he now believes that members of religion B are evil. Should generic clergyman be forced to preform the ceremony against his wishes? What if generic clergyman had a small business that did the whole wedding package?



I see what you're saying, but it changes nothing.

If generic clergyman of religion A is performing and offering civil ceremonies to everyone else except persons of religion B, he's committing impermissible discrimination.

If he wants to legally exclude persons of religion B from gaining the benefits of his services, he needs to only perform ceremonies for persons of religion A.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Mar 26, 2015)

graypariah said:


> This is an argument of the legality of the situation but because it involves religion I used a religious hypothetical. It was not my intention to launch a theological debate on the validity of marriages preformed by members outside of a person's faith.




Here is one that happened to a friend... A nice Jewish girl and a proud Irish Catholic date for almost 6 years... She propose to him(yea that's how it happened) and they can't get married in either chur b or synagogue. The reason given for both was they won't do cross denominational weddings... They hhad to shop around to another (albe it bordering) state to get married in a church...they finally decided to just have a friendly rabbi do the service outside at a park...


----------



## graypariah (Mar 26, 2015)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> I see what you're saying, but it changes nothing.
> 
> If generic clergyman of religion A is performing and offering civil ceremonies to everyone else except persons of religion B, he's committing impermissible discrimination.
> 
> If he wants to legally exclude persons of religion B from gaining the benefits of his services, he needs to only perform ceremonies for persons of religion A.




So it is then ok for him to discriminate against everyone except one group (one which he belongs to) as opposed to discriminating against only one group?


----------



## MythicJustice (Mar 26, 2015)

*Can we all sit at the lunch counter or not?*



Fergurg said:


> But that stand is demanding that the business should not be allowed to make a choice on whether or not they will be part of a transaction. Why should anybody be forced to do business with you if they don't want to?




It's strange that we are having this discussion again as a culture. Back in the 60s when this behavior was also legal created havens for bigots and tacitly approved the escalation of violence in order to protect a separation of people. 

Can we all sit at the lunch counter or not? If not, we are not a free society. If you have a public business the assumption is that it is open to the entire public.


----------



## halfling rogue (Mar 26, 2015)

Morrus said:


> No. It is illegal to do so for reasons of membership of a protected class.  In other words, it is illegal to refuse service on the basis of skin colour (as one example). Of course, you can refuse service for any reason not one of those protected reasons.




I specifically said "discriminate (on a legal basis)" which obviously means it is illegal to refuse service on the basis of things already deemed illegal, ie, skin color, religion, gender, etc.


----------



## Morrus (Mar 26, 2015)

halfling rogue said:


> I specifically said "discriminate (on a legal basis)" which obviously means it is illegal to refuse service on the basis of things already deemed illegal, ie, skin color, religion, gender, etc.




OK. Then yes, you are correct - it is legal to do legal things.


----------



## Pauper (Mar 26, 2015)

Guys, let's clear the air on a few points here.

Some folks seem very engaged on the Constitutional portion of a 'protected class'. There are already federal laws on the books that protect gender identity, and the Indiana law has no force against them. Example: the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has already ruled that discrimination against transgender people in employment decisions is a form of discrimination based on sex, which is covered under the Civil Rights Act (http://www.eeoc.gov/federal/otherprotections.cfm).

The key is that a number of counties in Indiana, including Marion County, where Indianapolis is, have passed more comprehensive laws forbidding discrimination in not just employment, but housing and public accomodations (another poster long since has posted an excellent list of what is covered by 'public accomodations', and pretty much all businesses open to the public qualify). *This* is the point of the law -- to deprive LGBT persons the protection of the county law if the person (or entity -- note that the law basically defines 'person' as 'anybody who can be sued') is willing to assert that serving such a person would be a burden on religious belief.

For those who seem to believe that 'the market' will fix this problem all by itself (and ignoring the inconvenient point that, if this were true, why isn't the problem already gone?), it should be noted that a business doesn't need commerce from every person in an area to be successful, just commerce from enough people -- and refusing service to LGBT people is very often a signal allowing other similar-minded people to find and patronize such businesses. This is one way that intolerance persists, because it's profitable.

Lastly, the idea that 'GenCon shouldn't get involved in politics' -- the letter itself speaks to this point. There's already one poster in the thread who has said s/he won't go to GenCon while it's in Indiana and this law is in effect. At least one celebrity, George Takei, is on record as saying he won't serve as a Guest of Honor at conventions in Indiana while the law is in effect, and it's entirely possible that some existing Guests of Honor might withdraw now that the law is signed. This law is already impacting GenCon's ability to organize and present a convention that reaches the largest possible audience of gamers and fans of gaming culture. The folks who run GenCon would be negligent not to consider less problematic alternatives for future conventions, and reminding the governor of that is an entirely reasonable thing for the folks who run GenCon to do. In a sense, it's no different from GenCon sending a letter reminding the mayor of Indianapolis that raising hospitality taxes will have a negative impact on GenCon's bottom line; keeping hospitality taxes low and ensuring access to accomodations to the largest number of gamers are both in GenCon's business interests -- if one is 'political', then both are.

I also want to express my appreciation for the civility and clear-headedness in this discussion thus far. It reflects well on gaming as a whole, and to the community here at ENWorld that we can have this discussion without degenerating into name-calling and slurs.

--
Pauper


----------



## weldon (Mar 26, 2015)

graypariah said:


> So it is then ok for him to discriminate against everyone except one group (one which he belongs to) as opposed to discriminating against only one group?




Probably. If the clergyperson (see what I did there?) is acting as part of the religious group and only offers services to members of that religion, and that religion has strict rules about who can belong, and is not otherwise open to the public, then that person can legally restrict their services and refuse to perform those services for people outside the religious group.

If the clergyperson runs a wedding chapel that is open to the public and accepts customers from all religions and will perform services for persons of any religion then they could be considered to be offering public accommodation and they would have to follow the same anti-discrimination laws as any other business.


----------



## mlund (Mar 26, 2015)

MythicJustice said:


> It's strange that we are having this discussion again as a culture. Back in the 60s when this behavior was also legal created havens for bigots and tacitly approved the escalation of violence in order to protect a separation of people.
> 
> Can we all sit at the lunch counter or not? If not, we are not a free society. If you have a public business the assumption is that it is open to the entire public.




And that's where the issue is confused. When someone *can not* refuse to participate in someone else's gay or straight marriage ceremony because it violates their religious beliefs - be they anyone from an Orthodox Jew refusing to materially participate in a same-sex wedding or an Atheist refusing to participate in a religious wedding - without being deprived of their livelihood (their business) by the state then we aren't living in a free society.

The law in question limits what the *government* can do. The government can only step in to mediate when the conflict between someone's religious beliefs ("I won't do X") and another's commercial interests ("I want you to do X for me") reaches the point where someone trying to acquire a good or service is being substantively pushed out of a market. If nobody in town will photograph your wedding because its two men or two women you have a case for government intervention under that law. If the 3 photographers in town will take the business then you can't use the court system to troll the 1 old church lady who won't because "she's a bigot."

When people try and employ law as a crude bludgeon to punish people who disagree with them, they aren't supporting Liberty but rather the exact opposite. There is a *huge* difference between the function of law that a hate-group like HRC wants (the ability to specifically target and punish their "enemies" for wrong-think in court) and the protections that the law is actually supposed to provide (the ability to find remedy so consumers aren't denied access to the marketplace).

If someone wants to make it a policy that their bar doesn't serve gays or straights or whatever craziness they want to come up with in this day and age they'll just get boycotted and market competitors will gain the benefit. Nobody is going to lose access to the market, and if they do the law gives them redress.

What the HRC is worried about is that without a government bludgeon they may not be able to shut down everyone they hate. The bakery of a lady who is willing to sell anybody of any sexual preference a birthday cake, but simply will not cater a same-sex wedding because such a thing is forbidden in her faith and sends the business across the street won't be fined or sued. Heck, she might actually stay in business if enough consumers decided that was a case of "live and let live" or "agree to disagree" that happens in a truly free society. They only care about the ability to punish their "enemies," and that's a sad, sorry state of affairs considering where they started out all those years ago.

Marty Lund


----------



## Gnarl45 (Mar 26, 2015)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Up to a point.  By constitutional law, we cannot agree to democratically choose to discriminate against certain persons and expect to have the courts uphold that law.
> 
> And recently, we've had court decisions that have greatly expanded the definitions of corporate personhood.




Isn't declaring a law anti constitutional the prerogative of the Supreme Court?



> Besides, there is nothing wrong whatsoever in deciding not to do business in a region (and announcing it) if you think the policies in the region would be detrimental to your brand and the well-being of your employees.




Not doing business there is fine. What is wrong is using it as leverage to go against the vote of the people. Or would you rather live in a country where your vote doesn't matter because in the end, the lobby groups are the ones deciding behind the scene?

If you're ok with being ruled by your lobby groups it's fine. It's your country, not mine.



> They agree with it just fine.  It's a common tactic to get more leverage.




And I disagree with the method. You can't fight for civil right by violating someone else's rights.

But don't get me wrong. I'm a passionate supporter of equal rights for all (not just gay rights). My country is one of the many country that legalized same sex mariage (and even adoption) in its parliament without any pressure from lobby groups. Why coudn't a country that champions democracy everywhere else in the world not manage to do this democratically?


----------



## halfling rogue (Mar 26, 2015)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> To expand on the response already given, you can refuse service based on legitimate reasons, like if the person is being disruptive to the operation of the business, the person is acting in a way that presents a danger to someone (including himself), etc.
> 
> Any refusal is supposed to be on an individual basis, not a blanket refusal of a whole class of people, so you usually cannot refuse service for relatively immutable personal characteristics like gender, race, or religion.




The bill in particular aims to protect the religious liberty of the owner in order that they might operate their business in accordance with both the Law of the Land as well as how they see fit. An owner who claims their religion does not want to serve people who are a different skin color will not be able to operate because they are breaking the Law. However an owner who claims that they believe same sex marriage is wrong according to their religion ought to be able to opt out of serving a client who desires their service. A caterer for instance. Should a homosexual caterer be allowed to refuse to cater an anti-homosexual rally?

So far, in this thread and in the public square everyone is freaking out that this bill will essentially introduce legalized discrimination against gays. This isn't about gays. It's about protecting religious liberty and whether or not business owners should be _forced _to go against their religion. Thus far we don't have any movement to not serve gay persons, but we do have owners not wishing to participate in gay culture/ceremonies/etc. and some states have forced owners to operate against their religious scruples or pay the price. Whether you agree or disagree with the scruples of a certain religion or not is beside the point. The point, for America, is upholding the Constitution, which explicitly protects the free exercise of religion.


----------



## TrainedMunkey (Mar 26, 2015)

Hmm, so the governor signed it, wonder where GenCon is moving to?


----------



## Morrus (Mar 26, 2015)

halfling rogue said:


> It's about protecting religious liberty and whether or not business owners should be _forced _to go against their religion.




We know that.  I think you're misunderstanding the stance of many in this thread.  It's not that we don't _understand_ what this law does, it's that we don't _agree_ with what this law does. And we feel that, yes, business owners should be made to do the right thing as decided by society if they refuse to do it on their own; that's what laws do, after all.  That's what they're for.

