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


Gamer Life General Discussion

401 to 450 of 662 << first < prev | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | next > last >>

I want to suggest Louisville as the next location.

One and half hours south of Indianapolis, centrally located within the country. Plenty of hotels and area for convention. While this may sound silly, Louisville already hosts the International Farm and Tractor Show, the largest of it's kind in the world.

Plus us Louisvillians would get to taunt Indiana. Hint: Kentucky doesn't like Indiana ;)


Kalindlara wrote:
stop derail pls?

Fair enough. Sorry. I'm not very good at resisting derails. I deleted my reply from the top of this page.

I will preserve a neutral thanks to GreyWolfLord, though. That had been frustrating. I had discarded that as what might be being referred to, as an open case with no suspects, but perhaps it was?

To return to the topic, I did ask a law student friend at the bar last night about my questions. That, um, that might not be the best source of legal interpretation, so if someone has a better one, feel free to provide it.

He said, though, that the idea was that the state law would overrule local ordinances aimed at preventing discrimination aimed at discriminating against gays, but the federal law would overrule state law that might allow discrimination against religious people. By taking advantage of the state space between local and federal law, you can legalize discrimination against gays while keeping discrimination against Christians illegal, as he explained it.

That was what my own Googling had suggested to me as well, to the extent that such was helpful (which was not a lot, shockingly, Google doesn't seem to be the best resource for legal interpretations either).


pres man wrote:
The forcing clergy thing is probably a reference to a wedding chapel that had been doing all kinds of secular and religious weddings, as long as the definition of marriage was legally one man and one woman. When it changed, they refused to accept the new definition and there were/are legal challenges.

If that's the case I'm thinking of it still wasn't clergy being required to do anything. They were renting the space out for weddings and refused to do the same for a gay couple. Who were bringing their own official to perform the ceremony.


LazarX wrote:
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
What if, and now this is a stretch mind you, the bigots out number the oppressed?
Then the idea of this country being "exceptional" in it's pursuit of liberty and equality has been proven a lie.

I think that's been pretty clear since the beginning. This is only a minor item on the list.

Shadow Lodge

7 people marked this as a favorite.
Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Starfinder Superscriber
Gigigidge wrote:

In response to earlier comments about how this law won't affect critical things like receiving health care, this:

http://www.indystar.com/story/behind-closed-doors/2015/03/09/eskenazi-healt h-opposes-religious-freedom-bill/24502571/

No, this isn't the super-secret-squirrel assessment delineating in detail how the law will force hospitals to leave gay people to die in dark corners of waiting rooms just because they are gay. But maybe, just maybe, the certainty that some people have that this law will have "no effect" on critical services is a just a bit premature...

And when you start talking about religious objections to medical treatments, transfolk immediately know how that's going to affect them. Because those difficulties aren't hypothetical at all -- they're longstanding and ongoing. (Though much better than they were ten years ago.)


7 people marked this as a favorite.
pH unbalanced wrote:
Gigigidge wrote:

In response to earlier comments about how this law won't affect critical things like receiving health care, this:

http://www.indystar.com/story/behind-closed-doors/2015/03/09/eskenazi-healt h-opposes-religious-freedom-bill/24502571/

No, this isn't the super-secret-squirrel assessment delineating in detail how the law will force hospitals to leave gay people to die in dark corners of waiting rooms just because they are gay. But maybe, just maybe, the certainty that some people have that this law will have "no effect" on critical services is a just a bit premature...

And when you start talking about religious objections to medical treatments, transfolk immediately know how that's going to affect them. Because those difficulties aren't hypothetical at all -- they're longstanding and ongoing. (Though much better than they were ten years ago.)

Not to mention things like pharmacists refusing to fill prescriptions for birth control or PlanB. In some cases also refusing to transfer the prescription elsewhere, meaning the woman has to go back to her doctor.

Or hospitals refusing to provide (or even mention) morning after pills to rape victims. In some cases, where the victim isn't able to leave the hospital due to injuries/trauma.

Because religious freedom.


Two posts because, dang, this thread just exploded. I'm not touching the main issue anymore, because it's getting into that near-toxic-rage thing that the internet tends toward.

Yuugasa on Solomon:
Yuugasa wrote:
1 Kings 4:29-34

Yes. By extension, however, I would suggest you read all of the Song of Songs and Ecclesiastes - the former containing an account of how his "beloved" dealt with bigotry among his other wives for her "dark skin", and the latter is mostly him lamenting that anything other than worshiping God is "vanity" - something he noted that he figured out by trial and error.

I never denied his divine wisdom - I was just pulling from more than one place within those scriptures, two of which were penned by him.

