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.

​

 

[GMforPowergamers]

[MENTION=67338]GMforPowergamers[/MENTION], this has been covered upthread, but enforcing a dress code, so long as that dress code is not otherwise discriminatory (eg allowing hats but not yamakas, or head scarves but not muslim head scarves) is legal. A restaurant has every right to tell a woman she needs to wear more than a bikini, so long as that restaurant is enforcing a no-shirts, no shoes sort of policy. Now, if there are shirtless dudes sitting at the bar, but a woman in a bikini is barred entry because her top is "too revealing", I would say that that restaurant is discriminating and deserves some pushback.

As for women being allowed to be topless in New York, yes, that is the law. It is, in fact, tied to a ruling on our anti-discrimination laws. In public places where men are allowed to go topless, women are allowed to go topless as well. It's not something we see every day. I'd say, on a day to day basis, we here in New York see things that are far more discomforting and shocking. The easy solution is just to enforce the standard, "no shirt, no service" rule to both men and women.

in this case, a bar and grill by the beach had lots of people (including two topless men) in variase states of beach attire, but the no bikini rule they thought inforcable... at the time I was stuned but would be against it... today I understand a little more why a family envoirment might let a guy walk around in shorts and a hat, and require a woman to where a shirt...

Slight tangent, on the topic of public restrooms - from personal experience they are an absolute nightmare. Many a transgender person, myself included, has simply held it (often to the point of physical discomfort, sometimes to the point of risk of hurting oneself) until they got home. We risk being verbally and physically attacked and even arrested simply because we need to go pee.

the problem is that again, there is no good answer...

If my niece and sister walk into a woman's room and a 300lb guy is in there... they will run out screaming... the fact that the man may or may not self identify as a woman is not what they will see. I also don't want to explain to my 8 year old nephew why he has to go with me instead of his mother, but a woman can be in the mens room.

any answer that makes the 300lbs guy feel comfortable but not my sister and neice isn't a good answer, and any answer that makes them comfortable but not the 300lbs guy fails too. there is not a good answer....

to sum up all of this "ITS VERY COMPLICATED AND SHORT OF A FANTASY WORLD NO ONE HAS THE RIGHT ANSWER"

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

If my niece and sister walk into a woman's room and a 300lb guy is in there... they will run out screaming... the fact that the man may or may not self identify as a woman is not what they will see. I also don't want to explain to my 8 year old nephew why he has to go with me instead of his mother, but a woman can be in the mens room.

My mom is in the same position on that.

And honestly, while I know that the current standard of health care in this country insists that someone seeking gender reassignment surgery needs to live as that gender as fully as possible for a year (or more) beforehand, it is difficult not to sympathize with the reactions of someone who only sees the physical person standing in the dressing room or restroom, not that person's doctors' orders.

It is a case- a rare one- in which the medical fields' perceptions of necessary treatment is far, far ahead of society's physical and educational infrastructure to cope with that treatment.

That doesn't excuse violence or abuse of those people in those situations, though.

In all honesty, I can't say I'm 100% cool with it either. But in my case, it is very different. I'm a 250+lb guy- I'm not threatened by someone of the opposite gender in the rest room or dressing room, just a little weirded out by it. (That's my issue.) There is no historical context of an implicit threat of the presence of a woman in a men's restroom or dressing room.

But that is completely not the case for women. Unfortunately, unless the guy in the women's restroom or dressing room is from maintenance or janitorial, historical odds are very good that he's not there for innocent reasons.

 

[timbannock]

Nice doublethink.

"Protected classes" exist in law to correct for past, present and future discrimination experienced by persons society has- at some point or another, based on relatively immutable characteristics. They level the playing field, they do not shift discrimination to others.

Business owners are not a protected class because there has not been a historical prejudice against business owners, and the fact of being a business owner is not relatively immutable. You can always sell your business and be free of the restrictions of being a business owner. I cannot sell my blackness and be free of the restrictions placed on me by my race.

Furthermore, there IS a remedy. Two, in fact.

The first: if you can prove in court that you don't need to be covered by special rules, the special rules can be lifted by the courts. This JUST happened in several southern states in regards to federal monitoring of their elections because of established patterns of racial discrimination. Now, I personally think the courts were wrong, and that shenanigans are still going on, but the fact remains: federal scrutiny was removed.

The second is far cheaper & easier: don't discriminate. If you don't, your chances of running afoul of the law diminish to near zero.

^Boom.^

"Business owner" is not, cannot, and never will be a class of person. Business owner is what someone does to make money. That's so wildly and completely different that it's shocking people are trying to use that rationale to state the case for anything associated with a discussion about gender, sexuality, race, or classes of people. About the only thing you could hope to compare it to would be "unemployed," but that necessarily has a wide gulf filled with differences as well, and if you don't know why, try it out for a couple weeks or months, preferably involuntarily, and you'll figure it out right quick.

 

[mlund]

That's so wildly and completely different that it's shocking people are trying to use that rationale to state the case for anything associated with a discussion about gender, sexuality, race, or classes of people.

