Gen Con Takes Stand For Inclusiveness

This rather breaks all my rules, in that I'm reporting on politics, and regional politics at that. That said, Gen Con, the hobby's largest American convention, intersects with this particular example, so it's hard to ignore; and this is an RPG news blog, after all. Plus, I agree with the sentiment, even if I'm doubtful about its actual effectiveness given the current contract. Gen Con has written to the local politician in its home city of Indianapolis, USA, threatening (kind of - they're contracted to stay there for five more years whether they like it or not) to consider moving elsewhere if a local law relating to businesses being able to refuse custom to same-sex couples is passed.

With multiple recent articles in just the last week (Monte Cook Games & Thunderplains, Green Ronin's Blue Rose), the subject of inclusiveness is not one that anybody can afford to ignore. However, the vitriolic comments these topics give rise to make discussion on them difficult at best.

Here's the letter they wrote.

​

 

[Umbran]

Has anyone that is commenting actually read the bill? I don't think it does what most of you (on either side) think it does. It doesn't appear to me to be about the hospitality industry at all. Nor is it giving any sort of green light to discrimination. It's saying if the government passes a law or a rule that goes counter to people's religious beliefs it must do so in the least restrictive means possible. How can that be a bad thing?

Yes, I have read the bill. It is not specifically about the hospitality industry, but applies very broadly. And, when you realize its implications, it does allow for discrimination.

The relevant section reads thus:

Sec. 8.
(a) Except as provided in subsection (b), a governmental entity may not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion, even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability.

(b) A governmental entity may substantially burden a person's exercise of religion only if the governmental entity demonstrates that application of the burden to the person:

1. is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and
2. is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest

So, first off, it isn't just about laws. It restricts action by a governmental entity, broadly. So, for example, the Indiana Environmental Protection Agency and its regulations would be subject to this.

The "may not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion" is the key element here. It means that within the state, they cannot pass a law or regulation saying one *cannot* discriminate on the basis of sexual preference, and if they did, individuals could ignore it by claiming it is a religious issue. If discrimination cannot be prevented, then, of course, it is allowed.

Mind you, this doesn't only apply to the LGBTQ community getting served in a restaurant for GenCon. It applies to all sorts of other things, many not relevant to gaming directly. We're mostly concerned with the impact to service to GenCon, because this site is about gaming.

 

[Zaruthustran]

Yep, Uller, I linked the bill in my first post on this thread--it appears on the second page.

The bill essentially says that a person's exercise of religion trumps government, by default. The bill allows the government to "burden" a person's exercise of religion, but only if the government "demonstrates" two qualifications.

Which is whack. Seems to me that the individual should be the one that has to prove injury that a particular rule is causing harm/preventing free practice of religion.

The crux is personal liberty vs. corporate liberty. I'm of the opinion that personal liberty should triumph over corporate liberty: in general a business should not be allowed to discriminate against you, simply because of who "you" are.

Discrimination based on actions? Sure, I'm for that. If you're disruptive, or rude, or otherwise violating a business's terms of behavior (as expected of and applied to all clientele) then I'm all for a business being able to throw someone out/call the cops to trespass someone from the premises. But discrimination based on fundamental aspects of your being? No way. That's why we have laws like the civil rights act and the ADA. And why we need something similar for sexual orientation/identity.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Has anyone that is commenting actually read the bill? I don't think it does what most of you (on either side) think it does. It doesn't appear to me to be about the hospitality industry at all. Nor is it giving any sort of green light to discrimination. It's saying if the government passes a law or a rule that goes counter to people's religious beliefs it must do so in the least restrictive means possible. How can that be a bad thing?

Anyone interested can find the digest and full text here.
http://iga.in.gov/legislative/2015/bills/senate/101#document-92bab197

It applies to all of the state's laws:

Sec. 1. This chapter applies to all governmental entity statutes,
ordinances, resolutions, executive or administrative orders,
regulations, customs, and usages, including the implementation or
application thereof, regardless of whether they were enacted,
adopted, or initiated before, on, or after July 1, 2015.