(Incidentally, I'd like to point out that it seems to me that Wisdom, Biblically speaking, is substantially more like what we'd term Intelligence in Pathfinder. Solomon "showed" his "wisdom" in financial accounts, cleverness, and outthinking various problems in front of him. It's not exclusively Intelligence, but it's a bit more muddled than our basic game displays evenly.)

My one point was, "Solomon did it, therefore it's a good move." isn't a solid position to make your case on. He did so, and regretted it later.

Further examples of Solomon the wise leaving unfortunate impacts on the country he ruled: he was able to maintain a really high tax rate. That same tax rate caused his country to split into two after he died. Earlier Biblical prophecy warns that Kings would multiply unto themselves wives and horses and whatnot which would lead to apostasy and paganism... and Solomon followed through with this, and it lead to apostasy and paganism.

Solomon, much like every Old Testament figure, made prominent, real, lasting mistakes. David did as well. Moses, Joshua, most everyone (the few counter-examples aren't followed for very long).

There are other statements within the scriptures that could be used to build a better case for pro-polymatrimony. I provided an example of one. I would recommend that, if you wanted to build a case, it might be better to build it off of those.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

People please keep it calm.

Let's break down the issue because the Gay rights crowd is inflaming the issue, and maybe they are right to do so, we need to talk about these things. But if we can't at some point stop and rationally discuss this then there really isn't any discussion.

First regardless of any outside considerations do merchants have the right to not sell to anyone for any reason? Of course they do, a man tossed from a bar for being drunk or a man tossed from a restaurant for smoking do not have the right to claim any loss due to being denied service. Clearly they were discriminated against as people who didn't follow the merchants rules of behavior.

So then the real issue here is whether or not practicing an activity that mocks a certain religion's beliefs is the same as not following the rules of that merchant for doing business. It would be no different than if a Christian went into an LGBT owned place and told the people there they were going to hell, yet still expecting service from that establishment and even threatening legal action if they tossed him out.

Can you see the other side now? All this law does is affirms the merchant right to determine the rules of behavior in their place of business.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

When my fiance and I were looking for a church to hold our wedding service at, we were refused by several before we found one that would let us perform the service.

I suppose I should be in an uproar.

Umm... no. Seriously? They refused to provide me a service. There's nothing that mandates that they provide that service to me, or anyone. That's like telling the kid in your neighborhood he has to mow your lawn, just because he mowed your neighbors' lawns.

That's not how it works.

Everyone in the world gets turned down for services all the time. You get turned down for loans and credit cards. You get cut off at bars (I mean, they're really allowed to tell you that you've purchased too much of their product to continue purchasing it! Think about it.). Ever try to get a table at a really popular restaurant without a reservation? How many of you, right now, could actually join an organization that required a sponsor that was a member in good standing? or a country club? or a sports team? or a modeling agency?

Seems like much ado about nothing.


Aranna wrote:

People please keep it calm.

Let's break down the issue because the Gay rights crowd is inflaming the issue, and maybe they are right to do so, we need to talk about these things. But if we can't at some point stop and rationally discuss this then there really isn't any discussion.

First regardless of any outside considerations do merchants have the right to not sell to anyone for any reason? Of course they do, a man tossed from a bar for being drunk or a man tossed from a restaurant for smoking do not have the right to claim any loss due to being denied service. Clearly they were discriminated against as people who didn't follow the merchants rules of behavior.

So then the real issue here is whether or not practicing an activity that mocks a certain religion's beliefs is the same as not following the rules of that merchant for doing business. It would be no different than if a Christian went into an LGBT owned place and told the people there they were going to hell, yet still expecting service from that establishment and even threatening legal action if they tossed him out.

Can you see the other side now? All this law does is affirms the merchant right to determine the rules of behavior in their place of business.

You don't see anything different between "We're gay and going to get married" and "You're going to Hell"? One is someone actively attacking others. The other is just people trying to go about their lives.

Beyond that, there's a good deal of established law limiting those absolute rights "not to do business with anyone for any reason". Federal law prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of race, religion or gender, for example. Some state and local laws add orientation. Similar laws prohibit discriminating against customers for similar reasons.
There are no absolute rights here. Government is attempting to balance the rights of businesses to conduct business as they choose with the rights of individuals to go about their lives.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Aranna wrote:

People please keep it calm.

Let's break down the issue because the Gay rights crowd is inflaming the issue, and maybe they are right to do so, we need to talk about these things. But if we can't at some point stop and rationally discuss this then there really isn't any discussion.

First regardless of any outside considerations do merchants have the right to not sell to anyone for any reason? Of course they do, a man tossed from a bar for being drunk or a man tossed from a restaurant for smoking do not have the right to claim any loss due to being denied service. Clearly they were discriminated against as people who didn't follow the merchants rules of behavior.

