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


Gamer Life General Discussion

201 to 250 of 662 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Divinitus wrote:
While I disagree with the notion that anyone should be refused a certain service, in most cases at least, I do believe that business owners are entitled to refuse service to whoever they want.

And you would be wrong. The buisness owner's right to refuse service is tempered by what federal/local/state rules limit that the exercise of that right. In New Jersey for instance, Anti-Discrimination laws prohibit a baker from refusing service for reasons of creed, race, religion, sexual, or gender orientation. He most certainly can refuse to a person who is either unwilling or unable to pay, or is exhibiting disruptive behavior.

What you have to understand is that a buisness is not entirely within the private sphere, the way a personal home is. It operates in the shared public sphere from which it's customer's are drawn. Different legal principles apply.

Sczarni

Simple solution that solves everything: Gen Con moves to San Antonio and awards me with free tickets. I know, I be dreaming.


Wow. Libertarians are so ridiculous.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Scott Betts wrote:
Divinitus wrote:
Since a civil conversation cannot be had online without people deliberately taking what one says out of context, being fascetious and sarcastic of opinions differing from there own, and otherwise not contributing to the conversation at large without displaying some manner of civility, I will withdraw from this thread.

The belief that it is okay to enable discrimination against an entire class of people while cloaking it in a pathetic banner of "freedom" or "rights" is, inherently, an uncivil position to hold.

You haven't yet learned that the ability to express a repugnant opinion does not entitle you to have that opinion respected. Most of us here have a moral obligation - to ourselves and to those we care for - to not afford opinions like yours any respect, because to do so is to pretend that those opinions deserve to be treated as potentially valid.

Awesome sauce! What the Betts man said!

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Ulfen Death Squad wrote:
Simple solution that solves everything: Gen Con moves to San Antonio and awards me with free tickets. I know, I be dreaming.

I was thinking Arkansas. Of course, Arkansas is almost as backwards as Indiana....


Rynjin wrote:
Coriat wrote:
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?
I was under the impression that the whole point of this law was to take precedent over that. Otherwise it would truly do nothing.

My understanding from limited research is that the Civil Rights Act does protect against refusing service to customers of a certain creed, but does not similarly protect orientation. Thus the state law would protect discrimination against gay people, but the federal law would still govern when it came to discrimination against Christians.

So I don't think the sponsors of the bill are, legally speaking, even in theoretical danger of having to drink their own medicine.

But I might be wrong.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

The real sponsor of the bill is ALEC. They sponsor lots of bills. Hell, they write them.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

GENCON needs to come back to Philly, we have the best chessesteak shops in the the country.


I know that name, and I dislike that name, ALEC, some day, you will get what is coming to you. For those who are wondering they a lobby group who have only their best interesting in mind as far as I can tell.


They support just about anything that is good for big business and bad for the rest of us. Like over using antibacterials in industrial farming. Which combined with over prescription will likely kill us all when ALL strains are resistant, just what we needed.


David Koch.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
LazarX wrote:
If Indiana loses Gen-Con, they will literally lose the largest convention event that comes to the state. And all that tourist spending money that comes with it. Of course a state full of Bible Belt fanatics might just be willing to cut their own nose off to spite their face.

I think this is a tough one to actually discuss and actually reasonably solve. Edit: Also, if you can't read through all the post, just read the last two paragraphs. I can already see people jumping to conclusions that are already answered in the rest of my post and accusing me of things that I'm not actually saying. So to those who hate, if you read, just skip to the end so you don't jump to conclusions and respond before reading what my actual opinion is on discrimination vs. equality is and which I actually support.

First, everyone SHOULD have freedom of religion and the freedom to PRACTICE that religion. The government should not create any religious state, THAT INCLUDES AN ATHEIST state (by all intents, it counts as a religion, just like scientology and other New Age religions count) which was the STATE religion of the USSR (we see how that worked out for religious freedom) and I believe is still the State religion for China.

