Gen Con Threatens to move if Indiana Gov signs religious freedom bill


Gamer Life General Discussion

551 to 600 of 662 << first < prev | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | next > last >>
Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Starfinder Superscriber
littlehewy wrote:
Aranna wrote:

Religion is at least as deserving of protection as skin color is.

This statement is as false as it is repugnant. I don't think there's any point in me continuing to discuss this particular topic with someone that holds this view, no offence intended Aranna.

I don't think that it is repugnant to suggest that we shouldn't have Jew and Gentile water-fountains, or "No Christians Allowed" lunch counters, or parts of the city where Muslims are forbidden from living.

But it is also true that this law was not passed to prevent such injustices, because religious people are not currently being persecuted in Indiana.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
littlehewy wrote:
Aranna wrote:

Religion is at least as deserving of protection as skin color is.

This statement is as false as it is repugnant. I don't think there's any point in me continuing to discuss this particular topic with someone that holds this view, no offence intended Aranna.

What about Muslims, Jews, and others who could be persecuted in a similar manner? It does deserve protection littlehewy.

However while he is wrong in particular with this case with religion not needing protection, Aranna, he is arguing that the law allows for business owners to kick out people based on their beliefs and that such power to persecute should not exist. If the law made it so you couldn't kick someone off the premises due to religious dentity, then I believe your arguments wouldn't exist to be here in the first place.

The argument in the thread is that the law would allow business owners to refuse to serve non-heterosexual customers by using religious beliefs as an excuse. In which I agree that this law can be used to discriminate against other people.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Personally, I am actually all for a business having the right to choose who they serve. Although I think part of this should be that they must clearly site whom they will not serve based on their religious prejudices...so that others can choose whether they wish to support such a business.

Any business, or state, that feels discrimination based on ethnicity, sexual orientation, religion, etc...etc...is acceptable...is simply not getting any of my money, support, or respect.

Discrimination is not a "right"....it's a character flaw.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
pH unbalanced wrote:
littlehewy wrote:
Aranna wrote:

Religion is at least as deserving of protection as skin color is.

This statement is as false as it is repugnant. I don't think there's any point in me continuing to discuss this particular topic with someone that holds this view, no offence intended Aranna.

I don't think that it is repugnant to suggest that we shouldn't have Jew and Gentile water-fountains, or "No Christians Allowed" lunch counters, or parts of the city where Muslims are forbidden from living.

But it is also true that this law was not passed to prevent such injustices, because religious people are not currently being persecuted in Indiana.

Given that these laws in the Feds and other states have been used to protect people like Native Americans wanting to smoke peyote or a Muslim prisoner wanting to grow out their beard. Cases that don't tend to get a lot of big press, I find it a bit ludicrous to claim that there is absolutely 100% certainty that there is no religious people currently being persecuted in Indiana. There may not be, but without knowing 100% about all the states interactions with every single individual, I personally wouldn't feel comfortable making that claim. Christian bakers being asked to make same-sex marriage wedding cakes are not likely to be the people this law would protect.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
nighttree wrote:
Discrimination is not a "right"....it's a character flaw.

How far should a government go to ensure the perfection of its people? Who gets to decide what perfect is?


3 people marked this as a favorite.
pH unbalanced wrote:
littlehewy wrote:
Aranna wrote:

Religion is at least as deserving of protection as skin color is.

This statement is as false as it is repugnant. I don't think there's any point in me continuing to discuss this particular topic with someone that holds this view, no offence intended Aranna.

I don't think that it is repugnant to suggest that we shouldn't have Jew and Gentile water-fountains, or "No Christians Allowed" lunch counters, or parts of the city where Muslims are forbidden from living.

But it is also true that this law was not passed to prevent such injustices, because religious people are not currently being persecuted in Indiana.

Sorry, I should have clarified.

I agree with you. What I find repugnant is that religion is considered "at least" as deserving as skin colour of protection.