So then the real issue here is whether or not practicing an activity that mocks a certain religion's beliefs is the same as not following the rules of that merchant for doing business. It would be no different than if a Christian went into an LGBT owned place and told the people there they were going to hell, yet still expecting service from that establishment and even threatening legal action if they tossed him out.

Can you see the other side now? All this law does is affirms the merchant right to determine the rules of behavior in their place of business.

Mocks is not the same as disagrees with. Regularly eating bacon and eggs in the morning before going to the kosher deli for lunch isn't the same as invoking Baal in the same kosher deli. There may be examples of mockery, but if the law is about preventing that, it is overly broad by far.

Also, the image I got from your example was them being disruptive. A Jehovah's Witness coming to my door and telling me I'm living in sin and later showing up in my business wanting a wedding cake (just to stick with the example) is quite different than a person shouting me down in my place of business and wanting that same wedding cake. I would object to denying service to the former, but not to booting the latter. (Example of Jehovah's Witness used since they're likely to have a conversation about religion in private)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Verified that this had not had any other responses to it, so...

thejeff wrote:
Tacticslion 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.

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.

It was apparently a pretty serious problem in some places.

Quote:
There are times where cab after cab will refuse service, and passengers can be waiting for 20 minutes," says Patrick Hogan, spokesman for the Metropolitan Airports Commission. "We've had complaints of people being asked if they had any alcoholic beverages in their luggage."
For just the occasional ride, where you can easily find another, not a big deal.

... 20 minutes is "a pretty serious problem"? Irritating, sure, and I suppose if you're very explicitly in a major rush for some reason (seems like a perfect situation to explain away for grace, though - grace that is not given seems extreme in that situation). Maybe it's just me, but for all of my international traveling, I've not really seen this kind of thing being all that big of a deal, delays or otherwise*.

This falls pretty directly into what I was talking about, though. If they are unwilling to do the job they signed up for, they should relieve themselves of the job they are unwilling to do. This is what I did previously (though it took me a while to understand that point - "when I was a child..." and all that).

This is basic ethics, it seems to me. People can claim discrimination for things that aren't actually discriminating against them.

Beyond that, the article itself mentions that there is Islamic precedent for obeying the laws of the land. This is exceptionally similar to the ideas inherent in "render unto Caesar" - the government may be corrupt, but going around causing problems for people isn't necessarily the correct response.

All that said, as I've mentioned, even if it inconvenienced me, there is no reason to hate a person for following through with their religious convictions, if they're clear and up front about it. Respect their faithfulness, if not accepting the thing they place that faith in as valid. This is how you treat people who disagree with you - if they do so rationally and well, respect the person, even if you don't agree with them.

(This is not the same as not having an emotional reaction, but instead have a bit of maturity with said reaction. Exercise self-control. Recognize that they are different than you and that's okay. They're still a person. Etc.)

Effectively, I don't like the bill, but I don't like it because it looks like (to me) it doesn't actually do what it's supposed to do. This is the concept of the "tyranny of the majority" at its finest - the reason we have a republic (elected officials and an electoral college) rather than a democracy (straight up "vote numbers").

Being ethically religious is great and extremely important no matter who you are or what your religion is.

Being cretin about it is a jerk move, no matter who you are or what your religion is.

With that I'll bow out of the thread, and click the little X button so I don't see any more updates. I don't hate you guys at all, but it's just moving too fast with too many high emotions. Most anything I say on the actual topic is likely to push this thread too far. My apologies, but I will not be participating any more, even to respond to these two threads.

Peace to you all.

*:
Please bear in mind, most of my international travel was to and from Europe in the mid-90s, with some in the 00s. I'm pretty sure the international scene has changed since then. I also recognize that it could sound like I'm trying to be more authoritative than I am - I'm not trying to be authoritative, but rather to be anecdotal.

On that note...

We had plenty of trouble with the Soviets and ex-Soviet/ex-KGB then-current mafia folks rifling through and/or stealing and/or discarding our stuff. We've had to deal with folks holding us up because we "look suspicious" or "don't speak the language right" or other such nonsense. In Cuba it was because we "might have seditious materials" (such as... collectible baseball cards). In the Philippines it was just that our prices suddenly skyrocketed for cab fair (we actually watched them change the sign). In China we were warned about "starting any religious riots" (I didn't know that was a thing one ever did? Had it ever been done by tourists on a bus from Hong Kong? I don't know. Weird.) and were shunned by some of the salesfolk (though I suspect it had more to do with the secret police "secretly" following us, than anything else). In New Vilnius, they just straight-up stole our stuff after we put it in the car, later stole our car, and the majority of the places refused to rent or sell to us at all. In Vilnius we were accused of being spies (also of kidnapping and eating children, as that's what Baptists - and Jews - apparently did). It happens. It's irritating. But if someone believes it's the right thing to do, I can't hold that much against them (beyond the obvious, "Well, you're wrong, but at least I can respect you." sort of thing).

