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


Gamer Life General Discussion

1 to 50 of 662 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

LINK to the news story.

Edit:

Here is the letter sent by Gen Con LLC to Governor Mike Pence.

Grand Lodge

6 people marked this as a favorite.

Ok ... starting my petition to get GenCon to come to Seattle ...


5 people marked this as a favorite.

While I can see where the Gen Con admins are coming from, and fully support their right to move in response to the signage of the bill, I have to say I support the bill itself. After all, private businesses are or at least should be free to practice any non-directly-harmful policy they desire.

If the policy hurts them economically enough that they can't continue it and stay in business, then that'll weed it out one way or another.

Silver Crusade

RyanH wrote:
Ok ... starting my petition to get GenCon to come to Seattle ...

Let me know where to sign.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Let them sign it. Let Gen Con move. Watch the law be struck down by the Supreme Court.

Silver Crusade

13 people marked this as a favorite.
DualJay wrote:

While I can see where the Gen Con admins are coming from, and fully support their right to move in response to the signage of the bill, I have to say I support the bill itself. After all, private businesses are or at least should be free to practice any non-directly-harmful policy they desire.

If the policy hurts them economically enough that they can't continue it and stay in business, then that'll weed it out one way or another.

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

Liberty's Edge

DualJay wrote:

While I can see where the Gen Con admins are coming from, and fully support their right to move in response to the signage of the bill, I have to say I support the bill itself. After all, private businesses are or at least should be free to practice any non-directly-harmful policy they desire.

If the policy hurts them economically enough that they can't continue it and stay in business, then that'll weed it out one way or another.

How very libertarian of you... ;-)

I agree with you, btw. I think it's ridiculous that we have to have a law that allows people to do what they want on private property (provided they don't harm anyone else). If business owners what to be racist swine in the business they own, fine. I'm more than happy to take my business to someone who isn't a piece of crap racist.

That being said, if the idiot governor here causes GenCon to move more than three hours from my home, I'm going to be less than pleased.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

State-sanctioned is distinct from allowed by the state. It is legal to be drunk (not while driving, obviously), but that does not mean the state supports being drunk.

Liberty's Edge

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

It isn't "state sanctioned discrimination" though; it's allowing people to do as they please with their private property. If I own a business and choose to be a bigoted douche bag, that's my choice. It doesn't make me right. No one is forced to do business with the bigots either. If you dislike their stance on an issue, you're more than welcome to take your business elsewhere. If enough people agree with you, the bigots will run out of customers and they will either be forced to change their policies or they will go out of business. That's how the free market works.


8 people marked this as a favorite.

"Religious freedom bill"

Right...

Silver Crusade

DualJay wrote:
State-sanctioned is distinct from allowed by the state. It is legal to be drunk (not while driving, obviously), but that does not mean the state supports being drunk.

Pro-tip: your analogy might work better if you chose something that is actually legal. Most jurisdictions actually DO have ordinances prohibiting being intoxicated in public.

If you want to prohibit a certain group of people from entering your home, you are well within your right to do so. That is not the topic at hand.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
darth_gator wrote:
The Fox wrote:
Nope. State-sanctioned discrimination is antithetical to American values.
It isn't "state sanctioned discrimination" though; it's allowing people to do as they please with their private property. If I own a business and choose to be a bigoted douche bag, that's my choice. It doesn't make me right. No one is forced to do business with the bigots either. If you dislike their stance on an issue, you're more than welcome to take your business elsewhere. If enough people agree with you, the bigots will run out of customers and they will either be forced to change their policies or they will go out of business. That's how the free market works.

Might I suggest you read the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution?

Hint: racial segregation is also not permitted.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

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.


Of course Gen Con is going to be unhappy about the bill. Gen Con attendees are going to be using businesses in Indy before and after they're in the convention hall.

It's a gaming convention. We go there, we have fun and we make buddies. That's going to be harder to do if people have trouble finding somewhere to stay, places to eat, and enter the convention in a sour or unfriendly mood.