For example, if one feels that their religious practices demand that they smoke, no one should be able to force them to violate their religious beliefs and they should be allowed to do so (for example, the few that smoke peyote as part of their religious traditions).

If one feels that they are not allowed to drink alcohol (several religions) they should not be forced to drink alcohol.

If one feels they should not deal with women during their menstrual cycles, or deal with blood, and are unclean if they do so (a few religions as well), then they should not be forced to violate their religious beliefs (and in the process become unclean and unable to participate in some religious ceremonies).

If one feels that associating with Homosexuals is a violation of their religious covenants (no kidding, there is a line in the New Testament that actually infers if they associate with the sinners including such things as men who lie with men as one would with a women...which also implies vice versa), than they should NOT BE FORCED TO VIOLATE their religious covenants.

Despite those that hate religion feel, the idea of being free to practice one's religion was one of the founding ideas of the United States of America. It is one of those core items at the very basic ideals of founders.

THAT SAID...those same founders also allowed slavery and counted them as 2/3 of an additional person for whomever owned them (So they didn't even get that 2/3 of representation, whomever owned them did).

Obviously, we've moved away from their idea that only certain people were granted unalienable rights. We've expanded it.

The problem in granting people the ability to do what they wish in regards to their religious concerns is that it will easily be abused (and trust me, I'm certain it will). I'm certain with laws that allow people to not do business with homosexuals because of religious beliefs, there will soon be others who will claim their religious beliefs bar doing business with minorities, or with women (another one of those Bible verses which pertain to female roles, women in leadership, and working women), or any number of other discriminatory practices.

Before we know it, we could be back in the days of the Jim Crow Laws and Old South (and Mid West believe it or not, Indiana was a Klan stronghold in days past) where segregation is going strong.

In some ways we have gone waaaaaaay far to one side where we force people to do things that may be against their religion (and in many ways against their religious rights). The problem is, if we don't do that, people always find ways to abuse the rules and start discriminating FAR beyond what their religious beliefs actually are.

I think if people actually PRACTICED their religion, you would have a few that would do this and their business would suffer, but overall with the changing trends of things, those who discriminated would probably have their business suffer and the ones that did not would do better.

HOWEVER...and unfortunately, that is NOT how it works in real life from what I can tell. NORMALLY, people will go far beyond what their religion would say, and put in their own personal opinions, non-religious beliefs, and prejudices. That means, this would not only allow discrimination against homosexuals, but would expand to those who WANT to discriminate with no religious backing (But would claim they did it in the name of religion), and go far beyond just that, but include racial, age (already happens though), sexism, and even religious discrimination.

The problem is people cannot be trusted to keep it confined to what is strictly religious, and instead will include their personal biases into it, along with the group mind of what is popular in discriminatory circles at that moment.

You can already see this against Muslims, and with laws like this, they are one of the first targeted, sometimes even before homosexuals or others. It is even applauded (even among many homosexual groups!) to discriminate in this manner. With a religious backing, it makes it legal (there are many versus in the Bible that say to avoid the Non-Chosen people, or the non-Christians, etc.).

So, you can see it is a fine line, and one that's very hard to tread. You have two conflicting amendments (one for freedom in regards to religion and the state, and one that calls for equality of all).

I for one probably favor leaning more for equality and making it so that religion is not a factor in who one can or cannot do business with. Discounting it is the only way to make sure it is NOT utilized as an excuse (when it really wouldn't have been an excuse to begin with).

AT the same time, I'm well aware of the abuses people have in that same light (if equality in personal business is a mandated item due to the amendments, the same protections should apply to religions, so one should NOT be discriminated nor forced to work on their Sabbath as per the religious freedom and divorcement of government and religion...which would be Sunday for many Christians, Saturday for Jews and a few Christians, and Fridays for some others).