The difference between the statement "Religion is as deserving of protection as skin color is," and "Religion is at least as deserving of protection as skin color is," is that the second one means that skin colour is is the minimum possible baseline upon which the range of religion's worthiness to be protected is based. So, that statement implies, religion is likely more deserving of protection than skin colour.

Religion is a choice, based on stories, indoctrination, and faith (either some or all of those things). While I certainly agree that people who choose to be religious should not be discriminated against, to suggest that religion is probably (or even possibly) a more important reason to be protected from discrimination than skin colour? That is both repugnant and false.

Note, Aranna, that I'm not saying I find you repugnant or false. I don't know you from Adam, to borrow a phrase derived from your religion :) But I do feel that way about that particular sentiment.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
nighttree wrote:
Discrimination is not a "right"....it's a character flaw.
How far should a government go to ensure the perfection of its people? Who gets to decide what perfect is?

"Perfection" ??? that's not even possible, or relevant to the discussion.

Did you mean protection ?

If so, then the government should go to all lengths needed to protect it's people. A government is FOR the people...or it deserves to be toppled.

Not for just the people of a specific faith...but ALL the people, regardless of skin color, sexual orientation, or religion.

Otherwise it is meaningless.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
pres man wrote:
pH unbalanced wrote:
littlehewy wrote:
Aranna wrote:

Religion is at least as deserving of protection as skin color is.

This statement is as false as it is repugnant. I don't think there's any point in me continuing to discuss this particular topic with someone that holds this view, no offence intended Aranna.

I don't think that it is repugnant to suggest that we shouldn't have Jew and Gentile water-fountains, or "No Christians Allowed" lunch counters, or parts of the city where Muslims are forbidden from living.

But it is also true that this law was not passed to prevent such injustices, because religious people are not currently being persecuted in Indiana.

Given that these laws in the Feds and other states have been used to protect people like Native Americans wanting to smoke peyote or a Muslim prisoner wanting to grow out their beard. Cases that don't tend to get a lot of big press, I find it a bit ludicrous to claim that there is absolutely 100% certainty that there is no religious people currently being persecuted in Indiana. There may not be, but without knowing 100% about all the states interactions with every single individual, I personally wouldn't feel comfortable making that claim. Christian bakers being asked to make same-sex marriage wedding cakes are not likely to be the people this law would protect.

Maybe. Laws often have unintended consequences. The people pushing for this law aren't looking to protect Muslims and Native Americans. They're looking to protect Christians who they claim are being persecuted by liberals and gays. They're playing to an ignorant, bigoted political base.

That said, the original Religious Freedom Restoration laws did protect minority religions and were twisted to do things like protect companies' rights to not cover birth control. It's quite possible this will also be reversed and used to protect the actual right to practice religion rather than the right to discriminate on religious grounds.


thejeff wrote:

Maybe. Laws often have unintended consequences. The people pushing for this law aren't looking to protect Muslims and Native Americans. They're looking to protect Christians who they claim are being persecuted by liberals and gays. They're playing to an ignorant, bigoted political base.

That said, the original Religious Freedom Restoration laws did protect minority religions and were twisted to do things like protect companies' rights to not cover birth control. It's quite possible this will also be reversed and used to protect the actual right to practice religion rather than the right to discriminate on religious grounds.

So I guess the question is it worth it to protect those individuals that the intended consequences did, if it means also "protecting" those that weren't? Would it be better to discriminate against Native Americans as long as Hobby Lobby had to hand out birth control?


Based off this letter does that mean Gen Con's threat to withdraw was nothing more than a bluff? If so, I'm highly disappointed in Gen Con for not going through with their threat. I understand that Gen Con is under contract with the city (likely meaning they can't just up and move), but I would have appreciated some statement of their intentions to move Gen Con when the contract expires if they plan on going through with their threat.

As it is, right now it feels like Gen Con was only voicing an uncommitted protest. That, as much as they may verbally disagree, they aren't willing to actual back up their statements or beliefs.

