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


Gamer Life General Discussion

101 to 150 of 662 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

7 people marked this as a favorite.

An old threat, long since thought vanquished, has grown strong in Australia's complacency. The darkness rises once more, and soon the storm will break.

Soon the Second Emu War will be upon us, and this time, neither land nor sea will protect the rest of humanity.

But there is a Prophecy.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion Subscriber
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Well, I could raise concerns about the tasmanian devil populations...really, it's concerning.

Yea TDFT is pretty concerning, but the insurance population is growing, and I would expect that in 20 years, given habitat preservation, Devil population will be higher than it is now.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Oh, that's encouraging. It'd be really weird if Looney Toons developed a depressing edge. That devil was the last of his kind, man, and he needed to eat.


Kalindlara wrote:

I see. Then what is the purpose of bills like this? Do they allow people to exercise "religious freedom", even where it includes infringement on protected classes? If so, and if LGBT are protected (a big assumption), then it seems as though the two are in conflict - hence statements about the Supreme Court striking the law down.

And technically, the nondiscrimination clause is a limitation on religious freedom... albeit in the same way "fire in a crowded theatre" is a limitation on free speech.

That particular quote irks me. It's not very far from favorably quoting language from Dred Scott. Holmes used it in the worst First Amendment decision of the twentieth century in favor of jailing people for arguing against the draft. Schenck is one of the most authoritarian-friendly decisions in American jurisprudence, which is why it was overturned and is regularly pilloried as indefensible.

All that said - and I ask this honestly, without knowing the answer - does any state have a similar law currently on the books? If so, what has the effect been?


Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Oh, that's encouraging. It'd be really weird if Looney Toons developed a depressing edge. That devil was the last of his kind, man, and he needed to eat.

Heard an interesting story on Radiolab about a contagious cancer in the Tasmainian devil population. (Warning: graphic picture in link.)


Isn't that what we were talking about? :P


Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Isn't that what we were talking about? :P

Yeah, I'm adding to the discussion.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Kobold Cleaver wrote:

An old threat, long since thought vanquished, has grown strong in Australia's complacency. The darkness rises once more, and soon the storm will break.

Soon the Second Emu War will be upon us, and this time, neither land nor sea will protect the rest of humanity.

But there is a Prophecy.

The first Emu war didn't go well.... The Emus are just the minions of the Platypus & Echidna the God Kings from beyond the Dark Tapestry.

Scarab Sages

2 people marked this as a favorite.
The 8th Dwarf wrote:

The first Emu war didn't go well.... The Emus are just the minions of the Platypus & Echidna the God Kings from beyond the Dark Tapestry.

I thought the Echidnas were supposed to be Protectors of the Emeralds of the Floating Island.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Kobold Cleaver wrote:

Ivan, this is what you're talking about.

Basically, from what I can see, you have to give a reason to refuse service. And if the reason's not plausible, or is clearly bigoted (I don't want to let gay parents drop their kids off at my daycare because they might infect the other kids), you have a problem.

Ah, ok. Was unaware a reason needed to be given.

I am of the opinion that this is despicable, by the way. Freedom of religion is not freedom to discriminate.


For those arguing the law is unnecessary since there is already no protection for discrimination against people for their sexual orientation, that's true on the federal and state level, but one of the things the law does is prevent local laws from providing such protection. It's not clear to me if Indianapolis has such laws for customers. It does have laws preventing discrimination against LGBTQ employees.

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber
DM Barcas wrote:
Kalindlara wrote:

I see. Then what is the purpose of bills like this? Do they allow people to exercise "religious freedom", even where it includes infringement on protected classes? If so, and if LGBT are protected (a big assumption), then it seems as though the two are in conflict - hence statements about the Supreme Court striking the law down.

And technically, the nondiscrimination clause is a limitation on religious freedom... albeit in the same way "fire in a crowded theatre" is a limitation on free speech.

That particular quote irks me. It's not very far from favorably quoting language from Dred Scott. Holmes used it in the worst First Amendment decision of the twentieth century in favor of jailing people for arguing against the draft. Schenck is one of the most authoritarian-friendly decisions in American jurisprudence, which is why it was overturned and is regularly pilloried as indefensible.