So I understand how fine a line it is already, and how we already are persecuting the religious freedoms the US is supposedly supposed to protect (try being a Muslim and trying to get Friday off due to it being a Holy day/Day of Congregation or at least time to attend prayers, it's FAR easier for a Christian to get their Sunday's off than a Muslim their Friday, or trying to get the allowance for the right times to pray during the workday).

On the otherhand, do not misunderstand me. I am for the equality side of the equation. I understand that it is too easy to discriminate and claim it was in the name of religion (even if a religion has nothing to support that claim) that leads to far worse abuse and discrimination that infringes on everyone's right to equality.

However, I don't think it's as clear cut as many make it out to be. I think part of the backlash in trying to protect religion is due to a LOT of the religious freedom of people having been abridged over the past two score years. People always remember the equality section of the amendments, but many who feel harassed or dislike the religious views of others, seem to forget that religious freedom and the ability to practice it without hinderment of government intervention (aka, government is separate and cannot create ANY government sanctioned religion, including atheism, wiccan, or any other form or religion) is also one of the guaranteed rights that people are assured (or should be assured).

PS: AS far as Gencon goes, I think they are small fish compared to others. It may be the biggest gaming convention, but I think they are small fries compared to Basketball and the Final Four.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Nicos wrote:
Kobold Cleaver 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.

America is not a democracy precisely for that reason. "Tyranny of the majority" was accounted for at our founding.
Not sure If I'm understanding correctly what you are saying.
He's saying that individuals have rights that the majority can't simply take away by a 51% majority (at least in theory)

That is a good thing. I still maintain that what is written in a law and how things actually are can be very different, and more importantly, that national values are just a collective imaginary at best.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
GreyWolfLord wrote:
LazarX wrote:
If Indiana loses Gen-Con, they will literally lose the largest convention event that comes to the state. And all that tourist spending money that comes with it. Of course a state full of Bible Belt fanatics might just be willing to cut their own nose off to spite their face.

I think this is a tough one to actually discuss and actually reasonably solve. Edit: Also, if you can't read through all the post, just read the last two paragraphs. I can already see people jumping to conclusions that are already answered in the rest of my post and accusing me of things that I'm not actually saying. So to those who hate, if you read, just skip to the end so you don't jump to conclusions and respond before reading what my actual opinion is on discrimination vs. equality is and which I actually support.

First, everyone SHOULD have freedom of religion and the freedom to PRACTICE that religion. The government should not create any religious state, THAT INCLUDES AN ATHEIST state (by all intents, it counts as a religion, just like scientology and other New Age religions count) which was the STATE religion of the USSR (we see how that worked out for religious freedom) and I believe is still the State religion for China.

For example, if one feels that their religious practices demand that they smoke, no one should be able to force them to violate their religious beliefs and they should be allowed to do so (for example, the few that smoke peyote as part of their religious traditions).

If one feels that they are not allowed to drink alcohol (several religions) they should not be forced to drink alcohol.

If one feels they should not deal with women during their menstrual cycles, or deal with blood, and are unclean if they do so (a few religions as well), then they should not be forced to violate their religious beliefs (and in the process become unclean and unable to participate in some religious ceremonies).

If one feels that associating with Homosexuals is a violation of their...

So, Grey, my religion demands that I sacrifice chickens at high noon and rush hour on Main Streeet. You okay with that?

None of our rights are absolute. All of them have constraints. When your religious expression runs into the rights of other people to exist as equal members of our society, yeah...that's where the limits come up.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

The US is the only extant military empire. It is also the leading police state, with more people locked up than any nation on earth.

Keep the serfs fighting and blaming each other.

Judge Judy makes over 40 million a year.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
LazarX wrote:

So, Grey, my religion demands that I sacrifice chickens at high noon and rush hour on Main Streeet. You okay with that?

None of our rights are absolute. All of them have constraints. When your religious expression runs into the rights of other people to exist as equal members of our society, yeah...that's where the limits come up.