(If, on the other hand they're just trying to get a bribe... giving them one, if you have it, and moving on with your life is probably the best anyway.)


2 people marked this as a favorite.

The church I grew up in will not allow my fiancee and I to get married there because we lived together before hand. So, we'll do JoP instead.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Berinor mocking IS how they feel about people acting openly gay in their place of business. God created marriage as a sacred joining of a man and a woman forever for the purpose of raising a strong righteous family. Many things have eroded that institution Gay marriage just being the latest "attack"as they see it on this sacred ceremony. What we really need are two separate ceremonies with the same weight under law that join a couple. Marriage can remain sacred while the new ceremony can be anything the couple wants. However it IS important that the new ceremony grant you the same status in the governments eyes as real marriage, that you have all the same rights as a traditionally married couple.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
pres man wrote:
The forcing clergy thing is probably a reference to a wedding chapel that had been doing all kinds of secular and religious weddings, as long as the definition of marriage was legally one man and one woman. When it changed, they refused to accept the new definition and there were/are legal challenges.
If that's the case I'm thinking of it still wasn't clergy being required to do anything. They were renting the space out for weddings and refused to do the same for a gay couple. Who were bringing their own official to perform the ceremony.

The situation was much more grey than that. Here is an article with a good timeline of events.

While I obviously don't know the exact motivations of the individuals involved, I am going to try to extrapolate a possible position for them.

The individuals who were involved were "ordained", whether that makes them "clergy" I would say is an issue for debate, but I think one could claim they do fall into that area (barely). They didn't "rent" out their wedding chapel, they were the only ones they allowed to perform ceremonies there, so that were not just not supportive of their religious beliefs (i.e. secular ceremonies) but were in opposition to it were not allowed there (e.g wiccan wedding ceremonies). So the options were secular wedding or Christian wedding, either one performed by them. Their "ministry" as they saw it was to try to help people leave their sinful relationships and enter into a god accepted one.

Therefore they were able to operated entirely within the secular workspace and fulfill this mission as long as marriage was defined as one man and one woman. Marrying two heterosexual atheist while not as desirable as marrying two heterosexual Christians, still it was better than having them "living in sin" out of wedlock (i.e. the total sinfulness of the individuals was reduced in these people's eyes, and if the atheists later became Christians, then they would be in a god accepted marriage already).

This is not true for these people for same-sex marriages. They view homosexuality as a sin, well so is atheism what of that. But in the case of same sex marriages they see it as a distortion of a god's idea of marriage, thus it is also sinful. Thus, even if the homosexuals were somehow "cured" later, they would still be in a sinful relationship and would have to get divorced which I image they view as sinful as well. In that case, by performing a same sex marriage, they would not be reducing the sinfulness of the individuals, but increasing it (in their eyes of course).

When same sex marriage was legalized and in addition to that city officials had said that a recently passed anti-discrimination ordnance would apply to secular business run by "ordained" individuals. They had to change their business into a religious one in order to be safe from litigation. In effect, they had to become more discriminatory in order not to be charged with breaking an anti-discrimination law.

Dark Archive

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

Pence has signed the bill into law.

Story here.

By signing it he willingly revoked his right to be treated as a human being.

It is this kind of hyperbole that adds up incrementally and guts the credibility of social equality movements.

Painting people with different sociopolitical views as subhuman monsters is eyeroll worthy no matter which side it comes from. It becomes impossible to take anything that rolls out of your mouth afterward seriously.

For me it's simple: Nazis treat other people like they are not human or at least subhuman. For that I treat them as not human. And this bill is clearly Nazi territory.

Wow - how ignorant. All because some idiot doesn't want to put two plastic grooms on a cake = entering Nazi territory.

I wouldn't wish "Nazi territory" on my worst enemies.

Read a book or talk to a survivor (if you can find one) before you spew hyperbole. It just makes you look really bad and undermines your argument.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The most powerful consequences of any law are the unintended ones. What have been the unintended consequences of similar state laws? Have we seen any denial of services, mass or otherwise, in the states that have similar laws? We do know that we have the government forcing people out of business in places like Oregon for non-compliance, so we have those examples to work with on the one extreme. Do we have any examples from the other extreme, or is it still a hypothetical game of libertarian vs authoritarian theory?


