Curious to hear Paizo's position on this


Paizo General Discussion

1 to 50 of 77 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I was just thinking of ways to get Gencon involved...

Gencon has threatened to leave Indianapolis over an anti-gay rights measure masquerading as a religious freedom bill passed by the Indiana legislature.

It is my sound hope that Paizo is behind Gecon LLC in this endeavor.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Move it back to Milwaukee!

Silver Crusade

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

*dons asbestos suit*
*checks the flamethrower*
*whistles innocently*


1 person marked this as a favorite.

If I was Paizo I would not say anything. As a company it is sometimes best to stay out of fights that don't require you to speak up. Since Gencon is very important for RPG companies going against them would be a bad business decision, and in this case it would make Paizo look "fake" since they have openly had homosexual characters in AP's. IIRC they may have had a transexual character also. Not looking genuine is never good. <---- They don't need a PR person to figure that out

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Superscriber
wraithstrike wrote:
If I was Paizo I would not say anything. As a company it is sometimes best to stay out of fights that don't require you to speak up. Since Gencon is very important for RPG companies going against them would be a bad business decision, and in this case it would make Paizo look "fake" since they have openly had homosexual characters in AP's. IIRC they may have had a transexual character also. Not looking genuine is never good. <---- They don't need a PR person to figure that out

Agreed that Paizo currently has little to gain by speaking out at this time.

Having said that, I would be *very* surprised if GenCon made a statement like that without consulting with its major sponsors first. I have to think Paizo is not opposed to this stand.

EDIT: Expanded slightly


1 person marked this as a favorite.
wraithstrike wrote:
If I was Paizo I would not say anything. As a company it is sometimes best to stay out of fights that don't require you to speak up. Since Gencon is very important for RPG companies going against them would be a bad business decision, and in this case it would make Paizo look "fake" since they have openly had homosexual characters in AP's. IIRC they may have had a transexual character also. Not looking genuine is never good. <---- They don't need a PR person to figure that out

They have had a transexual character. They also have various LGBTQ people working there. I can not imagine they wouldn't back GenCon on this.

Whether they feel the need to make a separate statement in support or not is a different question of course.


I expect they'd support GenCon's decision.
Actually, it would not surprise me if someone at Paizo had proposed the idea to GenCon, and GenCon just followed along with Paizo's request.

Dark Archive

137ben wrote:

I expect they'd support GenCon's decision.

Actually, it would not surprise me if someone at Paizo had proposed the idea to GenCon, and GenCon just followed along with Paizo's request.

I doubt this happened.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
If I was Paizo I would not say anything. As a company it is sometimes best to stay out of fights that don't require you to speak up. Since Gencon is very important for RPG companies going against them would be a bad business decision, and in this case it would make Paizo look "fake" since they have openly had homosexual characters in AP's. IIRC they may have had a transexual character also. Not looking genuine is never good. <---- They don't need a PR person to figure that out

They have had a transexual character. They also have various LGBTQ people working there. I can not imagine they wouldn't back GenCon on this.

Whether they feel the need to make a separate statement in support or not is a different question of course.

I think they do support them, but companies making official statements when it serves little to no purpose is not generally a good idea. At best people will stay where they are since Paizo is positive on this topic so far. Of course something could always be taken out of context and it can back fire on them. Then they have to try to explain their way of out the situation, and hope nothing else is taken out of context. The ability of people to intentionally and accidentally read between the lines when there is nothing there, is astounding.

PS: I am sure we agree. I was just using your post. :)


Here's the actual bill.

Paizo's stance should be pretty easy to figure out, without them saying anything - as thejeff already noted, Paizo has various LGBTQ people in their staff. I can't imagine Paizo would approve of any legislation that makes a state less welcoming to its employees.

That being said, it's a weird law. Whether it's going to amount to anything will depend on how the courts interpret "substantial burden." And what constitutes the "least restrictive means of furthering a compelling governmental interest."

Edit: Just noticed the thread about the bill in Off-topic. Guessing this will be merged into that thread?


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Zhangar wrote:

Here's the actual bill.

Paizo's stance should be pretty easy to figure out, without them saying anything - as thejeff already noted, Paizo has various LGBTQ people in their staff. I can't imagine Paizo would approve of any legislation that makes a state less welcoming to its employees.