Sadly, it seems that those making the decisions disagree on what the right thing is; the bill has been signed.  So those of us who disagreed with it lost.


----------



## bmfrosty (Mar 26, 2015)

Maybe we get a return of Gen Con So Cal.


----------



## joycem137 (Mar 26, 2015)

I imagine that the people that want SB 101 in place are the same people that liked having "Whites Only" on businesses.  Or at least the right to discriminate as such.  Yesterday, it was "state's rights."  Now it's "business rights."

Same bigots. Different era.  I'm glad Gen Con is taking a stand.


----------



## KirayaTiDrekan (Mar 26, 2015)

I am deeply saddened by the signing of this bill.

I also feel the need to point out to [MENTION=50304]mlund[/MENTION] that your perception of what you call the Human Rights Campaign (I'm having trouble even figuring out what you are specifically referencing here) as a hate group is also deeply hurtful.  

You have twisted the desire of a group of people for equality and acceptance in to some sort of campaign of vengeance that simply doesn't exist.  You've built us up into some sort of boogeyman when all we want is basic human decency.

Courtesy, respect, dignity - these are basic human needs that everyone person deserves.  Some of us don't have those, yet.  And laws like the one passed in Indiana seek to actively take those things away.  Its a tragedy, it really is.


----------



## Mishihari Lord (Mar 26, 2015)

Morrus said:


> We know that.  I think you're misunderstanding the stance of many in this thread.  It's not that we don't _understand_ what this law does, it's that we don't _agree_ with what this law does. And we feel that, yes, business owners should be made to do the right thing as decided by society if they refuse to do it on their own; that's what laws do, after all.  That's what they're for.
> 
> Sadly, it seems that those making the decisions disagree on what the right thing is; the bill has been signed.  So those of us who disagreed with it lost.




The idea that people of faith should be forced to act against their beliefs as dictated by the government is abhorrent, and I honestly can't understand how anyone can think this would be a good idea.  I have to wonder if US history plays a role in this difference in viewpoint.  Some of the early American colonists were groups that came here to escape a government that would not allow them to practice their religion, many, of course, from England.  It may be that we're seeing evidence of a propagation of those beliefs and experiences down through the years.


----------



## graypariah (Mar 26, 2015)

weldon said:


> Probably. If the clergyperson (see what I did there?) is acting as part of the religious group and only offers services to members of that religion, and that religion has strict rules about who can belong, and is not otherwise open to the public, then that person can legally restrict their services and refuse to perform those services for people outside the religious group.
> 
> If the clergyperson runs a wedding chapel that is open to the public and accepts customers from all religions and will perform services for persons of any religion then they could be considered to be offering public accommodation and they would have to follow the same anti-discrimination laws as any other business.




Perhaps they would, but isn't saying that it would be ok for the clergyperson to refuse to preform ceremonies for anyone not a member of religion A? What if the couple claimed to be members of religion A but the clergyperson stated that they didn't believe the couple were _truly_ members of religion A? If the only requirement for the clergyperson to exclude any group but their own is that the excluded have to be not a member of clergyperson's group - who decides this? Is the couple claiming to be members enough? If so then what if the couple expresses a view that is sacrilege to religion A? Who determines if that is enough of a justification to allow the clergyperson exclude the couple? If it is the leaders of religion A or popular opinion among members of religion A?


----------



## halfling rogue (Mar 26, 2015)

Morrus said:


> We know that.  I think you're misunderstanding the stance of many in this thread.  It's not that we don't _understand_ what this law does, it's that we don't _agree_ with what this law does. And we feel that, yes, business owners should be made to do the right thing as decided by society if they refuse to do it on their own; that's what laws do, after all.  That's what they're for.
> 
> Sadly, it seems that those making the decisions disagree on what the right thing is; the bill has been signed.  So those of us who disagreed with it lost.




No I understand the stance. It's quite obvious that many don't agree with what the law does (though some of the responses here do cause one to wonder if everyone who disagrees truly understands) or is intended to do since we haven't seen it in action yet.

But here is where the rubber meets the road. You said "Business owners should be made to do the right thing as decided by society". On one hand, yes. On the other hand, that is simply not the case here. "Society" at least in America, has not unanimously decided which pov is the right thing to do. There are two major opposing sides. The only true (legal) way to make businesses do the 'right thing' is either through laws or through consumer pressure. Right now the law, and the American Constitution, says that it is not right to prohibit the free exercise of religion (despite what 'society' says is right at this point). Folks may think that is wrong and there is a process in which this country can go through to rectify it. 

But as it is now, for those who think that 'business owners should be made to do the right thing' need to realize that religious liberty has been 'decided by society'. The real fight is at the Constitutional level. The only real way to battle this is to 1) get enough of 'society' to amend the constitution to repeal the free exercise to what 'society' thinks it should be or 2) just ignore the Constitution and  seek to render it useless...therefore a revolution.

But you are right. It seems the bill has passed and I guess we'll see how things play out and whether or not GenCon will find another state. I for one, while not happy to see all the drama and hate this kicked up, am happy to see the bill passed. More liberty is always better than people being forced against their will.


----------



## Morrus (Mar 26, 2015)

Mishihari Lord said:


> The idea that people of faith should be forced to act against their beliefs as dictated by the government is abhorrent, and I honestly can't understand how anyone can think this would be a good idea.




Abhorrent to you, perhaps.  Not to me, or to many other people. Indeed, we find the opposite abhorrent.

But the Governer of Indiana agrees with you, not us, so I guess that's that.  I wonder where Gen Con will move to?


----------



## Gnarl45 (Mar 26, 2015)

graypariah said:


> Again, this is a matter of preference which would further prove my point. As there are those who have their own interpretation on where god stands on who preforms their ceremony, so too are those who have their own interpretation on what god would consider a sin when it comes to sexual orientation. Not every christian feels their marriage is worthless in the eyes of god unless they had a priest/pastor/reverend/ect preform the ceremony just as not every christian feels that god considers sodomy a sin.
> 
> This is an argument of the legality of the situation but because it involves religion I used a religious hypothetical. It was not my intention to launch a theological debate on the validity of marriages preformed by members outside of a person's faith.




This is a refreshing first for me. How can you interpretate the Sodom and Gomorrah massacre without considering sodomy a sin?


----------



## graypariah (Mar 26, 2015)

Gnarl45 said:


> This is a refreshing first for me. How can you interpretate the Sodom and Gomorrah massacre without considering sodomy a sin?




I would be happy to have a spirited theological discussion with you in PMs but to avoid derailing the thread I will have to decline to respond in the thread.

As for the law being passed, as I said before I am torn. Despite my arguments to the contrary I do not believe that anyone should be excluded based on who they are (provided of course the exclusion is not for the health and safety of others). My issue with whether the law should be passed is not that I agree that the people should exclude others, but that the government shouldn't be in a position to force people to behave civilly. I am a firm believer that government should be as small as reasonably possible and should touch our lives as little as reasonably possible. I will be saddened to hear of anyone being discriminated against, but I would be lying if I said that I disagree with the governor's decision.


----------



## weldon (Mar 26, 2015)

graypariah said:


> If the only requirement for the clergyperson to exclude any group but their own is that the excluded have to be not a member of clergyperson's group - who decides this?




Private groups can make their own rules, religious or not. Consider Augusta National (the golf club) as a secular example.

Do I get to decide if I belong to Augusta National? Or does the membership committee of Augusta National get to make that decision? If I say I'm a member of Augusta National, does that entitle me to the benefits of membership?

The issue at hand is what happens when a private group offers services to the public. As long as Augusta's rules only permit members to host weddings there, then non-members have no right to ask that they be allowed to hold their wedding there. If Augusta made their facilities available to the public for events (they do not) then they would have to follow the same non-discrimination laws as everyone else.


----------



## halfling rogue (Mar 26, 2015)

Mishihari Lord said:
			
		

> The idea that people of faith should be forced to act against their beliefs as dictated by the government is abhorrent, and I honestly can't understand how anyone can think this would be a good idea.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




and this is how it boils down.

fine for you to hold this view as an outsider...but not gonna lie, pretty scary that lots of Americans agree with you.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Mar 26, 2015)

joycem137 said:


> I imagine that the people that want SB 101 in place are the same people that liked having "Whites Only" on businesses.  Or at least the right to discriminate as such.  Yesterday, it was "state's rights."  Now it's "business rights."
> 
> Same bigots. Different era.  I'm glad Gen Con is taking a stand.



 since I stood for this Bill in this very thread and so did others..  Are you calling us bigoted? That's an owfull word to throw around in a complex situation that we all want to be fair...


----------



## Zaruthustran (Mar 26, 2015)

mlund said:


> The bakery of a lady who is willing to sell anybody of any sexual preference a birthday cake, but simply will not cater a same-sex wedding because such a thing is forbidden in her faith and sends the business across the street won't be fined or sued. Heck, she might actually stay in business if enough consumers decided that was a case of "live and let live" or "agree to disagree" that happens in a truly free society.




Well, that's the thing. That lady _should_ be fined and sued. The goal isn't a "truly free society" / anarchy. The goal is a civil society, where people are compelled by law to not be jerks.

We punish people who exhibit behavior that's undesirable or damaging. Jaywalk? Get a ticket. Drive drunk? License to drive revoked. Murder someone? Jail, or death. Refuse to serve a protected class (race, color, religion, national origin, age, sex, pregnancy, citizenship, familial status, disability, veteran status, genetic information)? Fine or civil suit.

"But what if a person's religion specifically allows them--even commands them--to discriminate?"

Tough luck. We live in a secular society. The State is separate from the Church. Everyone is expected to behave themselves when out in public. Private beliefs should stay private. That's my opinion and desire, anyway.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Mar 26, 2015)

Gnarl45 said:


> This is a refreshing first for me. How can you interpretate the Sodom and Gomorrah massacre without considering sodomy a sin?




Book written by man may in fact not be perfect... So follow the ideas not exact words... I am very Catholic and believe God would laugh off anyone who tried to tear down love... Any love


----------



## Gnarl45 (Mar 26, 2015)

Mishihari Lord said:


> The idea that people of faith should be forced to act against their beliefs as dictated by the government is abhorrent, and I honestly can't understand how anyone can think this would be a good idea.  I have to wonder if US history plays a role in this difference in viewpoint.  Some of the early American colonists were groups that came here to escape a government that would not allow them to practice their religion, many, of course, from England.  It may be that we're seeing evidence of a propagation of those beliefs and experiences down through the years.




I don't understand why you say you aren't allowed to practice your religion? How is kicking out a gay couple from your hotel practicing your religion?

You live in a country where your freedom ends where another person's freedom begins. And trust me, you want it that way and you don't want to make an exception for religions. The last thing you want is for your Aztec/Mexican neighbour to sacrifice your spouse because Huitzilopochtli demands it... Or what about your Tanzanian shaman friend that murders albinos so he can make magic potions out of his body parts? Shouldn't they also be allowed to practice their religion?


----------



## mlund (Mar 26, 2015)

Mishihari Lord said:


> The idea that people of faith should be forced to act against their beliefs as dictated by the government is abhorrent, and I honestly can't understand how anyone can think this would be a good idea.




