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


Gamer Life General Discussion

251 to 300 of 662 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | next > last >>
Silver Crusade

Pence has signed the bill into law.

Story here.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

What an asshat.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

The governor of Indiana is now an enemy of my church.
He shall never be serviced again.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
A highly regarded expert wrote:
Wow. Libertarians are so ridiculous.

To be fair, some of us believe this bill to be complete and utter hogwash as well, as it most clearly violates John Stewart Mill's harm principle. Unfortunately, the libertarians without brains are the ones with the biggest voices :/

EDIT: It was signed? Well f~++ me, that's not good.


11 people marked this as a favorite.

From that same story, the Disciples of Christ (which seems to be a mainline Protestant group) is also threatening to cancel a convention in Indianapolis. It's good to see religious groups on the right side. Sometimes it's easy to forget amongst all the grarr of the crazy ones.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
thejeff wrote:
From that same story, the Disciples of Christ (which seems to be a mainline Protestant group) is also threatening to cancel a convention in Indianapolis. It's good to see religious groups on the right side. Sometimes it's easy to forget amongst all the grarr of the crazy ones.

Yeah, it's vitally important to remember that liberal/progressive Christianity is actually a thing. (It can be hard to keep in mind, sometimes.)

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

As sad as this is, I never anticipated that the loss of $50M would garner much notice from the governor. We've rattled our lightsabers, and I'm sure we'll follow through on this threat, but I suspect Governor Pence won't miss the extra money the con generated.

I do anticipate, however, he will miss $4B. Money talks.


Welp.

Here's hoping gencon comes to nyc.

Grand Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

I'd hope for Phoenix, but the out of state crowd would melt away.


What's wrong with phoenix, exactly?


And that is why I live in Canada. Now if I could just hack the Gencon files and convince them to move it too Canada...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
TriOmegaZero wrote:
I'd hope for Phoenix, but the out of state crowd would melt

You could stop there :)


3 people marked this as a favorite.
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.

Lamb is a HUGE one. When I've gone over to the Arabian Peninsula, you wouldn't believe how many fast food BBQ (well, grill at least) they have with lamb.

There is also Goat for the BBQ and I had some BBQ camel at one point.

On the actual bill being signed to law, I wonder how long it's going to take for many in Indiana to resurrect the racial discrimination and try to justify it under the heading of their religion?

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Freehold DM wrote:
What's wrong with phoenix, exactly?

We don't have winter. Ever.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
TriOmegaZero wrote:
I'd hope for Phoenix, but the out of state crowd would melt away.

Dead serious, if it's a dry heat my crowd can take it. Hell, we'd welcome it.


That would keep me away, but others would go.

Silver Crusade

5 people marked this as a favorite.

Wait, do you still have giant ants and/or graboids there?

Because that's a dealbreaker.

Grand Lodge

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Mikaze wrote:
Wait, do you still have giant ants and/or graboids there?

I don't think so...


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Before this story broke, I was so out of it, I thought GenCon was still in Lake Geneva, WI.

Graboids have moved to California, by the way.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Axolotl wrote:
Graboids have moved to California, by the way.

Promise? You wouldn't lie to me, would you?


Axolotl wrote:

Before this story broke, I was so out of it, I thought GenCon was still in Lake Geneva, WI.

Graboids have moved to California, by the way.

That's where it should be (WI). Maybe they'll move it to Lake Geneva, WI now?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Fox wrote:
Nope. State-sanctioned discrimination is antithetical to American values.

On the contrary. Powerfully to the contrary. US American values are founded on one guiding principle -- LIBERTY.

We have a little thing called the 1st amendment in this country, and that means that if you own a business and are stupid enough to publicly declare that gays, minorities, or any other group are not welcome at your establishment, then you deserve all the negative publicity and lack of business that you'll reap.

...but you still should have the freedom to do so. The 1st amendment isn't there to protect friendly speech. It is there to protect everyone's right to their opinions and behaviors, despite how abhorrent and despicable they are.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Zedth wrote:
The Fox wrote:
Nope. State-sanctioned discrimination is antithetical to American values.