That being said, it's a weird law. Whether it's going to amount to anything will depend on how the courts interpret "substantial burden." And what constitutes the "least restrictive means of furthering a compelling governmental interest."

I like the bit where they specifically exempt any employee from making use of the law against their employer. The employee's religious freedom is unimportant, of course.

Owner - House of Books and Games LLC

Gorbacz wrote:

*dons asbestos suit*

*checks the flamethrower*
*whistles innocently*

Hey, share that popcorn buddy!

Dark Archive

Zhangar wrote:

Here's the actual bill.

Paizo's stance should be pretty easy to figure out, without them saying anything - as thejeff already noted, Paizo has various LGBTQ people in their staff. I can't imagine Paizo would approve of any legislation that makes a state less welcoming to its employees.

That being said, it's a weird law. Whether it's going to amount to anything will depend on how the courts interpret "substantial burden." And what constitutes the "least restrictive means of furthering a compelling governmental interest."

Edit: Just noticed the thread about the bill in Off-topic. Guessing this will be merged into that thread?

I did not see this in off-topic, damn my weak search-fu!

While they will likely get merged, my initial reason for posting here was to gauge Paizo's response to Gencon threatening to leave Indiana, not about the bill itself, and whether they support the move of the convention.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
captain yesterday wrote:
Move it back to Milwaukee!

GenCon left Milwaukee for only one reason. The city did not have the hotel facilities to contain it. I don't think even with MECCA's expansion, it does now, given how large the con itself has grown.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Leg o' Lamb wrote:

I was just thinking of ways to get Gencon involved...

Gencon has threatened to leave Indianapolis over an anti-gay rights measure masquerading as a religious freedom bill passed by the Indiana legislature.

It is my sound hope that Paizo is behind Gecon LLC in this endeavor.

It really doesn't matter whether Paizo is for or against it. It's a very very small part of GenCon. Which is these days half gamer, half Trekkie.

What Paizo's views on what Indiana's governor is trying to pull is a nobrainer.

If GenCon moves it will involve breaking the current contract it's locked into until 2020.


LazarX wrote:
captain yesterday wrote:
Move it back to Milwaukee!
GenCon left Milwaukee for only one reason. The city did not have the hotel facilities to contain it. I don't think even with MECCA's expansion, it does now, given how large the con itself has grown.

This is true. Gen Con is simply to big for Milwaukee's convention infrastructure.


What does the Q stand for in LGBTQ?
Quasi-gendered?

That's relatively new isn't it?


thejeff wrote:
Zhangar wrote:

Here's the actual bill.

Paizo's stance should be pretty easy to figure out, without them saying anything - as thejeff already noted, Paizo has various LGBTQ people in their staff. I can't imagine Paizo would approve of any legislation that makes a state less welcoming to its employees.

That being said, it's a weird law. Whether it's going to amount to anything will depend on how the courts interpret "substantial burden." And what constitutes the "least restrictive means of furthering a compelling governmental interest."

I like the bit where they specifically exempt any employee from making use of the law against their employer. The employee's religious freedom is unimportant, of course.

Well, actually, it's more that employee v. employer is outside the scope of the bill. The bill is meant to apply to "person" v. "government" interactions (i.e., because I'm a ___ that law doesn't apply to me), and so "person" v. "person" is outside its scope.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Superscriber
captain yesterday wrote:

What does the Q stand for in LGBTQ?

Quasi-gendered?

That's relatively new isn't it?

usually

Q = Queer

but sometimes

Q = Questioning


LazarX wrote:
Leg o' Lamb wrote:

I was just thinking of ways to get Gencon involved...

Gencon has threatened to leave Indianapolis over an anti-gay rights measure masquerading as a religious freedom bill passed by the Indiana legislature.

It is my sound hope that Paizo is behind Gecon LLC in this endeavor.

It really doesn't matter whether Paizo is for or against it. It's a very very small part of GenCon. Which is these days half gamer, half Trekkie.

What Paizo's views on what Indiana's governor is trying to pull is a nobrainer.

If GenCon moves it will involve breaking the current contract it's locked into until 2020.

In the short run, GenCon's not going to move. This is about renewing that contract.

Though there's some speculation there may be an out, depending on how unfriendly the city becomes. That depends on how the contract is written, of course.

Hmmm, under the terms of this law, can the courts enforce a contract that violates my religious freedom?