If Gen Con isn't willing to actually back up their statements, then I for one want nothing to do with Gen Con. I was actually planning on attending next year, but not if the people in charge have no conviction to back up their statements.


Tels wrote:

Based off this letter does that mean Gen Con's threat to withdraw was nothing more than a bluff? If so, I'm highly disappointed in Gen Con for not going through with their threat. I understand that Gen Con is under contract with the city (likely meaning they can't just up and move), but I would have appreciated some statement of their intentions to move Gen Con when the contract expires if they plan on going through with their threat.

As it is, right now it feels like Gen Con was only voicing an uncommitted protest. That, as much as they may verbally disagree, they aren't willing to actual back up their statements or beliefs.

If Gen Con isn't willing to actually back up their statements, then I for one want nothing to do with Gen Con. I was actually planning on attending next year, but not if the people in charge have no conviction to back up their statements.

The "bluff" in the original letter
Quote:
Legislation that could allow for refusal of service or discrimination against our attendees will have a direct negative impact on the state's economy, and will factor into our decision-making on hosting the convention in the state of Indiana in future years.

They never said they'd be canceling this year's convention, just that the law would affect their future plans.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
nighttree wrote:


"Perfection" ??? that's not even possible, or relevant to the discussion.

Did you mean protection ?

No. You said it was a character flaw. I agree. While I think I ultimately agree with the solution here I'm a little worried at some of the underlying philosophies.

People have a certain right to their character flaws.

Quote:
If so, then the government should go to all lengths needed to protect it's people. A government is FOR the people...or it deserves to be toppled.

A government without limits is a totalitarian state even in the pursuit of a noble goal . While I think we agree that intervention is warranted in this case, its because the level of discrimination has frequently risen to warrant government intervention, not because its the job of government to fix peoples character flaws.

The mistake (or effective tactic? I can't decide) libertarians make is to argue that government involvement is never the solution. I don't like a lot of the opposite idea here that I'm seeing, that government can intervene whenever it wants on any pretext.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

The folks in here are debating what they believe the law says, not what it does say. Rational discourse has been thrown aside for emotional argumentation. I've grown tired of waiting for someone to actually talk about the law itself, rather than the fever dreams of what they imagine it to be.

Did you mock Sarah Palin for 'death panels'? If so, you are making the same mistake, in that you are creating something to argue against that does not exist in the law (or even a reasonable interpretation of the law.0

In other news, I flagged a post that accused, in quite a broad stroke, the GOP base to be homophobic bigots. I felt that it broke the rules of the forum and was as inflammatory as many of the posts that have been deleted already. It remains there. Why do the moderators allow such commentary to remain?

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm waiting for someone to list the differences between the Indiana RFRA and the Federal versions or the 19 other state laws that have people's knickers twisted.

Since the end of the world didn't happen 20 years ago, when those evil homophobic Democrats passed and signed it, I doubt it will happen in Indiana now.

Silver Crusade

Tels wrote:

Based off this letter does that mean Gen Con's threat to withdraw was nothing more than a bluff? If so, I'm highly disappointed in Gen Con for not going through with their threat. I understand that Gen Con is under contract with the city (likely meaning they can't just up and move), but I would have appreciated some statement of their intentions to move Gen Con when the contract expires if they plan on going through with their threat.

As it is, right now it feels like Gen Con was only voicing an uncommitted protest. That, as much as they may verbally disagree, they aren't willing to actual back up their statements or beliefs.

If Gen Con isn't willing to actually back up their statements, then I for one want nothing to do with Gen Con. I was actually planning on attending next year, but not if the people in charge have no conviction to back up their statements.

Actually, I'm hopeful that the letter to attendees you linked signals their sincerity and willingness to back words with action. In particular, consider this paragraph from that letter:

Gen Con Letter to Attendees wrote:
What does the future hold for Gen Con in 2021 and beyond? Planning and bidding for convention is a long-term process that begins five years prior to contract-term commencement. Discussions whether to remain in Indy or move elsewhere, have begun.

