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.

​

 

[Fergurg]

I would love it if one of these cases went to court, and the judge said, "Just so you know, it is against my religion to allow discrimination against people on religious grounds."

Folks seem to have disregarded something mentioned earlier. In a diverse nation, religious freedom *cannot* be absolute. We cannot allow, "My religion says you must die," for example. Just as a practical matter, we *must* restrict some religious practice when that practice involves non-practitioners.

The only question is where we draw the lines.

Thus, arguments of the form, "But, that's a restriction of religious freedom!" have missed the point. We already *must* accept some restriction of religious freedom. We all know this. Any argument for allowing discrimination on religous grounds must be more detailed - why must *this particular* freedom be allowed? Why is it so special?

Because this is not about a law stopping me from doing something bad to you. This is about a law saying that if I don't want to do something for you, I don't have to, or even have you on my property.

My property. And frankly, it shouldn't have to be a religious reason. It's a "my property, my riles" principle.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I just don't even know how to process this.

Me in a nice pantsuit or dress is comparable to you in ratty jeans and a "stripper" t-shirt?

Really?

Seriously?

My happiness, my well-being, my sense of self, my worthiness as a human being is...subject to the whims of people who don't like how I dress?

Really?

Seriously?

Remeber it is all freedom of choice goto a place or not and dress as you like but if someone feels it isn't right they are free to say so too...

Everyone is equal or no one is


Edit was I told just a few hours ago dress codes are fine?

 

[KirayaTiDrekan]

Remeber it is all freedom of choice goto a place or not and dress as you like but if someone feels it isn't right they are free to say so too...

Everyone is equal or no one is


Edit was I told just a few hours ago dress codes are fine?

Not a business that serves the public. They serve all the public or none of the public.

 

[jimmifett]

Having skipped to the end of this thread and not bothering to read most of it, I'm in agreement with the bill. No business should be forced to accommodate to someone's lifestyle choice, esp if it's against the religions of the owners of that business. Bully for Gencon wanting to be inclusive, that's the convention's business. I personally don't having any qualms about wanting to exchange goods and services for money from anyone, but I can understand not wanting to be forced to abandon one's religion just because they operate a storefront. The customer always has the choice to do business elsewhere, and the business loses out on that potential money.

I personally refuse to do business with ppl that bring dogs into stores unless they are medically necessary. I refuse to do business with stoners, drunks and ppl that dress so that their underwear are in full display. Gencon is more than free to threaten to move if a law is passed by the residents of a state, but that puts Gencon in the same boat as Evil Hat for me, self-righteous scumbags who don't feel people are capable of deciding for themselves how and where to spend their money.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Not a business that serves the public. They serve all the public or none of the public.

Where do you draw that line? Chucky cheese or a school or where?

 

[KirayaTiDrekan]

Where do you draw that line? Chucky cheese or a school or where?

I'm not going to fall for the trap you are laying here. There are always exceptions based on odd circumstances as I'm sure you are ready to point out.

To your specific examples, I absolutely should be able to take my kids to Chucky Cheese and not have to worry about "we don't serve your kind here."

Likewise, my kids should not have to deal with discrimination from a school because they have a transgender parent. What's more, a transgender child should not face discrimination at a school. Ever.

 

[Umbran]

There is a time and place for everything... If you fear dress or acting in a way will cause issues you can bottle It for a few minutes...

I don't think you thought that through.

Say you drove across town to a friend's place to hang out, and the two of you decided you wanted to go out for a burger. And you are wearing a skirt.... You figure all transgender folks need to carry around a change of clothes at all times, just in case? And they are expected to know beforehand whether the establishment in question is going to discriminate against them, to know that they're going to have to change beforehand?

(And that's not including the fact that, even post-surgery, in some cases you can still tell, such that clothing *won't* hide that you are transgendered)

Why is it that Joe's religious beliefs must *always* trump Jane's gender identity? Why can't Joe just suck up and deal when Jane comes into the store, hm?