Sovereign Court

Bill Dunn wrote:
LazarX wrote:
captain yesterday wrote:
Move it back to Milwaukee!
GenCon left Milwaukee for only one reason. The city did not have the hotel facilities to contain it. I don't think even with MECCA's expansion, it does now, given how large the con itself has grown.

This is true. Gen Con is simply to big for Milwaukee's convention infrastructure.

I have a suspicion that Gen Con moving to a less central location would hurt attendance a great deal. With its current centralized location, it is still in driving distance of much of the east coast. Moving it to Seattle for example would basically make it a no go for the majority of the country.

I applaud them (Gen Con) for the stance they are taking on the issue, but for them to hint at leaving seems... odd to me.


thejeff wrote:
LazarX wrote:
Leg o' Lamb wrote:

I was just thinking of ways to get Gencon involved...

Gencon has threatened to leave Indianapolis over an anti-gay rights measure masquerading as a religious freedom bill passed by the Indiana legislature.

It is my sound hope that Paizo is behind Gecon LLC in this endeavor.

It really doesn't matter whether Paizo is for or against it. It's a very very small part of GenCon. Which is these days half gamer, half Trekkie.

What Paizo's views on what Indiana's governor is trying to pull is a nobrainer.

If GenCon moves it will involve breaking the current contract it's locked into until 2020.

In the short run, GenCon's not going to move. This is about renewing that contract.

Though there's some speculation there may be an out, depending on how unfriendly the city becomes. That depends on how the contract is written, of course.

Hmmm, under the terms of this law, can the courts enforce a contract that violates my religious freedom?

This Indiana law has no bearing on the enforcement of a contract between private persons or organizations. That's completely outside the scope of this law.

(For that matter, contracts between private persons and the government would also probably be outside the scope of this law. This law deals with government laws and regulations infringing upon religious freedoms, not contracts.)

That said, since you're presumed to have read a contract and understood it when you signed it, yes, it'd be enforceable by default. The burden would be on you to show that you had been fraudulently misled or that the contract was otherwise invalid (such as it being outright illegal (like a contract to sell illegal drugs or murder somebody would be)).


This law is wider in scope than just government interactions with individuals. If that was all it was no one would much care. The law is specifically written to allow businesses to refuse to do business with anyone due to a "sincerely held" religious belief. Which in reality is a transparent attempt to enshrine the "right" of right wing Christians to discriminate against homosexuals and pretty much everyone else they may decide they hate.

And just to be clear, I've been going to GenCon since it was still being held at UW Parkside and I will not go ever again while it is held in a state that legally discriminates against my friends and family.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
pH unbalanced wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
If I was Paizo I would not say anything. As a company it is sometimes best to stay out of fights that don't require you to speak up. Since Gencon is very important for RPG companies going against them would be a bad business decision, and in this case it would make Paizo look "fake" since they have openly had homosexual characters in AP's. IIRC they may have had a transexual character also. Not looking genuine is never good. <---- They don't need a PR person to figure that out

Agreed that Paizo currently has little to gain by speaking out at this time.

Having said that, I would be *very* surprised if GenCon made a statement like that without consulting with its major sponsors first. I have to think Paizo is not opposed to this stand.

EDIT: Expanded slightly

At this point, it's more of a bit of saber rattling than any real threat, so consultation isn't really neccessary. Facts of the matter is that GenCon is contract locked for five years, and there really isn't that much of an alternative place to go.


@ Jessex - Actually, it's still relates to the government interacting with individuals - it hypothetically allows individuals to declare "I don't have to follow your anti-discrimination laws because they violate my religious beliefs."

So, basically, it's meant to set a bar on the government's ability to stop people being from being screwheads to each other. The state isn't discriminating against you; the state's just being given an excuse to declare it can't do anything about it when discrimination occurs.

I don't disagree at all that it's meant to allow "No Gays Allowed" stances. (Though it's been noted in the other thread that doing so was probably already legal anyways.)

Incidentally, all this law actually is, is an existing federal law (42 USC Chapter 21B) being enacted at the Indiana state level.

The federal law that SB 101 is based on has been in place since 1993.


LazarX wrote:
At this point, it's more of a bit of saber rattling than any real threat, so consultation isn't really neccessary. Facts of the matter is that GenCon is contract locked for five years, and there really isn't that much of an alternative place to go.