It's really easy once you buy into the idea that the government can do anything "for the greater good" rather than the idea that the government must be restricted from exercising power unless it meets an increasing burden of proving necessity when it restricts the citizenry. That philosophy isn't anything new.

The difference is what made the United States Republic different from, say, the First French Republic or the Soviet Republic. Skepticism of the people's ability to continue to learn and value that distinction rather than do whatever they felt "right" or whatever became popular once they had governing power was one of the main causes for people saying the "American Experiment" was doomed from the outset. Heck, even Thomas Jefferson figured we'd have to topple the government by some sort of agrarian revolt every generation due to human nature and our founders initially tried to install Gen. George Washington as monarch-for-life. 

Marty Lund


----------



## billd91 (Mar 26, 2015)

halfling rogue said:


> fine for you to hold this view as an outsider...but not gonna lie, pretty scary that lots of Americans agree with you.




I find it a little scarier that people think it should be OK to blatantly discriminate against people and deny them the services they offer to everyone else because they're different.


----------



## graypariah (Mar 26, 2015)

Gnarl45 said:


> I don't understand why you say you aren't allowed to practice your religion? How is kicking out a gay couple from your hotel practicing your religion?
> 
> You live in a country where your freedom ends where another person's freedom begins. And trust me, you want it that way and you don't want to make an exception for religions. The last thing you want is for your Aztec/Mexican neighbour to sacrifice your spouse because Huitzilopochtli demands it... Or what about your Tanzanian shaman friend that murders albinos so he can make magic potions out of his body parts? Shouldn't they also be allowed to practice their religion?




I think the issue isn't that universally nothing relating to religion should be illegal, I think it is that as long as it is not physically harming or endangering someone that the government should tred very carefully when it comes to religion. As I am sure everyone realizes, religion is a very touchy subject for a great many people and this country was founded on (among other things) religious freedom. There is a difference between going out and forcing people to listen to your discrimination and staying indoors and simply not allowing certain people that you do not agree with into your place of business. Neither action is one that I agree with, but they are not the same thing. I am sure there are groups of people that each of us have that we would not serve, after all there are some pretty bad people and groups in the world. To avoid risking a hyperbole I will not state which ones that I would not provide service to.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Mar 26, 2015)

Gnarl45 said:


> I don't understand why you say you aren't allowed to practice your religion? How is kicking out a gay couple from your hotel practicing your religion?
> 
> You live in a country where your freedom ends where another person's freedom begins. And trust me, you want it that way and you don't want to make an exception for religions. The last thing you want is for your Aztec/Mexican neighbour to sacrifice your spouse because Huitzilopochtli demands it... Or what about your Tanzanian shaman friend that murders albinos so he can make magic potions out of his body parts? Shouldn't they also be allowed to practice their religion?




What part of we don't want to get sued just because someone thinks we are bigots...just look at this thread to see it. If you have a reason to disagree then you can, unless the person claims your only disagree because ofnsex...


----------



## Shemeska (Mar 26, 2015)

Gnarl45 said:


> This is a refreshing first for me. How can you interpretate the Sodom and Gomorrah massacre without considering sodomy a sin?




Because even if you assume historicity to the story, the original story and subsequent reference to it both in the NT and Talmudic commentary, it has nothing to do with homosexuality. Really only some very sketchy sourcing and translation in the KJV makes that connection.


----------



## mlund (Mar 26, 2015)

Zaruthustran said:


> Well, that's the thing. That lady _should_ be fined and sued. The goal isn't a "truly free society" / anarchy. The goal is a civil society, where people are compelled by law to not be jerks.




See, *this* philosophy is what people should be very skeptical about. That's not describing a free society at all. That's Totalitarianism through and through.

That's the *exact* rationale that justifies saying I can take away Free Speech from the neo-Nazis because I find what they have to say to be evil. It's the same rationale that justifies stoning gay people in a community where enough people classify homosexual acts as "wrong" or "a threat to the community" or whatever other nonsense they can gin up. It doesn't suddenly become OK as long as the jack-boot is on the "right" foot.

"Jerk" is not the bar set in a free society for *government punishment*. That's the bar set for social action: disagreeing, boycotting, etc.

In a free society the bar for use of the monopoly of violence (government) is set much, much higher - basically to that of necessity.

We can't take away people's right to be "jerks." That just makes us, "An Evil Mr. Rogers," to borrow a phrase.

Marty Lund


----------



## cmad1977 (Mar 26, 2015)

GMforPowergamers said:


> If you think anyone here is fore violence or even hostility you miss read every agreement




But clearly being treated equally under the law isn't of concern to some. I don't think I'm wrong in that assessment.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Mar 26, 2015)

graypariah said:


> So it is then ok for him to discriminate against everyone except one group (one which he belongs to) as opposed to discriminating against only one group?



That's an odd & twisted way of describing a clergyman of Faith A who only performs the ceremonies of his own faith.

But yes, it is entirely permissible- the norm, even- for clerics to limit themselves to performing ceremonies only of their religion and for the adherents thereto.


----------



## Zaruthustran (Mar 26, 2015)

mlund said:


> See, *this* philosophy is what people should be very skeptical about. That's not describing a free society at all. That's Totalitarianism through and through.




Again, the goal isn't a free society. "A free society" isn't the ideal. Society needs rules. A society without rules is a mob.



> We can't take away people's right to be "jerks." That just makes us, "An Evil Mr. Rogers," to borrow a phrase.




We can. We have (American Civil Rights act, Americans with Disabilities Act, etc.). We must.


----------



## graypariah (Mar 26, 2015)

cmad1977 said:


> But clearly being treated equally under the law isn't of concern to some. I don't think I'm wrong in that assessment.




It is a concern to me at least, I apologize if I have given the impression that I am not concerned about the situation. The problem is that the truly have everyone treated equally under law is not something that will ever happen short of one of my D&D campaigns. I treat people as fairly as I can, and I hope that my example will inspire others to do the same. Who knows, perhaps we wont need to be treated equally under laws one day - because we will treat everyone fairly already.


----------



## billd91 (Mar 26, 2015)

Gnarl45 said:


> I don't understand why you say you aren't allowed to practice your religion? How is kicking out a gay couple from your hotel practicing your religion?
> 
> You live in a country where your freedom ends where another person's freedom begins. And trust me, you want it that way and you don't want to make an exception for religions. The last thing you want is for your Aztec/Mexican neighbour to sacrifice your spouse because Huitzilopochtli demands it... Or what about your Tanzanian shaman friend that murders albinos so he can make magic potions out of his body parts? Shouldn't they also be allowed to practice their religion?




One complicating issue here is, and this came up in the Hobby Lobby decision, there are religions that expect adherents to avoid "enabling immorality". And that's exactly what every one of the anti-gay discrimination cases under these religious freedom acts are going to rely on. By renting homosexuals an apartment, they'll be enabling sinful gay sex. By baking a wedding cake, they'll enable sinful gay weddings. Meanwhile, they're probably ignoring legions of other immoralities they're enabling through serving other people who aren't as big a hot-button issue yet whose activities may be just as abhorrent to their religion. In the realm of religious objections, homosexuals happen to be the bête noire du jour.


----------



## sillyxander (Mar 26, 2015)

I'm sorry this may get me kicked off the board and I'm fine with that. But supporting any type of law that supports discrimination of any kind does have make you part of that group that wants to be discriminatory. I'm not attacking any specified person or posters.
You can say people are very personal about their religion but only when they choose to and that's hypocrital. You can say being lgbt has nothing to do with race but if your not gay how would you know that. As someone who is both gay and a Mexican American and on top of that a gamer the only thing I have chosen is to be a gamer. So there's that. Thanks again for the support Gen Con. And thanks again Enworld for hosting this talk. I'm dropping my mic and leaving the building.


----------



## KirayaTiDrekan (Mar 26, 2015)

Mishihari Lord said:


> The idea that people of faith should be forced to act against their beliefs as dictated by the government is abhorrent, and I honestly can't understand how anyone can think this would be a good idea.  I have to wonder if US history plays a role in this difference in viewpoint.  Some of the early American colonists were groups that came here to escape a government that would not allow them to practice their religion, many, of course, from England.  It may be that we're seeing evidence of a propagation of those beliefs and experiences down through the years.




Practice of religion stops where another person's rights begin.  Practice of religion is something for the home and places of worship, not a place of business and absolutely not in government.


----------



## graypariah (Mar 26, 2015)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> That's an odd & twisted way of describing a clergyman of Faith A who only performs the ceremonies of his own faith.
> 
> But yes, it is entirely permissible- the norm, even- for clerics to limit themselves to performing ceremonies only of their religion and for the adherents thereto.




I assure you I did not mean to twist your words, but instead to simply restate them without their religious connotations to make part of my point. That part was that the fact that this is an issue related to religion changes things and makes it a very different thing than for example men and women or blacks and whites. This isn't something cut and dry, this is something with many layers and no real right or wrong answers. It is considered ok for a religion to exclude those who are not members of that religion according to many, but it is not ok for an orientation to exclude those that are not members of that orientation according to most. In both these cases however these are but labels and in a perfect world we would move past using such labels. It shouldn't matter what race, gender, orientation, religion, or any other label a person is.


----------



## halfling rogue (Mar 26, 2015)

billd91 said:


> I find it a little scarier that people think it should be OK to blatantly discriminate against people and deny them the services they offer to everyone else because they're different.




I see how you are trying to spin it, but here is what you just put forward:

Free exercise of religion protected by the government vs Government force against religion based on the whims of the mob

And until the constitution is changed, you have placed yourself on the latter side.


----------



## graypariah (Mar 26, 2015)

sillyxander said:


> I'm sorry this may get me kicked off the board and I'm fine with that. But supporting any type of law that supports discrimination of any kind does have make you part of that group that wants to be discriminatory. I'm not attacking any specified person or posters.
> You can say people are very personal about their religion but only when they choose to and that's hypocrital. You can say being lgbt has nothing to do with race but if your not gay how would you know that. As someone who is both gay and a Mexican American and on top of that a gamer the only thing I have chosen is to be a gamer. So there's that. Thanks again for the support Gen Con. And thanks again Enworld for hosting this talk. I'm dropping my mic and leaving the building.




This is not true, saying that is like saying that by supporting a law that gives members of the LGBT community rights makes me a member. While I definitely would not have a problem with that, that isn't how it works. Two people can strive for the same result and have two very different motives. 

There is no need to disqualify what we have to say because we have not walked in your shoes. There are more forms of discrimination than ones based on color or orientation and I am sure that most of us have felt what it feels like to be discriminated against. As a non-christian in this country in which Atheists are the least trusted minority, I can assure you that I know what it feels like to be discriminated against. I will not say my struggle is the same as yours or that my hardships were greater, but I do feel I have enough experience to weigh in.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Mar 26, 2015)

halfling rogue said:


> The bill in particular aims to protect the religious liberty of the owner in order that they might operate their business in accordance with both the Law of the Land as well as how they see fit.




Nice sentiment, but we are a secular nation of laws with prohibitions against favoring one faith over another, one group over another.  When you start discriminating against whole groups, you run afoul of those laws.  

As has been said in numerous ways, your rights end where mine begin.  When you open a business, your right to shape it with your religious tenets becomes more restricted.  You can have a grocery that only sells kosher or halal foods, but you can't restrict the sale of them to Jews or Muslims only.