Hosting a convention, especially a convention as large as Gen Con, requires a lot of planning. Even if they decided it was worth the trouble to break their contract with the city of Indianapolis, Gen Con couldn't just up and move to another city. There is no way they could get all of the planning—let alone the contracts—finished before the event.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Matthew Morris wrote:

I'm waiting for someone to list the differences between the Indiana RFRA and the Federal versions or the 19 other state laws that have people's knickers twisted.

Since the end of the world didn't happen 20 years ago, when those evil homophobic Democrats passed and signed it, I doubt it will happen in Indiana now.

I find it a bit humorously hypocritical that the white house made a statement that they felt this was a sign of moving in the wrong direction, given the person currently occupying the white house voted for a similar measure. Like the marshmallow calling the salt white.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
nighttree wrote:


"Perfection" ??? that's not even possible, or relevant to the discussion.

Did you mean protection ?

BigNorseWolf wrote:

No. You said it was a character flaw. I agree. While I think I ultimately agree with the solution here I'm a little worried at some of the underlying philosophies.

People have a certain right to their character flaws.

Ah...I got you...but I disagree. People will have flaws...that's part of human nature....and should be expected and understood...however "Rights" don't play into that in anyway. Does a homicidal killer have a "right" to kill ? No. Do Christians have a "right" to discriminate against non-christians in this country ? NO.

BigNorseWolf wrote:

A government without limits is a totalitarian state. While I think we agree that intervention is warranted in this case, its because the level of discrimination has frequently risen to warrant government intervention, not because its the job of government to fix peoples character flaws.

The mistake (or effective tactic? I can't decide) libertarians make is to argue that government involvement is never the solution. I don't like a lot of the opposite idea here that I'm seeing, that government can intervene whenever it wants on any pretext.

Ideally, the government acts on the cultures interests. Granted, that is more often than not, not the case...but that's the idea at least.

Liberty's Edge

7 people marked this as a favorite.

As a gamer and a resident of Northwest Indiana (which I have joked should see about seceding to Illinois), I oppose the law.

A friend of mine passed last year at age 93. He was a World War II veteran and was a millionaire by his mid-30s. Yet there were places not open to him because he was also a Jew. I would face the same discrimination if such laws and standards were still in place.

The market is useful for many things, but it did not solve the lack of civil rights for many Americans. As someone who has faced the occasional bigoted comment, I can't justify a law that seems to cloak the wish to discriminate against others based on one's beliefs. Morally, I cannot let others be discriminated against as part of my religious and ethical beliefs. There are still some people in this country who will seek to deny others the same rights and dignity they ask for themselves by justifying such behavior through their faith, or with other reasons. (Fortunately, it seems that bigotry is in decline.)

Sadly, I have seen this thread degenerate into people throwing stereotypes at each other. I would hope that we can avoid such posts because I believe that this thread should remain open.


Very nicely said William Ronald.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Matthew Morris wrote:

I'm waiting for someone to list the differences between the Indiana RFRA and the Federal versions or the 19 other state laws that have people's knickers twisted.

Since the end of the world didn't happen 20 years ago, when those evil homophobic Democrats passed and signed it, I doubt it will happen in Indiana now.

if hobby lobby didn't happen, you would have a stronger case. It's this debated law ,along with the one sentence changed to make it different from the federal law, along with hobby lobby decision that has people understandably concerned. It's like using multiple books written across a specific edition to create a combination of abilities that were not planned for by anyone involved in the game at any time.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
DM Barcas wrote:

The folks in here are debating what they believe the law says, not what it does say. Rational discourse has been thrown aside for emotional argumentation. I've grown tired of waiting for someone to actually talk about the law itself, rather than the fever dreams of what they imagine it to be.