That means if a city passes a local ordinance making it illegal to discriminate against gays by firing them for being gay because you believe your religion teaches this is OK, this law makes that ordinance illegal, thus preserving the right to discriminate against gays by firing them for being gay.

Ditto refusing housing, lodging, food service, drink service, medical service...

Not that this legislation explicitly singles out the LGBT community. However, by seeking to avoid that obvious pitfall, it opens others. ANY characteristic becomes fair game, the way this law is drafted. A Muslim owned coffee shop could deny service to non-Muslims. An ultraorthodox Jewish taxi company could refuse women the right to use their service. A Christian Identity MD could refuse to treat mixed race people.

(See post #106 in this thread for more problems.)

 

[SteveC]

So as I've looked into this a little more, and am seeing what the bill actually does, I honestly can't see how this would interfere with Gen Con in any way. Now I get that this is a political issue, and the Gen Con staff certainly have an opinion on that, but to say that this would somehow actually affect conventioneers is ... a stretch. What's more than that, Indiana is about to become the 20th state to do this, so it's not like there's no precedent or they're a lone voice on this matter.

Here's a link which will tell you about the states that have this law already, which also links to the national law it's based on. Yes, this link comes from Wikipedia, so I haven't checked it with academic rigor or anything. According to that article, Indiana will be the 20th state to have such a law, and the law is already in states who have been suggested as places to move the con.

I get that people aren't liking this. I have very good friends who have strong opinions on both sides, and have heard from both of them already. The irony is that I may end up cancelling my own Gen Con trip based on friends on opposite sides of the issue who are talking about pulling out. Ugh.

 

[billd91]

Has anyone that is commenting actually read the bill? I don't think it does what most of you (on either side) think it does. It doesn't appear to me to be about the hospitality industry at all. Nor is it giving any sort of green light to discrimination. It's saying if the government passes a law or a rule that goes counter to people's religious beliefs it must do so in the least restrictive means possible. How can that be a bad thing?

Prior to the Hobby Lobby case, you might have been able to argue that. After all, the federal law SB101 is based on passed with a large, bipartisan majority to redress the method the courts had used to interpret applicability of law compared to religious objection. Of course, the federal RFRA was envisioned as a way to protect religious organizations and access such as protecting Native American religious rights in the face of government land policy or exempting Amish kids from compulsory education past 8th grade. The law faltered at the state level over the issue of a town wanting to protect a historical church from being demolished by the archdiocese that, instead, wanted a larger facility for the congregation.

But Hobby Lobby's case, decided largely on the basis of RFRA, opens up a lot of doors for discrimination by, I think, broadening its impact. This was, apparently, the first time it the courts had used RFRA for a for-profit company based on the religious proclivities of the owners and the first time, I believe, it incorporated the idea of businesses objecting to "enabling immorality" as a justification for denying service. In other words, Hobby Lobby was free to not offer the whole suite of birth control options as part of their health plan because it enabled women to use post-conception birth control methods (morning after pill, IUDs) that they didn't approve of because of their belief that life begins at conception.

If we follow the court's reasoning, laws like this now allow businesses to deny hotel rooms to homosexual couples because they might have disapproved-of sex, or deny said rooms to unmarried heterosexual couples because they might be fornicators (more disapproved-of sex), or deny space for anyone playing devil-worshiping games like D&D, or offer services to Jews because they're "killers of Christ", or maybe even embolden fundamentalist LDS sects to go even farther in ignoring anti-polygamy laws, or exempt the Amish even more from workplace safety and child labor laws.