Perhaps, it depends on which main street...unless of course you want to get run over (I'd think self preservation would be high on your list, so doing that in New York might not be the smartest thing).

However, if that's what your religion dictates, in theory, the US government is supposed to not make any law in regards to it (so in theory, they can't ban it).

Of COURSE...in an ideal world, you'd have to prove that this is actually your religion and not some hallucination of yours.

Which brings the problem to the forefront (as well as the problem of you not actually reading my post and what I wrote).

People will abuse the religious freedom clause to allow themselves to do all sorts of things that are not actually part of their religious beliefs (such as going out and sacrificing chickens at Noon on main street, when their actual religious dictates state that they are to make a sin offering/sacrifice at noon on the Sabbath...but not necessarily on main street). This is where much of the problem comes in.

However, ironically, your rights to sacrifice chickens are protected by the US constitution and the Bill of Rights...OR IN THEORY should be. In truth, you actions in many areas are now outlawed because of the abridgement of that constitutional right. The same goes with your right to pray where you want, or right to other religious freedoms that were a given (and supposedly protected) by the founding father all up until several decades ago (and were separate issues than the Civil rights movement).

However, why don't you go and read what my actual opinion is? You would have had my answer already...which would be, My opinion is far more in line with equality rather than religion...which you would know if you had read my post...thanks for having me state it three times (as I already stated it in my post above twice...which you should have known if you had read it).


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Yes gray, grant the cultists the ability to sacrafice people to C'thulu.

Kidding. I think that religeon should lose out here, altough it is a trickey situation. I feel that we call hypocrosy and make it so I no longer have to interact with the annoying religous people who constanty try and make me believe. If the law also said anyone can ban anyone who does not share their religeon then it would be better altough that would lead to trouble.

This is going to turn into a flame war. It may already have. This comment may start it. Here goes:

Isn't banning certain kinds of people who are considered "wierd" from doing certain thigs one of the first things the nazies did?


Duramar Bolakson wrote:
GENCON needs to come back to Philly, we have the best chessesteak shops in the the country.

Had 'em. Not that great. ;)

teehee


Goddity wrote:
Isn't banning certain kinds of people who are considered "wierd" from doing certain thigs one of the first things the nazies did?

The difference is that the law is enabling a behavior. The State isn't doing it itself.


12 people marked this as a favorite.

If your religion demands you can't sell cakes to gay people, don't open a bakery.


So i dont know the exact wording of the law but, it seems to allow people to ban people from going places if they offend their religeon. So does that mean that you can just kick people you don't like? Becuase there is no way to tell if two guys/girls are gay or just friends out for a walk if they are just walking down the street together.

As an aside: Do you think they could move the convention to Canada for me?

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
GreyWolfLord wrote:
People will abuse the religious freedom clause to allow themselves to do all sorts of things that are not actually part of their religious beliefs (such as going out and sacrificing chickens at Noon on main street, when their actual religious dictates state that they are to make a sin offering/sacrifice at noon on the Sabbath...but not necessarily on main street). This is where much of the problem comes in..

My religion ABSOLUTELY REQUIRES the sacrifice of chickens on Main Street and cows on Main Street and Broadway. It's right there on the Holy text. It doesn't matter that I'm the author, its MY RELIGION.

Or do only Christians and Jews count? If so, on what basis?

Lets up the ante a bit more. You being a nice tolerant guy open a bakery and you have absolutely no problems baking a wedding cake for gay couples. I however am Reveren I M WRIGHT of the Grace Baptist Church and I have learned that you're contriuting to the unholy defamation of the sacred Christian rite of marriage by baking a cake for a gay couple. My religon demands that I stop you from doing so by any means neccessary, and since I'm an Evangelica megachurch paster, I've got the money to do the following:

1. organise a boycott on your store.
2. rally good fearing christians to form a human barricade to prevent customers from reaching n.
3. put up Facebook pages with your stores name and address showing how much of a den of iniquity your store is.. With major graphics to.