Even without the contract lock in it would take a couple of years to move an event that size. It may just be saber rattling, but they're also probably starting the process of looking elsewhere.


Zhangar wrote:

@ Jessex - Actually, it's still relates to the government interacting with individuals - it hypothetically allows individuals to declare "I don't have to follow your anti-discrimination laws because they violate my religious beliefs."

So, basically, it's meant to set a bar on the government's ability to stop people being from being screwheads to each other. The state isn't discriminating against you; the state's just being given an excuse to declare it can't do anything about it when discrimination occurs.

I don't disagree at all that it's meant to allow "No Gays Allowed" stances. (Though it's been noted in the other thread that doing so was probably already legal anyways.)

Incidentally, all this law actually is, is an existing federal law (42 USC Chapter 21B) being enacted at the Indiana state level.

The federal law that SB 101 is based on has been in place since 1993.

Doing so was already legal under state law, but some municipalities and other areas, including Indianapolis, had passed laws giving more protection to LGBTQ people.

This trumps those and removes existing protection.

I think the state law goes beyond the federal one, but I'm not sure of the details.


Comparing the two, it looks like the Indiana law more explicitly spells out what you can do against the government (i.e., explains what seeking relief actually entails), but it doesn't seem to go beyond the federal law.

The Indiana version also spells out the definition of a person under its version; the federal one does not. (1 USC 1 defines "persons," so no need to reprint that in the federal statute.)

Blargh. Checking Title 1 for how it defines Persons reminded me that this law exists and needs to get overturned somehow.


pH unbalanced wrote:
captain yesterday wrote:

What does the Q stand for in LGBTQ?

Quasi-gendered?

That's relatively new isn't it?

usually

Q = Queer

but sometimes

Q = Questioning

D'oh! Should've gotten that! Thanks :-)


Zhangar wrote:

Comparing the two, it looks like the Indiana law more explicitly spells out what you can do against the government (i.e., explains what seeking relief actually entails), but it doesn't seem to go beyond the federal law.

The Indiana version also spells out the definition of a person under its version; the federal one does not. (1 USC 1 defines "persons," so no need to reprint that in the federal statute.)

Blargh. Checking Title 1 for how it defines Persons reminded me that this law exists and needs to get overturned somehow.

I believe that's the section ruled unconstitutional in United States v. Windsor.


So it is. That part specifically, anyways. Hmmm. I'm not nearly as up-to-date on this stuff as I should be.

It appears that states are still free to reject legal gay marriages from other states - it appears that part of DOMA still stands, for now.


Zhangar wrote:

So it is. That part specifically, anyways. Hmmm. I'm not nearly as up-to-date on this stuff as I should be.

It appears that states are still free to reject legal gay marriages from other states - it appears that part of DOMA still stands, for now.

I'll point out again, as frustrating as this all seems, by legal standards it's moving amazingly fast.

A decade ago, same-sex marriage was just getting mainstream notice. A few states had civil union laws, Massachusetts had just gotten actual marriage. Over the next few election cycles Anti-gay marriage amendments and initiatives were used to drum up conservative votes across the country. Many of them passed.
Now initiatives reliably fail and thanks to both courts and legislatures 36 states allow same-sex marriage. 12 years since Massachusetts.

The Court will rule on same-sex marriage in this session - Obergefell v. Hodges. Given this court, that's not a guarantee, but barring a serious backlash and change in public opinion, I can't imagine such a ruling lasting long. And the Justices know it.


Yeah, it IS moving amazingly fast.

Hell, Obama endorsed gay marriage (though I think Biden (to his credit) deliberately forced the issue) during an election year and still won.

Once upon a time that's not all that long ago, endorsing gay marriage would've been political suicide.

It's not anymore.


Zhangar wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Zhangar wrote:

Here's the actual bill.

Paizo's stance should be pretty easy to figure out, without them saying anything - as thejeff already noted, Paizo has various LGBTQ people in their staff. I can't imagine Paizo would approve of any legislation that makes a state less welcoming to its employees.

That being said, it's a weird law. Whether it's going to amount to anything will depend on how the courts interpret "substantial burden." And what constitutes the "least restrictive means of furthering a compelling governmental interest."

I like the bit where they specifically exempt any employee from making use of the law against their employer. The employee's religious freedom is unimportant, of course.
Well, actually, it's more that employee v. employer is outside the scope of the bill. The bill is meant to apply to "person" v. "government" interactions (i.e., because I'm a ___ that law doesn't apply to me), and so "person" v. "person" is outside its scope.