Thejeff? What attack? Is someone expressing what can literally only be an opinion "going to hell" be considered an attack? No one is hurt. Heck it is likely the target doesn't even believe in hell so where is the attack?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
You don't see anything different between "We're gay and going to get married" and "You're going to Hell"? One is someone actively attacking others. The other is just people trying to go about their lives.

Do you see a difference between "go find another business that will work with you" and "I want you sued and put out of business because you don't want to do business with me"?

EDIT: "... do business with me in this one particular instance, even though you were quite willing to do business with me all kinds of other situations."


pres man wrote:
thejeff wrote:
pres man wrote:
The forcing clergy thing is probably a reference to a wedding chapel that had been doing all kinds of secular and religious weddings, as long as the definition of marriage was legally one man and one woman. When it changed, they refused to accept the new definition and there were/are legal challenges.
If that's the case I'm thinking of it still wasn't clergy being required to do anything. They were renting the space out for weddings and refused to do the same for a gay couple. Who were bringing their own official to perform the ceremony.

The situation was much more grey than that. Here is an article with a good timeline of events.

While I obviously don't know the exact motivations of the individuals involved, I am going to try to extrapolate a possible position for them.

The individuals who were involved were "ordained", whether that makes them "clergy" I would say is an issue for debate, but I think one could claim they do fall into that area (barely). They didn't "rent" out their wedding chapel, they were the only ones they allowed to perform ceremonies there, so that were not just not supportive of their religious beliefs (i.e. secular ceremonies) but were in opposition to it were not allowed there (e.g wiccan wedding ceremonies). So the options were secular wedding or Christian wedding, either one performed by them. Their "ministry" as they saw it was to try to help people leave their sinful relationships and enter into a god accepted one.

Therefore they were able to operated entirely within the secular workspace and fulfill this mission as long as marriage was defined as one man and one woman. Marrying two heterosexual atheist while not as desirable as marrying two heterosexual Christians, still it was better than having them "living in sin" out of wedlock (i.e. the total sinfulness of the individuals was...

Different case than the one I was thinking of.

Still, no actual lawsuit or legal challenge, despite some very dubious claims.


thejeff wrote:
Still, no actual lawsuit or legal challenge, despite some very dubious claims.

True, but that is only because they were proactive and changed their business to a religious one as the legality of same-sex marriage changed. In the article it mentions at the end that a woman had filed a complaint because she was denied a same-sex marriage at the location and it was only the fact that the business was now religious in nature that protected them from litigation.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

Well, since Tacticslion bowed out of the thread so I can't respond to him(understandable, it's gotten a little heated in here), I'll have to find my fun elsewhere.

Aranna wrote:
Berinor mocking IS how they feel about people acting openly gay in their place of business. God created marriage as a sacred joining of a man and a woman forever for the purpose of raising a strong righteous family. Many things have eroded that institution Gay marriage just being the latest "attack"as they see it on this sacred ceremony. What we really need are two separate ceremonies with the same weight under law that join a couple. Marriage can remain sacred while the new ceremony can be anything the couple wants. However it IS important that the new ceremony grant you the same status in the governments eyes as real marriage, that you have all the same rights as a traditionally married couple.

Oh, no, that is not fun. Separate but Equal is a bad idea, because Separate but Equal never is.


pres man wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Still, no actual lawsuit or legal challenge, despite some very dubious claims.
True, but that is only because they were proactive and changed their business to a religious one as the legality of same-sex marriage changed. In the article it mentions at the end that a woman had filed a complaint because she was denied a same-sex marriage at the location and it was only the fact that the business was now religious in nature that protected them from litigation.

I don't understand this attitude.

Is there some benefit to you if you can force someone to perform a wedding service or some auxiliary service for you against their wishes?

Is it just irony that you call the other option "tyranny"?


There are two ways out of this situation. Either the definition of marriage changes to accomodate other constellations than one man and one woman, or, marriage is stripped of legal meaning and the legal importance is moved to a legal process. Making another separate but equal ceremony is like solving the problem of benches only for whites by making an equal number of benches only for blacks. Like it or not, the end result will be one of the two options above.


Sissyl wrote:
There are two ways out of this situation. Either the definition of marriage changes to accomodate other constellations than one man and one woman, or, marriage is stripped of legal meaning and the legal importance is moved to a legal process. Making another separate but equal ceremony is like solving the problem of benches only for whites by making an equal number of benches only for blacks. Like it or not, the end result will be one of the two options above.

The first solution is in progress. Much as the definition of marriage has changed so often in the past.

When it comes to selling flowers and wedding cakes, stripping marriage of legal meaning won't have any effect anyway. People will still want ceremonies. Many religions will oblige them, making them "marriages". Other people will still object to that and not be willing to contribute.