On the contrary. Powerfully to the contrary. US American values are founded on one guiding principle -- LIBERTY.

We have a little thing called the 1st amendment in this country, and that means that if you own a business and are stupid enough to publicly declare that gays, minorities, or any other group are not welcome at your establishment, then you deserve all the negative publicity and lack of business that you'll reap.

...but you still should have the freedom to do so. The 1st amendment isn't there to protect friendly speech. It is there to protect everyone's right to their opinions and behaviors, despite how abhorrent and despicable they are.

Do you honestly believe that Jim Crow laws would have changed if it had been left to market forces like that?


Freehold DM wrote:
CATS RULE!

My dog would agree...cats are a tasty snack!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Bring it to Denver. That way it's close enough for me to attend. :)


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Zedth wrote:
The Fox wrote:
Nope. State-sanctioned discrimination is antithetical to American values.

On the contrary. Powerfully to the contrary. US American values are founded on one guiding principle -- LIBERTY.

We have a little thing called the 1st amendment in this country, and that means that if you own a business and are stupid enough to publicly declare that gays, minorities, or any other group are not welcome at your establishment, then you deserve all the negative publicity and lack of business that you'll reap.

...but you still should have the freedom to do so. The 1st amendment isn't there to protect friendly speech. It is there to protect everyone's right to their opinions and behaviors, despite how abhorrent and despicable they are.

That is not what the 1st Amendment is about at all, though. Granted I'm not politically minded myself, and I certainly haven't researched any of this, so hell, maybe this is way off.

Freedom of speech, religion, and the press means you are entitled to hold any opinion you want, practice any religion you want, and to circulate those opinions in print without censorship.

It does not, however, give you the right to impose those morals and beliefs on anybody you choose, or to meaningfully affect/infringe on any other person's rights or actions with them.

The 1st Amendment certainly allows you to SAY and BELIEVE what you please, but it does not allow you to DO what you please without consequence.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Here's hoping Gencon follows through and bolts.


In a perfect world, douchebags would be douchebags and we would shun them 'til they were forced to leave or stop being douchebags...

We don't live in that world, though, so this law would cause a lot of harm to innocent people. Say, a private hospital refusing o accept a gay/muslim/jewish/atheist/whatever client who needs immediate care.

It would also brew feelings of segregation and hatred, which would lead to even more harm. I'm generally in favor of keeping the government out people's life as much as possible... But in this case, this is taking that idea and twisting it into a tool for evil.

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

Hmmm... Isn't the whole point of parody to point out how ridiculous something is, though?

Admittedly, I didn't read whatever post you deleted, so maybe it did cross the line.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Children in a crosswalk impinge upon my freedom to drive down the street, and yet somehow I'm legally required to stop.

Where will the madness end? WHERE?

L I B E R T Y ! ! !

Silver Crusade

15 people marked this as a favorite.
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Freehold DM wrote:
What's wrong with phoenix, exactly?
We don't have winter. Ever.

You have misidentified the problem. Lack of winter is not the issue at all. It is that Gen Con is at the end of July. That is Summer in most of the northern hemisphere. In Phoenix, the end of July is an entirely different season. I think it is called Damnation.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Fox wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Freehold DM wrote:
What's wrong with phoenix, exactly?
We don't have winter. Ever.
You have misidentified the problem. Lack of winter is not the issue at all. It is that Gen Con is at the end of July. That is Summer in most of the northern hemisphere. In Phoenix, the end of July is an entirely different season. I think it is called Damnation.

Can confirm. It is delightfully hellish.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Oh, speaking of Baphomet, I'm wondering if The Satanic Temple* will create a storefront in Indiana now, and only allow gays and nonreligious folk to patronize.

TOZ--pinky swear promise. I took a picture of Graboid leavings in my front yard. I mean, it could have been ants or earthworms, but really, Graboids make the most sense.