All that said - and I ask this honestly, without knowing the answer - does any state have a similar law currently on the books? If so, what has the effect been?

Sorry. I simply used it because it's the most recognizable example of a specific concept - in this case, that even the bedrock freedoms of our democracy have some limitations. I didn't mean to invoke that entire case, simply a concept which has become part of common understanding. Bringing Dred Scott into it seems a bit extreme, though. :)

Do you disagree with the basic concept? Not the specific case, but the idea that these freedoms do have limitations when used to harm others?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I hope that some day some god is fed up enough with fundamentalist people (whether Christian or Muslim) abusing religion and strikes those perverts down so that normal people who just want to be happy with their loved ones can do so.

For freedom but against discrimination.

And just to be clear: The perverts I'm talking about are the people supporting this bill.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

Oh I hope they move it back to Milwaukee!
Then I can afford to go again:)

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Fox wrote:
DualJay wrote:
State-sanctioned is distinct from allowed by the state. It is legal to be drunk (not while driving, obviously), but that does not mean the state supports being drunk.
Pro-tip: your analogy might work better if you chose something that is actually legal. Most jurisdictions actually DO have ordinances prohibiting being intoxicated in public.

You're the one inserting the "in public" into what he said.


Kieviel wrote:
Here's my vote for moving it to Minneapolis :) We have the facilities, great food good summer weather and it just happens to be 20 min from my apartment.

There are few convention locations as uniquely suited to how GenCon operates as Indy is (IE all the connected hotels and conference rooms).


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I will say that I am honestly conflicted on the issue. On the one hand, I believe too many of these religious business owners get worked up about stuff that they shouldn't be batting an eye at. Photographing a same-sex wedding isn't like they are asking you to come photograph an orgy or something. And I definitely thing denying someone the service of dinner over their orientation is utterly ridiculous.

On the other hand, the idea of using the government to hold a figurative gun to people's head and say, "Either you be involved in this wedding or we will put you out of business" rubs me the wrong way as well. On some level, I feel as if I would rather know who doesn't want to do business with me than not. I mean, wouldn't you rather have a wedding photographer that was excited about doing your wedding than one that was in effect forced to do it? What would stop the second one from taking pictures where the tops of your heads were all cut off ("I guess I wasn't having a good day, oops.")

I don't know, maybe it would be better in the long run to force people to treat others humanely. Maybe if a few religious leaders would take their heads out of their nether regions and recite that old saying, "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's". Take the heathens money and go give it to your church and let them do God's work with it.


12 people marked this as a favorite.

People typically aren't bothered by discrimination that doesn't affect them.


DualJay wrote:
Irontruth wrote:

You want to strip out protections for people who are discriminated against.

For example, in the 50's and 60's, you would be siding with the businesses that refused to allow blacks to eat there.

Is that really where you want to stand on this issue?

This is a straw man. You do not know where I would stand on the issue of discrimination against African-Americans in the 50s and 60s, as the issues are not directly equivalent, no matter how much one may treat like they are.

You are trying to evoke an emotional reaction, which is not suitable for a conversation that should be thoroughly rational.

And here's a key point: People can be wrong. I support their right to be wrong. I do not support being wrong. They are free to be wrong, but that does not make wrongness right. Do I make myself sufficiently clear?

No, they are equivalent. You are supporting a legalized form of discrimination, saying that businesses can choose to refuse anyone they want based on religious reasons. If you don't remember, there were lunch counter sit-ins at private businesses that refused to serve African-Americans.

Why are Muslim-Americans different? (or Jewish/Christian/Mormon/Atheist/etc) Why do these people deserve to be discriminated against?

You want to allow discrimination. You say you don't SUPPORT it, but you want to ALLOW it.

I fail to see any benefit to our society by allowing discrimination, all it does is create divides within out society, increasing rifts and distrust. These are not beneficial things for our society.

