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.

​

 

[weldon]

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?

Probably. If the clergyperson (see what I did there?) is acting as part of the religious group and only offers services to members of that religion, and that religion has strict rules about who can belong, and is not otherwise open to the public, then that person can legally restrict their services and refuse to perform those services for people outside the religious group.

If the clergyperson runs a wedding chapel that is open to the public and accepts customers from all religions and will perform services for persons of any religion then they could be considered to be offering public accommodation and they would have to follow the same anti-discrimination laws as any other business.

 

[mlund]

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.

And that's where the issue is confused. When someone can not refuse to participate in someone else's gay or straight marriage ceremony because it violates their religious beliefs - be they anyone from an Orthodox Jew refusing to materially participate in a same-sex wedding or an Atheist refusing to participate in a religious wedding - without being deprived of their livelihood (their business) by the state then we aren't living in a free society.

The law in question limits what the government can do. The government can only step in to mediate when the conflict between someone's religious beliefs ("I won't do X") and another's commercial interests ("I want you to do X for me") reaches the point where someone trying to acquire a good or service is being substantively pushed out of a market. If nobody in town will photograph your wedding because its two men or two women you have a case for government intervention under that law. If the 3 photographers in town will take the business then you can't use the court system to troll the 1 old church lady who won't because "she's a bigot."

When people try and employ law as a crude bludgeon to punish people who disagree with them, they aren't supporting Liberty but rather the exact opposite. There is a huge difference between the function of law that a hate-group like HRC wants (the ability to specifically target and punish their "enemies" for wrong-think in court) and the protections that the law is actually supposed to provide (the ability to find remedy so consumers aren't denied access to the marketplace).

If someone wants to make it a policy that their bar doesn't serve gays or straights or whatever craziness they want to come up with in this day and age they'll just get boycotted and market competitors will gain the benefit. Nobody is going to lose access to the market, and if they do the law gives them redress.

What the HRC is worried about is that without a government bludgeon they may not be able to shut down everyone they hate. The bakery of a lady who is willing to sell anybody of any sexual preference a birthday cake, but simply will not cater a same-sex wedding because such a thing is forbidden in her faith and sends the business across the street won't be fined or sued. Heck, she might actually stay in business if enough consumers decided that was a case of "live and let live" or "agree to disagree" that happens in a truly free society. They only care about the ability to punish their "enemies," and that's a sad, sorry state of affairs considering where they started out all those years ago.

Marty Lund

 

[Gnarl45]

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.

Isn't declaring a law anti constitutional the prerogative of the Supreme Court?

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.

Not doing business there is fine. What is wrong is using it as leverage to go against the vote of the people. Or would you rather live in a country where your vote doesn't matter because in the end, the lobby groups are the ones deciding behind the scene?

If you're ok with being ruled by your lobby groups it's fine. It's your country, not mine.

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

And I disagree with the method. You can't fight for civil right by violating someone else's rights.

But don't get me wrong. I'm a passionate supporter of equal rights for all (not just gay rights). My country is one of the many country that legalized same sex mariage (and even adoption) in its parliament without any pressure from lobby groups. Why coudn't a country that champions democracy everywhere else in the world not manage to do this democratically?

 

[halfling rogue]

To expand on the response already given, you can refuse service based on legitimate reasons, like if the person is being disruptive to the operation of the business, the person is acting in a way that presents a danger to someone (including himself), etc.

Any refusal is supposed to be on an individual basis, not a blanket refusal of a whole class of people, so you usually cannot refuse service for relatively immutable personal characteristics like gender, race, or religion.

The bill in particular aims to protect the religious liberty of the owner in order that they might operate their business in accordance with both the Law of the Land as well as how they see fit. An owner who claims their religion does not want to serve people who are a different skin color will not be able to operate because they are breaking the Law. However an owner who claims that they believe same sex marriage is wrong according to their religion ought to be able to opt out of serving a client who desires their service. A caterer for instance. Should a homosexual caterer be allowed to refuse to cater an anti-homosexual rally?

So far, in this thread and in the public square everyone is freaking out that this bill will essentially introduce legalized discrimination against gays. This isn't about gays. It's about protecting religious liberty and whether or not business owners should be forced to go against their religion. Thus far we don't have any movement to not serve gay persons, but we do have owners not wishing to participate in gay culture/ceremonies/etc. and some states have forced owners to operate against their religious scruples or pay the price. Whether you agree or disagree with the scruples of a certain religion or not is beside the point. The point, for America, is upholding the Constitution, which explicitly protects the free exercise of religion.

 

[TrainedMunkey]

Hmm, so the governor signed it, wonder where GenCon is moving to?

 

[Morrus]

It's about protecting religious liberty and whether or not business owners should be forced to go against their religion.

We know that. I think you're misunderstanding the stance of many in this thread. It's not that we don't understand what this law does, it's that we don't agree with what this law does. And we feel that, yes, business owners should be made to do the right thing as decided by society if they refuse to do it on their own; that's what laws do, after all. That's what they're for.

Sadly, it seems that those making the decisions disagree on what the right thing is; the bill has been signed. So those of us who disagreed with it lost.

 

[bmfrosty]

Maybe we get a return of Gen Con So Cal.

 

[joycem137]

I imagine that the people that want SB 101 in place are the same people that liked having "Whites Only" on businesses. Or at least the right to discriminate as such. Yesterday, it was "state's rights." Now it's "business rights."

Same bigots. Different era. I'm glad Gen Con is taking a stand.

 

[KirayaTiDrekan]

I am deeply saddened by the signing of this bill.

I also feel the need to point out to [MENTION=50304]mlund[/MENTION] that your perception of what you call the Human Rights Campaign (I'm having trouble even figuring out what you are specifically referencing here) as a hate group is also deeply hurtful.

You have twisted the desire of a group of people for equality and acceptance in to some sort of campaign of vengeance that simply doesn't exist. You've built us up into some sort of boogeyman when all we want is basic human decency.

Courtesy, respect, dignity - these are basic human needs that everyone person deserves. Some of us don't have those, yet. And laws like the one passed in Indiana seek to actively take those things away. Its a tragedy, it really is.

 

[Mishihari Lord]

We know that. I think you're misunderstanding the stance of many in this thread. It's not that we don't understand what this law does, it's that we don't agree with what this law does. And we feel that, yes, business owners should be made to do the right thing as decided by society if they refuse to do it on their own; that's what laws do, after all. That's what they're for.

Sadly, it seems that those making the decisions disagree on what the right thing is; the bill has been signed. So those of us who disagreed with it lost.

The idea that people of faith should be forced to act against their beliefs as dictated by the government is abhorrent, and I honestly can't understand how anyone can think this would be a good idea. I have to wonder if US history plays a role in this difference in viewpoint. Some of the early American colonists were groups that came here to escape a government that would not allow them to practice their religion, many, of course, from England. It may be that we're seeing evidence of a propagation of those beliefs and experiences down through the years.