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.

​

 

[redrick]

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.

Sure, if the state of Indiana decides to pass this law, GenCon could round up its employees to go to all the businesses near the convention center and put together a coalition of local businesses who would put the sign in their window saying, "This business refuses to discriminate on the basis of race, creed, religion, gender, sexual orientation, disability," etc. That would be a statement against the law and it might allay some of the hardship faced by GenCon participants if there was no other option. But that's an awful lot of work for GenCon employees that the state has now dumped in their lap. And, can you really imagine walking downtown and checking for a sign in a window that confirmed that, yes, "people like you" are going to be served in this restaurant? That sounds absurd.

Furthermore, nobody connected to this conversation is advocating silencing dissent. Unless you consider passing legislation to be dissent. All anyone is advocating is that existing anti-discrimination laws not be constrained or circumvented by a new bill which would broadly give the right to individuals and businesses to ignore those laws based on their own personal interpretation of a religious doctrine.

And I know that you are arguing that businesses should be allowed to discriminate freely against all people. Not just gay people and transgendered people, but african americans, american indians, muslims, jews, latinos. That the job of protecting people from discrimination should be given over to Adam Smith's invisible hand. That's an opinion that you are welcome to have! However, if that's what you believe, then what you are really advocating is that we should repeal the Civil Rights Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and several other longstanding laws by which the State restricts Free Enterprise.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Bold added by me. Additional text omitted.

Hasn't that been done for quite a while? Or, hadn't that been done in the past, not uncommonly?

It is still a thing, though it is far more common in housing rental than in lodging/hospitality. And it isn't even universally illegal.


http://ask.metafilter.com/134007/No-room-if-you-aint-hitched
http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/free-books/living-together-book/chapter5-2.html

 

[Dire Bare]

While in general I do like the "no politics" rule here at ENWorld, I do think that Umbran and Morris made the right call to report on this and allow the following discussion. Thanks, guys!

For those who feel politics has no place in our entertainment here, sorry, but politics is life. Politics affects everything, there is no separation between politics and all of the other activities we fill our time with. When you think about it, the "edition wars" are politics, albeit limited to a narrow slice of Western culture. The "no politics" rule doesn't exist (IMO) because politics has no place in discussion over gaming, but rather because those discussions tend to get very heated and intransigent. Although, we sometimes get that way anyway . . . .

I fully support Gen Con in its recent action protesting this horrible, discriminatory, bigoted law. IMO, Gen Con is protesting both as a solid business move (side with the progressive progress our country is slowly attaining) and also as the individuals who make up the leadership of the company, who feel such discrimination is simply the wrong direction for America. I applaud them for their decision.

On a last note, while I do think the discussion here has been very civil, I have seen a few blanket statements about the citizens and businesses of Indiana. It probably doesn't need to be said, but please remember that not all individuals and not all businesses in Indiana support this bigoted law and actively oppose it. Indiana is not a bigoted state, although clearly, there are bigoted individuals and politics at work there. Same goes for the other states that have already passed such legislation, or have such legislation in the works. Heck, the mayor of Indianapolis is on record opposing the law (if I remember correctly)!

 

[Zaukrie]

Good people who stand by and allow bigotry are complicit in said bigotry. Ignoring politics is not going to help anyone make the world a better place. If the state passes said law, there should be consequences. It baffles me anyone is cool with discrimination. I can't even conceive of how people are cool with it.

 

[Koloth]

I live in the state of Oklahoma and proposals like this are an annual event in the Legislature. Most die early in the session. Many are proposed knowing they will fail so the legicritter(s) submitting them can claim they fought the good fight to the voters in their district.

If by chance this one passes, Gencon should organize a Rocky Horror Picture Show costume contest. Several thousand folks walking around as Dr. Frank N. Furter, the sweet transvestite from Transsexual, Transylvania would make a fitting protest statement.

 

[Balesir]

This is not a stand for inclusiveness - this is a stand for telling businesses, "Sorry, you thought you had the right to decide which transactions you want to be a part of? Well, I have decided that I will decide how your business is run."

I don't know the detail of the business laws you have over there, but here it has been the case for several centuries that businesses are not at liberty to engage in transactions that involve illegal goods, false claims, passing off, graft, confidence trickery, irregular weights and measures, tax evasion or the selling of stolen goods. The restriction being proposed here seems to be no less reasonable and proportionate a demand of any business than these, time-honoured requirements. One of the ways I absolutely want governments to "decide how your business will be run" is "not criminally". "Not according to your bigoted discrimination" comes a close second.

 

[Waller]

Yes, it is a restriction of your freedom to choose who you do business with.

Yes, it is also a stand for inclusiveness.

It can be both of those things.

Welcome to a thing we call "laws". The thing that says when you refuse to do the right thing, society will make you do it. Even if you can't see why it's the right thing.

The sad thing is that there are places in the world where this doesn't happen, and Indiana is on the verge of becoming one of those places. With luck, when businesses and citizens of that State vocalize their dissention with the proposed law, it will be listened to.

Which is exactly how things should work.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Should a business be required to serve a man wearing a shirt that says, "People like you are why God created AIDS"?

Should a business be required to serve a man wearing a shirt that says, "Mexicans are like pool cues - hit them hard for good English."?

Should a business be required to serve a man wearing a policeman's uniform?

Should a business be required to serve a man wearing a dress?

In all of those cases, it involves clothing that identifies the would-be customer as someone that a significant number of people do not want to even be around. Even having them in your business can be an issue. Yet, I'm sure that you believe that only one of them should have the right to force the business owner to be in a transaction with them.

what about a topless woman? or one in a bikini?

When I was in my early 20's I and my then girlfriend and her best friend went to the beach and then to the bar and grill... both ladies where in bikini tops and cut off shorts (I on the other hand stay clothed as a public service) when the woman at the seating area told them they can't come in with bikini tops, the best friend removed hers... much to everyone's surprise. The hostess threatened to call the police, and the now topless woman informed her that by law in NY anywhere a man can be topless so can a woman... and at the bar were a few beach goers with just shorts and hats on...

We were escorted out by a very large man... at the time I was too busy being shocked and stareing... but today I would be very upset if I had my neice and nephew there and that happened....



this also goes into the bathroom thing... if someone is in one, and I go in and that person's presence makes me uncomfortable, then there is a problem... I bet that person is in here because THEY would feel uncomfortable in the other one... so how do we solve this???

 

[pdmiller]

Eh? Politics is everybody's business. There is nobody on the planet to whom it is appropriate to tell not to meddle in politics. That's what politics is for. Gen Con and its owners are absolutely entitled to get involved in politics when things might affect them or their customers (or even when they might not!)

So why on earth would you ever have had a no politics policy on your site?

You realise that with these words you just gave licence to everyone to make every discussion on this blog political?

 

[Morrus]

So why on earth would you ever have had a no politics policy on your site?

You realise that with these words you just gave licence to everyone to make every discussion on this blog political?

That is incorrect. My opinion of what Gen Con is entitled to do or say does not define moderation policy on this website. There is no combination of words you can use which will magically make that true. Perhaps I wasn't clear earlier. Let me try again:

If you have further questions about site moderation, take it to Meta, PM, or email. Thank you.