And when that fails, in a highly publicised stunt. I lock myself to your shop doors. because MY fundamentalist Christian religion says I must.

Still comfortable with giving no fetters on religious expresson?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
LazarX wrote:
GreyWolfLord wrote:
People will abuse the religious freedom clause to allow themselves to do all sorts of things that are not actually part of their religious beliefs (such as going out and sacrificing chickens at Noon on main street, when their actual religious dictates state that they are to make a sin offering/sacrifice at noon on the Sabbath...but not necessarily on main street). This is where much of the problem comes in..

My religion ABSOLUTELY REQUIRES the sacrifice of chickens on Main Street and cows on Main Street and Broadway. It's right there on the Holy text. It doesn't matter that I'm the author, its MY RELIGION.

Or do only Christians and Jews count? If so, on what basis?

Lets up the ante a bit more. You being a nice tolerant guy open a bakery and you have absolutely no problems baking a wedding cake for gay couples. I however am Reveren I M WRIGHT of the Grace Baptist Church and I have learned that you're contriuting to the unholy defamation of the sacred Christian rite of marriage by baking a cake for a gay couple. My religon demands that I stop you from doing so by any means neccessary, and since I'm an Evangelica megachurch paster, I've got the money to do the following:

1. organise a boycott on your store.
2. rally good fearing christians to form a human barricade to prevent customers from reaching n.
3. put up Facebook pages with your stores name and address showing how much of a den of iniquity your store is.. With major graphics to.

And when that fails, in a highly publicised stunt. I lock myself to your shop doors. because MY fundamentalist Christian religion says I must.

Still comfortable with giving no fetters on religious expresson?

I think you are confused on my position. I think you have failed to read what I post.

Since you don't want to discuss my actual postings and thoughts, and instead wish to continue down this avenue, I suppose I could play your Devil's advocate.

First we turn to the Amendments...

The one in question is the fourth amendment

Quote:


Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The question then, is at which point do you break the rights given to you. I'd say, once you bolt yourself to the doors, that pretty much has stopped being a peaceably assembly and turned into an attack on the person's property. In that case, the police probably would arrest you as they would any one else who decided to attack someone else's property.

Luckily for you...

Quote:


In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Which means that even after you've been arrested for violating the peace, you still get a trial by an impartial jury.

The bigger question comes into whether one needs to be FORCED to support another's religion, which is where many of the objections are coming into play. Part of the anti-religion argument is that marriage is a legal and civil matter. They also state that Civil Unions do not work as they are not equal to a marriage (which is a strawman, as other nations simply have the word Civil Union in place of the word marriage, but they are the exactly the same thing legally speaking...all the US would need to do is repace the word marriage with Civil Union in all legal texts in it's descriptions, and it's done)...

However, the counter-argument from many who are Christians (and other religions) is that marriage started as and is considered a RELIGIOUS matter. (and as per current law, that would seem to be correct, as most law is descended from the European tradition which was started more as a theocracy...aka...kings being recognized by the church as the divine given ruler...and marriages as such being one of the holy sacraments of the church). This gave the Church in ancient (or...medieval to Renaissance) Europe a LOT of power.

Of course, the truth is that the real fact lies somewhere in between (sure, it's roots for our ideas came from the religious traditions of Europe, but once Kings started leaving the Catholic Church, Eastern traditions came into recognition, and the state was seen as no longer needing to be recognized as something divinely inspired...marriage became a separate institution controlled by the state).

However, it doesn't negate the fact that for some, in their religions, marriage is seen as a religious thing, and marriages performed by others is seen as a support of some other type of religion.

The better question then, is whether it is right to force someone to be part of another person's religion?