Second, I find it fundamentally violates the concept of freedom of religion (the first amendment concerns the government, I'm speaking more broadly), because it gives tools to people who want to force their religion on others. If the people of one religion have more money than another religion, they can effectively buy out that religions businesses and create a religious monopoly in a region creating pressure to bow to their religion. I find that prospect to be just as disgusting as the first portion.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Irontruth wrote:
DualJay wrote:
Irontruth wrote:

You want to strip out protections for people who are discriminated against.

For example, in the 50's and 60's, you would be siding with the businesses that refused to allow blacks to eat there.

Is that really where you want to stand on this issue?

This is a straw man. You do not know where I would stand on the issue of discrimination against African-Americans in the 50s and 60s, as the issues are not directly equivalent, no matter how much one may treat like they are.

You are trying to evoke an emotional reaction, which is not suitable for a conversation that should be thoroughly rational.

And here's a key point: People can be wrong. I support their right to be wrong. I do not support being wrong. They are free to be wrong, but that does not make wrongness right. Do I make myself sufficiently clear?

No, they are equivalent. You are supporting a legalized form of discrimination, saying that businesses can choose to refuse anyone they want based on religious reasons. If you don't remember, there were lunch counter sit-ins at private businesses that refused to serve African-Americans.

Or look back to the Grren Book, which was a guide to let black travelers know where they would be welcome and where'd they be turned away. Vital to know where you could stay for the night or find a restaurant that would serve you or get your car fixed if necessary.

Of course, libertarians often think that's fine. Just private businesses making private decisions. No business of the government.

There have been similar guides for LGBTQ people, but those have generally been for places that actually cater to open LGBTQ behavior - gay bars and the like, since LGBTQ people can pass if necessary. As long as you hide what you are, you won't have trouble finding food or a place to stay.

Liberty's Edge

LazarX wrote:
zauriel56 wrote:

As a Christian myself, I oppose the idea of the state giving out marriage licenses as marriage was originally intended as a religious institution blessed by whatever higher power you believed in way back in the day, whether it be God, Zoroaster, Allah, Buddha, Brahman, or whoever. IMO the government should issue civil union licenses to any couple who wants them, and if a couple (gay, straight, "living in sin", or celibate) wants their union blessed by their god take it to a church, synagogue, mosque, coven, or whatever that will bless it. This way homosexuals can have government recognition of their union without religious connotations if they don't want them, but can if they do.

Unfortunately.. civil union licenses do not grant the full legal privileges of marriage. And no matter what it was INTENDED for, marriage is a secular legal status that impacts on almost 2,000 legal issues that a couple may be faced with in the course of their shared lives.

What I got out of Zauriel's post (and perhaps I'm reading too much of my own opinion into this) is that s/he opposes state sponsored marriage at all. Marriage should be a religious thing and only that, and if the government wants to slap some tax / legal benefits on people who are in a relationship then it should be its own thing. Yes, it would require re-writing laws, but so do a lot of worthwhile things.


The Fox wrote:


Nope. State-sanctioned discrimination is antithetical to American values.

It is?, I mean, you have a governor trying to make that a law, and I guess some people that voted for him think like him.

Not trying to say that State-sanctioned discrimination is an American value, but that the idea of a set of values that apply to a nation is a myth.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rynjin wrote:
The Fox wrote:
Rynjin wrote:

You might want to back up a second and recognize that you are essentially saying we should outlaw people being wrong.

Think about that for a second.

Nope. People can be wrong all they want...until that wrongness impacts someone else.

More to the point, who decides who is "wrong" on these matters? From an objective standpoint.

"I hate black people" is an opinion. It is a bigoted opinion, but it isn't "wrong". You can't prove to the man that he does not, in fact, hate black people.

Perhaps it is morally wrong, but I doubt anyone here wants to see the world after it has been taken over by the morality police (I imagine if would look a lot like Australia will in 20 years, if you pay attention to what's going on over there).