> An owner who claims their religion does not want to serve people who are a different skin color will not be able to operate because they are breaking the Law. However an owner who claims that they believe same sex marriage is wrong according to their religion ought to be able to opt out of serving a client who desires their service.



Again, show me a passage from a religious text that says baking cakes for non-believers or sinners is prohibited. 



> A caterer for instance. Should a homosexual caterer be allowed to refuse to cater an anti-homosexual rally?



On the grounds that they are anti-homosexual?  Like a conservative black-tie dinner? Probably not.  

On the grounds that he fears for the mental and physical health of his staff or himself by the group wanting the catering done?  Like an open air protest by the Wesboro church?  Well that's like asking a black baker to cater a KKK rally, so most definitely yes.

Well that's like asking a black baker to cater a KKK rally.



> So far, in this thread and in the public square everyone is freaking out that this bill will essentially introduce legalized discrimination against gays. This isn't about gays.




I agree.  As I have _repeatedly_ pointed out, the wording of this legislation is broad enough that it can used to justify discrimination against any group on religious grounds.




> It's about protecting religious liberty and whether or not business owners should be _forced _to go against their religion. Thus far we don't have any movement to not serve gay persons, but we do have owners not wishing to participate in gay culture/ceremonies/etc. and some states have forced owners to operate against their religious scruples or pay the price.




Yes we do.

We have doctors refusing to treat the children of lesbians.  We have caterers and photographers refusing _at least some_ services to gay they provide straights.  We have landlords & hoteliers refusing to rent to gays.



> Whether you agree or disagree with the scruples of a certain religion or not is beside the point. The point, for America, is upholding the Constitution, which explicitly protects the free exercise of religion.




We have the right to all kinds of things under the constitution, like the pursuit of happiness.  And the trend of constitutional law over the past 50 years has been to recognize that refusal of services to groups based on immutable characteristics is unconstitutional.


----------



## Mishihari Lord (Mar 26, 2015)

Kiraya_TiDrekan said:


> Practice of religion stops where another person's rights begin.  Practice of religion is something for the home and places of worship, not a place of business and absolutely not in government.




Religions are systems of belief, including morality, ideas about what is right and what is wrong.  For a person of faith, religion is about how you live your life, not about what you do just at home or just at church.

I find it strange that you're so vocal about your right to live as you wish but are utterly indifferent to the rights of others who differ from you to do the same.  Especially since that seems to have been your primary message in this thread.


----------



## billd91 (Mar 26, 2015)

halfling rogue said:


> I see how you are trying to spin it, but here is what you just put forward:
> 
> Free exercise of religion protected by the government vs Government force against religion based on the whims of the mob
> 
> And until the constitution is changed, you have placed yourself on the latter side.




Actually, not at all. Until RFRA was passed by the feds, the prevailing course in American constitutional law was to be skeptical of religious objections since everyone was equally subject to the law and thus no religion was specially privileged or underprivileged. That was well-within constitutional bounds.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Mar 26, 2015)

Gnarl45 said:


> Isn't declaring a law anti constitutional the prerogative of the Supreme Court?




They get the *final* say, but any judge can make such a ruling.  It's just that it will probably get kicked upstairs on appeal of they do so.




> And I disagree with the method. You can't fight for civil right by violating someone else's rights.



It isn't a violation.



> Why coudn't a country that champions democracy everywhere else in the world not manage to do this democratically?




We can, but it take time, and a lot of it.  So people are using the other avenues afforded to them by our laws: free speech, the judiciary, etc., to hasten the pace.


----------



## KirayaTiDrekan (Mar 26, 2015)

Mishihari Lord said:


> Religions are systems of belief, including morality, ideas about what is right and what is wrong.  For a person of faith, religion is about how you live your life, not about what you do just at home or just at church.
> 
> I find it strange that you're so vocal about your right to live as you wish but are utterly indifferent to the rights of others who differ from you to do the same.  Especially since that seems to have been your primary message in this thread.




Your choice to follow a system of morality doesn't apply to me.  I will never ask that your right to practice your beliefs and morality be infringed...unless your practice infringes on my rights.

I do not follow a religion and I will never allow myself to be judged by any religion or any follower of a religion.  Your morality does not apply to me.  I don't play by your rules, I play by the rules (laws) of the government of this country and the state I live in.  When a religion seeks to impose its rules on the government, I will fight it every time, with every legal means at my disposal.


----------



## billd91 (Mar 26, 2015)

Mishihari Lord said:


> Religions are systems of belief, including morality, ideas about what is right and what is wrong.  For a person of faith, religion is about how you live your life, not about what you do just at home or just at church.
> 
> I find it strange that you're so vocal about your right to live as you wish but are utterly indifferent to the rights of others who differ from you to do the same.  Especially since that seems to have been your primary message in this thread.




The problem is, when we've relied on systems in which there were no protections for classes of people against denial of goods, services, places to live, employment, and so on, those systems didn't work. They created second class citizens, something contrary to the principles on which this country was founded - that we're all created equal and with the same rights. Second class citizens don't have the privilege to live their lives as they wish if other people are allowed to have the privilege to deny them services. It appears to me that's what Kiraya_TiDrekan is fighting for and it's an uphill battle because these other people won't give up or share any of their privilege. There are, of course, some people who will be allies of second class citizens, but what are we supposed to do if they aren't distributed equally throughout the population or in enough numbers to ameliorate the effects of service deniers? Just tell the second class citizens in areas where allies are rare, "Sucks to be you?"

The US government has decided that it has a compelling interest to protect a number of classes of these second class citizens and does so. Yet there never seems to be an end to the number of classes that need to be created because privilege sure doesn't give up easy.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Mar 26, 2015)

Kiraya_TiDrekan said:


> Your choice to follow a system of morality doesn't apply to me.  I will never ask that your right to practice your beliefs and morality be infringed...unless your practice infringes on my rights.
> 
> I do not follow a religion and I will never allow myself to be judged by any religion or any follower of a religion.  Your morality does not apply to me.  I don't play by your rules, I play by the rules (laws) of the government of this country and the state I live in.  When a religion seeks to impose its rules on the government, I will fight it every time, with every legal means at my disposal.



No one is forcing you to change. Some people just want a space where you will not disturb them...you can still go there if you follow there rules...no one will ask who you sleep with at the diner...if you just go to eat.


----------



## Morrus (Mar 26, 2015)

halfling rogue said:


> fine for you to hold this view as an outsider...but not gonna lie, pretty scary that lots of Americans agree with you.




You know we're, like, the same species, right? That the abiity to reason and hold moral opinions is divided by national borders?


----------



## Morrus (Mar 26, 2015)

Heh.  Gen Con doesn't even get a mention in this list of major reactions to the new law.

http://www.advocate.com/indiana/2015/03/26/immediate-examples-backlash-indianas-religious-freedom


----------



## KirayaTiDrekan (Mar 26, 2015)

GMforPowergamers said:


> No one is forcing you to change. Some people just want a space where you will not disturb them...you can still go there if you follow there rules...no one will ask who you sleep with at the diner...if you just go to eat.




I'm sorry but it doesn't work that way, not for people like me.  I don't "pass" as a woman, yet.  I have stubble.  I have broad shoulders.  I have a masculine sounding voice.  And this law allows a business to refuse service based on those qualities.

Not to mention the double standard inherent in "following their rules" - its ok for a hetero couple to kiss eachother in a restaurant but not a homosexual couple?  How is that even remotely ok?


----------



## bmfrosty (Mar 26, 2015)

GMforPowergamers said:


> No one is forcing you to change. Some people just want a space where you will not disturb them...you can still go there if you follow there rules...no one will ask who you sleep with at the diner...if you just go to eat.




Don't ask don't tell?  What if a man wanted to go eat at a diner with his boyfriend, and they held hands?  Didn't hide that they were a couple?  Would it be right for them to be kicked out of the diner?

Should we have a witch hunt?


----------



## Cristian Andreu (Mar 26, 2015)

As someone completely foreign to internal US laws, what's the conflicting legislation about?


----------



## Gnarl45 (Mar 26, 2015)

graypariah said:


> I think the issue isn't that universally nothing relating to religion should be illegal, I think it is that as long as it is not physically harming or endangering someone that the government should tred very carefully when it comes to religion.




It's a bit more than physically harming or endangering someone. It's property, freedom of speech, habeas corpus, etc... Your founding fathers did a great job and wrote down your fundamental rights in a document called your constitution. Basically, nobody should be allowed to deny you of your constitutional rights in the name of his religion. Or something like that.



> There is a difference between going out and forcing people to listen to your discrimination and staying indoors and simply not allowing certain people that you do not agree with into your place of business.




That means restaurants, night clubs, taxis, public transportation, hospitals, graveyards, lawyers, etc... Doesn't that sound all too familiar to you? It would be like 50 years ago with the n-word replaced by gay.

It could be even worse than that. I don't know if you're aware of this but the catholic church made slavery of christians illegal very early in the middle ages. Some theologists of colonial times concluded that a person with black skin did not have a soul and therefore could not be a christian. That's how some of them justified the slave trade. This means that there's a precendent of religious beliefs that could allow a driver to send African Americans in the back of the bus like in "good old times".

Or how about this one. Most overweight people have excess weight because they eat too much. Gluttony is a capital sin. You see where I'm getting at.

It's really that easy to justify discrimination by invoking some obscur religious text.


----------



## graypariah (Mar 26, 2015)

Kiraya_TiDrekan said:


> Your choice to follow a system of morality doesn't apply to me.  I will never ask that your right to practice your beliefs and morality be infringed...unless your practice infringes on my rights.
> 
> I do not follow a religion and I will never allow myself to be judged by any religion or any follower of a religion.  Your morality does not apply to me.  I don't play by your rules, I play by the rules (laws) of the government of this country and the state I live in.  When a religion seeks to impose its rules on the government, I will fight it every time, with every legal means at my disposal.




We all follow the laws the best we can and live according to our own moral compass, the issue is not whether or not the issue is legal (although people seem to just keep repeating "it's the law" like that is somehow the crux of the issue) - it is whether it should be. By your logic if a religious belief even touches your rights it should be fought with any legal means at your disposal. That is of course your right and I doubt anyone here would want it any other way. 

The flip side is that your situation should infringe on his rights no more than strictly necessary. After all if he is not going out of his way to harm you or reduce your happiness, why should he lose rights because hypothetically a situation could arise in which you want a bagel that he happens to be selling and he doesn't want to sell it to you? Are we really so petty a society that every kid has to be invited to the birthday party or else the parents will get involved? Why would a person even care unless the discrimination was so rampant that their choices were actually limited in a meaningful way. Does it truly matter if one bakery in a hundred doesn't treat you with the respect you deserve? Perhaps it would if that one bakery had the only bread you weren't allergic too, but that is an incredibly extreme example. 

Do you know what the best way to change society is? To be happy and to let others see your happiness. If you treat people fairly and live a happy life it doesn't matter if every other person acts like (forgive the crudity) a butt-head.


----------



## Forged Fury (Mar 26, 2015)

With the signing of the law, it will be interesting to see what GenCon does. If they were smart, they'd publicize the cost to break their contract. I wouldn't be surprised if another municipality offered an economic incentive of like value to help them balance the books. If it works for college football coaches...


