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.

​

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I wouldn't be surprised to find that a good attorney could get GenCon out of that 5 year contract on the grounds of something like Force Majeur: "we can't fulfill our side of the contract because the laws of the state create an insurmountable barrier to our ability to run our business profitably." Or some such.

 

[Zaruthustran]

No, but you are demanding that a class of people - business owners - do not have as many rights as you - a transsexual - do. You do not have to do business with them. You do not have to give them your money, and you don't even have to justify it. "I just don't like you" is a valid reason for choosing to not be a customer. And yet, you feel that you should be allowed to compel others to enter into a transaction with you. Sorry, but that's not OK with me.

Please read the links I posted. These aren't demands by any one user here at ENWorld--they're Federal laws, enacted by elected representatives.

Check out this link. It gives a pretty comprehensive overview of when "I just don't like you" is okay, and when it's illegal. https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/...fuse-service-to-someone-because-of-appearance

 

[Uller]

Personally, I'd prefer to know if a business owner hates me enough to not want to do business with me or one of my friends...then I'd know not to do business with him or her.

What is not forbidden shall be mandatory.

 

[uriel222]

No, but you are demanding that a class of people - business owners - do not have as many rights as you - a transsexual - do. You do not have to do business with them. You do not have to give them your money, and you don't even have to justify it. "I just don't like you" is a valid reason for choosing to not be a customer. And yet, you feel that you should be allowed to compel others to enter into a transaction with you. Sorry, but that's not OK with me.

Really? Really? "No dogs or Irish" is fine with you? In 2015?!?

 

[KirayaTiDrekan]

No, but you are demanding that a class of people - business owners - do not have as many rights as you - a transsexual - do. You do not have to do business with them. You do not have to give them your money, and you don't even have to justify it. "I just don't like you" is a valid reason for choosing to not be a customer. And yet, you feel that you should be allowed to compel others to enter into a transaction with you. Sorry, but that's not OK with me.

Businesses hold all the cards in this case. If I go to Gen Con with this law in effect, I could be refused a place to stay, food to eat, or over the counter medicines. As a customer, my refusing to do business with a company is a choice on my part, sometimes a political statement, sometimes just a personal decision. As a business, refusing service to a group of people is discrimination. It is, simply put, bigotry. There are no nice words for it. There are no capitalist justifications.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

No, but you are demanding that a class of people - business owners - do not have as many rights as you - a transsexual - do. You do not have to do business with them. You do not have to give them your money, and you don't even have to justify it. "I just don't like you" is a valid reason for choosing to not be a customer. And yet, you feel that you should be allowed to compel others to enter into a transaction with you. Sorry, but that's not OK with me.

As has been pointed out, that isn't how the law works in the USA. As the saying goes, "Your right to swing your fist ends just beyond the tip of my nose." IOW, we all have rights, but they come with corresponding duties.

You ARE permitted to refuse service, true, but if your reason is based on certain prejudices or directed at certain classes of people, that is illegal.

Currently, the LGBT community does not get universal coverage by said laws. But the laws are trending in that direction.

 

[Fergurg]

I don't subscribe to that racist creed. But I do think that a business should be allowed to post "No whites" if they want to. Let the market decide what happens. Because - it's not my business, so I should not be allowed to compel them to do business.

 

[Fergurg]

Really? Really? "No dogs or Irish" is fine with you? In 2015?!?

Should the business be allowed to post that? Absolutely. Would I go in there? No. But should I compel them to do business with dogs and Irish? No.

 

[vongarr]

The Governor is not a local politician.

I hope at some point, the various gaming communities can get back to gaming and resolve all of these social issues. I'm not saying it's OK to do this sort of thing (because it isn't) but stuff like this is a distraction to what brings all of us together. People say "straight, white, male" like it is a bad thing. It shouldn't be good, or bad. It should only be a thing, like any other thing.

 

[uriel222]

I don't subscribe to that racist creed. But I do think that a business should be allowed to post "No whites" if they want to. Let the market decide what happens. Because - it's not my business, so I should not be allowed to compel them to do business.

I see where you're coming from, and to an extent, I sympathize.