Thoughts are not being regulated by law, actions are. One is free to think whatever bigoted thoughts they want. One is free to share and express those bigoted thoughts as well. The legal line is acting on those thoughts in such a way as to limit the rights, freedoms and activities of others; or calling other people to actions that limit the rights, freedoms and activities of others. And that is where this poorly written legislation fails. The courts may one day determine its limits or fully strike it down. But before that can happen, a lot of good people will be discriminated against for no reasons other than ignorance and unsubstantial fears.

It was irresponsible of the Indiana Congress to pass this as written, and it is for this reason I believe the governor should veto it and send it back to be tightened up. There are certain uses of this legislation that can be tolerable, if better defined. For example: not forcing a medical professional to participate in an elective abortion if he/she has a religious objection to doing so. But a man holding hands with another man entering a bookstore certainly would not qualify. Unless they start fornicating, which is the only part clearly spelled out in both Judaism and Christianity (though I'm pretty sure public fornication of any description is well covered by other laws).


ShadowcatX wrote:
LazarX wrote:
zauriel56 wrote:

As a Christian myself, I oppose the idea of the state giving out marriage licenses as marriage was originally intended as a religious institution blessed by whatever higher power you believed in way back in the day, whether it be God, Zoroaster, Allah, Buddha, Brahman, or whoever. IMO the government should issue civil union licenses to any couple who wants them, and if a couple (gay, straight, "living in sin", or celibate) wants their union blessed by their god take it to a church, synagogue, mosque, coven, or whatever that will bless it. This way homosexuals can have government recognition of their union without religious connotations if they don't want them, but can if they do.

Unfortunately.. civil union licenses do not grant the full legal privileges of marriage. And no matter what it was INTENDED for, marriage is a secular legal status that impacts on almost 2,000 legal issues that a couple may be faced with in the course of their shared lives.
What I got out of Zauriel's post (and perhaps I'm reading too much of my own opinion into this) is that s/he opposes state sponsored marriage at all. Marriage should be a religious thing and only that, and if the government wants to slap some tax / legal benefits on people who are in a relationship then it should be its own thing. Yes, it would require re-writing laws, but so do a lot of worthwhile things.

It would be a huge rewrite, on a state by state basis, with federal implications and much conflict between those who first change the laws and those who haven't yet.

There's no constituency for it. No major groups actually want this to happen. It would put LGBTQ groups back to square one, trying to make sure the new laws are written to include them. The groups opposing same-sex marriage were just as opposed to civil unions and would certainly continue to oppose them. The religious forces most opposed to same-sex marriage aren't interested in "religious freedom", they're interested in using government to impose their religious taboos on the rest of us. They can't do that by divorcing marriage from the government.
There are also plenty of non-religious straight people who want the social implications of marriage, not just a legal substitute, even if they don't care about the religious ones.

Beyond the practical problems, which are sufficient to ensure this never gets any real traction, the basic premise is flawed. There's little evidence that marriage was originally intended as a religious institution anyway. Early evidence shows marriage as a social and legal custom, though religion tended to be more deeply linked to both government and social life. Of course, as you go back marriage often looks less and less like modern marriage anyway - often looking more like the transfer of a father's property (his daughter) to her new husband, often bringing alliances, land or other goods along with it.

And finally, other than the actual word "marriage", that's basically the way things work in the US anyway. You get your marriage license from the government and get your marriage blessed (or otherwise approved/officiated) by the religion of your choice if you see fit. If all of this is just about the word, in this brave new world will we ban "civil-unioned" couples from using the words "marriage", "married", "wedding", "husband", "wife" or any of the other traditional terms? Because they will.

And it's all beside the point of this thread. This is about actually discriminating against LGBTQ people in the name of religion, not just about marriage.


Nicos wrote:
The Fox wrote:


Nope. State-sanctioned discrimination is antithetical to American values.

It is?, I mean, you have a governor trying to make that a law, and I guess some people that voted for him think like him.

Not trying to say that State-sanctioned discrimination is an American value, but that the idea of a set of values that apply to a nation is a myth.

I don't know. Looking at American history objectively, I'd find it easier to support State-sanctioned discrimination being an American value than the opposite.

We've tried to make some steps away from it lately, but we've got a lot to overcome.