 

[tomBitonti]

Was wondering about whether the use of "person", as in "burden a person's" (bold added by me) was significant, but, section seven provides a more detailed, clarifying, statement:

Sec. 7. As used in this chapter, "person" includes the following: (1) An individual. (2) An organization, a religious society, a church, a body of communicants, or a group organized and operated primarily for religious purposes. (3) A partnership, a limited liability company, a corporation, a company, a firm, a society, a joint-stock company, an unincorporated association, or another entity that: (A) may sue and be sued; and (B) exercises practices that are compelled or limited by a system of religious belief held by: (i) an individual; or (ii) the individuals; who have control and substantial ownership of the entity, regardless of whether the entity is organized and operated for profit or nonprofit purposes

A question ... a doctor (who runs a practice, and is the owner of that practice) has a religious tenet to provide services, hires a nurse who has tenets which disagree with the doctor's. A patient arrives, to whom the doctor agrees to provide a service, but to whom the nurse will not provide the service. Whose tenets (the doctor's or the nurse's) hold sway?

Thx!

TomB

 

[Fergurg]

I thought about this, and a thought just occurred to me:

If GenCon's concern is as many people addressed, of convention goers being denied service to the point that they can't go to the convention, then the solution is extremely simple. Contact the businesses themselves (restaurants, hotels, etc) and say, "Hey. We're putting together a guide of places to go, and we will mention you for free (or a small fee) as long as we have assurance that the conventioneers won't be discriminated against for their sexual orientation/preference."

That solves every problem of every person who has a stake in this. The businesses get to run their businesses as they see fit, the LGBTSMQQTTETC get assurance that they will be able to eat and sleep while being GenCon conventioneers, and businesses who don't care about their sexual orientation (which is probably most of them) get some free (or cheap) advertising.

In fact, the only people who wouldn't get what they want are the hardcore activists who want to silence dissent and criminalize anything that isn't LGBTSMQQTTETC-positive.

 

[tomBitonti]

If GenCon's concern is as many people addressed, of convention goers being denied service to the point that they can't go to the convention, then the solution is extremely simple. Contact the businesses themselves (restaurants, hotels, etc) and say, "Hey. We're putting together a guide of places to go, and we will mention you for free (or a small fee) as long as we have assurance that the conventioneers won't be discriminated against for their sexual orientation/preference."

Additional text omitted. I kindof asked this same question, above.

Practically, the list could be very large, and could include businesses other than restuarants and hotels. You would need to include just about anything (gas station, pharmacy, taxis). Making such a list seems impractical.

(Would you need to include hospitals, physicians, or emergency services on the list?)

Thx!

TomB

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I honestly can't see how this would interfere with Gen Con in any way.

Assume, arguendo, that a religious group with deep pockets and a deep dislike of LGBT persons bought up some of the local hospitality businesses around the site, and refused them service? Where will LBGT GenCon attendees sleep, go to eat dinner, etc?

Now, instead of LBGT, let us assume it is one of the more radically anti-white offshoots of Nation of Islam, and they refuse to serve "white devils"?

Repeat the exercise using any religious group and any identifiable subgroup of humanity.

HEY, let's REALLY have fun with it- what if people who believed in Jack Chick's screeds against gamers did this? They could legally refuse to serve all gamers on religious grounds. How would that affect GenCon?

Indiana is about to become the 20th state to do this, so it's not like there's no precedent or they're a lone voice on this matter.

Immaterial- courts are slow. How many years did many states deny the possibility of same-sex marriage? How many tried to encode it into their Constitutions? How long did those amendments last before they got struck down?

The reason that courts don't immediately strike down laws as unconstitutional is ripeness & jurisdiction: they have to have plaintiffs in the targeted class who have been harmed, have proof of the harm, and are willing to proceed.

 

[Zaruthustran]

What rankles me about the Hobby Lobby case (well, one of the sources of rank) is that it is based on the notion of a corporation having closely-held religious views. Which is absurd on the face of it. Unless you're playing Shadowrun, where the notion of a corporation having a soul is totally rad. I'd love to go on a run for a corporation that turns out to actually be (dun dun dun) a ghost of a dead corporation.