I think the shocking part is that the "religion" is the class at question in the actual body of the law but everyone completely ignores it.

Ironically, one's religious affiliation and exercise is not only protected under the Bill of Rights but is a protected class under the Civil Rights Act of 1964 while sexual preference / orientation is decidedly not a protected class. Of course, this whole lobbying campaign and efforts to sue / fine people out of their livelihood because their religion prohibits them from participating materially in a same-sex marriage ceremony are just more steps in the Human Rights Campaign's descent into being a hate-group over the last decade or so, so the irony goes on for miles.

The other elephant in the room is the fact that Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) sponsored the same law on the federal level. It was passed 97-3 in the Democrat-controlled U.S. Senate and signed into law by Bill Clinton in 1993 but nobody's calling them "bigots" or trying to move Gen Con to Canada. Of course it's really just about punishing "enemies," so why bite the hand that feeds?

Marty Lund

 

[Icon_Charlie]

I'm a realist. A Venture Capitalist. A Warmongering overlord of my domain when crossed in business or elsewhere.

So as hardcore as I am I will say the following.

It makes no business sense in sectioning off your market share based on religion, orientation, and so on. If their money is good... you take it. Making personal judgments about someone's ideals that can affect your bottom line is foolish.

Because if you do.... someone else will take their money and add them to their market base.


On a personal level.

On the long road in life that I have traveled so far, I have learned not to judge people by their looks (and other things, etc...). As long as people are polite and civil with me I will return the favor. Even become their friend. If it happens, it happens.

And there is nothing wrong with that.

 

[billd91]

The other elephant in the room is the fact that Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) sponsored the same law on the federal level. It was passed 97-3 in the Democrat-controlled U.S. Senate and signed into law by Bill Clinton in 1993 but nobody's calling them "bigots" or trying to move Gen Con to Canada. Of course it's really just about punishing "enemies," so why bite the hand that feeds?

Marty Lund

Maybe you should read the other posts I have made in this discussion. Understandings of RFRA, the whole tenor of law based on its language, may have changed significantly with the Hobby Lobby case.

 

[KirayaTiDrekan]

in this case, a bar and grill by the beach had lots of people (including two topless men) in variase states of beach attire, but the no bikini rule they thought inforcable... at the time I was stuned but would be against it... today I understand a little more why a family envoirment might let a guy walk around in shorts and a hat, and require a woman to where a shirt...



the problem is that again, there is no good answer...

If my niece and sister walk into a woman's room and a 300lb guy is in there... they will run out screaming... the fact that the man may or may not self identify as a woman is not what they will see. I also don't want to explain to my 8 year old nephew why he has to go with me instead of his mother, but a woman can be in the mens room.

any answer that makes the 300lbs guy feel comfortable but not my sister and neice isn't a good answer, and any answer that makes them comfortable but not the 300lbs guy fails too. there is not a good answer....

to sum up all of this "ITS VERY COMPLICATED AND SHORT OF A FANTASY WORLD NO ONE HAS THE RIGHT ANSWER"

There are two major issues with the above...

First what does a person's weight have anything to do with this? A 300 lb person isn't any or more less dangerous than a 100 lb person depending on the circumstances. A 300 lb. person isn't any more likely than the 100 lb. person to be the transgender boogeyman that certain, shall we say, extremists, want you to be afraid of.

Second, I'm not a guy. The 300 lb. person in your example isn't a guy if she's in the women's restroom. Transgender people are not "choosing to identify" as a gender...they are that gender.

And there is an easy solution - remove unnecessary gendering of restrooms. Its a bathroom - everyone needs to poop and pee, it all stinks, and everyone needs a place to do it. That's it, that's as complicated as it needs to be.

 

[mlund]

Maybe you should read the other posts I have made in this discussion. Understandings of RFRA, the whole tenor of law based on its language, may have changed significantly with the Hobby Lobby case.

I disagree with the assertion that the tenor of the law has changed. The law functions as it was intended to function:

Mandates courts use the following when considering religious liberty cases:

Strict scrutiny
Religious liberty can only be limited for a compelling government interest
If religious liberty is to be limited, it must be done in the least restrictive manner possible

The tenor that changed over the last decade was the HRC's devolution into a hate-group.

Marty Lund

 

[Jester David]

While lots of businesses in the US might claim to be Christian or religious, that doesn't stop them from being open on Sundays. Much of Europe shuts down on Sundays, including secular cities such as Paris. So it seems disingenuous to ask to refuse patrons for religious reasons when the owner is violating one of the Ten Commandments.

Another thought, is that the Bible is not very forgiving of games of chance and the supernatural. Under the bill, those owners would have every right to turn away GenCon attendees.
But they won't, because they're happy to take our money, instead picking and choosing when to enforce their beliefs.

 

[Fergurg]

Using the term "slavery" in this manner is not only the highest form of hyperbole, but also greatly diminishes those who have been enslaved or been affected by slavery.

It's not hyperbole. Forcing someone to provide labor or service against their will under threat of a gun (which all laws are) is slavery.