*Not a uniquely American value, mind you. Plenty of competition out there.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Nicos wrote:
The Fox wrote:


Nope. State-sanctioned discrimination is antithetical to American values.

It is?, I mean, you have a governor trying to make that a law, and I guess some people that voted for him think like him.

Not trying to say that State-sanctioned discrimination is an American value, but that the idea of a set of values that apply to a nation is a myth.

If only we had some collection of documents that codified our values.


HardMaple wrote:
Rynjin wrote:
The Fox wrote:
Rynjin wrote:

You might want to back up a second and recognize that you are essentially saying we should outlaw people being wrong.

Think about that for a second.

Nope. People can be wrong all they want...until that wrongness impacts someone else.

More to the point, who decides who is "wrong" on these matters? From an objective standpoint.

"I hate black people" is an opinion. It is a bigoted opinion, but it isn't "wrong". You can't prove to the man that he does not, in fact, hate black people.

Perhaps it is morally wrong, but I doubt anyone here wants to see the world after it has been taken over by the morality police (I imagine if would look a lot like Australia will in 20 years, if you pay attention to what's going on over there).

Thoughts are not being regulated by law, actions are. One is free to think whatever bigoted thoughts they want. One is free to share and express those bigoted thoughts as well. The legal line is acting on those thoughts in such a way as to limit the rights, freedoms and activities of others; or calling other people to actions that limit the rights, freedoms and activities of others. And that is where this poorly written legislation fails. The courts may one day determine its limits or fully strike it down. But before that can happen, a lot of good people will be discriminated against for no reasons other than ignorance and unsubstantial fears.

It was irresponsible of the Indiana Congress to pass this as written, and it is for this reason I believe the governor should veto it and send it back to be tightened up. There are certain uses of this legislation that can be tolerable, if better defined. For example: not forcing a medical professional to participate in an elective abortion if he/she has a religious objection to doing so. But a man holding hands with another man entering a bookstore certainly would not qualify. Unless they start fornicating, which is the only part clearly spelled...

Why do you think this is poorly written? As opposed to written with bad intent.

Seems to me that they've no intention of tightening it up. It's meant to be broad.


The Fox wrote:
Nicos wrote:
The Fox wrote:


Nope. State-sanctioned discrimination is antithetical to American values.

It is?, I mean, you have a governor trying to make that a law, and I guess some people that voted for him think like him.

Not trying to say that State-sanctioned discrimination is an American value, but that the idea of a set of values that apply to a nation is a myth.

If only we had some collection of documents that codified our values.

That is pretty meaningless. At best it codify the values of the one that wrote those documents.

Silver Crusade

Nicos wrote:
The Fox wrote:
Nicos wrote:
The Fox wrote:


Nope. State-sanctioned discrimination is antithetical to American values.

It is?, I mean, you have a governor trying to make that a law, and I guess some people that voted for him think like him.

Not trying to say that State-sanctioned discrimination is an American value, but that the idea of a set of values that apply to a nation is a myth.

If only we had some collection of documents that codified our values.
That is pretty meaningless. At best it codify the values of the one that wrote those documents.

Are you unaware of how the Constitution and all of its Amendments came to be?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Fox wrote:
Nicos wrote:
The Fox wrote:


Nope. State-sanctioned discrimination is antithetical to American values.

It is?, I mean, you have a governor trying to make that a law, and I guess some people that voted for him think like him.

Not trying to say that State-sanctioned discrimination is an American value, but that the idea of a set of values that apply to a nation is a myth.

If only we had some collection of documents that codified our values.

If only that collection of documents hadn't specifically allowed discrimination in its original form. If only legal discrimination hadn't continued for the next hundred even after the document was changed to forbid it. Nor, of course, does that document to this day say anything about discrimination against LGBTQ people.

Are American values better revealed by our formal documents? Or by our actions?


The Fox wrote:
Nicos wrote:
The Fox wrote:
Nicos wrote:
The Fox wrote:


Nope. State-sanctioned discrimination is antithetical to American values.

It is?, I mean, you have a governor trying to make that a law, and I guess some people that voted for him think like him.