-If- Gen con moves, I'd like to see it move more to the east coast. Just so I can attend it more regularly.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

Has anyone mentioned yet the NCAA is also talking of relocating everything if the law stays, offices, tournament the whole operation


Not a lawyer, only raised by one, so I have a question.

As it stands, GenCon is contractually obligated for a few more years of Indianapolis action; if the signed law is directly impactful on the business of the convention, its associated partners, and affiliated attendees, would that not be grounds for a declared breach of contract and/or grounds for its nullification/voiding?


DM Barcas wrote:
The most powerful consequences of any law are the unintended ones. What have been the unintended consequences of similar state laws? Have we seen any denial of services, mass or otherwise, in the states that have similar laws? We do know that we have the government forcing people out of business in places like Oregon for non-compliance, so we have those examples to work with on the one extreme. Do we have any examples from the other extreme, or is it still a hypothetical game of libertarian vs authoritarian theory?
DM Barcas wrote:

Legal analysis (by an actual attorney).

If he is correct, then we have to merely look at other states that have instituted a similar law to see what the consequences are - rather than talk about theoretical outcomes or analogies.

Well if he is correct, then there have been some of these cases where people are running business and claiming they should be exempt from anti-discrimination laws due to religious issues, in these states with these religious protection laws have passed, and the people have still failed in their claim. So basically it looks like this entire issue is a non-issue.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:


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.

Both of which are submissive gestures, not that unusual in a doge approaching an unfamiliar human and wanting to show that they're not a threat. Its pretty likely that the dog just wants to say hello.

Not that you can't get bit by a dog with any body language, but Its ears up tail up and wagging like a metronome= I think i can take you BRING IT PUNK

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
BigNorseWolf wrote:
LazarX wrote:
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
Anybody remember the time people found out that Chik-Fil-A donated money to groups that advocated for the execution of homosexuals and then social media caused a huge boycott that drove them out of business?

And this plus your nonsense question about bigots outnumbering the oppressed means what? That the idea of fighting such evil is nonsense? That every oppressed minority should just roll over and take it, because it won't change, and they are in the wrong anyway because they are a minority, and majority makes right?

There are some folks in Fergueson, Selma, and Stonewall who beg to disagree.

I believe he's saying that the free market solutions to bigotry don't work, and are evidenced not to work, so the libertarian hypothesis that the free market will take care of it is bunk, because evidence > ideals.

They serve at the very least the purpose of calling attention to the issue. The threat of a boycott alone has spurred about 40 buisnesses in Indianapolis to put up a "We Serve Everyone" sticker on the door.

I'd say that's salutory proof of the effectiveness on a boycott. And I'm not cynical enough to believe that bigots are the majority of the local population.

They're simply amongst the loudest.

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Starfinder Superscriber
Aranna wrote:
Berinor mocking IS how they feel about people acting openly gay in their place of business. God created marriage as a sacred joining of a man and a woman forever for the purpose of raising a strong righteous family. Many things have eroded that institution Gay marriage just being the latest "attack"as they see it on this sacred ceremony. What we really need are two separate ceremonies with the same weight under law that join a couple. Marriage can remain sacred while the new ceremony can be anything the couple wants. However it IS important that the new ceremony grant you the same status in the governments eyes as real marriage, that you have all the same rights as a traditionally married couple.

"Mocking" is a strong word and implies intentionality. "Acting openly gay" is unlikely to be intended as a slight to someone else. Someone who feels *mocked* by that is over-reacting.

Your proposed separation of marriage into religious and civil components is also problematic. My marriage is also sacred, and it took place in a chapel I helped build, presided over by my minister of many years. To me, the most toxic part of this debate is that it assumes that those who are pro-gay marriage are anti-religious. My religion is very important to me, but I don't feel any need to have it "protected" by over-reaching laws like this.

Paizo Glitterati Robot

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Removed some posts. Drawing comparisons between this thread and the events in Fergueson/surrounding Hobby Lobby/other contentious topics are not wholly appropriate and derail the conversation. Our moderation staff has had to intervene more that we'd prefer to see on this topic, and given that Gen Con is a very important event relevant to our hobby, it's troubling to think that we'd have to tell people that our community just can't handle talking about it. Take a moment away from the keyboard, regroup, read our Community Guidelines and remember that the people you're engaging with on paizo.com are likely just as passionate about this as you are. Keeping the thread on topic and without passive aggressive behavior/insults/purposely offensive statements is going to result in a much more productive discussion. If we have to continue revisiting this thread, it will be locked.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I agree with the moderator, people need to take some deep breaths (including the fine folks at GEN CON) and think about what is really going on with this law and the history behind its crafting. There is a lot less here than people are assuming.