----------



## KirayaTiDrekan (Mar 26, 2015)

graypariah said:


> We all follow the laws the best we can and live according to our own moral compass, the issue is not whether or not the issue is legal (although people seem to just keep repeating "it's the law" like that is somehow the crux of the issue) - it is whether it should be. By your logic if a religious belief even touches your rights it should be fought with any legal means at your disposal. That is of course your right and I doubt anyone here would want it any other way.
> 
> The flip side is that your situation should infringe on his rights no more than strictly necessary. After all if he is not going out of his way to harm you or reduce your happiness, why should he lose rights because hypothetically a situation could arise in which you want a bagel that he happens to be selling and he doesn't want to sell it to you? Are we really so petty a society that every kid has to be invited to the birthday party or else the parents will get involved? Why would a person even care unless the discrimination was so rampant that their choices were actually limited in a meaningful way. Does it truly matter if one bakery in a hundred doesn't treat you with the respect you deserve? Perhaps it would if that one bakery had the only bread you weren't allergic too, but that is an incredibly extreme example.
> 
> Do you know what the best way to change society is? To be happy and to let others see your happiness. If you treat people fairly and live a happy life it doesn't matter if every other person acts like (forgive the crudity) a butt-head.




This isn't about bakeries or birthday parties though.  First, parents aren't running a business, so they can invite or not invite whoever they like.

I don't care about a bakery - I care about getting medication at a pharmacy, getting proper treatment at an emergency room, getting a place to stay for the night in the only motel in town.

I can't be happy when I'm being treated as a non-person.  Treat people fairly?  Yeah, that would be nice wouldn't it?  I sure would like it if businesses in Indiana treated me fairly.


----------



## Mishihari Lord (Mar 26, 2015)

Kiraya_TiDrekan said:


> Your choice to follow a system of morality doesn't apply to me.  I will never ask that your right to practice your beliefs and morality be infringed...unless your practice infringes on my rights.
> 
> I do not follow a religion and I will never allow myself to be judged by any religion or any follower of a religion.  Your morality does not apply to me.  I don't play by your rules, I play by the rules (laws) of the government of this country and the state I live in.  When a religion seeks to impose its rules on the government, I will fight it every time, with every legal means at my disposal.




So you get to assert your values in the government, but I don't because I'm a person of faith?  In this instance, I'm not asserting my religion, I'm asserting my values, which come from a variety of sources including my religion.  Again, you're insisting that people of faith be denied full participation in society.  Do you really not see the hypocrisy inherent in this position?


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Mar 26, 2015)

Kiraya_TiDrekan said:


> I'm sorry but it doesn't work that way, not for people like me.  I don't "pass" as a woman, yet.  I have stubble.  I have broad shoulders.  I have a masculine sounding voice.  And this law allows a business to refuse service based on those qualities.
> 
> Not to mention the double standard inherent in "following their rules" - its ok for a hetero couple to kiss eachother in a restaurant but not a homosexual couple?  How is that even remotely ok?



You know I agree with a lot of that.. But I canthelp but notice nothing in your description stands out at a con... Just throw on a gamer shirt and some jeans and no one will bug you... Keep your bedroom in the bedroom at the con ..


----------



## KirayaTiDrekan (Mar 26, 2015)

GMforPowergamers said:


> You know I agree with a lot of that.. But I canthelp but notice nothing in your description stands out at a con... Just throw on a gamer shirt and some jeans and no one will bug you... Keep your bedroom in the bedroom at the con ..




In other words, go back in the closet so I don't make anyone but myself uncomfortable?  That is exactly what you are saying.  

Simply put...

No.


----------



## graypariah (Mar 26, 2015)

Gnarl45 said:


> It's a bit more than physically harming or endangering someone. It's property, freedom of speech, habeas corpus, etc... Your founding fathers did a great job and wrote down your fundamental rights in a document called your constitution. Basically, nobody should be allowed to deny you of your constitutional rights in the name of his religion. Or something like that.
> 
> That means restaurants, night clubs, taxis, public transportation, hospitals, graveyards, lawyers, etc... Doesn't that sound all too familiar to you? It would be like 50 years ago with the n-word replaced by gay.
> 
> ...




The problem with this, is that we live in a very different world than 50 years ago. There is no indication that a significant number of business would even use this legislation to negatively impact people's lives. The keyword here is significant. I am sure that stories can be found that are sensationalized, but I don't know of a single small business that would refuse to hire a person with a different orientation or refuse to serve one. In fact there have been those of different orientations at every place that I worked and for the most part were treated with every bit of respect as anyone else. Sure some people (mostly older generations) acted weird about it, but that is just because it is so different from what they are use to. The US is not 1950s Alabama where people are getting lynched, it is 2015 and we all pretty much communicate online more than face to face. 

I understand the concern that we will slip backwards as a society, but lets instead focus on hoping that we have come far enough not to need the crutch of law to prevent us from becoming hateful monsters.


----------



## KirayaTiDrekan (Mar 26, 2015)

graypariah said:


> The problem with this, is that we live in a very different world than 50 years ago. There is no indication that a significant number of business would even use this legislation to negatively impact people's lives. The keyword here is significant. I am sure that stories can be found that are sensationalized, but I don't know of a single small business that would refuse to hire a person with a different orientation or refuse to serve one. In fact there have been those of different orientations at every place that I worked and for the most part were treated with every bit of respect as anyone else. Sure some people (mostly older generations) acted weird about it, but that is just because it is so different from what they are use to. The US is not 1950s Alabama where people are getting lynched, it is 2015 and we all pretty much communicate online more than face to face.
> 
> I understand the concern that we will slip backwards as a society, but lets instead focus on hoping that we have come far enough not to need the crutch of law to prevent us from becoming hateful monsters.




The hateful monsters are there, just waiting for an opportunity.  Some of them are even in office (google Gordon Klingenschmitt).


----------



## Morrus (Mar 26, 2015)

Guys, I may close this thread soon. With a couple of exceptions, it was remarkably civil - more so than many discussions about games! - and I'm really glad of that.  However, I'm starting to sense some animosity creeping in at the edges now, and the law's passed and done. I'm heading out to my Pathfinder game, and I'll check in and see where things are when I get back.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Mar 26, 2015)

DM Magic said:


> What does a person's gender identity have to do with the bedroom?




More then it does about getting a burger at the ram....


----------



## mrm1138 (Mar 26, 2015)

A few things:

1) Good for Gen Con for taking this stand!

2) Good for EN World for reporting on it!

3) Shout outs to [MENTION=6755061]Kiraya_TiDrekan[/MENTION] and [MENTION=1457]Zaruthustran[/MENTION] as thread MVPs! You two are awesome!


----------



## graypariah (Mar 26, 2015)

Kiraya_TiDrekan said:


> This isn't about bakeries or birthday parties though.  First, parents aren't running a business, so they can invite or not invite whoever they like.
> 
> I don't care about a bakery - I care about getting medication at a pharmacy, getting proper treatment at an emergency room, getting a place to stay for the night in the only motel in town.
> 
> I can't be happy when I'm being treated as a non-person.  Treat people fairly?  Yeah, that would be nice wouldn't it?  I sure would like it if businesses in Indiana treated me fairly.




It was simply a metaphor. Since we are dispelling with the metaphors though, do you honestly believe that you would not be treated at an emergency room or would be refused medicine at a pharmacy? How many times do you really visit a town with only one motel? 

I apologize if any of this seems like personal attacks.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Mar 26, 2015)

Kiraya_TiDrekan said:


> In other words, go back in the closet so I don't make anyone but myself uncomfortable?  That is exactly what you are saying.
> 
> Simply put...
> 
> No.



No you are free to act as you like... But if people don't like it they are free to act how they like...no one really cares who any of us are on the inside.. Just pay for your room/burger/caugh medicine... But don't you dare make a scene about being different then complain you were treated different.

No one cares if I have a girlfriend a boyfriend or both...as long as I don't throw it up for the whole world to see and judge...


----------



## Fergurg (Mar 26, 2015)

Morrus said:


> Guys, I may close this thread soon. With a couple of exceptions, it was remarkably civil - more so than many discussions about games! - and I'm really glad of that.  However, I'm starting to sense some animosity creeping in at the edges now, and the law's passed and done. I'm heading out to my Pathfinder game, and I'll check in and see where things are when I get back.




Honestly, that'd probably be the best decision. Seems that at this point, everything has been said. Now, the conversation has boiled down to"I'm right!" "No, I'm right!"

Nobody is going to persuade anyone else at this point, so we should just move on.


----------



## KirayaTiDrekan (Mar 26, 2015)

mrm1138 said:


> A few things:
> 
> 1) Good for Gen Con for taking this stand!
> 
> ...




Thanks, though I would put [MENTION=19675]Dannyalcatraz[/MENTION] on that list before me.  I've gotten a little heated at times.  He's the one with the legal expertise.


----------



## JamesonCourage (Mar 26, 2015)

Wow. I don't think any thread on EN World has ever made me want to block so many users. And that's saying something.

There's a reason that politics should stay at CV and off ENW. Morrus, I think everyone is going around in circles. Better to close the thread after a fairly civil discussion than keep it open and have more bad blood between posters.


----------



## Fergurg (Mar 26, 2015)

DM Magic said:


> Can someone translate this for me? I'm flummoxed as to what this means.




The Ram is a steakhouse.


----------



## KirayaTiDrekan (Mar 26, 2015)

graypariah said:


> It was simply a metaphor. Since we are dispelling with the metaphors though, do you honestly believe that you would not be treated at an emergency room or would be refused medicine at a pharmacy? How many times do you really visit a town with only one motel?
> 
> I apologize if any of this seems like personal attacks.




There are documented cases of transgender people being mistreated in hospitals.

There are documented cases of people being refused medication due to the religious beliefs of the pharmacist (birth control, specifically, but it sets a precedent).

If I'm driving through Indiana to get to Gen Con and end up in a small town at midnight...there are plenty of one-motel towns in every state.


----------



## graypariah (Mar 26, 2015)

Fergurg said:


> Honestly, that'd probably be the best decision. Seems that at this point, everything has been said. Now, the conversation has boiled down to"I'm right!" "No, I'm right!"
> 
> Nobody is going to persuade anyone else at this point, so we should just move on.




It has become less thought promoting than it was earlier. I will try to duck out myself.

Before I go I would like to leave people with this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asch_conformity_experiments

How much of what we believe is because it is the popular opinion among those we spend most of our time with (fellow internet gamers in my case) and how much of it is actually based on merit? Perhaps we should all sit down, meditate, and think over some of these deep philosophical questions and ask if we really are on the right side or if there even is a right side?


----------



## Umbran (Mar 26, 2015)

I would love it if one of these cases went to court, and the judge said, "Just so you know, it is against my religion to allow discrimination against people on religious grounds."

Folks seem to have disregarded something mentioned earlier.  In a diverse nation, religious freedom *cannot* be absolute.  We cannot allow, "My religion says you must die," for example.  Just as a practical matter, we *must* restrict some religious practice when that practice involves non-practitioners.

The only question is where we draw the lines.