This is where the conflict is coming. It may be that people don't even MIND that there someone is getting married, but that they are being forced to support a religion that is not their own religion, and in fact may go counter to their religions AS IN HOW THEY PERCIEVE it. This is irregardless of whether the people actually getting married see this. What is at point, is that the people being asked to support the marriage ceremony see it as supporting another religion that is NOT their own and hence government enforcing a religion on them that they themselves do not support.

Muslims see this all the time (to tell the truth). Ironically, Muslims only get hate for it. There are MANY bakeries that won't support Muslim unions...believe it or not. Furthermore, it is illegal for some Islamic unions to take place (for example, it is not necessarily illegal in Islamic law to practice polygamy...however...in the US many not only would NOT support a marriage of that type, but would try to prosecute anyone doing so, and further more no bakery would support such a union).

It comes down to a persons perceptions. For those who do not see marriage as a religious ceremony, but as a legal procedure...they don't understand why some would not want to take pictures or bake cakes, or other items for someone else's marriage (though, as I said, it's been happening to Muslims FAR longer than it has to homosexuals...probably because Muslims have been trying to get married FAR longer than homosexuals have, ironically, no one complains about this happening to South West Asians...not even the LGBT movement, it doesn't even make the Sunday news, or the Monday news...or even Wednesday news).

However, for those who DO perceive it as a religious ceremony, this can be a major breaking point.

Am I playing the Opposing advocate up to your desires?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
bugleyman wrote:
thejeff wrote:

And we've seen where your approach leads too. Allowing businesses to discriminate at will leads, oddly enough, to discrimination. Leads to the despised minority lacking any practical freedom, even if they theoretically have it.

Even outside of discrimination, the same principles lead to abuse by the wealthy few and desperate poverty for the vast majority.

Plenty of states do protect their citizens from discrimination and abuse and pass regulations to ensure their safety without becoming dictatorships as you describe.

Sometimes, shockingly, the middle road actually works best.

Nope. Everyone knows it's either Mad Max or 1984.

I'll start stockpiling leather and athletic gear.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

Oregon has a nice law that basically says "religion isn't a valid defense against child mistreatment". In other words, if your five-year old dies because you refused to take her to a hospital, you don't get to use your nutball religion as a defense.

Religious expression needs fetters. You can practice your religion right up until it starts screwing with other people's lives. It runs in similar circles to the rule of "victimless crimes".

Grand Lodge

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Pretty much any possible relocation away from Indianapolis is going to hamper my ability to attend Gen Con. And I (and my brothers) have been attendees for many years.

However

I am incredibly pleased by the stance the organizers have taken on this issue, on behalf of many of the convention's attendees. And in support of a notion of fairness that extends beyond a state, or even a country.

If I lose out on my ability to attend, I'm satisfied it is for a valid reason.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Mayor Ballard of Indianapolis has just come out decrying this bill and arguing against it in a letter to Gov. Pence. So not every politician in my state (or even every republican) is an idiot seeking to enact harmful bills that are designed to fracture society instead of bringing it together. Maybe there is hope yet?

Of course, as a marine, Ballard is used to the concept that you leave your your petty BS behind you and work together to get the job done. And in this case, the job is creating a functional society that can live without fear of discrimination in order to ensure that EVERYONE has a chance at succeeding in life. Not to mention also coming together to generate $50M dollars in one week for the city.


Kobold Cleaver wrote:

I sense we're about to move into a "politican correctness" discussion.

Hm.

Ahh, no. Political correctness sux. I rather just keep on hating and flaming vs. racists, bigots and fundamentalists. Much more fun AND better kharma. Hate the haters.


Goddity wrote:


This is going to turn into a flame war. It may already have. This comment may start it. Here goes:

Isn't banning certain kinds of people who are considered "wierd" from doing certain thigs one of the first things the nazies did?

More or less, yes.

But more important: I like how you combined the flame-war topic with the Nazi topic.
I like to combine flames with Nazis. Flamed Nazis are the best kind. And, most ironic, they are black, like the people they so despise. And if they bleed they become red. They often soil their pants while you're at it, which turns them brown. Just did not find a way to turn them yellow, yet. Pee doesn't have the right covering power.