Most, not all - and I said JUST being drunk, as many jurisdictions don't care about intoxication unless you harass another individual. The analogy is valid and gets the point across, and your "pro-tip" changes nothing.

A business is private property, just like your home, and you are free to ban individuals for any reason you please, if you are prepared to face the socioeconomic consequences of doing so (boycotting, online witch-hunts, etc).

Obviously, it would be patently ridiculous for state or federal institutions to disbar individuals based on their (non-directly-harmful) beliefs or practices.

And in response to your 14th amendment point: that prevents laws that "abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States", which this law does not do - it merely allows a business owner to refuse a potential customer service.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber
darth_gator wrote:
The Fox wrote:
Nope. State-sanctioned discrimination is antithetical to American values.
It isn't "state sanctioned discrimination" though; it's allowing people to do as they please with their private property. If I own a business and choose to be a bigoted douche bag, that's my choice. It doesn't make me right. No one is forced to do business with the bigots either. If you dislike their stance on an issue, you're more than welcome to take your business elsewhere. If enough people agree with you, the bigots will run out of customers and they will either be forced to change their policies or they will go out of business. That's how the free market works.

The issue (to me) is that in many smaller communities, the business that chooses to discriminate maybe the only business around. Their really won't be any selective pressure against such businesses, and instead the people being discriminated with may have to travel hours to find an accepting business, or be just plain forced to leave the community completely.

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
darth_gator wrote:
The Fox wrote:
Nope. State-sanctioned discrimination is antithetical to American values.
It isn't "state sanctioned discrimination" though; it's allowing people to do as they please with their private property. If I own a business and choose to be a bigoted douche bag, that's my choice. It doesn't make me right. No one is forced to do business with the bigots either. If you dislike their stance on an issue, you're more than welcome to take your business elsewhere. If enough people agree with you, the bigots will run out of customers and they will either be forced to change their policies or they will go out of business. That's how the free market works.

Except that history shows that it doesn't.

Which shouldn't surprise anyone since the free market you're so enamored of is a myth.

Liberty's Edge

The Fox wrote:

Might I suggest you read the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution?

Hint: racial segregation is also not permitted.

The 14th Amendment covers states making laws that prohibit US citizens from enjoying the rights and privileges afforded by way of being a US citizen, particularly those protected by the Constitution. It says nothing about a citizen being able to do what they will on private property.

Since the law passed by the Indiana General Assembly doesn't actually prohibit anyone from doing anything (except punishing someone for exercising their right to be a jerk), the 14th Amendment doesn't apply. Just because the federal government passes a law doesn't mean the law is actually valid. The Constitution also prohibits the federal government from exercising any powers not explicitly given to it (fed gov) by the Constitution or granted to it (fed gov) by the "several states." Since the mid-1800s the federal government has consistently overstepped its bounds and only gets away with it because it has prohibited states from having the standing militias common until that period.

In government, just as in life, being the biggest and strongest bully on the block doesn't make you right.

Grand Lodge

13 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

By the way, to all you of you self-styled libertarians who think that this law is a such a great idea.

Hospitals are generally run as a private business. Under the terms of this law, you can be brought to an Emergency Room in mortal distress, and the attending physician can decide not to treat you. He's not doing any harm to you... he's just refusing to save your life.


If anything, the bill should exclude company entities- such as the cases where the business is incorporated or otherwise is separated from yourself.

If you're the sole business owner, in the sense that you are the legal owner of the business and the business assets- in that the business is not a legal entity separate from the owner(s), then it should be treated as private property not unlike a home. On the other hand, if it's a company entity, where the business and the owner are separate entities in the law, then the business should be exempt from the law. While people can have religious beliefs, a completely imaginary entity that exists only under the law cannot. ^^

i.e. A mom and pop shop might be able to block someone, but McDonald's would not, maybe?

