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.

​

 

[tuxgeo]

< snip >
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 [sic] the ceremony.

Dannyalcatraz already addressed that whole point when he said, "The most he could offer Christians is a civil ceremony."

If all the couple wants is to get married, many towns in the U.S. have a Justice of the Peace who can perform civil marriage ceremonies. Counties in the U.S. have County Clerks who can perform civil marriage ceremonies. However, if what the couple want is a specifically Christian religious marriage ceremony, it would not be validly Christian if performed by someone who is not properly ordained to perform those. A person who is not an ordained member of Christian clergy and who merely goes through the motions of a Christian ceremony hasn't really conducted such a ceremony in the eyes of God; and a couple who are Christians in more than name only would know that.

[Edit to strike out the last paragraph, because it took me too long to write this; and graypariah disclaimed theological discussion while I was doing so.]
Those who want a big church wedding typically go to a town that has a big church. There's nothing wrong with going to a big town. Some people on the U.S. west coast drive across state lines to get married in Reno or Las Vegas, Nevada. That works, too. It seems to me that going to another town is not a deal-killer.

[Edit Edit: I struck out the wrong danged paragraph! -- Now corrected.]

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

How is it called when an economic power strong arms politicians into doing their bidding? I believe that's called lobbying. Last time I checked, people make the decisions in a democracy, not corporations...

Up to a point. By constitutional law, we cannot agree to democratically choose to discriminate against certain persons and expect to have the courts uphold that law.

And recently, we've had court decisions that have greatly expanded the definitions of corporate personhood.

Besides, there is nothing wrong whatsoever in deciding not to do business in a region (and announcing it) if you think the policies in the region would be detrimental to your brand and the well-being of your employees.

Even though I deeply agree with the cause, I can't help but wonder how the civil rights activists could agree with such methods.

They agree with it just fine. It's a common tactic to get more leverage.

 

[graypariah]

Dannyalcatraz already addressed that whole point when he said, "The most he could offer Christians is a civil ceremony."

If all the couple wants is to get married, many towns in the U.S. have a Justice of the Peace who can perform civil marriage ceremonies. Counties in the U.S. have County Clerks who can perform civil marriage ceremonies. However, if what the couple want is a specifically Christian religious marriage ceremony, it would not be validly Christian if performed by someone who is not properly ordained to perform those. A person who is not an ordained member of Christian clergy and who merely goes through the motions of a Christian ceremony hasn't really conducted such a ceremony in the eyes of God; and a couple who are Christians in more than name only would know that.

Those who want a big church wedding typically go to a town that has a big church. There's nothing wrong with going to a big town. Some people on the U.S. west coast drive across state lines to get married in Reno or Las Vegas, Nevada. That works, too. It seems to me that going to another town is not a deal-killer.

I feel like the point has been missed, the point was not regarding the validity of rabbi preformed ceremonies or whether or not any christians would want one preformed. This is very likely my failing which I will attempt to remedy.

Say generic clergyman of religion A chooses to only preform services for members of religion A and not for members of religion B. Members of religion B don't care who preforms the ceremony (that specificity is not part of their religion) but the husband has always dreamed of being married by generic clergyman ever since he was little. Generic clergyman is able to preform ceremonies for both religions and in the past had preformed ceremonies for religions A and B. But unfortunately for the prospective husband, generic clergyman had a religious re-awakening and he now believes that members of religion B are evil. Should generic clergyman be forced to preform the ceremony against his wishes? What if generic clergyman had a small business that did the whole wedding package?

A person's choice on who to provide service to based on their religious beliefs is not a simple black in white matter, that is the point I am trying to make.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Say generic clergyman of religion A chooses to only preform services for members of religion A and not for members of religion B. Members of religion B don't care who preforms the ceremony (that specificity is not part of their religion) but the husband has always dreamed of being married by generic clergyman ever since he was little. Generic clergyman is able to preform ceremonies for both religions and in the past had preformed ceremonies for religions A and B. But unfortunately for the prospective husband, generic clergyman had a religious re-awakening and he now believes that members of religion B are evil. Should generic clergyman be forced to preform the ceremony against his wishes? What if generic clergyman had a small business that did the whole wedding package?

I see what you're saying, but it changes nothing.

If generic clergyman of religion A is performing and offering civil ceremonies to everyone else except persons of religion B, he's committing impermissible discrimination.

If he wants to legally exclude persons of religion B from gaining the benefits of his services, he needs to only perform ceremonies for persons of religion A.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

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.