As long as they ain't g+$~$@n green.


bugleyman wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Admittedly we're mostly poking fun at the concept because the idea that we should all just learn medicine and not need hospitals is so insane.

"Need a heart bypass? Here's a mirror, bottle of alcohol, and a scalpel. Good luck."

Wait...are you gay? Give me back that scalpel!

Any excuse I can find to share this.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
meatrace wrote:
bugleyman wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Admittedly we're mostly poking fun at the concept because the idea that we should all just learn medicine and not need hospitals is so insane.

"Need a heart bypass? Here's a mirror, bottle of alcohol, and a scalpel. Good luck."

Wait...are you gay? Give me back that scalpel!

Any excuse I can find to share this.

So so glad I read the url before I opened a new tab.

Silver Crusade

14 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm exhausted on this topic and the very real harm this law enables through other venues, but I want to say to any folks from Indianapolis:

Every time I've been to GenCon, I was struck by how warm, welcoming, and open the atmosphere around it was. The city itself was definitely a big part of it. I've had some wonderful experiences there, and getting to visit an event and place with such an accepting crowd definitely helped me make my way out of the closet. I've been regretting being unable to make it this year already, now even moreso.

This ugly situation has positioned everything in such a way that now whatever GenCon does to protect its attendees it will inadvertently punish Indianspolis itself, the very people who protested the loudest against this bill they didn't want.

Whatever happens, I don't bear any ill will or resentment to your folks. And if GenCon does move, I'm honestly going to miss getting to visit.

You've always been a gracious host in my experience. You deserve better than what your governor has foisted upon you. We all did.

I'm really going to miss that Steak 'n Shake. And that comic shop near the Soldiers and Sailors memorial. Heck, I'm gonna miss that memorial. Thing's awe-inspiring.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
As long as they ain't g~%@$+n green.

{hangs head, shoulders her bindle, and sadly shuffles off to next town}


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Snuggles: Destroyer of Worlds wrote:
Mayor Ballard of Indianapolis has just come out decrying this bill and arguing against it in a letter to Gov. Pence. So not every politician in my state (or even every republican) is an idiot seeking to enact harmful bills that are designed to fracture society instead of bringing it together. Maybe there is hope yet?

Not surprising, since the main effect of the law is to negate laws Indianapolis (and other cities) have passed to protect people.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Snuggles: Destroyer of Worlds wrote:

Mayor Ballard of Indianapolis has just come out decrying this bill and arguing against it in a letter to Gov. Pence. So not every politician in my state (or even every republican) is an idiot seeking to enact harmful bills that are designed to fracture society instead of bringing it together. Maybe there is hope yet?

Of course, as a marine, Ballard is used to the concept that you leave your your petty BS behind you and work together to get the job done. And in this case, the job is creating a functional society that can live without fear of discrimination in order to ensure that EVERYONE has a chance at succeeding in life. Not to mention also coming together to generate $50M dollars in one week for the city.

I believe it's that last particular consideration which motivates Mayor Ballard. GenCon isn't the only item. The NFL also has a major convention which might wind up moving as well if this passes.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Axolotl wrote:

Did Divinitus just tell us to synthesize our own drugs? o.0

Who's worked in a lab here? -raises hand-

M-M-M-maybe, who's asking? Are you a cop?!


Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
If your religion demands you can't sell cakes to gay people, don't open a bakery.

Or, at least, wedding cakes, I guess?

I guess we won't see any Muslim owned BBQ joints anywhere then either?

OMG LOL


Kryzbyn wrote:
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
If your religion demands you can't sell cakes to gay people, don't open a bakery.

Or, at least, wedding cakes, I guess?

I guess we won't see any Muslim owned BBQ joints anywhere then either?