BUT:

People don't always have the luxury of choosing to take their business elsewhere, nor should they be forced to. Discrimination is discrimination, and should not be tolerated in a fair and just society. Look up Tyranny of the Majority. It's not right, it's not ethical, and it's not fair. So yes, to the extent that some business owner is required to serve the icky gays, just to permit human dignity, I will infringe their rights.

 

[SteveC]

We'll when big business weighs in, politicians take notice. Apple threatened to leave Louisiana if they elected "former" klansman David Duke in a gubernatorial runoff with (convicted felon) former Gov. Edwin Edwards.

That's very true. On the other hand, in the few minutes that this thread has been live I think you can see a lot of the rhetoric that politics can bring out that ends civil conversation. That's why we don't talk about it here.

I want Gen Con to be about pretending to be elves and having a beer with my friends I don't see but once a year. Friends that vehemently disagree on this very issue. I want to have that fun with them and not have it be about politics.

I guess what I'm saying is that as much as everything has to be about politics these days, and everything about politics has to be a fight to the death, I preferred when gaming could be not about that at all, and when people who disagreed on, well, you name the issue, could just forget about the rest of the things they disagree on and simply have some fun playing games.

If that were to break apart, that would be sad.

 

[uriel222]

Should the business be allowed to post that? Absolutely. Would I go in there? No. But should I compel them to do business with dogs and Irish? No.

That's the crux of it, isn't it? Two rights are in conflict. One, the business' right to refuse service, and Two, the client's right to be served. Since both can't coexist, one right must trump the other.

Ethically, the one which causes the less harm to the other should prevail. What harm comes to the person refused service? They aren't allowed to eat (or drink, or stay) somewhere, and are treated as a second-class citizen (compared to their more privileged peers who aren't refused). What harm to the business owner forced to provide service?

...

 

[Fergurg]

Businesses hold all the cards in this case. If I go to Gen Con with this law in effect, I could be refused a place to stay, food to eat, or over the counter medicines. As a customer, my refusing to do business with a company is a choice on my part, sometimes a political statement, sometimes just a personal decision. As a business, refusing service to a group of people is discrimination. It is, simply put, bigotry. There are no nice words for it. There are no capitalist justifications.

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.

 

[Fergurg]

That's very true. On the other hand, in the few minutes that this thread has been live I think you can see a lot of the rhetoric that politics can bring out that ends civil conversation. That's why we don't talk about it here.

I want Gen Con to be about pretending to be elves and having a beer with my friends I don't see but once a year. Friends that vehemently disagree on this very issue. I want to have that fun with them and not have it be about politics.

I guess what I'm saying is that as much as everything has to be about politics these days, and everything about politics has to be a fight to the death, I preferred when gaming could be not about that at all, and when people who disagreed on, well, you name the issue, could just forget about the rest of the things they disagree on and simply have some fun playing games.

If that were to break apart, that would be sad.

I think that all things considered, this conversation has been very civil, even though the disagreement is very strong.

 

[Stacie GmrGrl]

I still find it hard to believe that a person can go from being seen as a 'first class citizen' to a 'second class citizen' simply because somebody is a transgender person (which I am) or somebody wants to be in a same-sex relationship... I mean, how in the world did this happen, in a country where our very own constitution is all about freedom for all people, regardless of race, creed, religion, sex, gender, etc... I mean doesn't that honestly cover everybody when it focuses on ALL PEOPLE? That encompasses...well, everybody born within the US.

It's truly unfathomable to me that there is support for anything that can end up discriminating against anybody else, for any reason, because to me that's just barbaric.

So I am a 'second class citizen' simply because I was born a male and I identify as female, and I take measures to change my own personal body to go with how I feel and that takes me down a notch and I actually lose rights I was born in this country to automatically get??? How does my choice of what I do with my own body allow others to then discriminate against me, or belittle me, or treat me like crap when I was born here? Did I really lose any rights because of this or is this just a bad misconception of our nation and our culture that individuals feel they have to have their own paragraphs specifically stated to gain rights they feel they are missing out on despite the fact our constitution already gives us these rights due to the fact we are born here?