Not trying to say that State-sanctioned discrimination is an American value, but that the idea of a set of values that apply to a nation is a myth.

If only we had some collection of documents that codified our values.
That is pretty meaningless. At best it codify the values of the one that wrote those documents.
Are you unaware of how the Constitution and all of its Amendments came to be?

Mostly yes. But I would assume it was not by a vote where it was confirmed by the majority of the population, I could be very wrong of course.

But that is unimportant, the fact that it is written doesn't imply it is truth, and I'm not talking about the law, but about the nebulous concept of "american value", or more generally speaking any concept of "national value".


thejeff wrote:


Are American values better revealed by our formal documents? Or by our actions?

Neither. There are personal values, not national ones I would argue. The belief in national values is very dangerous one.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Maps, Rulebook Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

Businesses exist to make money. Discrimination cost money (less revenue, higher cost). The law will be self-corrected in time via one force or another.

However if Gen Con moves, I will miss it. There is only so far I’m willing to travel. I’m sure the staff of Gen Con won’t mind making less money by moving their convention to a less ideal location, even if it means less convention space, less hotels, less parking, being further away from the population center of the United States (which is currently south central Missouri). If Gen Con were to move to some of the locations mentioned here, it would go from being a major gaming convention to regional one by making itself so isolated to most of the country. Likely Gen Con would move to another city in the Midwest like Columbus or Chicago.

If you really want to make a statement about the law during Gen Con, all you got to do is walk right past any restaurants that say “No Soandso” and pack the place next to theirs that says “Welcome Everyone!” I’m pretty sure before Gen Con starts there will be plenty of lists detailing which places to avoid because of this law. Heck there might even be an app for it by then.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

The problem with the law is that it does not accomplish what it set out to do (we gamers could teach them a thing or two about RAI and RAW). Also because it attempts to codify a freedom we already had, thus implying that freedoms not so codified are not permitted.

The law is a bad one because, as written, it legalizes behavior we have as a society already decided is not going to be permissible (e.g., not seating people at a lunch counter (or hotel or movie theater or drinking fountain) because of their race).

What's being missed by the libertarian argument here (and I -am- a libertarian) is that the property in question may be privately owned, but it is being held open to the public as a business. I quite agree that you can be racist or homophobic in your own property. Don't want to give someone a ride in your car or allow them into your home for racist or homophobic reasons? That's your right. But if you open a business and then deny access to that business on the basis of race or gender or sexual orientation, you've crossed over into the public space and now we the public have a right to prohibit or curb certain behaviors in exactly the same way we can tell you not to store explosives on your property or not to play your music too loudly at night.

Private property is a vital right, but it is not untouched by the rights of others. You may own a piece of land, but you may not necessarily own the right to erect any sort of building on it you want. You probably can't build a tower that blocks my view of the ocean, for instance. So rights in private property cease to be absolute when they impact the larger society and still moreso when the owner purposefully opens up that property to the public (like a business).

Now, having said all that, I do think certain types of businesses should be free to refuse certain types of services. A restaurant or movie theater shouldn't be able to refuse entry to a patron based on sexual orientation or race or religion or gender. But must a dress maker make a wedding gown for a man? I'd say not. Must a cake-maker make a cake for a gay couple? I'd say yes. But must he make a cake that portrays two grooms for a gay wedding? That's not the same as serving everyone cake. Now you're demanding that the baker portray an activity to which he may be religiously opposed. I'm not going to argue for or against the baker; that's not my call. I'm saying that providing a service to all customers is not the same as being required to provide a service you don't want to provide to anyone.

The law was -intended- to protect this latter sort of behavior. To allow business owners to refuse to engage in certain activities with -anyone- even if they engage in a similar activity (like making cakes with a bride and groom on them).

So in part this is down to a very poor choice of broadly-written words and in part this is also down to a split in the society over the value of personal property rights versus the equal protection of the law.

I think that a more carefully written law would fare better. Although I support what I believe was the intention (RAI) of this law, I abhor the law as written and would oppose it if it came up in my state.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Kadasbrass Loreweaver wrote:
Businesses exist to make money. Discrimination cost money (less revenue, higher cost). The law will be self-corrected in time via one force or another.

