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.

​

 

[Morrus]

GenCon shouldn't be meddling in politics. That is not their business and it'll have nasty consequences.

Eh? Politics is everybody's business. There is nobody on the planet to whom it is appropriate to tell not to meddle in politics. That's what politics is for. Gen Con and its owners are absolutely entitled to get involved in politics when things might affect them or their customers (or even when they might not!)

 

[Uller]

Has anyone that is commenting actually read the bill? I don't think it does what most of you (on either side) think it does. It doesn't appear to me to be about the hospitality industry at all. Nor is it giving any sort of green light to discrimination. It's saying if the government passes a law or a rule that goes counter to people's religious beliefs it must do so in the least restrictive means possible. How can that be a bad thing?

 

[Umbran]

GenCon shouldn't be meddling in politics. That is not their business and it'll have nasty consequences.

If it impacts their business, then kind of by definition it is their business.

Do you have a description of how this won't actually impact GenCon? If not, then it is their business, and they have a right to respond to the upcoming law.

 

[Krypter]

Eh? Politics is everybody's business. There is nobody on the planet to whom it is appropriate to tell not to meddle in politics. That's what politics is for. Gen Con and its owners are absolutely entitled to get involved in politics when things might affect them or their customers (or even when they might not!)

And yet you censor conversations or comments about politics here on ENWorld. Your hypocrisy is showing, Morrus.

 

[Morrus]

And yet you censor conversations or comments about politics here on ENWorld.

Yes, I do. I usually ask people not to discuss politics here. I'm relaxing it - carefully - for this thread.

Your hypocrisy is showing, Morrus.

That's not what that means, but if insulting me helps, go for it, I guess. The point still stands.

If you have further questions about site moderation, please take it to Meta, email, or PM.

 

[Zaukrie]

Gen Con is right to take this stance. That's about all I will say on ENWORLD about it.

 

[Krypter]

For your perusal in this debate, the latest analysis of LGBT demographics by city in the USA:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/21/u...ay-population.html?rref=upshot&abt=0002&abg=1

 

[Darkstar360]

It's been a really interesting discussion so far with strong opinions on both sides being expressed civilly.

I find the argument that businesses should be allowed to freely choose their clientele (and by extension refuse service to those they deem 'undesirable') fascinating. There was a high profile case here in England a few years back where a privately run bed & breakfast refused a room to a gay couple purely because they were gay (I'll add a link at the end). This sounds exactly like the situation this state law is trying to allow.

As I understand it (at least here in Great Britain anyway) an exchange of goods or service is a legal contract. For some very valid reasons you are allowed to refuse service, or even entry to the premises, to any customer and you do not have to give a reason for that refusal. That law is mainly there for you to exclude shoplifters or who you suspect of engaging illegal activities (such as buying alcohol for the under age etc.). However, if it can be discerned that your reason is discriminatory, you are breaking the law. Which is what happened in this case. The couple weren't being abusive or antagonistic, nor were they engaging in anything illegal or dangerous. They simply wanted a room with a double bed so they could sleep together, a service that any other (straight) couple could reasonably expect to be fulfilled.

Of course they could have then gone to another hotel or such and I assume that's exactly what they did do on the night but that's not the point. They entered into a contract with the B&B owners in good faith and the B&B owners broke that contract by discriminating against their sexuality.

You can absolutely refuse individuals for the right reasons but you cannot refuse them for the wrong reasons. Refusing someone because of race, religion, sex or sexuality is illegal because you are not refusing the individual for individual reasons, you are refusing a group for arbitrary reason.

Or at least that's how it should be I think, that seems sensible doesn't it?

 

[Darkstar360]

Oops, forgot the link:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-25119158

 

[Nylanfs]

Hmm, Louisville might be an option, has a few hotels close.