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.

​

 

[Gnarl45]

Well, it's just been signed into law (in private). I, for one, will no longer be attending GenCons held in Indiana.

http://www.indystar.com/story/news/...ign-religious-freedom-bill-thursday/70448858/

You should rejoice. This makes Indiana one of the safest places on earth from divine judgement. God won't incinerate Indiana the way he slaughtered everyone in Sodom and Gomorrah. *sigh*

I wonder why the people of Indiana didn't take it one step further and made the burning of heretics legal.

 

[graypariah]

A rabbi could and would refuse to preside over a Christian wedding- assuming it isn't one of those dual-celebrant ceremonies- because he doesn't know how to do a Christian wedding. There is a fundamental difference between the 2 rituals.

But, presumably, taking pictures of black weddings does not require a special camera, etc. Pictures are pictures.

There is nothing that says that the example rabbi did not know how to preform the christian ceremony or that he would have preformed it if he knew how, only that he did not choose to preform the ceremony because it was a christian wedding. Let us say that he knew how to (perhaps he was previously a priest) but chose not to and did not state a reason why. Would it matter if his reason was that he did not believe Christians should get married, if he did not think anyone should be christian, or that he did not think the members of his synagogue would approve of him doing it? Does he have to justify his reason beyond saying "I am a rabbi, and I will not preform a christian wedding"? If he does not need to justify it and yet can refuse to preform a christian wedding, would that be different from him refusing to preform a same sex marriage between two Jewish people? If he was a member of the synagogue and not a small business he would be protected (probably), but would he be protected if instead of being with the synagogue he ran a small business that specialized in Jewish weddings. It is essentially the same scenario yet one offends people a great deal more than the other would.

These are not black and white issues, they are gray issues that require a great deal of thought and even then it is hard to say with any certainty that one side is right and one side is wrong.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

This isn't politics. This is equality. If you don't believe that humans have a right to exist without fear of hostility/violence or to enjoy their pastimes in a welcoming environment then I think you misunderstand one of the foundations of our country.

If you think anyone here is fore violence or even hostility you miss read every agreement

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

There is nothing that says that the example rabbi did not know how to preform the christian ceremony or that he would have preformed it if he knew how, only that he did not choose to preform the ceremony because it was a christian wedding. Let us say that he knew how to (perhaps he was previously a priest) but chose not to and did not state a reason why. Would it matter if his reason was that he did not believe Christians should get married, if he did not think anyone should be christian, or that he did not think the members of his synagogue would approve of him doing it? Does he have to justify his reason beyond saying "I am a rabbi, and I will not preform a christian wedding"? If he does not need to justify it and yet can refuse to preform a christian wedding, would that be different from him refusing to preform a same sex marriage between two Jewish people? If he was a member of the synagogue and not a small business he would be protected (probably), but would he be protected if instead of being with the synagogue he ran a small business that specialized in Jewish weddings. It is essentially the same scenario yet one offends people a great deal more than the other would.

These are not black and white issues, they are gray issues that require a great deal of thought and even then it is hard to say with any certainty that one side is right and one side is wrong.

This hypothetical IS black and white.

As a Rabbi, he may know the words, but he- by definition- isn't consecrated as a Christian priest unless he is a convert. And even if he is a priest who converted to Judaism, he isn't currently a Christian priest, and cannot confer the sacrament of Christian marriage. He can't do it: there is a fundamental theological bar.

The most he could offer Christians is a civil ceremony.

 

[radja]

I'm not sure about the US, but marriage here is entirely separate from religion. There's no such thing as a christian marriage, jewish marriage or buddhist marriage. There is only marriage. If you want to hold a religious marriage ceremony, that's fine, but it's just a ceremony and in no way recognized by any law.

 

[graypariah]

This hypothetical IS black and white.

As a Rabbi, he may know the words, but he- by definition- isn't consecrated as a Christian priest unless he is a convert. And even if he is a priest who converted to Judaism, he isn't currently a Christian priest, and cannot confer the sacrament of Christian marriage. He can't do it: there is a fundamental theological bar.

The most he could offer Christians is a civil ceremony.