OMG LOL

There have been cases of Muslim taxi drivers refusing to carry passengers with alcohol (not drunk passengers, just ones carrying alcohol - duty free from airports mostly). Or worse, blind passengers with guide dogs.

Freedom of religion.

Liberty's Edge

I think there's a Halal BBQ joint around the corner from me. While the lack of pork will offend purists, pig is not the only thing that can be tossed on a pit.


...but I love halal bbq!


Scythia wrote:
meatrace wrote:
bugleyman wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Admittedly we're mostly poking fun at the concept because the idea that we should all just learn medicine and not need hospitals is so insane.

"Need a heart bypass? Here's a mirror, bottle of alcohol, and a scalpel. Good luck."

Wait...are you gay? Give me back that scalpel!

Any excuse I can find to share this.
So so glad I read the url before I opened a new tab.

Give it a chance.

It's hilarious.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Subscriber
Krensky wrote:
I think there's a Halal BBQ joint around the corner from me. While the lack of pork will offend purists, pig is not the only thing that can be tossed on a pit.

Some might even suggest that beef, lamb, and even mushrooms should go on the grill before you start contemplating pork.

Liberty's Edge

Kajehase wrote:
Krensky wrote:
I think there's a Halal BBQ joint around the corner from me. While the lack of pork will offend purists, pig is not the only thing that can be tossed on a pit.
Some might even suggest that beef, lamb, and even mushrooms should go on the grill before you start contemplating pork.

A pit and a grill are two very different things. BBQ Lamb (as in lamb cooked in a BBQ pit/smoker) would not be pleasant. Mutton would work better. A BBQ pit is a very slow method of cooking. A twelve pound (5.4 kg) beef brisket is usually cooked at about 225 degrees (about 107 celsius) for 18 to 20 hours. Pit cooking is basically hot smoking and requires a cut of meat with lots of fat and connective tissue. Part of why BBQ pork made with heirloom lard hogs is so much better than that made with standard pork.

Pig is the original BBQ meat, but as I said, it's not the only thing you can cook in a pit.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
Kryzbyn wrote:
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
If your religion demands you can't sell cakes to gay people, don't open a bakery.

Or, at least, wedding cakes, I guess?

I guess we won't see any Muslim owned BBQ joints anywhere then either?

OMG LOL

There have been cases of Muslim taxi drivers refusing to carry passengers with alcohol (not drunk passengers, just ones carrying alcohol - duty free from airports mostly). Or worse, blind passengers with guide dogs.

Freedom of religion.

Never trust anyone or anything that doesn't trust dogs.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Kryzbyn wrote:
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
If your religion demands you can't sell cakes to gay people, don't open a bakery.

Or, at least, wedding cakes, I guess?

I guess we won't see any Muslim owned BBQ joints anywhere then either?

OMG LOL

There have been cases of Muslim taxi drivers refusing to carry passengers with alcohol (not drunk passengers, just ones carrying alcohol - duty free from airports mostly). Or worse, blind passengers with guide dogs.

Freedom of religion.

Never trust anyone or anything that doesn't trust dogs.

CATS RULE!


Freehold DM wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
thejeff wrote:

There have been cases of Muslim taxi drivers refusing to carry passengers with alcohol (not drunk passengers, just ones carrying alcohol - duty free from airports mostly). Or worse, blind passengers with guide dogs.

Freedom of religion.

Never trust anyone or anything that doesn't trust dogs.
CATS RULE!

I do prefer cats, though I've met some awesome dogs.

I don't trust dogs though. At least not strange ones. More accurately, I don't trust strange dog owners. Especially the ones assuring me that their dog, straining at the leash with his ears flat and tail down, is friendly and harmless.

More relevantly I wouldn't slander an entire religion or other group of people that has problems with dogs - even if I think those problems are silly.

Paizo Employee Customer Service Dire Care Bear Manager

Removed post and reply. It is not ok to advocate, even in jest, for violence against others.

201 to 250 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