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.

​

 

[graypariah]

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.

Perhaps they would, but isn't saying that it would be ok for the clergyperson to refuse to preform ceremonies for anyone not a member of religion A? What if the couple claimed to be members of religion A but the clergyperson stated that they didn't believe the couple were truly members of religion A? If the only requirement for the clergyperson to exclude any group but their own is that the excluded have to be not a member of clergyperson's group - who decides this? Is the couple claiming to be members enough? If so then what if the couple expresses a view that is sacrilege to religion A? Who determines if that is enough of a justification to allow the clergyperson exclude the couple? If it is the leaders of religion A or popular opinion among members of religion A?

 

[halfling rogue]

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.

No I understand the stance. It's quite obvious that many don't agree with what the law does (though some of the responses here do cause one to wonder if everyone who disagrees truly understands) or is intended to do since we haven't seen it in action yet.

But here is where the rubber meets the road. You said "Business owners should be made to do the right thing as decided by society". On one hand, yes. On the other hand, that is simply not the case here. "Society" at least in America, has not unanimously decided which pov is the right thing to do. There are two major opposing sides. The only true (legal) way to make businesses do the 'right thing' is either through laws or through consumer pressure. Right now the law, and the American Constitution, says that it is not right to prohibit the free exercise of religion (despite what 'society' says is right at this point). Folks may think that is wrong and there is a process in which this country can go through to rectify it.

But as it is now, for those who think that 'business owners should be made to do the right thing' need to realize that religious liberty has been 'decided by society'. The real fight is at the Constitutional level. The only real way to battle this is to 1) get enough of 'society' to amend the constitution to repeal the free exercise to what 'society' thinks it should be or 2) just ignore the Constitution and seek to render it useless...therefore a revolution.

But you are right. It seems the bill has passed and I guess we'll see how things play out and whether or not GenCon will find another state. I for one, while not happy to see all the drama and hate this kicked up, am happy to see the bill passed. More liberty is always better than people being forced against their will.

 

[Morrus]

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.

Abhorrent to you, perhaps. Not to me, or to many other people. Indeed, we find the opposite abhorrent.

But the Governer of Indiana agrees with you, not us, so I guess that's that. I wonder where Gen Con will move to?

 

[Gnarl45]

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.

This is a refreshing first for me. How can you interpretate the Sodom and Gomorrah massacre without considering sodomy a sin?

 

[graypariah]

This is a refreshing first for me. How can you interpretate the Sodom and Gomorrah massacre without considering sodomy a sin?

I would be happy to have a spirited theological discussion with you in PMs but to avoid derailing the thread I will have to decline to respond in the thread.

As for the law being passed, as I said before I am torn. Despite my arguments to the contrary I do not believe that anyone should be excluded based on who they are (provided of course the exclusion is not for the health and safety of others). My issue with whether the law should be passed is not that I agree that the people should exclude others, but that the government shouldn't be in a position to force people to behave civilly. I am a firm believer that government should be as small as reasonably possible and should touch our lives as little as reasonably possible. I will be saddened to hear of anyone being discriminated against, but I would be lying if I said that I disagree with the governor's decision.

 

[weldon]

If the only requirement for the clergyperson to exclude any group but their own is that the excluded have to be not a member of clergyperson's group - who decides this?

Private groups can make their own rules, religious or not. Consider Augusta National (the golf club) as a secular example.

Do I get to decide if I belong to Augusta National? Or does the membership committee of Augusta National get to make that decision? If I say I'm a member of Augusta National, does that entitle me to the benefits of membership?

The issue at hand is what happens when a private group offers services to the public. As long as Augusta's rules only permit members to host weddings there, then non-members have no right to ask that they be allowed to hold their wedding there. If Augusta made their facilities available to the public for events (they do not) then they would have to follow the same non-discrimination laws as everyone else.

 

[halfling rogue]

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.

Abhorrent to you, perhaps. Not to me, or to many other people. Indeed, we find the opposite abhorrent.

and this is how it boils down.

fine for you to hold this view as an outsider...but not gonna lie, pretty scary that lots of Americans agree with you.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

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.

since I stood for this Bill in this very thread and so did others.. Are you calling us bigoted? That's an owfull word to throw around in a complex situation that we all want to be fair...

 

[Zaruthustran]

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.

Well, that's the thing. That lady should be fined and sued. The goal isn't a "truly free society" / anarchy. The goal is a civil society, where people are compelled by law to not be jerks.

We punish people who exhibit behavior that's undesirable or damaging. Jaywalk? Get a ticket. Drive drunk? License to drive revoked. Murder someone? Jail, or death. Refuse to serve a protected class (race, color, religion, national origin, age, sex, pregnancy, citizenship, familial status, disability, veteran status, genetic information)? Fine or civil suit.

"But what if a person's religion specifically allows them--even commands them--to discriminate?"

Tough luck. We live in a secular society. The State is separate from the Church. Everyone is expected to behave themselves when out in public. Private beliefs should stay private. That's my opinion and desire, anyway.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

This is a refreshing first for me. How can you interpretate the Sodom and Gomorrah massacre without considering sodomy a sin?

Book written by man may in fact not be perfect... So follow the ideas not exact words... I am very Catholic and believe God would laugh off anyone who tried to tear down love... Any love