Did you mock Sarah Palin for 'death panels'? If so, you are making the same mistake, in that you are creating something to argue against that does not exist in the law (or even a reasonable interpretation of the law.0

In other news, I flagged a post that accused, in quite a broad stroke, the GOP base to be homophobic bigots. I felt that it broke the rules of the forum and was as inflammatory as many of the posts that have been deleted already. It remains there. Why do the moderators allow such commentary to remain?

actually as noted above, the differences between this law and the Federal version have already been noted.

Liberty's Edge

4 people marked this as a favorite.
nighttree wrote:
Very nicely said William Ronald.

Thanks. I came across a story about a caller to an Indianapolis radio station who said that he was a restaurant owner and already has discriminated against LGBT people.

Let me quote from the story and the caller.

Quote:

“I grew up Christian, and I believe in man and woman, Adam and Even not Adam and Steve,” he went on. “If a couple comes into my restaurant and makes other people leave my place of business, then I’m losing more money from the people leaving than coming in.”

He told the radio hosts that he has already turned away people who seemed gay to him, but he made up a reason rather than tell them the truth.

“I have discriminated.I have said something was broken in the kitchen and said I couldn’t serve them,” Ryan said. “I told them that the fan was broken and they left.”

I have gamed with Christian gamers, Jewish gamerss, Wiccan gamers, Hispanic gamers, African American gamers, Asian gamers, and people from many parts of the political spectrum. I have participated in play by post games with people in different countries. My rule at the gaming table and in my broader life is to treat everyone with respect, even if I disagree with them on some issues. (it is possible to lose my respect, but I try to begin with respect.) One of my problem with this law is that it seems to make people feel unwelcome and second-class citizens.

In the case of the man claiming to be a restaurant owner, I must ask would he be willing to put up with a surgeon who would not operate on him because he disagreed with his religious or political views? I believe that the only way my rights can be guaranteed in a free society is to guarantee the rights of others. We can, and I believe should be, the mutual guarantors of each others rights and dignity. Ultimately, I believe what unites us as human beings is more powerful and important than what divides us.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

It has already begun.

Everyone who said we wouldn't actually see businesses posting "no gays allowed" signs, it looks like you were correct for nearly one entire day.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Nightree wrote:
Ah...I got you...but I disagree. People will have flaws...that's part of human nature....and should be expected and understood...however "Rights" don't play into that in anyway.

Well, when does a flaw rise to the level of government intervention? Eating meat, body piercings? Tatoos? Obesity? Anger issues? Obstinancy towards authority, complaining against the majority?

To some extent people have a right to be themselves, warts and all.

Quote:
Does a homicidal killer have a "right" to kill?

Of course not. Because that's the example of one persons right to something incredibly frivolous taking away someone elses most fundamental rights (all of them really).

Quote:
No. Do Christians have a "right" to discriminate against non-christians in this country ? NO.

To some extent they do, insofar as discriminate has a definition other than the stuff they can't legally do. Their charities don't have to help you. They don't have to let you in your church, they don't have to offer their blessings,sacraments etc. I get really leery of government actions that compel a though shalt rather than though shalt nots.

Quote:
Ideally, the government acts on the cultures interests.

Well, what if the culture is a bunch of chinchilla earmuffs ? Lots of cultures (most?) have ideas that are absolutely horrible. This is a case for example where the law IS enshrining a deeply held belief of the culture.

What about the individual? That's the problem even with a democracy, ESPECIALLY the democracy. Whats good for the majority, or rather those that wind up speaking for the majority, can be unduly harsh on minorities. Government is a blunt, imprecise and sometimes downright lethal tool to bring to a problem.

I think it should be brought to bear on this issue, but only with the acknowledgement that its the only way to fix a serious problem thats messing up peoples lives and has in the past been used for whole sale oppression of huge swaths of the population.


Doomed Hero wrote:

It has already begun.