Being a PFS rules lawyer, I figured I better read the laws driving this brouhaha. For the record, Indiana SB 101 is a cut-and-paste copy of the federal RFRA legislation that was sponsored by Chuck Shumer (D-NY) and signed into law by Pres. Clinton in 1993. The federal statute was driven by a number of cases, including the punishment of Native Americans who were using peyote and mescaline in religious ceremonies. However, the federal RFPA can't be used to enforce or overturn state law. Therefore, 19 other states have passed similar laws since then so that their state laws mirror the federal law with respect to religion (this includes Rhode Island and Connecticut, by the way). I highly recommend everyone taking 5 minutes to read the federal law and the state law that IA just passed. They're practically identical (and very short, each one runs about three pages, double-spaced):

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/STATUTE-107/pdf/STATUTE-107-Pg1488.pdf

https://iga.in.gov/legislative/2015/bills/senate/101#document-92bab197

This state law means that, just like federal law, the state of Indiana must have a compelling reason for placing a burden on someone's practice of religion. That's it. This whole controversy is an internet mountain conjured from a legal mole-hill.

Believe me, if I thought this was some unjust state law that threatened current legal protections for any group of Americans, I would be the first one to blast it in public. This is not that big of a deal, it truly isn't. Definitely not worth relocating a convention for.

I really wish GENCON had waited before throwing the gauntlet down over this, because I think people are going to be underwhelmed when they actually sit down and read the law and the history behind it.

My apologies if my post adds fuel to the fire (totally not my intent), but I've been increasingly surprised by how upset a lot of people have been getting over something so...irrelevant to gaming, I suppose. I think a lot of folks are unhappy over having real world politics dragged into a part of their lives that they really wish to stay politics-free and just wish the whole thing would die away. I know I do....


John Lance wrote:

Being a PFS rules lawyer, I figured I better read the laws driving this brouhaha. For the record, Indiana SB 101 is a cut-and-paste copy of the federal RFRA legislation that was sponsored by Chuck Shumer (D-NY) and signed into law by Pres. Clinton in 1993. The federal statute was driven by a number of cases, including the punishment of Native Americans who were using peyote and mescaline in religious ceremonies. However, the federal RFPA can't be used to enforce or overturn state law. Therefore, 19 other states have passed similar laws since then so that their state laws mirror the federal law with respect to religion (this includes Rhode Island and Connecticut, by the way). I highly recommend everyone taking 5 minutes to read the federal law and the state law that IA just passed. They're practically identical (and very short, each one runs about three pages, double-spaced):

This state law means that, just like federal law, the state of Indiana must have a compelling reason for placing a burden on someone's practice of religion. That's it. This whole controversy is an internet mountain conjured from a legal mole-hill.

Believe me, if I thought this was some unjust state law that threatened current legal protections for any group of Americans, I would be the first one to blast it in public. This is not that big of a deal, it truly isn't. Definitely not worth relocating a convention for.

I really wish GENCON had waited before throwing the gauntlet down over this, because I think people are going to be underwhelmed when they actually sit down and read the law and the history behind it.

It's really not quite that simple. The recent Hobby Lobby case changed the practical definition of person used in such cases. The federal law had been, prior to that, used to defend individuals and religions from government action - laws against peyote interfering with Native religious ceremonies as you say. The intent of this law is to keep local laws from stopping businesses from discriminating against individuals.

Admittedly the federal law can now be used for the same purposes and I think you'll find that the same people concerned about this law had similar concerns about the Hobby Lobby ruling.

We'll see how it plays out. The backlash has already been significant. We won't really know how things work out until cases start making their way through the courts. I predict quite a few of them. If nothing else, it'll likely embolden those looking for an excuse to discriminate, even if some of those will eventually lose in the courts. There is now far more uncertainty over what the law really is - which protections will survive challenge.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
pH unbalanced wrote:
Aranna wrote:
Berinor mocking IS how they feel about people acting openly gay in their place of business. God created marriage as a sacred joining of a man and a woman forever for the purpose of raising a strong righteous family. Many things have eroded that institution Gay marriage just being the latest "attack"as they see it on this sacred ceremony. What we really need are two separate ceremonies with the same weight under law that join a couple. Marriage can remain sacred while the new ceremony can be anything the couple wants. However it IS important that the new ceremony grant you the same status in the governments eyes as real marriage, that you have all the same rights as a traditionally married couple.

"Mocking" is a strong word and implies intentionality. "Acting openly gay" is unlikely to be intended as a slight to someone else. Someone who feels *mocked* by that is over-reacting.

Your proposed separation of marriage into religious and civil components is also problematic. My marriage is also sacred, and it took place in a chapel I helped build, presided over by my minister of many years. To me, the most toxic part of this debate is that it assumes that those who are pro-gay marriage are anti-religious. My religion is very important to me, but I don't feel any need to have it "protected" by over-reaching laws like this.