Here is one that happened to a friend... A nice Jewish girl and a proud Irish Catholic date for almost 6 years... She propose to him(yea that's how it happened) and they can't get married in either chur b or synagogue. The reason given for both was they won't do cross denominational weddings... They hhad to shop around to another (albe it bordering) state to get married in a church...they finally decided to just have a friendly rabbi do the service outside at a park...

 

[graypariah]

I see what you're saying, but it changes nothing.

If generic clergyman of religion A is performing and offering civil ceremonies to everyone else except persons of religion B, he's committing impermissible discrimination.

If he wants to legally exclude persons of religion B from gaining the benefits of his services, he needs to only perform ceremonies for persons of religion A.

So it is then ok for him to discriminate against everyone except one group (one which he belongs to) as opposed to discriminating against only one group?

 

[MythicJustice]

Can we all sit at the lunch counter or not?

But that stand is demanding that the business should not be allowed to make a choice on whether or not they will be part of a transaction. Why should anybody be forced to do business with you if they don't want to?

It's strange that we are having this discussion again as a culture. Back in the 60s when this behavior was also legal created havens for bigots and tacitly approved the escalation of violence in order to protect a separation of people.

Can we all sit at the lunch counter or not? If not, we are not a free society. If you have a public business the assumption is that it is open to the entire public.

 

[halfling rogue]

No. It is illegal to do so for reasons of membership of a protected class. In other words, it is illegal to refuse service on the basis of skin colour (as one example). Of course, you can refuse service for any reason not one of those protected reasons.

I specifically said "discriminate (on a legal basis)" which obviously means it is illegal to refuse service on the basis of things already deemed illegal, ie, skin color, religion, gender, etc.

 

[Morrus]

I specifically said "discriminate (on a legal basis)" which obviously means it is illegal to refuse service on the basis of things already deemed illegal, ie, skin color, religion, gender, etc.

OK. Then yes, you are correct - it is legal to do legal things.

 

[Pauper]

Guys, let's clear the air on a few points here.

Some folks seem very engaged on the Constitutional portion of a 'protected class'. There are already federal laws on the books that protect gender identity, and the Indiana law has no force against them. Example: the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has already ruled that discrimination against transgender people in employment decisions is a form of discrimination based on sex, which is covered under the Civil Rights Act (http://www.eeoc.gov/federal/otherprotections.cfm).

The key is that a number of counties in Indiana, including Marion County, where Indianapolis is, have passed more comprehensive laws forbidding discrimination in not just employment, but housing and public accomodations (another poster long since has posted an excellent list of what is covered by 'public accomodations', and pretty much all businesses open to the public qualify). *This* is the point of the law -- to deprive LGBT persons the protection of the county law if the person (or entity -- note that the law basically defines 'person' as 'anybody who can be sued') is willing to assert that serving such a person would be a burden on religious belief.

For those who seem to believe that 'the market' will fix this problem all by itself (and ignoring the inconvenient point that, if this were true, why isn't the problem already gone?), it should be noted that a business doesn't need commerce from every person in an area to be successful, just commerce from enough people -- and refusing service to LGBT people is very often a signal allowing other similar-minded people to find and patronize such businesses. This is one way that intolerance persists, because it's profitable.

Lastly, the idea that 'GenCon shouldn't get involved in politics' -- the letter itself speaks to this point. There's already one poster in the thread who has said s/he won't go to GenCon while it's in Indiana and this law is in effect. At least one celebrity, George Takei, is on record as saying he won't serve as a Guest of Honor at conventions in Indiana while the law is in effect, and it's entirely possible that some existing Guests of Honor might withdraw now that the law is signed. This law is already impacting GenCon's ability to organize and present a convention that reaches the largest possible audience of gamers and fans of gaming culture. The folks who run GenCon would be negligent not to consider less problematic alternatives for future conventions, and reminding the governor of that is an entirely reasonable thing for the folks who run GenCon to do. In a sense, it's no different from GenCon sending a letter reminding the mayor of Indianapolis that raising hospitality taxes will have a negative impact on GenCon's bottom line; keeping hospitality taxes low and ensuring access to accomodations to the largest number of gamers are both in GenCon's business interests -- if one is 'political', then both are.

I also want to express my appreciation for the civility and clear-headedness in this discussion thus far. It reflects well on gaming as a whole, and to the community here at ENWorld that we can have this discussion without degenerating into name-calling and slurs.

--
Pauper