Everyone who said we wouldn't actually see businesses posting "no gays allowed" signs, it looks like you were correct for nearly one entire day.

And, there you go.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

Gov. Pence is engaging in a tactical realignment in a X-axis negative formulation.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Doomed Hero wrote:

It has already begun.

Everyone who said we wouldn't actually see businesses posting "no gays allowed" signs, it looks like you were correct for nearly one entire day.

Is he willing to go to court over it? He can still be sued or cited. He would have to prove that it is a substantive burden, then prove either that the burden isn't a compelling government interest (a dubious argument for a restaurant) or that there is a lesser way to further that interest (also a difficult argument). He would have to do so publically, risking negative publicity. And he would lose.

This law is as much a right to discriminate as self-defense laws are a right to kill.


Shisumo wrote:
Gov. Pence is engaging in a tactical realignment in a X-axis negative formulation.

Is that doubling down or did he really not understand what he was signing into law?


DM Barcas wrote:
Doomed Hero wrote:


This law is as much a right to discriminate as self-defense laws are a right to kill.

That's exactly the problem.


Kryzbyn wrote:
Shisumo wrote:
Gov. Pence is engaging in a tactical realignment in a X-axis negative formulation.
Is that doubling down or did he really not understand what he was signing into law?

Its trying to have his cake and eat it too.

He needs to keep the more liberal parts of the state on his side and keep the base showing up to vote for him in the primaries so he's trying to have his cake and eat it too.

Otherwise known as making a profession politician check.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Before I get into this, I would like to offer a disclaimer that I’m foreign, and I haven’t had time to look up the details of this situation, but I thought I might offer the perspective of a mildly interested outsider. (Who is interested in finding out if she’s wrong, honestly!)

Spoilered for length:
In the first place, I gather that in many US jurisdictions, there is no legal protection against discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation, and that in Indiana some parties have already more or less announced their intention to use the new state law to circumvent local/municipal statutes. I honestly don’t know why federal protections for freedom of religion might not be sufficient for the situation in Indiana - just to reaffirm my agnosticism of the details of how these things work in America.

As a hypothetical example of part of what makes people uneasy about this, suppose I am refused service for openly being, or, given the example William Ronald quoted above, suspected of being queer. In principle, I could complain, citing local statute, if I’m fairly sure that’s what happened, and I haven’t been fobbed off with a plausible story (again, like in the story William Ronald referred to). On the other hand, if someone just refuses to, say, serve me and my hypothetical girlfriend coffee, or let us buy a cake from them, without explanation, what should we do? We have to decide how much of a fuss we are willing to make, especially given that like everyone else, we have the rest of lives to get on with.

Suppose we do seek legal recourse, and the defendant answers with the new law. Yes, they have to prove that selling me cake or coffee is an undue imposition on their religious beliefs, and I might find the idea repellent and ludicrous, but now I’m playing on their terms, in a state where people are willing to pass a law to make such a situation possible. The very thought makes me squeamish, and doesn’t bode well for a confrontation in court, and, if things go horribly wrong and I lose, I might well feel that I’m inadvertently helping to set the wrong precedent.

Much easier just to avoid Indiana altogether until it seems like a friendlier place for people like me. (I dimly remember something about shaking off the dust from the sandals of one’s feet.) Surely people on the ground will complain. Surely things are getting better. But what does it say that such a situation could come up in the first place, and that I’m tacitly allowing such arguments to be made by not opposing them directly? If I do it, why shouldn’t everyone, and, for now, that little corner of the world gets more unfriendly to LGBTQ folks. Maybe not in the long run, but how comfortable should I feel about it? (How far into the state do Indianopolis’ protections extend?) After all, in the meantime, people are going to be made more unhappy than they might reasonably expect to be for what strike me as petty pretexts.