I understand that Joe believes, very deeply, in one interpretation of the meaning of a book.

I also understand that Jane believes, very deeply, that she is a woman. Jack believes, very deeply, that it is okay that he loves a man.

Why does Joe *always* get to put forth his beliefs, but Jack and Jane must hide theirs?

Riddle me that, GM. Riddle me that.

 

[Gnarl45]

The problem with this, is that we live in a very different world than 50 years ago. There is no indication that a significant number of business would even use this legislation to negatively impact people's lives. The keyword here is significant. I am sure that stories can be found that are sensationalized, but I don't know of a single small business that would refuse to hire a person with a different orientation or refuse to serve one. In fact there have been those of different orientations at every place that I worked and for the most part were treated with every bit of respect as anyone else. Sure some people (mostly older generations) acted weird about it, but that is just because it is so different from what they are use to. The US is not 1950s Alabama where people are getting lynched, it is 2015 and we all pretty much communicate online more than face to face.

I understand the concern that we will slip backwards as a society, but lets instead focus on hoping that we have come far enough not to need the crutch of law to prevent us from becoming hateful monsters.

You seem like a very sensible person but I don't really understand your point here.

And it's not really a matter of preventing society from becoming a hateful monsters. You guys did an amazing job at changing your way of thinking since the 1950s but you still have a few haters and hate crimes still happen sporadically. I don't think any law should allow discrimination to go unpunished.

 

[redrick]

Because this is not about a law stopping me from doing something bad to you. This is about a law saying that if I don't want to do something for you, I don't have to, or even have you on my property.

My property. And frankly, it shouldn't have to be a religious reason. It's a "my property, my riles" principle.

It's because of principles like this that we have the Civil Rights Act. You are welcome to that principle, and you are welcome to express it in public as an expression of your first amendment rights.

The courts of the United States, and ultimately the elected legislature, have decided that the tremendous harm done to people by some other people by segregation and discrimination outweighed the discomfort that some folks felt at being around people who were "different" from them.

If you don't want to serve the public, don't run a business that serves the public.

Discriminatory actions are not an expression of your free speech! I can't emphasize that enough and I keep seeing it used in this thread as a defense of this law and laws like it. You are entitled to all the free expression you want. Westboro Baptist church is free to march down Broadway spewing all sorts of intolerant filth. (Have you ever seen a WBC protest? They marched past my office last year.) The neo-Nazis can march through Skoki, Illinois. That's expression. It's sick, gross, disturbing expression, but they're entitled to it.

What they are not entitled to do is act on those beliefs in order to infringe on the rights and liberties of other people. Refusing service to people, because of who they are, is infringing on the rights and liberties of other people.

 

[graypariah]

I don't think you thought that through.

Say you drove across town to a friend's place to hang out, and the two of you decided you wanted to go out for a burger. And you are wearing a skirt.... You figure all transgender folks need to carry around a change of clothes at all times, just in case? And they are expected to know beforehand whether the establishment in question is going to discriminate against them, to know that they're going to have to change beforehand?

(And that's not including the fact that, even post-surgery, in some cases you can still tell, such that clothing *won't* hide that you are transgendered)

Why is it that Joe's religious beliefs must *always* trump Jane's gender identity? Why can't Joe just suck up and deal when Jane comes into the store, hm?

I understand that Joe believes, very deeply, in one interpretation of the meaning of a book.

I also understand that Jane believes, very deeply, that she is a woman. Jack believes, very deeply, that it is okay that he loves a man.

Why does Joe *always* get to put forth his beliefs, but Jack and Jane must hide theirs?

Riddle me that, GM. Riddle me that.

I said I was going to duck out and I really am going to try after this but I have to say something in response or it will irk me all night. Joe should not always get his way over Jane, but why should Jane always get her way over Joe? How about a scenario where Jane always got her way unless it conflicted with Joe's religious beliefs and both left it at that?