Unless discrimination is popular and enough people seek out the discriminating businesses to avoid the icky gays. If that makes up for the lost business, then it can be self-perpetuating.

If it more than makes up for the lost business, even business owners who aren't prejudiced may climb on the bandwagon in order to get more customers.

This was how business worked back in the Jim Crow days. Cater to the black customers and lose your white customers.

The libertarian argument that the market automatically corrects for prejudice has been proven wrong.

Now, it may well be that the pendulum has swung far enough that there aren't enough prejudiced people to make up for loss of business in this case. I hope so.

Of course, major businesses like GenCon leaving town is the same principle as you walking past the restaurant, just on a larger scale.


Rynjin wrote:
TOZ wrote:
Can I ban Christians from my establishment due to serving them being against my religious principles?
Theoretically, yes.

Wouldn't that still be prohibited under the federal Civil Rights Act?

Shadow Lodge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
LazarX wrote:
Kieviel wrote:
Here's my vote for moving it to Minneapolis :) We have the facilities, great food good summer weather and it just happens to be 20 min from my apartment.
Actually as I understand it, you don't. Specifically in terms of local hotel space.

Shush you! Your treading on my chance for personal happiness at the expense of others!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tarondor wrote:

The problem with the law is that it does not accomplish what it set out to do (we gamers could teach them a thing or two about RAI and RAW). Also because it attempts to codify a freedom we already had, thus implying that freedoms not so codified are not permitted.

The law is a bad one because, as written, it legalizes behavior we have as a society already decided is not going to be permissible (e.g., not seating people at a lunch counter (or hotel or movie theater or drinking fountain) because of their race

The law was -intended- to protect this latter sort of behavior. To allow business owners to refuse to engage in certain activities with -anyone- even if they engage in a similar activity (like making cakes with a bride and groom on them).
<snip>
So in part this is down to a very poor choice of broadly-written words and in part this is also down to a split in the society over the value of personal property rights versus the equal protection of the law.

I think that a more carefully written law would fare better. Although I support what I believe was the intention (RAI) of this law, I abhor the law as written and would oppose it if it came up in my state.

I think you're wrong about the intent. I think the intent is pretty clearly to allow open discrimination against gays, not just the kind of examples you approve of.

The effects of the law as written are obvious and there has been the opportunity to do as you suggested and narrow it. As far as I can tell, the legislature and the governor want the broad law.


Torondor wrote:
What's being missed by the libertarian argument here (and I -am- a libertarian) is that the property in question may be privately owned, but it is being held open to the public as a business.

Which in a libertarian view does not open you up to government regulation. Its still your private business that serves the public, not the public that gets to tell you how to run your private business.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Torondor wrote:
What's being missed by the libertarian argument here (and I -am- a libertarian) is that the property in question may be privately owned, but it is being held open to the public as a business.
Which in a libertarian view does not open you up to government regulation. Its still your private business that serves the public, not the public that gets to tell you how to run your private business.

Actually it does. If your private buisness is a restaurant, you'd better be abiding local health codes or you may find yourself shut down. Simmilarly, you may be subject to fire codes, "blue" laws, any of a bunch of other regulations that DO need to be taken into account in how you run your buisness.

Private property is not an absolute right... It never has been, save in the days of Kings, when all property in a kingdom reverted to him, and others held it at His Pleasure.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

My state rep. is one of the guys behind it. He's a 20-something home schooled religious nitwit. Thoroughly disgusting.

http://www.elkharttruth.com/news/Truth-Radio-1340/2015/03/18/Newsmakers-Tim -Wesco-details-the-Religious-Freedom-Restoration-Act.html


LazarX wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Torondor wrote:
What's being missed by the libertarian argument here (and I -am- a libertarian) is that the property in question may be privately owned, but it is being held open to the public as a business.
Which in a libertarian view does not open you up to government regulation. Its still your private business that serves the public, not the public that gets to tell you how to run your private business.
Actually it does. If your private buisness is a restaurant, you'd better be abiding local health codes or you may find yourself shut down.