Wow. I had it all figured out and you had to go deflate my bubble by making sense. You are right of course that religious gays are completely overlooked in my split. I guess in light of this it makes little sense at all to divide marriage. But that still doesn't solve anything. I guess maybe I am over complicating it. You know maybe the answer is right there, why not marry gays in a chapel where being gay isn't a thing. All fixed. Service with a smile.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Alas religion and law will likely clash going forward for another 1000 years (if we last that long). And I freely admit that as a pagan, one who has been subject to the "ministrations" of certain christian and other large religious groups, I understand where the fear over this law comes from.

Also, to be fair, no one likes being shouted at on the street by a person holding a sign with a bible passage on it. I very much take offense when being told I am a sinner, or am going to hell. Just as some Christians feel that gay marriage is an attack on their religion, I feel being treated in this manner is an attack of me and my religion.

However as I am in the minority in religious terms, this sort of behavior gets hand waved as fine and part of "freedom of religion." Others being of a different religion from you does not infringe on your personal religious freedom, thus how is it that those same folk can turn around and stand in judgement of those who are either not religious or are of a different religion, and basically harass them with their PERSONAL religious views in PUBLIC.

Thus back to my original point, this bill can very well be seen as inflammatory, or as an attack on groups that already face discrimination on a daily basis. Lastly, the bill as it is understood and presented by and large paints a picture of it supporting right wing Christian's values, and giving permission to "protect" those values with what ever religious argument you wish to insert, which is darn close to saying "If you can find a religious reason you can act like a bigot to whom ever you wish."

Honestly if your religious values cannot be upheld while still being part of a much larger and much more diverse community then perhaps you should retire from that larger community and cloister yourself. Because like it or not the world is not going to stop changing just so you can maintain a homogenous religious existence. As they say, "bend with the wind or break in the storm."


Aranna wrote:
pH unbalanced wrote:
Aranna wrote:
Berinor mocking IS how they feel about people acting openly gay in their place of business. God created marriage as a sacred joining of a man and a woman forever for the purpose of raising a strong righteous family. Many things have eroded that institution Gay marriage just being the latest "attack"as they see it on this sacred ceremony. What we really need are two separate ceremonies with the same weight under law that join a couple. Marriage can remain sacred while the new ceremony can be anything the couple wants. However it IS important that the new ceremony grant you the same status in the governments eyes as real marriage, that you have all the same rights as a traditionally married couple.

"Mocking" is a strong word and implies intentionality. "Acting openly gay" is unlikely to be intended as a slight to someone else. Someone who feels *mocked* by that is over-reacting.

Your proposed separation of marriage into religious and civil components is also problematic. My marriage is also sacred, and it took place in a chapel I helped build, presided over by my minister of many years. To me, the most toxic part of this debate is that it assumes that those who are pro-gay marriage are anti-religious. My religion is very important to me, but I don't feel any need to have it "protected" by over-reaching laws like this.

Wow. I had it all figured out and you had to go deflate my bubble by making sense. You are right of course that religious gays are completely overlooked in my split. I guess in light of this it makes little sense at all to divide marriage. But that still doesn't solve anything. I guess maybe I am over complicating it. You know maybe the answer is right there, why not marry gays in a chapel where being gay isn't a thing. All fixed. Service with a smile.

We're essentially there now. In states that allow same-sex marriage, anyway.

You can get married by a Justice of the Peace or by the religious official of your choice. That religious official can choose not to marry you if you don't qualify under the tenets of his or her religion - whether that's because the couple is the same sex, divorced, different religions, whatever.
The case of for-profit chapels that aren't actually religious entities, but just businesses that do marriages for all comers is something of a gray area.

None of this satisfies many of those opposed to marriage equality. They want the laws to reflect their religious beliefs. They don't just want to not have to participate. This is easily seen if you look back at the opposition to civil unions.


I feel I should mention I have no issues with Christians, or any other religious folk. My issue is with those who use their religion as a weapon or as a platform from which to exert their personal biases over others.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
John Lance wrote:
...

Precisely. Thank you, but be prepared to be ignored by the people having the argument here. They're discussing something, but it isn't this particular law.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Aranna wrote:
Thejeff? What attack? Is someone expressing what can literally only be an opinion "going to hell" be considered an attack? No one is hurt. Heck it is likely the target doesn't even believe in hell so where is the attack?

I don't know where you've been since...the dawn of time, really, but "Go to hell" has always been an insult just a step below "F&!# you" in intensity.

401 to 450 of 662 << first < prev | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / General Discussion / Gen Con Threatens to move if Indiana Gov signs religious freedom bill All Messageboards