Thus, arguments of the form, "But, that's a restriction of religious freedom!" have missed the point.  We already *must* accept some restriction of religious freedom.  We all know this.  Any argument for allowing discrimination on religous grounds must be more detailed - why must *this particular* freedom be allowed?  Why is it so special?


----------



## KirayaTiDrekan (Mar 26, 2015)

GMforPowergamers said:


> No you are free to act as you like... But if people don't like it they are free to act how they like...no one really cares who any of us are on the inside.. Just pay for your room/burger/caugh medicine... But don't you dare make a scene about being different then complain you were treated different.
> 
> No one cares if I have a girlfriend a boyfriend or both...as long as I don't throw it up for the whole world to see and judge...




How is me dressing like me making a scene?


----------



## Umbran (Mar 26, 2015)

GMforPowergamers said:


> You know I agree with a lot of that.. But I canthelp but notice nothing in your description stands out at a con... Just throw on a gamer shirt and some jeans and no one will bug you... Keep your bedroom in the bedroom at the con ..




See previous statements on the psychological damage done by staying "in the closet".  It is not good for you to have to hide who you are.  You shouldn't ask folks to do that. 

"Don't ask, don't tell," is better than some policies, but still not good.


----------



## KirayaTiDrekan (Mar 26, 2015)

Umbran said:


> See previous statements on the psychological damage done by staying "in the closet".  It is not good for you to have to hide who you are.  You shouldn't ask folks to do that.
> 
> "Don't ask, don't tell," is better than some policies, but still not good.




I just wanted to say a heartfelt "Thank you" for this.


----------



## billd91 (Mar 26, 2015)

DM Magic said:


> This is extremely off-putting. A man kissing his husband in public isn't "throwing it up for the whole world to see" any more than a man kissing his wife is. Why should the LBGT community have to play by a different set of rules?




Because privilege don't give up easy.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Mar 26, 2015)

Kiraya_TiDrekan said:


> How is me dressing like me making a scene?




Becuse some people do not welcome the clothing choice...

If I wore my "I support single moms" t shirt withe stripper outline and ratty old jeans to the church social it would cause a scene...if I did to Saturday night game that would be last week... If I wore it into the nice steak house and was asked to leave I would come back in a polo and better jeans


----------



## mrm1138 (Mar 26, 2015)

Kiraya_TiDrekan said:


> Thanks, though I would put @_*Dannyalcatraz*_ on that list before me.  I've gotten a little heated at times.  He's the one with the legal expertise.




Thanks for helping me with the oversight!

I'd also like to give a shout-out to [MENTION=4038]God[/MENTION]. Despite the fact that his comments were a little less than civil, he made one of my favorite statements when he said, "Social justice is not a pejorative..."

Also, I've always thought "Social Justice Warrior" sounds bad@$$. That said, I think I'd rather be a different class, like Social Justice Rogue.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Mar 26, 2015)

Umbran said:


> See previous statements on the psychological damage done by staying "in the closet".  It is not good for you to have to hide who you are.  You shouldn't ask folks to do that.
> 
> "Don't ask, don't tell," is better than some policies, but still not good.




There is a time and place for everything... If you fear dress or acting in a way will cause issues you can bottle It for a few minutes... And that goes even just for gamers... I don't expect everyone to agree and I do think we need more work on these issues but pretending it is impossible to be neutral in a place is weird... I know no one who never were pants... Not Scotsman not trans not woman....


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Mar 26, 2015)

billd91 said:


> Because privilege don't give up easy.




Yup. What privileged is that again, just wondering


----------



## KirayaTiDrekan (Mar 26, 2015)

GMforPowergamers said:


> Becuse some people do not welcome the clothing choice...
> 
> If I wore my "I support single moms" t shirt withe stripper outline and ratty old jeans to the church social it would cause a scene...if I did to Saturday night game that would be last week... If I wore it into the nice steak house and was asked to leave I would come back in a polo and better jeans




I just don't even know how to process this.

Me in a nice pantsuit or dress is comparable to you in ratty jeans and a "stripper" t-shirt?

Really?

Seriously?

My happiness, my well-being, my sense of self, my worthiness as a human being is...subject to the whims of people who don't like how I dress?

Really?

Seriously?


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Mar 26, 2015)

DM Magic said:


> My final thought on this thread: The amount of tap dancing done by some to justify lawful discrimination is beyond depressing. And it doesn't seem like anyone's opinions on the matter were changed, only further entrenched. But if I have to walk away from this conversation knowing that I further entrenched myself on the side of non-discrimination... well, then that's all right with me.



You because those of US not on your side must be for discrimination...


----------



## Fergurg (Mar 26, 2015)

Umbran said:


> I would love it if one of these cases went to court, and the judge said, "Just so you know, it is against my religion to allow discrimination against people on religious grounds."
> 
> Folks seem to have disregarded something mentioned earlier.  In a diverse nation, religious freedom *cannot* be absolute.  We cannot allow, "My religion says you must die," for example.  Just as a practical matter, we *must* restrict some religious practice when that practice involves non-practitioners.
> 
> ...




Because this is not about a law stopping me from doing something bad to you. This is about a law saying that if I don't want to do something for you, I don't have to, or even have you on my property.

My property. And frankly, it shouldn't have to be a religious reason. It's a "my property, my riles" principle.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Mar 26, 2015)

Kiraya_TiDrekan said:


> I just don't even know how to process this.
> 
> Me in a nice pantsuit or dress is comparable to you in ratty jeans and a "stripper" t-shirt?
> 
> ...



Remeber it is all freedom of choice goto a place or not and dress as you like but if someone feels it isn't right they are free to say so too...

Everyone is equal or no one is


Edit was I told just a few hours ago dress codes are fine?


----------



## KirayaTiDrekan (Mar 26, 2015)

GMforPowergamers said:


> Remeber it is all freedom of choice goto a place or not and dress as you like but if someone feels it isn't right they are free to say so too...
> 
> Everyone is equal or no one is
> 
> ...




Not a business that serves the public.  They serve all the public or none of the public.


----------



## jimmifett (Mar 26, 2015)

Having skipped to the end of this thread and not bothering to read most of it, I'm in agreement with the bill. No business should be forced to accommodate to someone's lifestyle choice, esp if it's against the religions of the owners of that business. Bully for Gencon wanting to be inclusive, that's the convention's business. I personally don't having any qualms about wanting to exchange goods and services for money from anyone, but I can understand not wanting to be forced to abandon one's religion just because they operate a storefront. The customer always has the choice to do business elsewhere, and the business loses out on that potential money.

I personally refuse to do business with ppl that bring dogs into stores unless they are medically necessary. I refuse to do business with stoners, drunks and ppl that dress so that their underwear are in full display. Gencon is more than free to threaten to move if a law is passed by the residents of a state, but that puts Gencon in the same boat as Evil Hat for me, self-righteous scumbags who don't feel people are capable of deciding for themselves how and where to spend their money.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Mar 26, 2015)

Kiraya_TiDrekan said:


> Not a business that serves the public.  They serve all the public or none of the public.




Where do you draw that line? Chucky cheese or a school or where?


----------



## KirayaTiDrekan (Mar 26, 2015)

GMforPowergamers said:


> Where do you draw that line? Chucky cheese or a school or where?




I'm not going to fall for the trap you are laying here.  There are always exceptions based on odd circumstances as I'm sure you are ready to point out.

To your specific examples, I absolutely should be able to take my kids to Chucky Cheese and not have to worry about "we don't serve your kind here."

Likewise, my kids should not have to deal with discrimination from a school because they have a transgender parent.  What's more, a transgender child should not face discrimination at a school.  Ever.


----------



## Umbran (Mar 26, 2015)

GMforPowergamers said:


> There is a time and place for everything... If you fear dress or acting in a way will cause issues you can bottle It for a few minutes...




I don't think you thought that through.  

Say you drove across town to a friend's place to hang out, and the two of you decided you wanted to go out for a burger.  And you are wearing a skirt.... You figure all transgender folks need to carry around a change of clothes at all times, just in case?  And they are expected to know beforehand whether the establishment in question is going to discriminate against them, to know that they're going to have to change beforehand?

(And that's not including the fact that, even post-surgery, in some cases you can still tell, such that clothing *won't* hide that you are transgendered)

Why is it that Joe's religious beliefs must *always* trump Jane's gender identity?  Why can't Joe just suck up and deal when Jane comes into the store, hm?

I understand that Joe believes, very deeply, in one interpretation of the meaning of a book.

I also understand that Jane believes, very deeply, that she is a woman.  Jack believes, very deeply, that it is okay that he loves a man.

Why does Joe *always* get to put forth his beliefs, but Jack and Jane must hide theirs?  

Riddle me that, GM.  Riddle me that.


----------



## Gnarl45 (Mar 26, 2015)

graypariah said:


> The problem with this, is that we live in a very different world than 50 years ago. There is no indication that a significant number of business would even use this legislation to negatively impact people's lives. The keyword here is significant. I am sure that stories can be found that are sensationalized, but I don't know of a single small business that would refuse to hire a person with a different orientation or refuse to serve one. In fact there have been those of different orientations at every place that I worked and for the most part were treated with every bit of respect as anyone else. Sure some people (mostly older generations) acted weird about it, but that is just because it is so different from what they are use to. The US is not 1950s Alabama where people are getting lynched, it is 2015 and we all pretty much communicate online more than face to face.
> 
> I understand the concern that we will slip backwards as a society, but lets instead focus on hoping that we have come far enough not to need the crutch of law to prevent us from becoming hateful monsters.




You seem like a very sensible person but I don't really understand your point here.

And it's not really a matter of preventing society from becoming a hateful monsters. You guys did an amazing job at changing your way of thinking since the 1950s but you still have a few haters and hate crimes still happen sporadically. I don't think any law should allow discrimination to go unpunished.


----------



## redrick (Mar 26, 2015)

Fergurg said:


> Because this is not about a law stopping me from doing something bad to you. This is about a law saying that if I don't want to do something for you, I don't have to, or even have you on my property.
> 
> My property. And frankly, it shouldn't have to be a religious reason. It's a "my property, my riles" principle.




It's because of principles like this that we have the Civil Rights Act.  You are welcome to that principle, and you are welcome to express it in public as an expression of your first amendment rights.

The courts of the United States, and ultimately the elected legislature, have decided that the tremendous harm done to people by some other people by segregation and discrimination outweighed the discomfort that some folks felt at being around people who were "different" from them.

If you don't want to serve the public, don't run a business that serves the public.

Discriminatory actions are not an expression of your free speech! I can't emphasize that enough and I keep seeing it used in this thread as a defense of this law and laws like it. You are entitled to all the free expression you want. Westboro Baptist church is free to march down Broadway spewing all sorts of intolerant filth. (Have you ever seen a WBC protest? They marched past my office last year.) The neo-Nazis can march through Skoki, Illinois. That's expression. It's sick, gross, disturbing expression, but they're entitled to it.

What they are not entitled to do is act on those beliefs in order to infringe on the rights and liberties of other people. Refusing service to people, because of who they are, is infringing on the rights and liberties of other people.


----------



## graypariah (Mar 26, 2015)

Umbran said:


> I don't think you thought that through.
> 
> Say you drove across town to a friend's place to hang out, and the two of you decided you wanted to go out for a burger.  And you are wearing a skirt.... You figure all transgender folks need to carry around a change of clothes at all times, just in case?  And they are expected to know beforehand whether the establishment in question is going to discriminate against them, to know that they're going to have to change beforehand?
> 
> ...