*-not really Satanists, but hilarious nonetheless.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
The Fox wrote:
You have misidentified the problem. Lack of winter is not the issue at all. It is that Gen Con is at the end of July. That is Summer in most of the northern hemisphere. In Phoenix, the end of July is an entirely different season. I think it is called Damnation.

Nonsense.

Here is someone enjoying a pleasant July stroll in Phoenix.

Liberty's Edge

Is it just refusing service, though?

The abstract suggests you fire someone on religious grounds. Or refuse to hire them.


Axolotl wrote:
I'm wondering if The Satanic Temple* will create a storefront in Indiana now, and only allow gays and nonreligious folk to patronize.
Coriat wrote:
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.

Yes? No? Maybe snow?


Jester David wrote:

Is it just refusing service, though?

The abstract suggests you fire someone on religious grounds. Or refuse to hire them.

I'm not sure what abstract you're referring to. All the stories I've seen talk about customers, not employees.

OTOH, I see no reason the language of the bill couldn't also be used to strike down local employment discrimination laws.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Coriat wrote:
Axolotl wrote:
I'm wondering if The Satanic Temple* will create a storefront in Indiana now, and only allow gays and nonreligious folk to patronize.
Coriat wrote:
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.

Yes? No? Maybe snow?

please snow.


I am not a lawyer (not even a rules lawyer). Well, then I suppose a TST shop could prevent heterosexuals from patronage…but that's enough theorycraft for today.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.

People are so blinded these days.

How many religions refuse people by their color? VERY FEW, and those that do have very few followers. Even more so, a store like that would quickly go out of business if simply boycotted. Using that straw man as an argument is laughable.

You have the freedom to choose where you shop, if you don't like it then shop somewhere else. Business owners should have the freedom to not desecrate and dishonor their religious views.

This country is steadily moving towards a slanted view of personal freedom. I believe polygamy and pedophilia is horrendously wrong but I wouldn't be surprised in a few years if people forced businesses to provide services such as wedding cakes to a polygamist wedding or a couple that's classified as pedophiles (say a 14 year old and a 22 year old) because these people are "in love" and businesses should be forced to provide the same services as they would anyone else, even though it would be against the business owner's personal moral views.

Here's how America goes: You have religious freedom, until you own a business, then you lose that religious freedom and people sue you, then you have nothing. America, the land of the "free."

No changes would be made by any major corporation in Indiana if that law passed. Only small & private businesses may change, and very few if that. You're looking at wedding chapels, wedding cake stores, and very few other places because they're ONLY refusing service because you're trying to force them to take part in something that is against their religious view. Why would you even want to support / get married at a place that disagrees with your personal moral views? Why not go some place that does support your personal moral view and provides the service and support them, who are actually happy that you're getting married?

Indiana: The amount of people that would be effected during Gen-Con to find a place to sleep or eat in Indiana would be almost ZERO. The people that run Gen-Con are simply butt-hurt and throwing a temper tantrum because they want to impose their personal morals on other people. It hurts saying it but it's the truth.

The issue that this bill is addressing isn't regarding Racism, if you think that this bill is addressing Racism mainly or are using Racism as an argument against this bill then, I'm sorry to say, you're an idiot. The amount of businesses that would turn down someone of different color is like 1% or less and everyone and their dog would be boycotting the hell out of them, which means they would get hardly any business at all and would go out of business eventually.

EDIT: The only people that would refuse LGBT's a place to sleep or food are the Westboro Baptist and they are a sad display of what an actual Christian is. Some (not saying all) small/private Muslim stores/hotels might also....but why would you be staying at a Muslim store/hotel if you're not Muslim? I personally don't know of any major food chains or hotels in Indiana that are Muslim owned and operated.


Kysune wrote:

People are so blinded these days.

How many religions refuse people by their color? VERY FEW, and those that do have very few followers. Even more so, a store like that would quickly go out of business if simply boycotted. Using that straw man as an argument is laughable.