Silver Crusade

15 people marked this as a favorite.

Clearly a lot of people here are unfamiliar with the history of the Civil Rights movement in the U.S.

Have you wondered where all of those "Whites Only" signs have gone? It wasn't the so-called free markets. It was the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment.


@LazarX: I would argue that the state government has a "compelling interest" in burdening ones' free exercise of religion if that burden is done to save a life.

@tnsi: I definitely agree with you there - it should be company-wide, if at all, and there's no way such a policy would be instituted on a large scale without massive and immediate backlash on the company.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
DualJay wrote:

@LazarX: I would argue that the state government has a "compelling interest" in burdening ones' free exercise of religion if that burden is done to save a life.

In the terms of the law he proposes, Indiana's Governor begs to disagree.


From the Indiana General Assembly website:

"Prohibits a governmental entity from substantially burdening a person's exercise of religion, even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, unless the governmental entity can demonstrate that the burden: (1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering the compelling governmental interest."

It can still burden one's religious freedom, though it must have a compelling interest - saving lives. It must also be the least restrictive method possible, and I doubt that requiring a doctor help yet another patient will be seen as exceedingly restrictive.


DualJay wrote:

From the Indiana General Assembly website:

"Prohibits a governmental entity from substantially burdening a person's exercise of religion, even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, unless the governmental entity can demonstrate that the burden: (1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering the compelling governmental interest."

It can still burden one's religious freedom, though it must have a compelling interest - saving lives. It must also be the least restrictive method possible, and I doubt that requiring a doctor help yet another patient will be seen as exceedingly restrictive.

The least restrictive means is probably to require the hospital to perform first aid and then transfer the patient to a public hospital.


So long as the care is good enough for the individual to survive with minimum lasting harm, then that is sufficient.

The Exchange

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Facepalm


The Fox wrote:

Clearly a lot of people here are unfamiliar with the history of the Civil Rights movement in the U.S.

Have you wondered where all of those "Whites Only" signs have gone? It wasn't the so-called free markets. It was the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment.

I don't get it. (speaking from total ignorance of the actual issue), would the law not be unconstitutional?, therefore it should not have even a tiny chance of becoming an actual law.


Is there some kind of reality show contest to govern a state as ridiculously as possible without actually getting the people of the U.S.A. To take constructive thoughtful action? The prize for this back room giggle bet must be amazing to be worth turning the constitution inside out so roughly. These guys are totally going to win ahead of Florida, He is merely a climate denier in a lowland coastal state, that's old hat. This is exciting and new - wrapping good old bigotry in the flag of freedom! Freedom of conscience or freedom from conscience?

free market forces give you full jails and obesity, gut reaction results. Why not look into ethical paths to best outcomes? I know not very exciting, very Finnish, no drama.

Is there a way to use articulate buy-clotting to effect change in this circumstance. Have a recommend page for inclusive affirming businesses so the "no haircuts for homos" type businesses feel the empty air in their chairs and see oceans of happy customers gleefully spend next door? Can kindly conversations break down the barriers of xenophobia?


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Woooooooooow.

No idea how to take this. Going to sleep on it.


13 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Maps, Pawns, Rulebook Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
DualJay wrote:
So long as the care is good enough for the individual to survive with minimum lasting harm, then that is sufficient.

Really?

REALLY?!

Sorry GLBT people - you only get "sufficient" health care, because that's all we're "obligated" to provide creatures like you. This isn't state sponsored discrimination, though - it's FREEDOM, so suck it up!

I mean, I could go on, but really... I don't know how anyone could read what you wrote and not vomit at least a little.


People treat "sufficient" like it has some sort of 'incomplete' denotation. Sufficient means it is up to the task, and nothing more or less.

The fast majority of medical treatment everyone gets anywhere is either insufficient or sufficient - because once it's sufficient, they no longer need treatment.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
DualJay wrote:

While I can see where the Gen Con admins are coming from, and fully support their right to move in response to the signage of the bill, I have to say I support the bill itself. After all, private businesses are or at least should be free to practice any non-directly-harmful policy they desire.