As for Gen Con... it's already breaking Indianapolis and I mean this is that the convention is starting to burst by how fast its grown in the last four years. Since this year GenCon had to actually refund people because they couldn't get hotel rooms I think GenCon should move anyways to a city that can handle a larger convention. It's only going to grow.

 

[uriel222]

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.

But all those examples are based on individuals, this is about discriminating against a class. If it were solely about a business' right in enforce a dress code, maybe I'd agree. But it isn't, and pretending it is is deliberately missing the point.

[EDITED TO ADD It may be important to make a distinction between a cis frat pledge wearing outrageous drag for intentional shocking effect trying to eat at a fancy restaurant, and someone who is wearing their normal dress who wants simply to be served.

 

[uriel222]

I think that all things considered, this conversation has been very civil, even though the disagreement is very strong.

No, I'd agree with that. Thank you for that, by the way.

 

[Fergurg]

That's the crux of it, isn't it? Two rights are in conflict. One, the business' right to refuse service, and Two, the client's right to be served. Since both can't coexist, one right must trump the other.

Ethically, the one which causes the less harm to the other should prevail. What harm comes to the person refused service? They aren't allowed to eat (or drink, or stay) somewhere, and are treated as a second-class citizen (compared to their more privileged peers who aren't refused). What harm to the business owner forced to provide service?

...

In a case like that, I argue that your premise is wrong; there are no rights in conflict. The client only has the right to be served if the business consents, just as the business has the right to the customer's money only if the customer consents. A business transaction can only be a transaction if both sides agree to it; otherwise, it is a form of slavery. And yes, anytime you are forced to provide a service against your will, it is slavery - whether or not you gain anything for it is irrelevant.

 

[uriel222]

In a case like that, I argue that your premise is wrong; there are no rights in conflict. The client only has the right to be served if the business consents, just as the business has the right to the customer's money only if the customer consents. A business transaction can only be a transaction if both sides agree to it; otherwise, it is a form of slavery. And yes, anytime you are forced to provide a service against your will, it is slavery - whether or not you gain anything for it is irrelevant.

That, however, conflates the idea of being forced to provide a service (e.g. being forced to clean houses) with being forced to provide a service to a class you dislike (e.g. a maid being prohibited from not cleaning Catholic houses).

If you are willing to provide the service to an anonymous client, being prohibited from refusing the service to a specific client of a class you detest isn't "slavery". You're not doing something you didn't want to do, you're just doing it for someone you didn't want to serve. The verb isn't being forced, just the object.

 

[Fergurg]

I still find it hard to believe that a person can go from being seen as a 'first class citizen' to a 'second class citizen' simply because somebody is a transgender person (which I am) or somebody wants to be in a same-sex relationship... I mean, how in the world did this happen, in a country where our very own constitution is all about freedom for all people, regardless of race, creed, religion, sex, gender, etc... I mean doesn't that honestly cover everybody when it focuses on ALL PEOPLE? That encompasses...well, everybody born within the US.

It's truly unfathomable to me that there is support for anything that can end up discriminating against anybody else, for any reason, because to me that's just barbaric.

So I am a 'second class citizen' simply because I was born a male and I identify as female, and I take measures to change my own personal body to go with how I feel and that takes me down a notch and I actually lose rights I was born in this country to automatically get??? How does my choice of what I do with my own body allow others to then discriminate against me, or belittle me, or treat me like crap when I was born here? Did I really lose any rights because of this or is this just a bad misconception of our nation and our culture that individuals feel they have to have their own paragraphs specifically stated to gain rights they feel they are missing out on despite the fact our constitution already gives us these rights due to the fact we are born here? [snipped]

You confusion is that you are confusing negative rights with positive rights. The Constitution protects negative rights, not positive ones.

If a business decides to not serve you because you are transsexual, you did not lose any rights, because the right to force others to accept you never existed. The business does not have the right to force you to do business with them. You are not required to patronize them. If I wanted to try to tell you that what you're doing is morally wrong, you have no obligation to listen, or to even be around me. In many businesses, they would even be within their rights to remove me because while the right to speak cannot be taken from me, I do not have the right to your attention.

So, really, when people are arguing for "inclusion" it sounds like more of an argument of taking rights away from people that don't want to include you.