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.

​

 

[Morrus]

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?

Presumably the Hippocratic Oath overrides that? Do they actually do that, or is it a TV thing?

 

[Umbran]

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.

I outlined it above - reduced ticket sales.

 

[billd91]

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.

That strikes me as a much more obtrusive and burdensome solution than just barring the discrimination in the first place. Moreover, it puts the lion's share of the burden on groups/events whose participants are being discriminated against to compile the list of friendly businesses. Plus, it's not like a convention the size of Gen Con is confined to the city center. People pick up rooms all over Indy (and I suspect, increasingly so) which, again, raises the burden on Gen Con.

 

[Umbran]

Presumably the Hippocratic Oath overrides that? Do they actually do that, or is it a TV thing?

The Hippocratic Oath is not legally binding, even if a doctor does make it.

 

[billd91]

Presumably the Hippocratic Oath overrides that? Do they actually do that, or is it a TV thing?

Some form of oath, whether the Hippocratic one or from another source like Geneva conventions, is administered at a lot of med schools and may form the basis of numerous groups' professional ethical standards. But as Umbran said, not exactly legally binding.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Whose tenets (the doctor's or the nurse's) hold sway?

As we've seen already this year, the doctor's.

 

[Morrus]

As we've seen already this year, the doctor's.

The Doctor's tenets always win out in the end. Time Lord, y'know!

 

[Umbran]

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

To be really honest, I don't think that's actually GenCon's concern. I think GenCon's real concern is ticket sales - that members of groups who might be discriminated against will say, "Well, screw Indiana! They're not getting my money!" and not come to the con. It would then behoove GenCon to move to a state where these folks would attend - and that means leaving Indiana, just like they said.

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.

And now, I find I do have to bring out the Mod Voice:

Please do not get sarcastic. Keep it respectful, or you will find yourself quickly removed from the conversation.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

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.

Not really. Not even close.

As we saw in pre-civil rights era USA, such guides existed for blacks. And if all of those businesses were at capacity, a black traveller was S.O.L. Your options were things like sleep in your car and risk a vagrancy arrest and don't eat dinner tonight.

My maternal step-grandfather saved a lot of black performers in the NOLA Playboy Club (where he worked) from having to go through that. He put up or fed black performers who had no place to stay or eat.

 

[tomBitonti]

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 ...

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?

Although, I could justify it as "not wanting to become a locale for prostitution", which could be engendered by renting rooms to unmarried couples.

Thx!

TomB