If the policy hurts them economically enough that they can't continue it and stay in business, then that'll weed it out one way or another.

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

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

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


Irontruth wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Maps, Pawns, Rulebook Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Nicos wrote:
The Fox wrote:

Clearly a lot of people here are unfamiliar with the history of the Civil Rights movement in the U.S.

Have you wondered where all of those "Whites Only" signs have gone? It wasn't the so-called free markets. It was the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment.

I don't get it. (speaking from total ignorance of the actual issue), would the law not be unconstitutional?, therefore it should not have even a tiny chance of becoming an actual law.

No, actually, the law wouldn't be unconstitutional, because sexual preference is NOT actually a protected category under the law, thus allowing discrimination on that basis is not denying a person equal protection under the law. This was actually the subject of a pretty darkly hilarious Daily Show bit, where a lawmaker suggested that the reason it's not appropriate to create laws outlawing hiring discrimination against gays (but it WAS necessary to outlaw hiring discrimination against gun owners) was that gays should just sue businesses, not rely on the legislature. When the question was asked "What do you think the odds are of someone winning a lawsuit based on an action that was not illegal?", the look on the woman's face was pretty great.

The funny thing, of course, is that all this highlights the fact that laws like this are, in a real sense, pointless, and only make it off the ground because people assume that there are protections for LGBT people that don't actually exist.

Grand Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
tnsi wrote:

If anything, the bill should exclude company entities- such as the cases where the business is incorporated or otherwise is separated from yourself.

If you're the sole business owner, in the sense that you are the legal owner of the business and the business assets- in that the business is not a legal entity separate from the owner(s), then it should be treated as private property not unlike a home. On the other hand, if it's a company entity, where the business and the owner are separate entities in the law, then the business should be exempt from the law. While people can have religious beliefs, a completely imaginary entity that exists only under the law cannot. ^^

i.e. A mom and pop shop might be able to block someone, but McDonald's would not, maybe?

Have you forgotten Hobby Lobby so soon?

LGBT made some real progress in this country in the last couple of years. What we're seeing now, is the start of the pushback.

Silver Crusade

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

I appreciate that is a very important distinction. I will try to give you the benefit of the doubt for the remainder of this conversation regarding that distinction.

FWIW, I also support an individual's right to be wrong-headed on an issue. (I've certainly been wrong-headed, myself, in the past on various issues, and have changed my mind.)

But that is not quite what is being discussed. Individuals are free to feel however they want about any group of people that they want. The topic at hand is should they be allowed to deny services to a group of people based on those feelings?


Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Maybe it will move to close where I live...that would be great. Though probably not at the pain this law may cause.

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber

Technically, what falls within "religious freedom"? In theory, couldn't an individual claim "religious freedom" as a reason to deny service to African-Americans as well? It seems like the alternative is a government decision about your religious teachings...

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Kalindlara wrote:
Technically, what falls within "religious freedom"? In theory, couldn't an individual claim "religious freedom" as a reason to deny service to African-Americans as well? It seems like the alternative is a government decision about your religious teachings...

No.. the alternative is the existing standard, a non-discrimination clause which prohibits discrimination on the basis of creed, gender, race, etc. Freedom of religion, like freedom of speech is not unlimited, nor absolute. The exercise of both is constrained by consequences. Such as the penalties for yelling FIRE! in a crowded movie theatre or making a bomb threat against an occupied building.

Shadow Lodge

5 people marked this as a favorite.

Can I ban Christians from my establishment due to serving them being against my religious principles?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
TOZ wrote:
Can I ban Christians from my establishment due to serving them being against my religious principles?

Theoretically, yes.

Shadow Lodge

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

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

Grand Lodge

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

Actually as I understand it, you don't. Specifically in terms of local hotel space.

1 to 50 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