You have the freedom to choose where you shop, if you don't like it then shop somewhere else. Business owners should have the freedom to not desecrate and dishonor their religious views.

This country is steadily moving towards a slanted view of personal freedom. I believe polygamy and pedophilia is horrendously wrong but I wouldn't be surprised in a few years if people forced businesses to provide services such as wedding cakes to a polygamist wedding or a couple that's classified as pedophiles (say a 14 year old and a 22 year old) because these people are "in love" and businesses should be forced to provide the same services as they would anyone else, even though it would be against the business owner's personal moral views.

Here's how America goes: You have religious freedom, until you own a business, then you lose that religious freedom and people sue you, then you have nothing. America, the land of the "free."

No changes would be made by any major corporation in Indiana if that law passed. Only small & private businesses may change, and very few if that. You're looking at wedding chapels, wedding cake stores, and very few other places because they're ONLY refusing service because you're trying to force them to take part in something that is against their religious view. Why would you even want to support / get married at a place that disagrees with your personal moral views? Why not go some place that does support your personal moral view and provides the service and support them, who are actually happy that you're getting married?

The issue that this bill is addressing isn't regarding Racism, if you think that it is or are using Racism as an argument against this bill you're an idiot (sorry). The amount of...

The discussion of racism is mostly an analogy, not an assumption that it will happen again. Used to counter those who argue that all such government regulation of business is both wrong and unnecessary.

Why do you think that only small & private businesses are affected by this law? Large business may be more directly profit driven, but there are also some very large businesses closely held by individuals or small family groups. Some of them are very right wing religious.
The anti-gay rights groups are also still very strong in some areas. It's not at all clear to me that all such businesses will lose business rather than gain support.

I also see no reason why the repercussions of this will be limited to just same sex marriage services. As far as I can tell, this will also apply to employment discrimination, for example.

As for the slippery slope to polygamy & pedophilia, that's ridiculous. There's no pressure groups behind either. No public support. They're not even where gay rights was 50 years ago, being still illegal. The only reason to even think that is the "One icky sex thing leads to another" argument.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Kysune wrote:
EDIT: The only people that would refuse LGBT's a place to sleep or food are the Westboro Baptist and they are a sad display of what an actual Christian is. Some (not saying all) small/private Muslim stores/hotels might also....but why would you be staying at a Muslim store/hotel if you're not Muslim? I personally don't know of any major food chains or hotels in Indiana that are Muslim owned and operated.

Plenty of Christians far more mainstream than the Westboro Baptists kick their own children out of the house when they find out they're gay. Much easier to not let strangers stay at your hotel.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

So discrimination is okay as long as the group is small enough to not affect your bottom line?

Sovereign Court

Hobby Lobby doesn't refuse LGBT's from shopping at their store. Chick-fil-A doesn't either, they actually went out and gave free food and drinks to the LGBT's that were protesting against them right outside their store.

The issue is that for Christians, and I suspect Muslims, that being of a "priest hood" such as Pastor, Minister, Bishop, Reverend, whatever and being FORCED to marry someone that is against their religious code/morals is wrong. You're forcing them to desecrate their religion else you sue to force them to quit serving in the capacity that they were within their religion.

To get really blunt here: It's against Christian morals for a pastor to marry two individuals other than 1 man and 1 woman before God. Marriage is a sacred act between two individuals and within a church setting is done before the Christian/Jewish God. If someone wants married they should find a place that supports their personal beliefs, not force a place that has contradictory beliefs to be forced to "condone" their decision.

It's not against Christian morals to feed or provide people a place to sleep or employ someone that is of another religion or is LGBT. If a company is extending this beyond same sex marriage services then they are just being asshats, like Westboro Baptist and should simply be boycotted and they'll die out over time.

The point with the Polygamy and Pedophilia comment is that our society is getting more and more progressive towards this "Truth is subjective and even though it's not right for you, It's right for me." We could easily see Polygamy become a norm in society in 5, 10, 20 years. Pedophilia is socially looked down on more, yet other cultures married their children as little as age 10 or so to adults and it was acceptable because society said it was ok then. I'm completely against both polygamy and pedophilia but I'm simply saying that there's arguments for it and it comes down to "Who made you God to say what is right for me." and "What's true for you may not be true for me." Rome was not built in a day. You continue building on the bricks laid yesterday.