That is a matter of preference, not law. A ceremony preformed by a rabbi in accordance with the law would have the same effect as a ceremony preformed by a priest in accordance with the law. As a legally ordained minister and married person myself, I can attest that the actual religion plays very little (if any) role in the legal aspect of marriage. The discussion at hand is regarding the legality of choosing who you can and cannot preform a service for - not whether or not it will be the same as a service provided by another. Unless you are saying of course that a christian would not want a rabbi to preform the ceremony in the first place so it shouldn't matter if it is legal or not for him to discriminate. Which to me sounds akin to saying that a member of the LGBT community wouldn't want to be served by someone who did not approve of their orientation so it shouldn't matter if it is legal or not for him to discriminate. Would it matter if the rabbi was the only clergyman in town and the couple had to go to another town to get married? Perhaps that is why in my example two christians wanted him to preform the ceremony.

 

[Gnarl45]

There is nothing that says that the example rabbi did not know how to preform the christian ceremony or that he would have preformed it if he knew how, only that he did not choose to preform the ceremony because it was a christian wedding. Let us say that he knew how to (perhaps he was previously a priest) but chose not to and did not state a reason why. Would it matter if his reason was that he did not believe Christians should get married, if he did not think anyone should be christian, or that he did not think the members of his synagogue would approve of him doing it? Does he have to justify his reason beyond saying "I am a rabbi, and I will not preform a christian wedding"? If he does not need to justify it and yet can refuse to preform a christian wedding, would that be different from him refusing to preform a same sex marriage between two Jewish people? If he was a member of the synagogue and not a small business he would be protected (probably), but would he be protected if instead of being with the synagogue he ran a small business that specialized in Jewish weddings. It is essentially the same scenario yet one offends people a great deal more than the other would.

These are not black and white issues, they are gray issues that require a great deal of thought and even then it is hard to say with any certainty that one side is right and one side is wrong.

I'm not sure where you're getting at with this but a Rabbi that tries to perform a Christian ceremony is the same as a Canadian judge trying to exert justice on US soil. He just doesn't have that kind of authority. So even if a Rabbi or an Imam did conduct the ceremony, the (religious) mariage would be null and void. No Christian couple would ask the Rabbi to marry them because they know the mariage would be worthless in the eyes of God.

 

[kenmarable]

i Certainly don't want Gencon to leave Indianapolis because there are about 5 brewhouses in walking distance. I get games and craft beer.

I would like Gencon to stay thoroughly out of politics. Tired of the politics that have been running rampant in gaming.

I am a full fire environmentalist, and environmental scientist, and I don't like to bring environmental politics to gaming. I don't know why everyone feels like social politics is an OK topic.

The issue with social politics is that some people don't have the luxury of avoiding politics. People who face discrimination on a daily basis would often love to avoid politics and just enjoy things as well. But while discrimination is out there and prevalent, they don't get to. You can bet they are tired of it, too. So, yeah, it can sometimes make the rest of us uncomfortable and annoyed, but by speaking out for equality and making our hobby welcoming to anyone who wants to play, that IS removing politics from it in the long run.

The status quo is already political. It's simply that the majority of us (myself included) were lucky enough to never have to notice.

 

[tuxgeo]

Our country decided decades ago that you can't refuse to serve someone because of the color of his/her skin. This is no different - it's a civil rights issue.

I applaud GenCon for standing up for basic civil rights. One of the best ways to prevent this kind of discrimination is hitting cities and states where it hurts most - their pocketbooks.

Emphasis added on "One of the best ways." There are other ways; for example, moral suasion also counts.

As a non-sequitur: "Tuesday's thread is full of dread."
(This has been your unscheduled dissent for this morning. Now, back to your regularly-scheduled brouhaha.)

 

[graypariah]

I'm not sure where you're getting at with this but a Rabbi that tries to perform a Christian ceremony is the same as a Canadian judge trying to exert justice on US soil. He just doesn't have that kind of authority. So even if a Rabbi or an Imam did conduct the ceremony, the (religious) mariage would be null and void. No Christian couple would ask the Rabbi to marry them because they know the mariage would be worthless in the eyes of God.

Again, this is a matter of preference which would further prove my point. As there are those who have their own interpretation on where god stands on who preforms their ceremony, so too are those who have their own interpretation on what god would consider a sin when it comes to sexual orientation. Not every christian feels their marriage is worthless in the eyes of god unless they had a priest/pastor/reverend/ect preform the ceremony just as not every christian feels that god considers sodomy a sin.

This is an argument of the legality of the situation but because it involves religion I used a religious hypothetical. It was not my intention to launch a theological debate on the validity of marriages preformed by members outside of a person's faith.