Just some idle thoughts about some of what goes into making some of us nervous about this sort of thing. The short version is, I guess those who are opposed need to speak up and work together, but as modern media can twist about our perspectives in rather unpredictable ways (how serious is this really? what else is going on closer to home that I should worry about?), it can be tempting to just stay home, find another restaurant or bakery, hope things sort themselves out, but agonize about it.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

It's going to blow up in his face. His "base" won't forgive him for "caving to liberal pressure," and the liberals won't forget that he passed the bill in the first place. And both sides right now think he looks like an idiot not to have seen this coming.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Otherwise known as making a profession politician check.

Special: You cannot take 10 on Profession (politics) checks.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Kryzbyn wrote:
Shisumo wrote:
Gov. Pence is engaging in a tactical realignment in a X-axis negative formulation.
Is that doubling down or did he really not understand what he was signing into law?

Its trying to have his cake and eat it too.

He needs to keep the more liberal parts of the state on his side and keep the base showing up to vote for him in the primaries so he's trying to have his cake and eat it too.

Otherwise known as making a profession politician check.

Hopefuly he rolls a 1. Although the DC of that check is absurdly low to begin with.


Qunnessaa .

Federal laws aren't sufficient because they don't apply in all cases. The federal government can't simply pass any law it wants to (though they've stretched it a bit from time to time) in many cases the state government, not the federal government, has the power.

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber
BigNorseWolf wrote:
DM Barcas wrote:
Doomed Hero wrote:


This law is as much a right to discriminate as self-defense laws are a right to kill.

That's exactly the problem.

Your quotes are still off. :)

Other than that, I totally agree.


Sa'Doe'Mee, Priest of Samnell wrote:

Shall we lie together in the businesses of bigots, or do the laws of the lands in which we live take precedent?

Depends on whether or not there's a suitable space like, for example, a salad bar, an altar of another religion, or a bed if you really must.

And also on whether or not there's a willing partner, of course.

Liberty's Edge

DM Barcas wrote:
Doomed Hero wrote:

It has already begun.

Everyone who said we wouldn't actually see businesses posting "no gays allowed" signs, it looks like you were correct for nearly one entire day.

Is he willing to go to court over it? He can still be sued or cited. He would have to prove that it is a substantive burden, then prove either that the burden isn't a compelling government interest (a dubious argument for a restaurant) or that there is a lesser way to further that interest (also a difficult argument). He would have to do so publically, risking negative publicity. And he would lose.

This law is as much a right to discriminate as self-defense laws are a right to kill.

Are you sure? Because from what I read the state would have to prove that it wasn't a substantive burden, that it had a compelling interest, and that it's the least restrictive means. The restaurant owner doesn't have to prove anything, just affirm that it violates his religious beliefs to do so. He doesn't even need to provide proof or justification. Just state that it violates them.

Liberty's Edge

BigNorseWolf wrote:

Qunnessaa .

Federal laws aren't sufficient because they don't apply in all cases. The federal government can't simply pass any law it wants to (though they've stretched it a bit from time to time) in many cases the state government, not the federal government, has the power.

Also because the Supreme Court said that the Federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act is not binding on the States in City of Boerne v. Flores.

Shadow Lodge

8 people marked this as a favorite.
Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Starfinder Superscriber
DM Barcas wrote:
Doomed Hero wrote:

It has already begun.

Everyone who said we wouldn't actually see businesses posting "no gays allowed" signs, it looks like you were correct for nearly one entire day.

Is he willing to go to court over it? He can still be sued or cited. He would have to prove that it is a substantive burden, then prove either that the burden isn't a compelling government interest (a dubious argument for a restaurant) or that there is a lesser way to further that interest (also a difficult argument). He would have to do so publically, risking negative publicity. And he would lose.

This law is as much a right to discriminate as self-defense laws are a right to kill.

I don't want to sue people. I want to be able to go out to dinner or go to the store without being treated like a freak.

551 to 600 of 662 << first < prev | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / General Discussion / Gen Con Threatens to move if Indiana Gov signs religious freedom bill All Messageboards