In short: I'm not saying LGBT is wrong here. I'm saying that you could easily see in the near future people being forced to provide services for Polygamist and Pedophiles in the future.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Polygamy, maybe.

Pedophilia is outright harmful to another person, just like rape (which it is technically classified as in any case). If it ever becomes acceptable I would weep for the fate of humanity.

Of course, none of that has anything to do with the topic so *shrugs*.

Sovereign Court

thejeff wrote:
Kysune wrote:
EDIT: The only people that would refuse LGBT's a place to sleep or food are the Westboro Baptist and they are a sad display of what an actual Christian is. Some (not saying all) small/private Muslim stores/hotels might also....but why would you be staying at a Muslim store/hotel if you're not Muslim? I personally don't know of any major food chains or hotels in Indiana that are Muslim owned and operated.
Plenty of Christians far more mainstream than the Westboro Baptists kick their own children out of the house when they find out they're gay. Much easier to not let strangers stay at your hotel.

This comment is pretty asinine. So question: Is the child being gay infringing on the person's religious freedom? No. Is the adult the owner of the house? Yes. Does the owner of the house have the right to kick someone else out of their house? Yes. Are they being an asshat for doing so? Yes.

You're confusing personal freedom with religious freedom. If the bill passed or not, has nothing to do with a parent kicking a child out of their own house for WHATEVER reason.

Sovereign Court

Rynjin wrote:

Polygamy, maybe.

Pedophilia is outright harmful to another person, just like rape (which it is technically classified as in any case). If it ever becomes acceptable I would weep for the fate of humanity.

Of course, none of that has anything to do with the topic so *shrugs*.

I agree whole heartedly with you Rynjin. I was using that as an example for services being forced to provide services to Polygamist and Pedophiles even though it's against their personal or religious morals because the State law forces one to do so.


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Kysune wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Kysune wrote:
EDIT: The only people that would refuse LGBT's a place to sleep or food are the Westboro Baptist and they are a sad display of what an actual Christian is. Some (not saying all) small/private Muslim stores/hotels might also....but why would you be staying at a Muslim store/hotel if you're not Muslim? I personally don't know of any major food chains or hotels in Indiana that are Muslim owned and operated.
Plenty of Christians far more mainstream than the Westboro Baptists kick their own children out of the house when they find out they're gay. Much easier to not let strangers stay at your hotel.

This comment is pretty asinine. So question: Is the child being gay infringing on the person's religious freedom? No. Is the adult the owner of the house? Yes. Does the owner of the house have the right to kick someone else out of their house? Yes. Are they being an asshat for doing so? Yes.

You're confusing personal freedom with religious freedom. If the bill passed or not, has nothing to do with a parent kicking a child out of their own house for WHATEVER reason.

The point was that, given they will kick their own kids out, they'll probably have no qualms denying service to a stranger. thejeff wasn't suggesting that the two acts were identical.

It was in response to your claim that it was only whacko, extreme groups that would actually deny people a place to sleep based on their sexuality. Mainstream Christians who will deny their gay kids a place to sleep will probably do the same to strangers, no?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kysune wrote:


The issue is that for Christians, and I suspect Muslims, that being of a "priest hood" such as Pastor, Minister, Bishop, Reverend, whatever and being FORCED to marry someone that is against their religious code/morals is wrong. You're forcing them to desecrate their religion else you sue to force them to quit serving in the capacity that they were within their religion.

To get really blunt here: It's against Christian morals for a pastor to marry two individuals other than 1 man and 1 woman before God. Marriage is a sacred act between two individuals and within a church setting is done before the Christian/Jewish God. If someone wants married they should find a place that supports their personal beliefs, not force a place that has contradictory beliefs to be forced to "condone" their decision.