Note that i said "In a libertarian view" not in our current legal reality or 'any sane and reasonable balance between individual rights and public safety' And some libertarians will object to health codes and insist that businesses that make people sick be dealt with via people not eating there anymore.

Quote:
Private property is not an absolute right... It never has been, save in the days of Kings, when all property in a kingdom reverted to him, and others held it at His Pleasure.

I'm trying to think of anything that would apply to ye olde 1800s wild west saloons (you know, beal america!!!!) and not coming up with anything.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
BigNorseWolf wrote:
LazarX wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Torondor wrote:
What's being missed by the libertarian argument here (and I -am- a libertarian) is that the property in question may be privately owned, but it is being held open to the public as a business.
Which in a libertarian view does not open you up to government regulation. Its still your private business that serves the public, not the public that gets to tell you how to run your private business.
Actually it does. If your private buisness is a restaurant, you'd better be abiding local health codes or you may find yourself shut down.

Note that i said "In a libertarian view" not in our current legal reality or 'any sane and reasonable balance between individual rights and public safety' And some libertarians will object to health codes and insist that businesses that make people sick be dealt with via people not eating there anymore.

Lazar wrote:
Private property is not an absolute right... It never has been, save in the days of Kings, when all property in a kingdom reverted to him, and others held it at His Pleasure.
BigNorseWolf wrote:


I'm trying to think of anything that would apply to ye olde 1800s wild west saloons (you know, beal america!!!!) and not coming up with anything.

Keep in mind that what most people think of as "The Wild West" on average only existed in any given area for about 4 years... the transition from barely settled hamlet into either a ghost town, or a much more lawfully regulated area. Law and custom were still heavy determinants on how you ran your buisness. Or in the case of the extremely lawless area... your local gangs.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
A highly regarded expert wrote:

My state rep. is one of the guys behind it. He's a 20-something home schooled religious nitwit. Thoroughly disgusting.

http://www.elkharttruth.com/news/Truth-Radio-1340/2015/03/18/Newsmakers-Tim -Wesco-details-the-Religious-Freedom-Restoration-Act.html

Working link


A highly regarded expert wrote:
My state rep. is one of the guys behind it. He's a 20-something home schooled religious nitwit. Thoroughly disgusting.

Huh, I didn't realize that you were in the elkhart area. :)


thejeff wrote:

I think you're wrong about the intent. I think the intent is pretty clearly to allow open discrimination against gays, not just the kind of examples you approve of.

The effects of the law as written are obvious and there has been the opportunity to do as you suggested and narrow it. As far as I can tell, the legislature and the governor want the broad law.

Give us something substantial to back these claims. All I see is interpretation. Give specific examples of why these legislators and governor want to legalize gay discrimination.


Nicos wrote:
The Fox wrote:


Nope. State-sanctioned discrimination is antithetical to American values.

It is?, I mean, you have a governor trying to make that a law, and I guess some people that voted for him think like him.

Not trying to say that State-sanctioned discrimination is an American value, but that the idea of a set of values that apply to a nation is a myth.

America is not a democracy precisely for that reason. "Tyranny of the majority" is accounted for in our Constitution.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Nicos wrote:
The Fox wrote:


Nope. State-sanctioned discrimination is antithetical to American values.

It is?, I mean, you have a governor trying to make that a law, and I guess some people that voted for him think like him.

Not trying to say that State-sanctioned discrimination is an American value, but that the idea of a set of values that apply to a nation is a myth.

America is not a democracy precisely for that reason. "Tyranny of the majority" was accounted for at our founding.


Well, there is the governor's track record:

Mike Pence Against Gay Marriage

And the fact that he seeks to change this on the state level and then supports this bill…that isn't too hard, dot-connecting-wise.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
HardMaple wrote:
Give specific examples of why these legislators and governor want to legalize gay discrimination.

They are christian fundamentalists.

101 to 150 of 662 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / General Discussion / Gen Con Threatens to move if Indiana Gov signs religious freedom bill All Messageboards