I said I was going to duck out and I really am going to try after this but I have to say something in response or it will irk me all night. Joe should not always get his way over Jane, but why should Jane always get her way over Joe? How about a scenario where Jane always got her way unless it conflicted with Joe's religious beliefs and both left it at that?


----------



## Umbran (Mar 26, 2015)

Fergurg said:


> My property. And frankly, it shouldn't have to be a religious reason. It's a "my property, my riles" principle.




Not enough.

As noted, your rights are _already known to be limited_ in many ways.  Your buildings must be up to code, even if only you live in them.  Your must follow zoning regulations, health codes, and so on.  You do *not* have unlimited rights.

So, why does *this particular* right get special treatment?


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Mar 26, 2015)

Kiraya_TiDrekan said:


> I'm not going to fall for the trap you are laying here.  There are always exceptions based on odd circumstances as I'm sure you are ready to point out.
> 
> To your specific examples, I absolutely should be able to take my kids to Chucky Cheese and not have to worry about "we don't serve your kind here."
> 
> Likewise, my kids should not have to deal with discrimination from a school because they have a transgender parent.  What's more, a transgender child should not face discrimination at a school.  Ever.



As has been my mantra ITS NOT THAT SIMPLE.  I'm walking away now you stoped listening long ago


----------



## Fergurg (Mar 26, 2015)

Umbran said:


> I don't think you thought that through.
> 
> Say you drove across town to a friend's place to hang out, and the two of you decided you wanted to go out for a burger.  And you are wearing a skirt.... You figure all transgender folks need to carry around a change of clothes at all times, just in case?  And they are expected to know beforehand whether the establishment in question is going to discriminate against them, to know that they're going to have to change beforehand?
> 
> ...




I'll answer that. Joe's beliefs trump Jane's because it is Joe's property. If this was Jane's store, it would be Joe who have to cope.


----------



## mrm1138 (Mar 26, 2015)

graypariah said:


> I said I was going to duck out and I really am going to try after this but I have to say something in response or it will irk me all night. Joe should not always get his way over Jane, but why should Jane always get her way over Joe? How about a scenario where Jane always got her way unless it conflicted with Joe's religious beliefs and both left it at that?




To my knowledge, Joe serving Jane at his place of business does not actually conflict with his religious beliefs. Unless you can point to a spot in the Bible that says, "It is unlawful for a business owner to have dealings with homosexuals or transgender people," it's just a case of, "These people gross me out, so I don't want them here!" Now, if Jane were to go into Joe's church or home and physically attempt to keep him from praying or observing some other such religious practice, that would indeed be a case where she was doing something that conflicted with Joe's religious beliefs. She would be kicked out and possibly arrested, and rightfully so.


----------



## Gnarl45 (Mar 26, 2015)

GMforPowergamers said:


> You because those of US not on your side must be for discrimination...




That's not how you come out. At least not from where I'm standing.

You just seem bothered by same sex couples walking down the streets holding hands. That's not discrimination. It's not religious either by the way. It's just that you're not used to it.

As a side note, you would probably be more horrified if you saw a couple that was trying to have a baby while walking in a public parc with your kids. And as long as you're trying to have a baby, sex is 100% christian approved.


----------



## redrick (Mar 26, 2015)

GMforPowergamers said:


> As has been my mantra ITS NOT THAT SIMPLE.  I'm walking away now you stoped listening long ago




Hey @_*GMforPowergamers*_, I'm not gonna speak for anybody else, but I have been reading all of your posts and considering them. Honestly, I'm going to say that one of the things I appreciate about your part in this conversation is that you are one of the few people supporters of the law in this thread who is openly discussing _his own personal feelings_ in regard to lgbtq people. You're not defending a hypothetical Bob's right to hold hypothetical discriminatory beliefs. You're defending your right to have those beliefs, and you're arguing that you should have the right to not be confronted with folks who make you uncomfortable in challenging those beliefs.

Now, I'm also going to say that I wholeheartedly disagree that you have the right to not be uncomfortable in this way. You don't get to have a place you go, in public, where you don't have to be around gay people, trans people, or any other general group of people.

But the fact that you are uncomfortable with other people doesn't, in of itself, make you a bad person. Not that I'm in any position to judge you, but that's my take on it, at least. I know tons of folks who believe very strongly in tolerance, but also have their own moments of irrational fear and discomfort towards people who are different from them. I'll count myself as one of those people, though I work really hard to overcome it.

The problem is when you become intransigent about that fear, and you use that fear to justify actions against other people. Because that fear, that discomfort, that really is your problem. Even if it's something that is mandated to you by your religion. My religion is very strictly pacifist, but that doesn't mean that I shouldn't be anything but empathetic and open to folks in the armed services, and if I get the willies every time I ride on an airplane next to a dude in fatigues, that's not me exercising my freedom of religion. That's me having a human problem that I need to work through.

I'm just one stranger on the internet talking to another stranger on the internet, giving some unsolicited advice, but I just want to say, that I've been reading and thinking about what you've written up here a bunch in the last 24-ish hours.

EDIT:
_Please don't read the above as me calling you homophobic or transphobic or anything of the sort. I'm not trying to read anything into what you've written beyond what you've actually written. You've acknowledged a discomfort around trans people, but I'm not going to speak for you as to just how great that discomfort is. Again, I really strongly disagree with a lot of what you've said in this thread, but I also just appreciate that you're being open about your own personal experiences._


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Mar 26, 2015)

Gnarl45 said:


> That's not how you come out. At least not from where I'm standing.
> 
> You just seem bothered by same sex couples walking down the streets holding hands. That's not discrimination. It's not religious either by the way. It's just that you're not used to it.
> 
> As a side note, you would probably be more horrified if you saw a couple that was trying to have a baby while walking in a public parc with your kids. And as long as you're trying to have a baby, sex is 100% christian approved.




I don't care who holds hands or kisses and I have friends who are bi and trans... I just understand that some people have objevtiins.

I would object to anyone being closer then a pg movie allows for in front of my 6 year old niece or 8 year old nephew


----------



## Umbran (Mar 26, 2015)

graypariah said:


> I said I was going to duck out and I really am going to try after this but I have to say something in response or it will irk me all night. Joe should not always get his way over Jane, but why should Jane always get her way over Joe? How about a scenario where Jane always got her way unless it conflicted with Joe's religious beliefs and both left it at that?




Oh, this one is simple.  

Let us consider all beliefs being equal.  That leaves us at a tie, an impasse.

So, we look beyond belief.  As far as anyone can see, Joe suffers no actual measurable harm by serving Jane or Jack.

However, history *clearly* shows that Jane and Jack suffer measurable harm if Joe and others like him are allowed to discriminate against them.

This is something some of you keep skipping over because of the word "religion".  We have already seen what happens when discrimination on the basis of "what you are" is allowed.  This is well documented, and we still suffer the consequences today.  You seem to be arguing that these consequences are okay, in the name of the belief of someone who isn't harmed.


----------



## jimmifett (Mar 26, 2015)

DM Magic said:


> First of all, suggesting that one's gender or sexuality is a "lifestyle choice" is extremely offensive. Second, on the one hand you applaud a bill that gives businesses the right to run their business the way they see fit, but then with the other hand deride GENCON as "self-righteous scumbags" for exercising their right to run their business the way they see fit.




I find being forced to accept gender as something that is selectable is offensive. Then again, I find being forced to do just about anything is offensive and plant my heels at the mere notion of being forced to do anything. But I digress provided that my made up Gender that others are forced to accept is "Sexual Tyrannosaur" (preferred gender pronoun is "MF-ing Godzilla" btw for those that are interested). I could live with that 

Indeed, Gencon is free to run their business as they see fit. This does not change my opinion of Gencon (and Evil Hat, can't forget them) for being self righteous scumbags for trying to prevent the people of a state from making their own decisions on what laws to live under by threatening to take their ball and go elsewhere. Don't try to play moral high ground when one is using large purses to force one facet of morality on business people or consumers. Business that choose not to do business with ppl of various lifestyle choices aren't forcing that person to conform to do business with them. Gencon is trying to force businesses to conform to it's worldview via force of law being influenced.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Mar 26, 2015)

mlund said:


> And that's where the issue is confused. When someone *can not* refuse to participate in someone else's gay or straight marriage ceremony because it violates their religious beliefs - be they anyone from an Orthodox Jew refusing to materially participate in a same-sex wedding or an Atheist refusing to participate in a religious wedding - without being deprived of their livelihood (their business) by the state then we aren't living in a free society.




No one is being deprived of their livelihood.  What is being restricted is one aspect of how they conduct it.  Laws against discrimination are just like regulations that tell you how much tax you pay, minimum wages, control how you dispose of hazardous waste, how many parking spaces and bathrooms you must have, whether yr employees must be bonded, what annual inspections and insurance premiums you pay, whether you need to have a state license to be in that business.  Your legally enforced conformity to them is part of the cost you pay for having a business open to the public.

Under American law, the general rule is that, if you are going to have a business open to the general public, you do not have the right to discriminate merely based on a customer's class.  Once you start saying "everybody but ________ general class of persons is welcome", you run afoul of our system of laws.

The Orthodox Rabbi can chose not to perform a _Jewish_ same sex wedding legally because his faith does not recognize the sanctity of such ceremonies.  He CANNOT make the same distinction if he is open to performing the same ceremonies for non-Jews.

And an Atheist empowered to perform a wedding would be similarly restricted.

IOW, the businessman's choice is:

1) have a business open to the public and don't discriminate at all
2) have a private business and provide services ONLY to an extremely narrow clientele.



> The law in question limits what the *government* can do.




...in a way that enshrines the beliefs of a certain set of religious persons into law, in violation of the Establishment Clause.

The law is designed so that if subsets of the state- like a county or city- decide to add non-discrimination laws, they cannot.  Even if such measures had 100% approval.



> The government can only step in to mediate when the conflict between someone's religious beliefs ("I won't do X") and another's commercial interests ("I want you to do X for me") reaches the point where someone trying to acquire a good or service is being substantively pushed out of a market. If nobody in town will photograph your wedding because its two men or two women you have a case for government intervention under that law. If the 3 photographers in town will take the business then you can't use the court system to troll the 1 old church lady who won't because "she's a bigot."



When the courts told the all-white Krewes of NOLA to integrate or stop parading, most stopped parading.

When the KKK had some members try to join the Krewe of Zulu- the first, biggest and still one of the only Krewes founded by blacks- they were admitted.  (They don't participate much, though.)



> When people try and employ law as a crude bludgeon to punish people who disagree with them, they aren't supporting Liberty but rather the exact opposite. There is a *huge* difference between the function of law that a hate-group like HRC wants (the ability to specifically target and punish their "enemies" for wrong-think in court) and the protections that the law is actually supposed to provide (the ability to find remedy so consumers aren't denied access to the marketplace).



*If you want to do business with the public, you have to conform your business to the laws of the land.*



> If someone wants to make it a policy that their bar doesn't serve gays or straights or whatever craziness they want to come up with in this day and age they'll just get boycotted and market competitors will gain the benefit. Nobody is going to lose access to the market, and if they do the law gives them redress.