I think I missed something, who is forcing anti-gay religions to marry gay couples?

Sovereign Court

Gencon to the Twin Cities or Chi-town please!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
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.

I, for one, don't actually have a problem with the alcohol thing.

I say this as someone who wouldn't drink alcohol, I admit, but that's not the point - the point is that if I wore, say, a Christian cross and iconography or something, and someone looked at me and said, "Look, I'm sorry, but on religious grounds, I can't serve you." I would be extremely frustrated, but also recognize and respect that they had the faith and honor to speak to me and stick by their convictions. And then I'd get someone else to drive me places.

The guide-dog thing is... stickier. In that case it actively comes as a case of "they need this thing - it is necessary" and that kind of denial is... terrible. The same thing would be true if there were problems with, say, insulin injectors, or

If I or my family were sick or ill, I'd expect someone to go, "Screw religious principles, we'll do what we can for you." Similarly, if I saw someone - anyone - who was sick or ill, I'd expect myself to do what I reasonably could to assist in the situation, even if those people would otherwise be flagrantly violating my own views. Because at that point, it doesn't matter any more - people need to be saved.

This is very fundamental to Christianity. I mean, Jesus-level fundamental. "You need medical treatment, I give you medical treatment." That's exactly what Jesus is about.

- The parable of The Good Samaritan epitomizes this

- Jesus' own self-sacrifice for the sake of a people who hated Him epitomizes this

- "love your neighbor as yourself" epitomizes this

This dichotomy - between what I want and what is right - is something that most here in the 'States are really, really weird about. I think we tend to really deeply fail at understanding that there are, in fact, consequences for our choices, those consequences aren't always nice, even if we choose what is right, and that's not the wrong thing to happen.

Let me explain. If I was unable to accomplish a task for my job due to religious reasons, but that task was fundamental to my job (the job that I was hired to do), I would refuse, but I would also expect them to fire me. If they didn't, and they would allow it*, I'd leave. This is the correct result to that situation.

In a way, it's similar to the "Was I Really So Bad?" thread - the fact is that some people are, for some reason or another, not suitable to continue together in certain ways. Sometimes this is religious. I think that this is entirely valid - and it can be done respectfully and honestly. I don't think denying someone something that they really need for "religious" reasons is acceptable at all.

I think this is the major problem that I'm having here. I... think that I hate this bill. I think it's a pretty majorly stupid thing, because it's just too broad.

To me, this smacks of some of the most unpopular FAQs - those that attempt to fix a small, specific situation with large, sweeping changes, and said large, sweeping changes are impossible to predict across the whole of the system and, in fact, often cause more problems than they fix. This feels the same way.

The thing is, this will come back to haunt... everyone. Whoever happens to be in the majority in any given area, regardless, will be able to be targeted. And that's terrible, no matter who you are.

I had more stuff that I wanted to say, but I'm fighting sleep right now, and I can't see it above me, and am going to go pass out right now, most likely. Maybe. *probably makes twelve more posts first...*

* And maybe even if they "wouldn't". While I might reconsider if they really wanted me around for some reason, I'd be hard-pressed to think of why they'd want me around. To be clear, I'm not talking entirely hypotheticals, here. I was once employed at a job for which I was unsuitable at the time. I informed the management that I would not be renewing my contract the following year, as, frankly, I wasn't good for that position or company. The management begged me to stay. Begged. Asked me to lunch to talk me into reconsidering. Asked me to rethink it. Repeatedly. All sorts of things to get me to change my mind. I ended up refusing their request and leaving my job, though on amicable terms. I did them no favors by staying - I just wasn't suited to it, and they could do better than rely on someone to drive that far that regularly, especially across dangerous areas prone to car accidents, weather-delays, or other similar problems. To do anything other than leaving would be to take their money and give them inferior service... morally incorrect.

251 to 300 of 662 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / General Discussion / Gen Con Threatens to move if Indiana Gov signs religious freedom bill All Messageboards