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.