See my previous posts about the inefficiency and slowness of depending on politicians and the invisible hand in the arena of civil rights.



> What the HRC is worried about is that without a government bludgeon they may not be able to shut down everyone they hate. The bakery of a lady who is willing to sell anybody of any sexual preference a birthday cake, but simply will not cater a same-sex wedding because such a thing is forbidden in her faith and sends the business across the street won't be fined or sued.




In what religious text is it forbidden to do business with gays?  That it is OK to cherrypick which of your services you will offer them?  How is this kind of discrimination justified to override that faith's version of The Golden Rule?

(Dating sites already lost on those grounds, you know.)


----------



## KirayaTiDrekan (Mar 26, 2015)

Here is Gen Con's response to the signing of the law...

http://files.gencon.com/Letter_to_Attendees.pdf


----------



## mrm1138 (Mar 26, 2015)

jimmifett said:


> I find being forced to accept gender as something that is selectable is offensive. Then again, I find being forced to do just about anything is offensive and plant my heels at the mere notion of being forced to do anything.




So is your solution to force transgender people to identify as the sex as which they were biologically born? I find that incredibly offensive, and it's been shown to be far more psychologically damaging to those individuals to have to do so than it is for you to tolerate their gender identification.


----------



## Gnarl45 (Mar 26, 2015)

Kiraya_TiDrekan said:


> Here is Gen Con's response to the signing of the law...
> 
> http://files.gencon.com/Letter_to_Attendees.pdf




What's the expression again? All bark, no bite?

Don't let that get to you. Just keep up the fight. You guys are winning one state at a time.


----------



## Jester David (Mar 26, 2015)

Most of the discussion I see tends to involve stores. You go into a store and get asked to leave. That's not the only businesses people frequent. 
Imagine if a plumber comes to your house, sees something they don't like, and leaves. Or the cable guy. Or the electrician. That's a HUGE hassle. You waited for them, likely all day. If you called a plumber, something is wrong at your house, and them leaving seriously inconveniences you. And they're in your house, so it's easy for them to see stuff they disapprove of. 


As for GenCon, I'm not sure I like the idea of supporting that state's businesses. Whenever I travel to America, I'm always away of the difference of that culture, and the very different values and priorities. Your country makes me nervous as ****. There are certain States I really don't feel comfortable visiting. 
GenCon 2015 wasn't on the table for me, and 2016 might have been a stretch. But I was thinking of 2017. GenCon's 50th. That'd be cool. But I might not now. I have reservations.


----------



## billd91 (Mar 26, 2015)

GMforPowergamers said:


> Yup. What privileged is that again, just wondering




The privilege of not having to hide what you are to avoid trouble.


----------



## bmfrosty (Mar 26, 2015)

I don't know how to say this well, but here goes.

When I was younger, I often felt uncomfortable around LGBTQ people.  Being an atheist, I had (and still have) no ready crutch to fall upon, so I thought about it.  Eventually I realized that it was my cognitive dissonance.  I had been brought up with binary expectations, and there was no good logic that said that those expectations were correct.

As I've become older, I've found that sometimes I still become uncomfortable around certain types of people, but the knowledge that it is in most cases my own cognitive dissonance at play helps me deal with that discomfort in a good way.

I feel bad for those who can't get past their own cognitive dissonance to the point where it becomes cognitive bias and then leads to bigotry.  I feel worse for those who have no choice but to put up with it.


----------



## KirayaTiDrekan (Mar 26, 2015)

Gnarl45 said:


> What's the expression again? All bark, no bite?
> 
> Don't let that get to you. Just keep up the fight. You guys are winning one state at a time.




I'm disappointed but not surprised.  I also can't say I can blame them from a purely economic feasibility standpoint.

I'll be interested to see what happens by 2020.  My hope is that either 1. Gen Con will move to a more welcoming state or 2. this ridiculous law will get repealed or shot down in court in the meantime.


----------



## Stacie GmrGrl (Mar 26, 2015)

Nothing about gender is selectable or a choice... it's literally who we are and it's just something about all of us that we can't change. This is very strong within us who are transgender people. If we could choose do you honestly think any of us would choose to go through all the hell and discrimination and struggle to change our bodies just because we feel it's some kind of whim to do so or it's the thing to do? That's something a lot of people who are cis gender never think about... and those who think we just make this choice because we want to is really showing a bit of ignorance on how gender and the inner workings of what makes up our identity really affects us as the human beings we are.

As for this stupid bill that just passed... the reason why it's not right isn't some moral high ground or anything like that... it goes against the constitution's purpose and one of the fundamental cores of what this country was built on... the separation of church and state. Churches and religion have always had the freedom to be their own religion, and people can follow whatever dogma they wish to do... but religion was never supposed to have any real leeway or say about our politics or government, which was always meant to be a separate entity from religion. The last few years have seen this tarnished and done away with with states like Indiana signing these laws into bills, allowing businesses, which are NOT CHURCHES, the ability to claim religious beliefs and use them as a means of discrimination... and yes these laws are flat out allowing businesses to discriminate against whomever they wish to discriminate against.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Mar 26, 2015)

halfling rogue said:


> But here is where the rubber meets the road. You said "Business owners should be made to do the right thing as decided by society". On one hand, yes. On the other hand, that is simply not the case here. "Society" at least in America, has not unanimously decided which pov is the right thing to do. There are two major opposing sides. The only true (legal) way to make businesses do the 'right thing' is either through laws or through consumer pressure. Right now the law, and the American Constitution, says that it is not right to prohibit the free exercise of religion (despite what 'society' says is right at this point).




...except when legal cases and legislation have stated unequivocally otherwise.  Peyote is a controlled substance.  It is also part of religious traditions if certain Native American cultures.  You might be able to use it if you are a member of that faith living on Native lands but not otherwise, and definitely not if incarcerated.

Ditto the sacred herb of Rastafarianism- try exercising that religious freedom outside of Colorado or Washington, and you're in for a surprise.

If your faith involves human sacrifice, you're S.O.L. In the USA.  And the sacrifice of animals has to be in accord with local ordinances on animal slaughter.  If it isn't permitted at all within city limits, you can't do it.

Polygamy?  Despite what the FLDS, certain forms of Islam, and others believe, they cannot practice it within the USA.

We have decided as a society that, in general, discrimination based on immutable characteristics of a class is impermissible.  Gays are just slowly working to add themselves to that list.



> But as it is now, for those who think that 'business owners should be made to do the right thing' need to realize that religious liberty has been 'decided by society'. The real fight is at the Constitutional level. The only real way to battle this is to 1) get enough of 'society' to amend the constitution to repeal the free exercise to what 'society' thinks it should be or 2) just ignore the Constitution and  seek to render it useless...therefore a revolution.




That is a fundamental misunderstanding of the way our system of laws works.  Judges are perfectly capable of declaring a law unconstitutional- that is part of their job under the Constitution.  It is their major power in the system of checks & balances.

Also as part of checks & balances, the executive branch can choose the level of enforcement it will muster.  For example, that discretion is a major reason why not every discovery of drugs in a car- including alcohol in the back of a teenager's Trans-Am- results in prosecution.  That discretion is why District Attorneys can do plea bargains.

Heck- a subsequently elected legislative body could strike the law from the code.


----------



## joycem137 (Mar 26, 2015)

GMforPowergamers said:


> since I stood for this Bill in this very thread and so did others..  Are you calling us bigoted? That's an owfull word to throw around in a complex situation that we all want to be fair...




"Complex situation" my ass.  You know what I want to do?  I wanna go visit my friends in Indiana without having to worry about getting thrown out of a restaurant for holding my wife's hand.  That's not complex.

Any complexity you add to it is you trying to rationalize your bigotry.  This is "business rights" as much as it was "state's rights" to uphold the right to hold slaves.  Or the right to segregate blacks from whites.  Or to deny jews, irish, etc. access to businesses.

Bigots like you make me depressed in the quality of people visiting this site.  But from the outpouring of support elsewhere, I'm pleased that the hobby at large is leaving neandrathals like you behind.


----------



## jimmifett (Mar 26, 2015)

mrm1138 said:


> So is your solution to force transgender people to identify as the sex as which they were biologically born? I find that incredibly offensive, and it's been shown to be far more psychologically damaging to those individuals to have to do so than it is for you to tolerate their gender identification.




Congratulations on being offended, it's fun to be offended! Everyone should be offended at something in thier life at least once, builds character.

I fail to see that I've offered a "solution" of any sort.

I'm not "forcing" transgender people to identify as their biological sex. They can continue to do so all they want. It's the hip thing to do these days apparently. I'm just not going to be forced to accept that the irrational is rational, that A = B when clearly A != B, and while I can accept that some people may want to cling onto their fantasies, I fully expect to not be forced into accepting those fantasies as reality by goose stepping thought and speech police or to be labeled "intolerant" or "bigoted" for not subscribing to what is in my opinion (and I quite enjoy being able to have a opinion as a free thinking homosapien even if others do not agree with my opinion), lunacy.

The psychological well being of people other than my family is not my concern. I personally find the grasping of a fantasy as reality to be more psychologically damaging in the long run, but thats the choice that individual makes. I'm not forcing them to keep it or not, only that I don't have to accept it myself.


----------



## Morrus (Mar 26, 2015)

Yeah, we're done. Since I went out, it descended into name-calling. Thread closed.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Mar 26, 2015)

Jester Canuck said:


> Most of the discussion I see tends to involve stores. You go into a store and get asked to leave. That's not the only businesses people frequent.
> Imagine if a plumber comes to your house, sees something they don't like, and leaves. Or the cable guy. Or the electrician. That's a HUGE hassle. You waited for them, likely all day. If you called a plumber, something is wrong at your house, and them leaving seriously inconveniences you. And they're in your house, so it's easy for them to see stuff they disapprove of.



We've seen that, and not just on religious grounds.  I believe it was Urban Meyers- had coach for one of the big college football programs- who fired a contractor for wearing the shirt of a school rival.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Mar 26, 2015)

Umbran said:


> I would love it if one of these cases went to court, and the judge said, "Just so you know, it is against my religion to allow discrimination against people on religious grounds."
> 
> Folks seem to have disregarded something mentioned earlier.  In a diverse nation, religious freedom *cannot* be absolute.  We cannot allow, "My religion says you must die," for example.  Just as a practical matter, we *must* restrict some religious practice when that practice involves non-practitioners.
> 
> The only question is where we draw the lines.



I kid you not, there is a lawyer in California asking for the state to adopt the biblical punishment of stoning to death for homosexuals.  There have been signatures in support of the proposal.  The state's AG has turned to the courts to get declarative relief so that the proposal won't end up on the ballot.

Which, for anyone who thinks the AG is acting unconstitutionally, she isn't.  That's a valid procedure.


----------



## Morrus (Mar 26, 2015)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> We've seen that, and not just on religious grounds.  I believe it was Urban Meyers- had coach for one of the big college football programs- who fired a contractor for wearing the shirt of a school rival.




Danny, the thread's closed. Did you not notice you were the only one posting?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Mar 26, 2015)

Nope- I had a bunch of "Reply" tabs open while at the garage, getting my car repaired.  Sorry!


----------