As I read it though, it does invalidate any local employment protection laws, or at least requires them to meet the more stringent "least restrictive means of furthering a compelling governmental interest" test, if "religious freedom" is claimed.

So while it only applies to "person" v. "government" interactions it does so by invalidating government rules that govern person to person interactions. Except if there was a case where a government rule infringed on an employee person's religious freedom claim against their employer. Those rules explicitly stand.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Zhangar wrote:

@ Jessex - Actually, it's still relates to the government interacting with individuals - it hypothetically allows individuals to declare "I don't have to follow your anti-discrimination laws because they violate my religious beliefs."

So, basically, it's meant to set a bar on the government's ability to stop people being from being screwheads to each other. The state isn't discriminating against you; the state's just being given an excuse to declare it can't do anything about it when discrimination occurs.

I don't disagree at all that it's meant to allow "No Gays Allowed" stances. (Though it's been noted in the other thread that doing so was probably already legal anyways.)

Incidentally, all this law actually is, is an existing federal law (42 USC Chapter 21B) being enacted at the Indiana state level.

The federal law that SB 101 is based on has been in place since 1993.

While it is named like the federal RFRA it is much broader in scope. And it should be kept in mind that last years Hobby Lobby ruling greatly expanded the scope of the federal RFRA so exactly how broad this law would be is unknown until tested by the Supreme Court but it is clearly meant to give Indiana businesses the right to refuse serve entire classes of customers.

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

16 people marked this as a favorite.

Our position is that (apart from trying to kill Cosmo a couple times) Indy has been good to us, but where Gen Con goes is up to Gen Con. We will follow.

Dark Archive

Thanks, Vic.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Starfinder Superscriber

Wait, I want to make sure I parsed that right.

Indy trying to kill Cosmo a couple of times is Indy not being good to Paizo, or...

Paizo's position is (a) that Indy has been good to Paizo, and (b) that Paizo is going to try to kill Cosmo a couple of times.

:)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Or Indy has been good to Paizo despite trying (instead of succeeding) to kill Cosmo.

Webstore Gninja Minion

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Removed a post. Popcorn posts aren't helpful.


Can anyone find an online copy of this bill? I wanted to read it but just got a wall of news articles and no bill.


Trying to wrap my head around how this bloody bill even got passed, seems the middle of the US is even more fractured and contains more unethical zealots than the standard east and west coast perceptions of it implies. And yes, I am from the east coast, and my sincere condolences to anyone living in the midwest who is just a normal person and gets lumped into the "religious fundamentalist right" camp, as I am well aware that despite perceptions not everyone in the midwest is affiliated with such, or even with Christianity. As an indicator of the health of our American society, this is just the next symptom of an overarching problem.


Dustin Ashe wrote:
Can anyone find an online copy of this bill? I wanted to read it but just got a wall of news articles and no bill.

It was linked in the other thread.

Shadow Lodge

Dustin Ashe wrote:
Can anyone find an online copy of this bill? I wanted to read it but just got a wall of news articles and no bill.

If a wall o' text on a mere webpage puts you off, you ain't ready for a bill.


Dustin Ashe wrote:
Can anyone find an online copy of this bill? I wanted to read it but just got a wall of news articles and no bill.

I already linked it in this thread, but here it is again. Click here.

It got signed into law, so it'll become effective July 1 of this year.


That problem is an outdated mode of thinking that is kept alive by outdated, corrupt and unethical politicians who subscribe to nothing but greed and continuing their WASP 1950's agenda regardless of how much the world has changed. Open your eyes, 2.5 kids and mom making pot roast and bringing dad his slippers and rock glass of scotch while be puts his feet up on the ottoman is long gone. Do the the citizens of the US, and the rest of the world, a favor and step down. Your old boys club of a government is a sham, and the more you try to force your ridiculous racist, sexist, classist, bull chips on us, the more you polarize the rest of us to resist you. The resistance is alive and well!


Though I feel badly for anyone registered that way who does not subscribe to their zealous culture war, do yourself a favor and flee while you still can and join us, we have cookies AND ethics. (proven fact, ethics make cookies taste even better ;) )

1 to 50 of 77 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Paizo / General Discussion / Curious to hear Paizo's position on this All Messageboards